Pelosi and the Torture Briefings - By Scott Horton

[kpete]

Pelosi and the Torture Briefings

By Scott Horton

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I am very skeptical about the ABC report. Some cautions are in order.

First, the report does not say, as has been commented elsewhere, that Pelosi “signed off” on the techniques. An argument is being made that her silence can be taken to imply consent. That legal maxim works in some circumstances, but not in this one, particularly because the ground rules of these intelligence briefings require the silence of those who are briefed. That in my mind is a major issue that emerges from the torture controversy: is it appropriate to gag Congressional leaders this way?

Second, some figures in the CIA are now attempting to fight off calls for a probe into the Bush Program. Critics of such an effort have long seen the fact that Democratic Congressional leaders were briefed about the program as an Achilles heel. Use it to embarrass the Democratic leadership, they think, and any probe will be shut down. So it’s suspicious when the two prime figures in the briefing group, Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi, suddenly become the targets of mysterious leaks sourced from the CIA or figures close to it. Extreme skepticism is warranted.

Third, is the CIA note any more authoritative than Pelosi’s recollections, or the recollections of others who were there? No. In fact, you can count on it that both sides will have self-serving recollections. And there’s a line in that CIA memo that ABC failed to share with its readers when it first posted, but that Marcy Wheeler highlights in an insightful post this morning, namely that the memo is based on:

*** notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.

Got that? Do you think that CIA briefers might go back to Langley and write up–long after the fact–a memo that reflects things they had in mind but did not in fact mention in the briefing? I’d call that human nature. And perhaps enhanced a bit now by a need to be able to say “gotcha” to Congressional leaders who are pushing for a probe.

more at:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90004933
kp: i do not KNOW what to think of any of this anymore...........

[NNN0LHI]

1. Between the NaderNuts and the Ron Paul crazies on this board no Dem can get a fair shake here

Keep on pushing anyway kpete.

I am behind you.

Don

[robinlynne]

6. I resent your response to a great OP. This is about looking for what really happened,

not about calling most of us crazy because we feel ANYONE who helped torture happen should be punished REGARDLESS of the party they belong to!!!!!!!
accountability is not restricted to one party or another. Accountability means accountability.
the republican's attempt at blackmail is attempted blackmail pure and simple. We say CALL the bluff. yes investigate everyone. You will find hundreds of republicans guilty and perhaps some Dems. So be it. We can vote in real Democrats. There is already a fantastic candidate running for Harman's' seat and I intend to walk door to door to work on her campaign and remove Harman from office. . I will not defend Jane harman "We NEED domestic spying" because she has a letter D.

[spanone]

2. so, what about the republicans who were in charge of the house & senate?

why aren't they being included in this????

[mmonk]

3. Maybe because they support torture publicly.

[mmonk]

4. Silence cannot be required of illegal acts by government.

Classification was not created for that purpose.

[Beam Me Up]

7. It may not have been "created for that purpose" but would you argue that it is

not USED for that purpose?

If information is classified, how can we assess whether it reveals "illegal activity" or not? But where the right takes this is always in relation to 9/11 -- this is their excuse. It was a matter of national security. We had to torture to prevent another 9/11. Yes, I regard that as a bogus rationalization (on many levels) but it is the rationalization they point to.

[mmonk]

9. I'm arguing precisely that instead of being a protection

of intelligence or intelligence gathering methodology. Once waterboarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, beatings, etc. are revealed, what is to be protected? It's not like people don't know what those methods entail. Nothing to be revealed as a "secret" methodology of intelligence gathering.

[pat_k]

5. kick

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R