Bush Failure To Disclose Waterboarding Appears To Violate Law

Share |

From: Huffington Post

Bush Failure To Disclose Waterboarding Appears To Violate Law


The furor over when and whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed about the use of waterboarding has distracted attention from what is, perhaps, a far more problematic revelation regarding the Bush administration's interrogation of suspected terrorists.
According to the testimony of two high-ranking Democrats and recently declassified CIA and Justice Department documents, the Bush White House failed to disclose the use of waterboarding until roughly half a year after it was first deployed. Other writers -- notably Marcy Wheeler -- have picked up on this timeline. But it is worth restating and highlighting again because, if accurate, it appears to constitute a violation of law by the former White House.

As documented by the Congressional Research Service, the President is required to ensure "that the congressional intelligence committees are kept 'fully and currently informed' of U.S. intelligence activities, including any 'significant anticipated intelligence activity.'" The basis of this is the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act, which places a statutory obligation on the President to not just keep relevant committees "fully and currently informed" but to disclose "any significant anticipated intelligence activity."

"The requirement to report significant anticipated activities means, in practice, that the committees should be advised of important new program initiatives and specific activities that have major foreign policy implications," reads language accompanying the FY 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act. With these disclosure obligations in mind, it is worth revisiting what is known about who was briefed on the use of waterboarding and when. According to Office of Legal Council memos and other sources, it is clear that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah began in August 2002.

Multiple records, meanwhile, show that Senate and House intelligence committee chairs and ranking members were briefed "on the interrogation" that fall. But the two Democrats who were briefed in 2002 -- Pelosi on September 4 and former Sen. Bob Graham on September 27 -- insist that they were not told waterboarding was in use. Indeed, the CIA disclosure about the time and content of the briefings describes the subject matter as "use of [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

The first time waterboarding was mentioned in a congressional briefing, it seems, comes on February 4, 2003 when Sens. Pat Roberts and John Rockefeller were told "in considerable detail" how EITs were deployed including "how the water board was used."

A day later, Rep. Jane Harman and an aide to Pelosi were briefed on detainee interrogation programs and techniques. "It was also discussed that interrogation methods were similar to those taught/used in SERE training." The SERE training served as the basis for the waterboarding techniques used on terrorism suspects.

In short: six months appeared to pass between the waterboarding of Zubaydah and the moment when Democrats were briefed on the matter.
Bush administration officials say that they kept all members of Congress in the know. But their statements leave some wiggle room. In a Washington Post op-ed, former House intelligence committee chairman and CIA Director Porter Goss wrote that he was "briefed on the CIA's 'High Value Terrorist Program,'" in the fall of 2002 and was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed." The phrase "were to actually be employed" noticeably differs from "were being employed."

So it seems plausible that, in the fall of 2002, members of Congress were either told only that the government was considering or planning the use of waterboarding or were kept in the dark entirely about the technique. Both Pelosi and Graham insist that latter is true. And if that is, in fact, the case, it would seem to place the Bush administration outside the law requiring disclosure of intelligence activities.

Is Harold Ford Trying Out For The Republican Party?

Share |

Harold Ford: I Would Have Voted To Approve Torture

This weekend, former Vice President Cheney repeated his claim that torture “saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives.” Of those, like President Obama, who condemn torture as making America less safe, Cheney insisted, “in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America.”
This evening on MSNBC, former Democratic congressman Harold Ford, Jr., adopted many of Cheney’s right-wing talking points to defend torture, saying he was “not as outraged as some are about” what happened at Guantanamo. He suggested that he even would have voted to approve torture in order to “prevent the destruction of an American city”:
FORD: You have to remember when this was occurring. This is 2002, 2003. The country was in a different place, in a different space. And if you were to say to me, as an American, put aside my partisanship, that we have an opportunity to gain information that would prevent the destruction of an American city, to prevent killings in American cities, and we have to use certain techniques, I’m one of those Americans that would have voted a certain way, Chris. And that polling said it might have been torture, but I’m not as outraged.
Watch it:


Matthews was incredulous, telling Ford, “You are veering into Cheney country here.” He said Ford’s talking point about the destruction of an American city was “Cheney talk.” “That’s what he used to justify torture,” Matthews said.
The ticking-time-bomb scenario Ford seems to invoke is simply a “red herring” that “doesn’t happen” in the real world. And according to the interrogators themselves, torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah — the two Cheney most frequently cites as “proof” of torture’ effectiveness — provided no actionable intelligence.
ThinkProgress released an extensive report today, Why Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Failed.

Bob Graham: I Don't Recall Being Briefed On Waterboarding

Share |

From TMP
By Zachary Roth - May 11, 2009, 4:13PM

Bob Graham, the Democratic former Florida senator, has said he has no memory of being told in a briefing about waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques, as a recently released CIA document indicates. Graham told Greg Sargent this afternoon: "I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them."

Greg adds:
Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it "highly unusual" for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. "I don't recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present," he said. "That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold" on the info.
Graham's claim would appear to cast further doubt on the accuracy of a CIA document released last week. The document indicates that Graham, at the time the chair of the Senate intelligence committee, attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, at which the use of harsh interrogation techniques on Zubaydah was discussed.

The document also indicates that a briefing a few weeks earlier for Nancy Pelosi, who was then the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, covered the same subjects. And that a top Pelosi aide was told in 2003 that torture had been used. Republican have used the documents to attack Pelosi, who has said that she wasn't briefed on the fact that the techniques had already been used. CIA director Leon Panetta noted in a letter accompanying the document that it may not be entirely accurate. We have our own call in to Graham and will let you know what we hear from him.

Sarah Palin Bad-Mouths Stimulus Bill While Holding Her Hand Out For Alaska's Share

Share |

WASHINGTON — A group of conservative Senate Republicans vowed Thursday to vote against an $888 billion economic stimulus package when it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

President Obama lobbied Republican congressional leaders to support the measure, but the version of the stimulus bill approved Wednesday by the House did not receive any Republican votes. The Senate is expected to start debate on Monday and the bill is already facing resistance from some Republicans.

It is hardly surprising that those most opposed to this piece of legislation had their hands out first for a piece of the stimulus package. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stuck her hand out furthest and fastest like a ninja warrior while similtaniously misrepresenting aspects of the stimulus package which is a trademark tactic of the blogojevichian governor of Alaska.

Obama and Democrats had made it a top priority to get the package of spending increases and tax cuts through the House. They did it in eight days after Obama's inauguration.

The 647-page measure is divided about 2-to-1 between new spending and tax cuts. It includes hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for those hard hit by the recession, for state and local governments facing layoffs and cuts, and for initiatives designed to create or save 3 million jobs.

The Democratic bill includes tax cuts for about 95% of working Americans — $500 for individuals, $1,000 for couples — and for small businesses.

"I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk," Obama said Wednesday. "But what we can't do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way."

"This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the GOP whip, said Wednesday.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said House Republicans "made a decision to vote as a bloc against it. I think the American people want us to work together."