Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a new statement (and explanation) after released documents appeared to contradict her earlier denials that she had ever been briefed on the use of torture. As discussed in a prior blog, Pelosi previously insisted that she was never told that these “enhanced techniques” (aka torture) were being used and assumed that the briefing concerned just a hypothetical use of the methods. Now, she is changing her story to acknowledge that she, at a minimum, knew that the methods would be used — even though she is denying that she was actually told that they had been used. I discussed the story on this segment of Rachel Maddow’s show.
Here is the new spin:
“As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: ‘I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.'”
The latest effort to explain her collusion in the torture program falls a bit short. First, the CIA memo dated to Sept. 4, 2002 says Pelosi received a “briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”
Second, it hardly amounts to a morally superior position to say that I was told that they were going to torture people, not that they had already tortured people. Describing war crimes in the future tense has never been a viable defense. It is like saying that the White House was describing a murder in the future tense, so I really did not see why I had to act to stop it.
Third, this is not what she previously told the public. Here is what she told Rachel Maddow:
(on camera): September 2002, you were briefed on CIA detention issues and enhanced interrogation issues. Because of those briefings, and I know you that you expressed concerns to the NSA after that October 2001 briefing, you released that publicly in 2006. You didn`t express public concerns at the time after those briefings. Does that raise a complication?
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: No, no. The fact is they did not brief – first of all, we`re not allowed to talk about what happens, but I can say this. They did not brief us that these enhanced interrogations were taking place. They did not brief us that was – they were talking about an array of interrogations that they might have at their disposal.
MADDOW: Techniques in the abstract, as if they were not being used?
PELOSI: We were never told they were being used.
MADDOW: Were you told they weren`t being used?
PELOSI: Well, they just talked about them, but they – the inference to be drawn from what they told us was these are things that we think could be legal and we have a difference of opinion on that.
But they never told us that they were being used because that would be a different story altogether. And we had many disagreements with them all along the way on how they collect information in their country and what they think might be acceptable.
They have never gotten any comfort from me on any of these issues, no matter what they want to say publicly. And they know that I cannot speak specifically to the classified briefing of that kind. But I can say flat out they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used.
“They did not brief us that these enhanced interrogations were taking place. They did not brief us that was – they were talking about an array of interrogations that they might have at their disposal.” Now, Pelosi is admitting that, at a minimum, she knew that these techniques were going to be used. She knew about the torture program and did not act to stop it.
Finally, this argument completely abandons any semblance of oversight responsibility. It amounts to arguing “if you can’t believe the Bush White House on international law, who can you believe?” What is particularly striking is that Pelosi is using precisely the same argument that she rejected from Jane Harman on the unlawful surveillance program. Harman insisted that, while she was the critical oversight authority in Congress, she had no knowledge of the law in the area and specifically FISA. She just had to accept the Bush Administration’s insistence that it was legal and did not even have the ability to ask for general information on the law in the area. Now, Pelosi is saying that she just had to accept that a torture program was lawful because the White House said it was. The primary oversight responsibility of these members is to be sure that the Executive Branch is complying with the laws written by Congress. It makes a mockery of the system for Pelosi and Harman to simply take their word for it. The federal law gives Pelosi and Harman the obligation to serve as a check on executive authority, but they believe that this role compels them to accept whatever they are told on the legality of the program. They are simply informed and have not obligations or responsibilities — even when they are given a description of torture.
Pelosi’s claim that she could not take any further steps because of the classified nature of the briefing is equally bizarre. Since when can the White House classified a crime — and a war crime to boot? At a minimum, Pelosi could have demanded classified hearings and move to legislatively block the program — while demanding prosecution. She could have demanded a full legal briefing (classified if needed) from democratic staffers on the Intelligence Committee on torture. She could have publicly stated that she believed that the White House was engaged in violations of international law and demand the release of information.
There were an estimated 65 members briefed on 40 different occasions. There were many things that she could have done in the face of a war crime. Instead, she and dozens of legislators were ultimately briefed on a program and remains silent — as they campaigned on their commitment to human rights and civil liberties.
The Bush Administration knew these members all too well. They fully briefed them on torture on the anniversary of 9-11, knowing that they would not dare to try to stop the program. Then, they held these briefing over their heads over years as the Democrats quietly blocked investigations and protected people like former Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to answer questions on torture.
Democrats cannot demand justice for Bush officials without holding these democratic members also accountable. This is becoming a party of chumps, who will accept any spin to excuse the conduct of their own leaders while denouncing the conduct of GOP leaders. These very same Democratic members, particularly Pelosi, blocked past efforts to investigate the torture allegations and blocked any effort to look into impeachment due to the commission of war crimes. It is now clear (as some of us have been saying for years) that these investigations would have revealed the involvement of Democratic members.
On the face of this latest explanation, Democratic voters should be outraged on the lack of personal responsibility claimed by leaders like Pelosi. They are basically claimed that oversight means little more than being briefed with no affirmative duty to challenge such claims as torture being perfectly legal. Any research into waterboarding would have shown that it has long been defined as torture and a crime by the United States. Yet, these members did not want to be in a position of having to question a popular president, particularly on the anniversary of 9-11. They preferred to remain in willful blindness and public popularity. Now that the public is outraged by the torture, there is an effort to re-write the history and excuse the lack of action.
For Pelosi’s statement, click here.
One thing you might to consider is that exactly this kind of finger pointing happened when the illegal wiretapping story broke.
It was even the same Democrats and the same Republicans that were fingered, the very same crew. Go back and look at the way the story unfolded if you’re interested.
This new diversion is following the same template.
Politicizing the issue in that way got us exactly nowhere. It was theater. A lot of us were “outraged” and that outrage might have burned calories but it didn’t really shed any light on the wiretapping program, didn’t forward any kind of accountability, and didn’t stop the program.
As soon as we pull political parties into this problem, we take focus and energy away from the actual problem. From the bakers and goat herds and religious pilgrims and grandfathers that were sold to Rumsfeld and tortured at Guantanamo, for example. As soon as we make that move, we’re going off topic and away from the process that will bring tortures to justice and toward yet another episode of political theater that gets us nowhere but that gives politicians something to talk about to the media while they continue to avoid their responsibility to the nation, imo.
If pointing that out to Jonathan makes me a “troll”, well, there it is.
Elizabeth Ferrari,
Welcome to this site. I see nothing trollish in your statements, or in your point of view. It is certainly valid and on point. The link to your OpEd News story was informative in providing context as to where you are coming from. Please stick around, despite the rocky first experience. Intelligent comment is welcome here and if a comment is made with thoughtfulness, I believe we have no test of political correctness, as much as I hate that term.
Welcome EF even if you are a troll or not.
Thanks for the welcome.
I’m going for Troll, because that post was a non-sequituor!
Actually, I’m someone who has followed this story very closely since 2002. And who, as someone in Pelosi’s district, has put it as close to her face as I possibly could. See this, for example:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_070915_this_is_our_table_an.htm
That being said, the more we politicize this, the harder it will be to get the justice we want. It’s not that I don’t agree with Jonathan about the role of Congressional Democrats. It’s more that, that isn’t the way forward. Kicking over political anthills will not produce the accountability that is needed here.
E Ferrari,
I cannot tell if you have a genuine concern about only one party being castigated or not. On this Blawg, I think that most of us want anyone involved to be prosecuted.
Now if you are a Troll, I am sorry I wasted my breath.
I don’t understand why you are are jumping on the politicizing bandwagon and in particular, by claiming that Democrats want to prosecute the Bush Administration and yet allow complicit Democrats to skip.
This discussion is not a Democratic plot. This discussion was engendered by the ICRC report that found the Bush Administration had a torture program. That politicians try to occlude that by pointing fingers at their opposition is not surprising; that you do is disappointing.
There are a number of critiques that can be made about Congressional Democratic leaders and their actions. I myself will always think of those members as belonging to the Torturing 110th Congress. But there is no useful critique whose conclusion is an exhortation to outrage when what we most need is focus, thoughtfulness and direction.
It may make for good television but it isn’t conducive to informed civic engagement.
And a pardon doesn’t prevent the US from making extensive financial reparations to those whom we tortured, the families of those we killed, or to the soldiers and their families whom we sent into battle on a lie.
Jill,
You will be pleased to know that a Pardon will not even save a member of congress from Impeachment proceedings.
A.Y.,
I agree that it will not protect our war criminals from foreign prosecution or domestic lawsuits. Here’s is my reasoning on using the pardon.
As to international prosecutions. Every country undertaking war crimes prosecutions against our people have stated that they would prefer the US to take up the cases. They have said they will drop their case if the US investigates and prosecutes its own people. I admire the nations who are willing to stand up to the world’s biggest bully, but I’m certain they would rather not do so. There is a lot at stake for them in proceeding. I have faith they will proceed if we do not, but I do not underestimate the cost of such courage.
Secondly, a pardon with the condition of resigning from any govt. position and a full confession does two important things: 1. it gets rid of some very bad actors in the govt. and 2. it will be the best chance we have of getting a real understanding of just how bad everything that went on was/is.
The threat of civil lawsuits may be quite useful. There are places in the world that won’t extradite our criminals and perhaps those are great places for these people to retire.
I see no good way to do this. I am seeking a way of acting that has the least chance of causing these very powerful, well-connected and evil people from doing more harm to our nation. Standing up to these people could end in disaster. They’ve already shown they will do anything to anyone, so even this action could provoke severe retaliation. But not standing up to them will end in a complete dismantling of our govt.
It would be great to hear other people’s ideas as to how to proceed.
Patty C 1, May 9, 2009 at 11:34 am
Again, a federal pardon will NOT protect these people from other prosecutions and lawsuits – foreign or domestic.
*****************************************************
I beg to differ with you on the issue of a Domestic Pardons. I agree with you on the international pardons, a Presidential pardon will have no effect nor will it affect international civil litigation. But it is an absolute defense to any Criminal Prosecution. However a civil-domestic lawsuit is another story.
But then again, you can sue anybody for anything. It goes on everyday.
I am a Democrat. But it becomes increasingly clear that some Democrat politicians may have been complicit in the torture. Of course one can argue degree of complicity. Say those words over in your head and think about them. Anyone who didn’t speak out..object..is complicit. Of course this is easy for me to say: I did object and I wasn’t a poltician so I had nothing to lose (except for donations to the ACLU to fight torture). Ms. Pelosi should be judged by what she did and did not do. I doubt if she is the only Democrat politician who was too scared of being painted “unpatriotic” to stand up for what is right…and to not stand up against torture is to condone torture.
“Finally, this argument completely abandons any semblance of oversight responsibility. It amounts to arguing “if you can’t believe the Bush White House on international law, who can you believe?”
JT,
In a comment dripping with salience, this to me is the most salient of all. It is the continuation of the old Cold War bi-partisan foreign policy “shtick” that has gotten the US into so much trouble in the last 50 or so years. Ms. Pelosi, was probably so honored by her insider status and by those “serious” people who were briefing her, that she swallowed any qualms she might have had and totally abdicated her clear constitutional responsibility. This to me is why the Bush/Cheney Gang got away with treasonous/illegal actions for so long, our constitutionally mandated “overseers” were awash in unjustified wishful thinking accepting the credibility of an un-credible administration. It becomes tedious to continually point out that the King is naked, when the “serious” people are viewing his attire as fashionable finery.
To all:
PattyC stated:
“Like it or not, that’s one of the problems and likely one reason why George Bush did not grant a ‘blanket pardon’. He would have had to ask permission because none of the alleged potential defendants ever applied for a pardon. It could be inferred as his entire administration’s ‘blanket confession’, as well.”
Two questions, can you pardon someone in advance of a conviction and wouldn’t asking for a pardon be admitting guilt? Although I suppose you could be asking because you are worried that even though innocent you would be painted with the same brush as others.
Rut Roh
You need to actually pay attention to what’s been said on this forum. Few here would object to dislodging Pelosi, etal. over their knowledge and passivity when it comes to torture as long as you agree that all Republicans in on the deal, including Bush and Cheney, are subjected to the same investigations and punishments. Agreed?
If so, instead of being an offensive troll, you would find yourself in harmonious concert with most of us. If not, you’re a troll and a pest simply out to propagate the Limbaugh party’s feeble agenda which consists solely of braying like the asses you are.
Again, a federal pardon will NOT protect these people from other prosecutions and lawsuits – foreign or domestic.
Certainly, any defense they might, otherwise, have under a liablity contract will not proceed toward providing their defense and/or indemnification for admittedly ‘illegal’ acts. Period.
In order to retain any personal protections, they would be ill-advised to essentially admit to ever having committed war crimes.
Like it or not, that’s one of the problems and likely one reason why George Bush did not grant a ‘blanket pardon’. He would have had to ask permission because none of the alleged potential defendants ever applied for a pardon. It could be inferred as his entire administration’s ‘blanket confession’, as well.
It’s easy for someone who has no legal training to say what these alleged potential defendants should do, because you are not in their position .
It’s a smidge more complex than some are willing to realize, apparently.
As Obama recently stated with respect to the many issues facing him coming in – ‘if it was easy, it would have already been done by now’ or words to that effect.
Wasn’t Pelosi also briefed on the false intelligence about WMD as the reason to invade Iraq and she did nothing about that as well?
FFN,
The 3rd leg of the government (m)bilking stool/trifecta:
Like Sausage, Citizens do not want to observe how it is made…
Someone once advised me on the two rules of government:
– It’s always worse than they say it is
– Never believe anything until it is officially denied