Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

[JayB]

"In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

 

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

 

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk...

 

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

 

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

[StevenSeagal]

Wow. Guess this means torture is okay after all!

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Hey now let's leave the yes-bots out of this, after all they were hired on to say pretty things into the camera, not to think or to have a 'conscience.'

[prole]

Are you trying to tell me that one year after September 11, Democrats and Republicans were in some kind of lockstep on the "global war on terror"?! I am astounded.

[Hugh Conway]

ahh, the ole wink-wink, nudge-nudge say nomore.

 

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL DEMOCRACY!

 

TAX THE POOR! FEED THE RICH!

[jclark]

You guys are right. We should just ask the islamo-fascists pretty please and they will spill their guts. It would be nice to be as blissfully ignorant as you guys. Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place with dangerous people who need to be dealt with. I think if you look at it closely, the fact that Democrats and Republicans were working together on the issue lends some validity to the techniques. Maybe just maybe they have more information than you people on the situation. Probably not though CC.com sprayers are the most informed least biased bunch I have ever met. And by the way, I actually have real experience with this subject and the war, I am not basing my opinion on Tv or internet articles.

[chucK]

The article says Harman formally protested, which was pretty much all she could do without breaking the law since it was all classified. You wouldn't want her breaking the law would you JayB?

 

These guys could not take notes, could not talk with anyone about what was going on, not even a lawyer to see if it was legal. The relative voices of reason were in the minority, so they couldn't do anything about it in committee. I remember Rockefeller had some deal with respect to FISA where he wrote a letter and kept it in a safe or something objecting to the lack of their abilities to object.

 

Note that one member of the overseers got promoted to CIA chief! Woo hoo.

[JayB]

The article didn't mention any constraints whatsoever on voicing objections, reservations, etc during the meeting. They were free to raise objections and concerns during the meeting, no? The fact that with one exception, they chose not to do so is telling.

 

Would you be rising to the defense of those present had it only been Republicans in the room during the briefing?

[mattp]

...the fact that Democrats and Republicans were working together on the issue lends some validity to the techniques...

 

Really? Torture or aggressive interrogation is to be judged as valid or invalid based on the political calculations made in secret among a small group of legislators at a time when the nation was eating up our president's lies and any criticism of the war drums was feared as political suicide?

[chucK]

Have you ever been in a meeting where you can call BS on something but you know nothing good will come of it? How about the meeting where you are unsure of something and don't want to speak up and get everyone hostile before checking something out? The observers here did not have the luxury of going to experts and seeing whether this was legal or not. They couldn't even ask a lawyer to see if they could get put in jail themselves.

 

Addressing your "what if it was only Republicans in the room?" question; back in 2002/3 the Republicans were the ones in power. The ones with a majority in the Conrgress and the Intelligence committee. They could have done something with their objection, maybe. Though it tough to be pro human rights in a law and order debate when everyone is scared of the criminals.

[tvashtarkatena]

The article didn't mention any constraints whatsoever on voicing objections, reservations, etc during the meeting. They were free to raise objections and concerns during the meeting, no? The fact that with one exception, they chose not to do so is telling.

 

Would you be rising to the defense of those present had it only been Republicans in the room during the briefing?

 

You're missing the whole point, here, as you always have on this issue. This is not a partisan issue, it's a rule of law issue. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which we ratified into law and which has been tested by our Supreme Court, specifically and explicitly forbids waterboarding and all other forms of humiliation and inhumane treatment of detainees. Every time we waterboard...or kill or maim detainees (waterboarding is a smoke screen issue, hello), we throw our own laws out the window and take one more step towards totalitarianism.

[Hugh Conway]

The article didn't mention any constraints whatsoever on voicing objections, reservations, etc during the meeting. They were free to raise objections and concerns during the meeting, no? The fact that with one exception, they chose not to do so is telling

 

hows that UV colonic?

 

I realize you are committed to neither demoracy nor free capitalism, merely sucking the teat of the oligarchs you worship, but secret meetings of a select few are not the foundation of a free government.

[mattp]

Apart from the questions of morality or whether you want our guys to face the same kind of interrogation techniques, has anyone here seen where there is a convincing case being made that torture can be expected to extract good intelligence?

 

I haven't heard even the war hawks argue that it is "necessary" or a "good idea" so much as to argue that we have to be unconstrained in our war against terror because the bad guys want to kill us.

[JayB]

The article didn't mention any constraints whatsoever on voicing objections, reservations, etc during the meeting. They were free to raise objections and concerns during the meeting, no? The fact that with one exception, they chose not to do so is telling.

 

Would you be rising to the defense of those present had it only been Republicans in the room during the briefing?

 

You're missing the whole point, here, as you always have on this issue. This is not a partisan issue, it's a rule of law issue. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which we ratified into law and which has been tested by our Supreme Court, specifically and explicitly forbids waterboarding and all other forms of humiliation and inhumane treatment of detainees. Every time we waterboard...or kill or maim detainees (waterboarding is a smoke screen issue, hello), we throw our own laws out the window and take one more step towards totalitarianism.

 

You are confusing ought with is. It ought not be a partisan issue, but it clearly is. One look at the special pleading and prevaricating on behalf of the Democrats present when these tactics were being presented:

 

"...there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

 

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general."

 

Partisan opportunism masquerading as righteous indignation. True of both the Democrats on the hill and their apologists/fan-base here.

[Hugh Conway]

You are confusing ought with is. It ought not be a partisan issue, but it clearly is.

 

When did Peter Hoekstar become a Democrat?

Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2004 to 2006, said he had never been told that the tapes were destroyed.

 

“I think the intelligence committee needs to get all over this,” said Mr. Hoekstra, who has been a strong supporter of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program. “This raises a red flag that needs to be looked at.”

 

I realize viewing every opposing position as partisan hypocrisy makes life easy for you, it doesn't make you right

[ashw_justin]

"...there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

 

They are representatives. It's probable that at the time they felt that they were faithfully carrying out the will of their sponsors. And now, they are still just telling us exactly what 'we' want to hear, which is exactly what they are programmed to do. Should we expect anything less? Do they not appear to be representing the cries of their constituency?

 

And by the way, Dummycrats aren't the only sudden critics of all things War on Terror these days. Oh, the joys and miseries of catering to the fickle masses... pseudomocracy's a bitch.

[mattp]

And by the way, Dummycrats aren't the only sudden critics of all things War on Terror these days.

 

Not to mention the fact that a sizable minority was against much of this from the very beginning. In my own case, Jay seems to be accusing me of hypocrisy for maintaining largely the same position since September 11, 2001. He's been consistent, though, I'd have to say: he's been calling me "paranoid" and "obsessed" and referring to my Birkenstocks all along.

[jclark]

Quote from MATTP

 

Apart from the questions of morality or whether you want our guys to face the same kind of interrogation techniques, has anyone here seen where there is a convincing case being made that torture can be expected to extract good intelligence?

 

I haven't heard even the war hawks argue that it is "necessary" or a "good idea" so much as to argue that we have to be unconstrained in our war against terror because the bad guys want to kill us.

 

As someone with over 2.5 yrs of deployed experience in the current conflict at the special operations level I can tell you a couple of things.

 

1. waterboarding and making someone very uncomfortable through sleep depravation, subjection to uncomfortable temps (mid 50's) and constant pressure have astounding results. The idea that we will get the same information from asking nicely is absurd. These people that are having said procedures done to them hate us and sometimes don't even break after all that.

 

2. I can also tell you many future plots have been discovered and averted due to the intelligence gained by these techniques. Does that make the techniques savory or good table conversation? No it doesn't. Does it make it a very necessary tool to be able to use if you have to? Yes. Do we use it indiscriminately? No we don't. It is only used when it is known the indiviadual has very important information that is specific in nature.

 

3. These practices are already having diminishing returns due to the fact that it is widely published. The combatants now know that it may be uncomfortable, but we will not hurt them or leave any marks. Yes they read the news as well.

[mattp]

OK, Clark. It is either torture them or simply ask nicely and then discontinue any further inquiry? I don't doubt that we have gotten good information out of some of them but that doesn't begin to answer the questions I'd want answered: how often? What other techniques may produce good results? Have we REALLY foiled a bunch of plots that otherwise would not have been stopped? In other words: is is worth it in light of the substantial downsides here?

[chucK]

An alternative viewpoint would be that by 2005 it was becoming more and more apparent how widespread the torture was. In your well-focused narrative, you've got the observers back in 2002 being informed about the interrogation of the guy who was apparently well known to have been the mastermind behind 9/11.

 

Do you see any difference between harsh interrogation of someone known to have plotted 9/11 on American soil and a general system of terror where technicians with the impressive credentials of West Virginia National Guard Reserve are instructed to terrorize people picked up near the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, some by bounty hunters because they have a name that matches three or more syllables to someone on the list?

 

Certainly more information came out. Certainly the Democrats got a little more power to influence decision making. I think these are plausible reasons for changing one's stance and strategy, respectively.

 

That said, I do think making too much of the CIA destroying interrogation tapes is unseemly. The tape destruction certainly appears to imply that people are hiding stuff, and I think they should follow that trail where it may lead. But to get all high and mighty about the act in itself of destroying the tapes, does seem like grandstanding.

[jclark]

MATTP:

 

Yes in fact we have foiled many plots in the last 6 years. Yes many of them were foiled due to interrogation of detainees. I cannot elaborate on things still classified, but how about the plot in the UK to fly fully loaded airplanes headed for the good ole USA over here and blow them up with liquid HE? I bring that one up because it is common knowledge in the media. That began with the interrogation of detainees in AFG. It was also very close to coming to fruition.

 

Other techniques can produce good results such as fear of permanent isolation from family, the "we know all" approach and so forth. Believe me contrary to what the liberal media might have you believe, the patriots out there keeping us safe are not monsters and they don't enjoy hurting people. They exhaust all other means before going there.

 

Those inbred National Guard morons at Abu Gharaib hurt the US more than any other act since the war began. I am not in anyway defending those idiots. I am defending the professionals that this thread was initiated about.

[prole]

Quote from MATTP

 

Apart from the questions of morality or whether you want our guys to face the same kind of interrogation techniques, has anyone here seen where there is a convincing case being made that torture can be expected to extract good intelligence?

 

I haven't heard even the war hawks argue that it is "necessary" or a "good idea" so much as to argue that we have to be unconstrained in our war against terror because the bad guys want to kill us.

 

As someone with over 2.5 yrs of deployed experience in the current conflict at the special operations level I can tell you a couple of things.

 

1. waterboarding and making someone very uncomfortable through sleep depravation, subjection to uncomfortable temps (mid 50's) and constant pressure have astounding results. The idea that we will get the same information from asking nicely is absurd. These people that are having said procedures done to them hate us and sometimes don't even break after all that.

 

2. I can also tell you many future plots have been discovered and averted due to the intelligence gained by these techniques. Does that make the techniques savory or good table conversation? No it doesn't. Does it make it a very necessary tool to be able to use if you have to? Yes. Do we use it indiscriminately? No we don't. It is only used when it is known the indiviadual has very important information that is specific in nature.

 

3. These practices are already having diminishing returns due to the fact that it is widely published. The combatants now know that it may be uncomfortable, but we will not hurt them or leave any marks. Yes they read the news as well.

 

Depravation: de·prave (d-prv)

tr.v. de·praved, de·prav·ing, de·praves

To debase, especially morally; corrupt. See Synonyms at corrupt.

[Middle English depraven, to corrupt, from Old French depraver, from Latin dprvre : d-, de- + prvus, crooked.]

depra·vation (dpr-vshn) n.

 

You were more right than you knew, huh?

[mattp]

Clark, I am sure you are right that there are many good people in the military and the intelligence community. I don't think you see the "liberal media" suggesting to the contrary.

 

You haven't really addressed my question, though, except to say that you can't address it because the answers are "classified." A spectacular plot was foiled. Was torture used in extracting the information that foiled the plot? If torture is so effective, why are we not seeing those who argue that we need to use torture argue that it actually works? We're having the debate anyway, your own fear that public debate is weakening the war effort aside, so why don't they just come out and say it? (That would be something directly on the issue like: in X% of the cases where we use torture, we get information that was not available by other means - not: remember that plot three years ago that we stopped?)

 

Pardon my cynicism, but this sounds a lot like the President arguing that he can't be subject to any oversight.

 

 

[jclark]

Nice catch...correction deprivation:

 

deprivation

n 1: a state of extreme poverty [syn: privation, want]

2: the disadvantage that results from losing something; "his

loss of credibility led to his resignation" or "losing him

is no great deprivation" [syn: loss]

3: act of depriving [syn: privation]

 

[mattp]

By the way, Clark: Are you one of those arguing that the grunts at Abu Ghraib were misguided zealots acting on their own and that those responsible for being in charge neither suggested this activity nor bear any responsibility?