Intelligence Report: Pelosi Briefed on Use of Interrogation Tactics in Sept. ’02

May 07, 2009 6:02 PM

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”
EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

Pelosi, D-Calif., sharply disputed suggestions last month that she had been told about waterboarding having taken place.

“In that or any other briefing . . . we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," Pelosi said at a news conference in April. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel . . . opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."

Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, said Pelosi’s recollection of the meeting is different than the way it is described in the report from the DNI’s office.

“The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,” Daly said.

Daly pointed out that the report backs up Pelosi’s contention that she was briefed only once on “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Her name does not appear elsewhere in the report.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," Daly said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html

She stated that she was informed of it's possible use and but that they NEVER informed congress when they proceeded with those actions and when they date back too. But she was informed once that those actions "might" be used but NOT when they were used.

Other than the people present at the meeting, who else knows how much she really knew?

I don't, but if she's not telling the full truth she's going to be in deep doo-doo.

:-(

Because these people area always gunning for her.

I'm not her biggest fan, but I would like to think that our Dems. didn't implicitly condone torture.

:-(

If it's true, she knew it would be used and she was briefed on the first victim after the fact.

“The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,” Daly said.

Daly pointed out that the report backs up Pelosi’s contention that she was briefed only once on “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Her name does not appear elsewhere in the report.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," Daly said.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," Daly said.

Used the procedure, just that it was a possibility.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html?hpid=news-col-blog

:puke:




But then again, most of the crap you post here does, kitty.

This just broke and I first heard it when they gave the news. ABC News is now part of Freeper world????

:eyes:

right now it looks like he said/she said. but to expand on your subject; the my party, right or wrong attitude is also something that would feel right at home on a freeper board.

That's the way Bush, Cheney, et al. operated. No one had the right to question their actions or motives. Are we also going to goose step to the same drummer? Hell, no!!!

If Nancy didn't know that they were water boarding, then that's great news. If she knew, then she'll just have to face the consequences.

:shrug:

Your motives are just too transparent in regurgitating this rehashed non-story. Freepers have been using this as an excuse to justify their administration's actions for years.

EPIC FAIL!


You should have been banned a long time ago.

That was the Republicans attitude and it was ever so great for the nation. I sincerely hope that Nancy's version of the story is the truth because there's much to do and we do not need the drama. But, to simply ignore it and insult the messenger does not resolve anything.

You don't care for my posts? Ask me if I care.......

:shrug:

back away from the kool-aid. lobby the mods if you think someone should be banned, otherwise STFU about that crap.

keep the focus off the actual war criminals.

The focus on what Pelosi was briefed on is bizarre.

What's the point: prosecuting Pelosi first because Repubs are trying to claim she's complicit?

How about focusing on the architects of the policy and those who approved it?

The memo was issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA.

It's the same information Goss has been pushing. There is nothing new.

That it is confirmation from two government agencies, not just the word of Goss.

Nothing new.

It's diversionary BS.

Pelosi repeatedly proclaimed her innocence and complete ignorance in any knowledge of waterboarding save the fact that it existed.

I'm not buying the bullshit anymore. Apparently, I have a higher standard of honesty for members of congress than the members themselves hold.

you people need to get off this womans' back, I TRUST HER MORE THAN A REPUBLICAN no
matter what some might think.

They (Republicans) are looking for a scapegoat to share the blame with thats what this is all
about, it's a shame some of you don't get it.

you're in the room when these tactics are reported to you doesn't mean you give it a blessing. In the case of NSA, dems were briefed (party or fully) and wanted more information (as I remember) and expressed uncertainty but in the end the Bush administration claims they share responsibility as if dems had the power to change anything. And there may be some responsibility, but as I remember they were prohibited from talking about it publicly and had already expressed misgivings to the administration. Nonetheless, it is trumpeted that dems were equally complicit.

So they were briefed on enhanced techniques. Did the dems object? Was the briefing accurate? Did it mention that 75-100 detainees might die? Were the legal memos available to dissect? There are a lot of questions that need asking before DU should go along with the MSM and GOP meme that dems were "in on it". It may end up unpleasant in the end, but at this point there are a lot of holes in the theory. The first thing we should agree on is that the former administration is nearly always deceptive and is not trustworthy.

As far as I'm concerned, this changes nothing with respect to how to proceed with torture accountability. May or may not ultimately affect some people's election chances, but I'm not interested in that at the moment.

if that's all i can expect from my elected officials, then what's the damn point of even voting?!

They do have recourse.

And now we got a little more information on the subject, but there are many questions that are still answered.

now the CIA is releasing 'information' to contradict and hem in Pelosi and Harman.

So, what's the problem?

Other than the fact that Nancy was one of the first ones to say 'no way' to the idea of Hillary being VP, not that that would have ANYTHING to do with this OP...

:evilgrin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5614287&mesg_id=5614287

:shrug:




:eyes:

May 8 2009, 11:00 am by Marc Ambinder

What Pelosi Knew

Responses among the cognoscenti to the CIA's contention that it briefed Nancy Pelosi on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques are fairly typical. Those inclined to defend Democrats point to the CIA's history of misleading Congress and the incomplete record the CIA's notes sketch out; those inclined to indict Pelosi are throwing out terms like "hypocrite" and worse. The document itself is an interesting artifact of our intelligence culture and its relationship to the oversight committees. The White House might have been reluctant to share details of certain programs; it's hard to know what the CIA's motives were. By statute, they're required to provide Congress with information that holds themselves accountable, and Congress's ability to independently verify these facts is very limited. Pelosi and Porter Goss were the two ranking members of the House Intelligence Committee. That they were the only two so early briefed shows how highly classified and sensitive the program was at the time. It was probably an "Unacknowledged SAP" -- a "special access program," meaning that it was not only classified, dissemination of information about the program had to be communicated through highly classified channels.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/pelosi_torture_and_the_wilderness_of_mirrors.php