Focus on Torture Turns to Pelosi
Much more on the topic of what Nancy Pelosi and others knew about interrogation techniques before now will see daylight in the swamp that has yet to be drained in the shared culture of corruption that the same Nancy Pelosi claimed she would eliminate. There is no need to rush to judgment. For now this blog offers a copy of the Speaker’s press release on the matter with some questions posted after it.
http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0439
For Immediate Release
12/09/2007
Pelosi Statement on Washington Post Report on Congressional Briefing of Administration Interrogation Techniques
Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on a report in today’s Washington Post about a congressional briefing on Administration interrogation techniques:
“On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.
“I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred.”
The press release above is extremely brief. It can give the impression that the common advice given to clients from their attorneys about never saying more than you have to has been followed. The minor typos in the release could cause one to wonder if the person publishing it was nervous or distracted or just careless. But these points are of little value other than to point out the release will probably not satisfy most readers as complete and forthcoming. That could give rise to suspicion that a more complete accounting could avoid.
On that note one question will be offered as an example. Is one to believe that the interrogation techniques disclosed to Pelosi at the first briefing were so incomplete that only after the briefing received by Harman did Pelosi decide there was something wrong? Or worse yet, did Pelosi have to be convinced by Harman there was something wrong? That is more than one question so here comes a third. At the latest, the 2nd briefing was in the first quarter of 2003. Why was nothing said until WaPo published a report in December 2007? You could view that as a rhetorical question.
related story: What San Fran Nan Knew at Michelle Malkin’s website
December 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Since posting this article, Jane Harman and Kit Bond were interviewed on The News Hour. Harman looked like she was reading off a prompter or a cue card. But more important, as in the Pelosi PR above, she claims to have submitted a written complaint calling for an end to the ‘techniques’ and only received a ‘perfunctory’ reply. And that is where she left it????
Kit Bond suggested things were legal. Those statements will be challenged and it would be helpful to get an authoritative opinion from some body that would be viewed by most people as valid.
It is also problematic for operations that by their nature and objectives require an absence of public scrutiny to be effective and might be able to remain that way if public officials were trusted by citizens. Perhaps that is the most damage caused by a lack of ethics in DC, etc.