If this turns out to be true, I would encourage Nancy Pelosi to resign. As Avedon Carol says, this sheds an new light on her refusal to consider impeachment.

This really is grounds for asking Pelosi to resign.

She swore to uphold the Constitution, right?

Offtopic but important: More death from "the Religion of Peace." (No, not that religion of peace, the other one.)

Children are targets of Nigerian witch hunt
[Christian] Evangelical pastors are helping to create a terrible new campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being abused, abandoned and even murdered while the preachers make money out of the fear of their parents and their communities

Bob Graham, who I like and who was one of only 2 red-state senators to vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, did have a penchant for note-taking that bordered on the fanatical. I suspect he kept classified notebooks loaded with details in repositories in his office. Did that get destroyed on his retirement from the Senate, or is it in the archives somewhere? If they exist, I'm sure they will specify who said what and when, right down to the nearest minute of time.

Ugh. It's fair to note, though, that a lot of people were behaving in a demented fashion at that point. And that being demented then doesn't excuse the people who are behaving in a demented fashion now.

Can someone remind me why I'm supposed to be a Democrat and how exactly, in practical terms, being a Democrat is different or better than being a Republican?

After decades of investing myself in the political process as the only way to bring about progress, I'm increasingly becoming disillusioned and disgusted by politics in America. I'm very, very close to simply giving up not only on the Democrats but on politics itself. It seems that without fundamental changes in the way campaigns are financed and conducted (something that's not going to happen in my lifetime) political engagement is futile.
___________________________

Good for Harman? What would the difference be from making an genuine but impotent gesture and covering your ass by writing a letter of protest? Either of those could be contrasted fairly clearly with, you know, oversight...

extremely damning.

but why on earth are we hearing this now? And not during any other waterboarding flashpoint of the past two years? Like during Mukasey's confirmation hearings??

Despite the WaPo's use of "U.S. officials" and "various officials," this is so obviously CIA cya, and it seems to be happening now because they specifically SAVED this information to leak WHEN (not if) the country discovered the existence of and destruction of the interrogation tapes. That, I would argue, casts a damning light on the sources of this report as well.

Aris, I'm right there with you. I wonder what's the point of voting for the opposition party when it doesn't oppose anything.

Even war crimes.

If writing CYA letters is the extent of Harman's objections, it's hard to laud her for it. What evidence do we have that she did anything significant to put an end to torture?

"Harman did a helluva lot more". That's like saying a teaspoon holds a helluva lot more water than a thimble.

"It's fair to note, though, that a lot of people were behaving in a demented fashion at that point."

Matt - I don't think you really believe your own argument. I certainly don't agree with it. Times of crises are exactly when ethics (and constitutional principles) become most important. I don't give the Dems a pass, particularly after it appears to me they've been less than forthcoming about their knowledge of torture since the beginning. And yes, Harman did the right thing if she didn't want to be a real whistleblower and report what she knew to the press. I'm going to reserve judgment, though, until this story plays out more.

What is shocking is what Harman et al. did not do:

did not get an independent evaluation of what was and was not torture;

did not go on record (within the confidentiality regime) to oppose torture;

did not enquire further over the years as to whether the interrogation processes were being reviewed for efficacy, much less legality.

Harman was passive. Good she got tossed out of her leadership role. As for the rest of them...

Well it seems that, once again, the habitually devious within the Executive Branch are lying through their teeth. Can you say, "obstruction of justice"?

Inquiry Sought On CIA Tapes
[Washington Post]

Democratic lawmakers yesterday angrily demanded a Justice Department investigation into the CIA's decision to destroy videotapes of harsh interrogation tactics used on two terrorism suspects.

The White House said that President Bush was unaware of the tapes or their destruction until this week, but administration sources acknowledged last night that longtime Bush aide Harriet E. Miers knew of the tapes' existence and told CIA officials that she opposed their destruction.

The Senate intelligence committee also announced the start of its own probe into the destroyed videotapes, said Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). ...

The CIA says the Senate intelligence committee, for example, was first told of plans to destroy the tapes in February 2003 and was then informed during a closed hearing in November 2006 that the destruction had been carried out.

But Rockefeller said his panel "has located no record of either being informed of the 2003 CIA decision or being notified late last year of the tapes having being destroyed." A review of a transcript of the November 2006 hearing also makes no mention of destroying tapes, Rockefeller said.

On the House side, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), who was previously the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said she warned the CIA's general counsel after a classified briefing in 2003 not to destroy any videotapes related to the agency's "enhanced interrogation program."

CIA officials said the agency never turned over the videotapes to the Sept. 11 commission because the panel did not specifically request them. But several members and staffers, including the panel's Republican co-chairman, disputed that claim yesterday and said the CIA's failure to disclose the tapes was in defiance of commission demands. ...

[Now what does this tell you about the deliberate obfuscation effort apparent in the currently cited article? Yet another intentional misdirection?? Ah, the "joys" of government-sponsored "perception management".]
.

This is effectively diverting my attention from the destroyed torture tapes. At the very least, I can wholeheartedly endorse the notion "The Democrats do it too."

That solves everything.

Why don't democrats do moral outrage?

Why don't democrats use some of those liberals in congress to shout some crazy peacenik ideas then caucus behind those proclamations? Electoral politics would be a lot more favorable to democrats if they took political rhetoric seriously.

nepeta says:

"I don't think you really believe your own argument."

I suppose not. I do think, in fact, that there will be a reckoning for all this, and it won't be pretty.

Whatever else you can say, it appears that Harman did a helluva lot more about this than anyone else.

And all Harman did was write a letter? That's not saying much.

Kevin says: You may think that congressional leaders ought to jeopardize their careers and risk jail in order to publicly protest stuff like this, but, sadly, in the real world that's not in the cards.

Actually, that's not true. We have seen profiles in courage in the past, just not from the current disappointing bunch. Have our aspirations and our belief in democratic ideals really fallen so low that we don't demand that our leaders act heroically?

OK, don't answer that one. But still, the common argument on the Internet today that these people would have been committing political suicide if they spoke out is just plain offensive. What's the worse act, political suicide or standing by silently as American ideals are savaged?

I do not recall the oath of office containing an exception to upholding the constitution if doing so is political suicide.

Really, Kevin, when war crimes (and violations of US criminal law) are being committed, and you're one of the few people who knows about it, I think writing a letter that you know will have no effect is not really something to be cheered. "I was only following orders -- but I wasn't happy about it."

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, does it make a sound?

If Jane Harman writes a secret letter, does it have any effect?

they are either complicit or they are cowards. those are the choices. they have profoundly betrayed their oath to defend and protect the constitution of the united states and observe its laws and treaties. they are complicit in the degradation and dishonor brought upon this country by their gutless and craven (in)actions that have allowed kidnapping, rape and torture to become instruments of u.s. foreign policy.

their acquiesence assured the depraved crimes at abu ghraib.

they must be held accountable for their complicity in crimes against humanity. but since this is no longer a nation that recognizes the rule of law, that option is out.

i despise every last one of them and hope they burn in hell for the grotesque and degenerate behavior that has so befouled this nation's former moral authority.

heckuva job, nancy.

Um. "Helluva"? A sternly-worded classified letter? Yes, Harman did more than the rest, but God Damn!

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Has anybody noticed how right-wing the Washington Post has become since Katherine Graham died???

It used to be the paper of record for reporting on political issues...now its just as biased as Fox News.

I can't think of a single political issue over the last few years in which the Post's reporting has not had a decidedly anti-Democratic and pro-Republican slant.

Did anyone else read the whole article? The part about the secrecy oaths they sign? Would you rather have your Democratic politicians rotting away in jail cells right now for violating that oath, and still have the information under wraps because the administration invoked the "state secrets" clause? Or in the majority? Like nepeta, I will wait and see how this plays out before I scream for anyones head to be presented on a platter.

Kevin Drum deliberately prefaces this piece with the following strong caveat:

"The sources for this story are so obviously intent on discrediting congressional Democrats that it's hard to know whether to take it at face value ..."

Yet he nevertheless inexplicably "concludes", based on this inherently dubious article:

"Bottom line: it looks like they all knew about it ... and it looks like most of them didn't have a problem with it. Another great day for the Republic."

Say, WHAT??? Tell me, class: What's wrong with this picture?

One could suffer a nasty case of "whiplash" from such a radical shift in credulousness, Kevin. Deriving such an unequivical "conclusion" from a source you yourself declare doubtful is a non sequitur of unparalleled prominence!

Can you explain this.seeming metamorphosis? Did you decide within the very process of writing that those questionable claims could, for some reason, be taken "at face value"? If so, what exactly changed your mind?
.

Like I said, "if this turns out to be true...." But presumably, if one of our representatives had disclosed this, than while they might be rotting in jail, the torture would have been disclosed, and may have been stopped before it ever started.

Also, it's not clear the alternative to silence is jail. I think these folks have plenty of ways of either leaking the information, publically disclosing it, and/or pressuring the powers that be.

I have not one word of praise for Harman or anyone involved in these briefings. A secret letter is nothing but CYA.

And if that's the best we can expect, I guess we should give up hope now and move to some country where leaders respect the rule of law and uphold the Geneva conventions. (Of course, with the corrupting influence of the U.S., the remaining number of those countries is small. Who hasn't participated in the U.S.'s renditions and secret prisons?)

This kind of spineless, contemptible passivity has degraded the US Congress, as well as the rest of the American system of government.

Will we ever have real leaders in this country again? What ever happened to their moral compass? Did they ever have one?

Y'all oughta go get a brown paper lunch bag and just BREATHE awhile. Have you NO idea how a Congressional briefing regarding classified material is done?

A program such as "enhanced interrogation" would necessarily be SCI or Special Access, even in general terms. There would NOT have been any disclosure to Congress of anything remotely beyond the letter of the law or of our treaty obligations.

So, no, the Speaker was not told that we were going to drown AQ guys and drag their heads out of the water long enough to ask 'em: "What's the capitol of Maryland, tough guy?"

Secrets are not kept by telling Congress about 'em.

And, in fact, you guys don't understand how Congressional critics of classified programs deal with their Constitutional right to be informed: THEY DON'T GO TO THE CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS.

This was standard practice during the Nicaraguan contra mess, in which Congressional players in the debate often refused to go to classified briefings so as to avoid being accused of leaking secrets: if you're not told in a classified briefing, they can accuse of ignorance but not of espionage when you tell the truth on 'em.

AND your colleagues who DID get the classified briefing can judge who was telling the truth: which is why the Boland amendment was enacted -- the Congress didn't believe Reagan.

Man, the Bush folks dangled the smallest bit of sushi and y'all swallowed it up to the ferrule.

Has anybody noticed how right-wing the Washington Post has become since Katherine Graham died???

Company paper in a one-industry town.

Anyone who ever lived in a town like Jay, or Millinocket, knows what that's like

The news is now "Dem in Congress Knew", not "BuschCo Destroyed Evidence of War Crimes".

Mission accomplished. Someone in the Cheneybunker earned their Christmas bonus this year.

" You may think that congressional leaders ought to jeopardize their careers and risk jail in order to publicly protest stuff like this, but, sadly, in the real world that's not in the cards."

Kevin, surely you're better than this. While the final clause of this sentence is, sadly, true, it is absolutely not cause to congratulate one of the congressional leaders for taking an extremely weak, ineffectual and self-serving action.

There are examples throughout history where public officials opposed goverment illegality/immortality and by doing so gave up not only their position or freedom, but their life. From this perspective, Jane's looking like a pissant to me.

We're talking about torture here--war crimes and the rot from within of our political culture and institutions.

Congress members take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Nowhere in that oath is a caveat relieving them from responsiblility when faced with inconvenience or personal loss.

Yeah, I'm naive about a lot of things, but I know enough history to know that Jane Harman is no credit to the human race. Where are the Dietrich Bonhoeffers when you need them.

Wow. Talk about a circular firing squad -- with rubber bullets, no less.

Where are the Dietrich Bonhoeffers when you need them.

Martyred. So you would rather see the Democrats who were briefed be imprisoned, charged with treason (for violating their secrecy oaths) and hanged than to have them play the game and take back the majority?

Think for a minute folks - please, for the love of the Republic - think. The NIE and the torture tapes story came to light. So the administration leaked this to Freddy the Freeloader and it's page one on Sunday - and you all are jumping at the shadow, flailing wildly and demanding resignations, while the craven bastards sit back and laugh at you for doing their dirty work for them.

Way to go.

Smells like a little distraction to get the Dems in the headlines and in trouble with the activists. Maybe so or maybe not. After all the war was the Dems fault, or so Mr. Rove says. Thing is that in the run up to the election the spotlight should be on the brutal, amoral and antidemocratic Republicans, the war in Iraq, and the kick in the teeth the Republicans have been delivering the Middle Class for well over three decades now.

Do I wish we had Dems with more guts? You bet. I also wish they were less neoliberal and less neoimperial. But they are loads better than the current authoritarian incarnation of the Republican party.

Right when you are going into battle it is best not to start shooting at the leadership no matter their limitations. If these were normal times it would be fine to go against the party leadership, but the stakes are too high.

from the *post*:
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill.

so what were the 'descriptions' like? like 'a wet washrag over the face' as the the right-wingers say, or 'a little thing we do that doesn't cause death or destruction of vital organs' as the c.i.a. would probably put it? i would guess the descriptions were pretty sanitized.

not that anyone has covered themselves with glory here - far from it. but it's not like they showed the videotapes, i'm sure.

your pal,
blake

Here's what I came up with after breathing into a brown paper bag for a few minutes:

The annals of war stories are rife with tales of brave GIs throwing themselves on the grenade to save their comrades. Too bad a supposed "defender of the constitution" can't muster anything even close to the bravery of a common dogface when the very survival of the republic is on the line.

Before breathing into the brown paper bag all I wanted to say was "fuck you".

This is frankly too easy to resolve.

Speaker Pelosi should call for the briefing that she received be declassified and published.

It's on the table; it has been leaked by the Executive branch that the briefing was conducted. The Executive says it does not torture, so they should have no fear of this being public.

Pelosi faces reelection next year - her constituents should be able to see this for themselves, and judge the time she received it, and the threats she believed the country faced at the time, before voting.

Blackmail loses its effectiveness in daylight.

And Ms. Pelosi? If they don't declassify it, you need to investigate wherever it leads. Put impeachment back on the table. We know that people have died under the question - investigate it.

Americanist, you said: There would NOT have been any disclosure to Congress of anything remotely beyond the letter of the law or of our treaty obligations.

OK -- but you weren't there, and now this WaPo story claims otherwise. If their claims are untrue, no doubt all those who were at the briefings will cry foul. If they don't, doesn't that invalidate your point?

What constitutional (or other) purpose is served when congressional leaders are briefed under confidentiality restrictions? If the only way they can voice their objections is to write confidential letters that will be ignored, is this advice and consent? If not, what is it?

Any constitutional lawyers here?

blake - I agree 100%.

When they briefed on waterboarding, did the CIA tell the Congresspersons that this was in fact "the water cure", and Japanese officers were executed after WWII for using this technique?

Reading the reactions, it seems that a Republican said all the Democrats fully understood what was going on, one of the Democrats seems to recall that "enhanced interrogations" were mentioned but another denies hearing about "waterboarding". A third Democrat filed a letter in protest.

I agree with some other posters. This is a very subtle Republican smear. It implies that the Democrats were aware of and supported the use of torture at the same time that the Republicans still deny that anyone was using torture or that the White House knew anything about it.

Reading between the lines, it seems that the Congressmen were simply told that everything the White House was doing was effective but legal and to ask no further questions, and the Democrats simply went along with, and that is something we already knew.

"What ever happened to their moral compass?"
Our political leadership selection process has weeded them all out.

The real question is what should we do now. Starting with the current situation. Recriminations for past weakness may be in order if they make such behavior less likely in the future. We are likely the target of a deliberate attempt to sow discord among our ranks. We have to be careful how we respond.

Our representatives live in glass houses. But we still need them to throw stones when it is necessary.

Er, did any of the commenters arguing that this story is nothing but a smear notice that Walter Pincus contributed to the article? Granted, that's on page 3, so you do have to read all the way to the end.

Anyhow, crazy talk, right?

Just as crazy as the idea that Pelosi would get FISA, at midnight, right before blowing town for vacation.

Oh, wait...

Good on Jane Harman. Bad on Nancy Pelosi. What a boob! Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Look, who said we had to repeal the Bill of Rights because men with $1.98 boxcutters hijack four airplanes? 9-11 was a time for introspection and reflection - not blind, barbaric revenge. Anyone with a conscience, conservative or liberal, should have stood up in outrage, upon being told such barbaric behavior was being done in the name of the United States. How are we morally superior to the terrorists, if we engage in shit like this?

"So you would rather see the Democrats who were briefed be imprisoned, charged with treason (for violating their secrecy oaths) and hanged than to have them play the game and take back the majority?"

And what, pray tell, will this batch of Democrats do when they take back the majority? Wait a minute...don't the Democrats already have the majority? Yeah, I know, based on their behavior over the past year it's an easy fact to forget.

Let's assume you're referring to a filibuster-proof super majority in Congress and possession of the White House. Then what? There'll be lillies in the field and peace in the valley, no doubt. Who's not thinking now?

Regardless of who wins the next election, we will not be leaving Iraq anytime within this decade, we will not be reducing our military spending in any significant way and the imperial aims of American foreign policy will not be changed.

Back to your question. It seems clear to me that laws have been broken. Toture has been committed under the aegis of the American government. Torture is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Last time I checked, a treaty signed by an American president and ratified by an American senate is American law. Presto chango, someone is a yet to be convicted felon. Someone deserves to go to jail. It's not clear that any of the congress members in question broke any law themselves. However, abrogation of oversight responsibilities in the face of clearly illegal behavior constitutes a violation of the congressional oath of office, and so is an impeachable offense. If not jail, these scum deserve loss of position and public humiliation.

Democratic Party complaisance with immoral and illegal behavior is a major component in the rot at the heart of our polity. They deserve contempt and ridicule, not support.

Under our system of government an oligrachic duopoly seems to be the de facto steady state condition. The ruling class will rule. They have the motive, they have the means, they have the opportunity. Electing "more, better" Democrats isn't going to change that. We can, however, push back and limit the perfidy in a not completely ineffectual way. It starts by holding our own representatives accountable.

I call that damming with faint praise of Harman. I don't believe there was nothing she could have done or said at the time. I think she was more afraid of the political repercussions than any legal repercussions. Shame on all the others.

As many have mentioned here, this seems to me like a subtle distraction piece. It's definitely in the manner of the Bush operation (put out a story with many anonymous sources that smears the opponents, or at least makes them look no worse than you) so you can go on doing whatever nefarious thing you were doing before.

I'd also like to point out that the only named source is Porter Goss, who is hardly an unbiased source. Also, I'd like to echo blake and TheAmericanist in pointing out that the descriptions of "enhanced interrogation" were probably sanitized to the point that the techniques seemed tame. I mean really, you expect the CIA to proudly proclaim their adoption of a technique that Japanese officer after World War II were executed for? It's like the crooked CIA chief put it in "The Bourne Supremacy": if the CIA told Congress all the nasty things they really do, Congress wouldn't pay for it.

Something similar happened on the domestic spying issue. This is Senator Rockefeller's statement on that:

The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.

At the time, I expressed my concerns to Vice President Cheney that the limited information provided to Congress was so overly restricted that it prevented members of Congress from conducting meaningful oversight of the legal and operational aspects of the program.

These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.

The above, as well as Rocjefeller's letter to Cheney, are here.

So they brief a few senators and members of congress who are not allowed to discuss what they heard (even with colleagues) and later they use these briefings to say "but Congress knew"? And to imply that Congress approved?

Harman (and the rest of them) could have gone to the "police." That is, they could have demanded that John Ashcroft (or his stand-in, depending on the timing) appoint a special prosecutor. They could have also demanded that the CIA's attorney refer individuals to the DOJ (and FBI) for investigation and possible prosecution.

There is no way any of the Democrats in Congress would be in any legal jeopardy for referring illegal acts to the Justice Department. (And there are ways to do that while maintaining secrecy anyway.) Secrecy does not trump illegality.

But that would have taken a modest amount of political courage, something still in short supply within the Democratic Party. Heckuva job, Nancy.

And I am not going to be one of those people who says we have to stand behind our Dem leaders. At the very minimum they should be resigning from their leadership and committee positions so that moral people willing to hold this administration to account can take their places. The upshot of this scandal is that we now no the reasons impeachment has been taken off the table, and every single hearing by the has resulted in nothing more than testy letters asking the administration to please comply, with no realistic expectation that that request will be complied with. They are calculating that they can sweep into power by being less complicit in the Bush outrages than the Republicans. Now, not later, is the time to shake things up for the Dem leadership as we go into the primaries, because soon enough we will be stuck with no choices but to support the lesser of two evils.

Jake: "If writing CYA letters is the extent of Harman's objections, it's hard to laud her for it. What evidence do we have that she did anything significant to put an end to torture?"

She was the ranking minority member on the House Intelligence Committee, in a Congress where the Republican majority did everything it could to marginalize the opposition, inlcuding not disclosing information.

What exactly did you expect Rep. Harman to do -- storm the CIA offices with her staff, occupy the Director's office and hold him hostage?

Perhaps more appropriately, what did you and I do during that time to support her efforts -- that is, besides bitching on a blog?

It's about time that we as citizens do something to support the Democrats' efforts, instead of simply threatening to withhold our votes in the next election. Perhaps if more of us took the time to let them know that we have their backs, they might develop more of a backbone.

Digby points out that speeches on the floor are exempt from prosecution. This bizarre idea that classification trumps policy is getting absolutely over the top. The question of whether someone can be tortured or not is not a question that belongs behind any kind of classification wall. And even more to the point, the question of whether someone violated the law or not is no classifiable.

Explicitly so, if I recall correctly. Classifying activity to avoid criminal charges is illegal.

Bravo, jayackroyd. Excellent information...and exactly to the point.

"What exactly did you expect Rep. Harman to do -- storm the CIA offices with her staff, occupy the Director's office and hold him hostage?"

She could have stood on the House floor and told the world she had knowledge of illegal and reprehensible actions taken by government employees at the the behest of the president of the United States and urged her colleagues to investigate the president's extra legal behavior [one can investigate and debate an executive order to commit a crime without divulging any state secrets pertaining to the crime itself].

See, it's really not all that complicated. Harman and her ilk have little conscience and no courage.

I would like to know one more key detail: which members actually "approved" of it, as opposed to simply not talking about it because it was "still classified". The original Post article -- which, as Kevin says, was clearly triggered by someone with a grudge against the Congressional Dems -- is nevertheless deadly, especially given the confirmation from one of Pelosi's aides that she didn't object to the practice at the time, and Sen. Bob Graham's straight-faced statement that he "doesn't remember" any such briefings (this from the guy who's notorious for recording every single event that happens in his life in a personal diary on a minute-by-minute basis). But -- as the Post says -- besides Rep. Harman actually writing a protest letter, "[Sen.] Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat's public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices." And I'd also like to know just which members actually "specifically asked if the methods were tough enough", given that two solidly pro-Bush Republicans -- Porter Goss and Pat Roberts -- were among the members informed.

Still, this little revelation wrecks any attempt to use the torture issue on a simple "Republicans-bad, Democrats-good" basis, or to dispose of it with simple moralistic arguments -- it confirms that a very large number of people will always be tempted to fall back on it whenever they think the country is in "serious danger", as was still the case back in 2002. (No doubt a lot of Democrats at the time also lived in political terror of being accused of being "soft on terror" if they came out against torture at all in 2002, this being the period when Bush was riding highest politically on the issue and we were indeed all still keeping one ear cocked for the next explosion.) And so it confirms that, to get rid of it, we are going to have to emphasize that the MORAL arguments against torture can't be separated from the STRATEGIC arguments against it: that it does no good and in fact is actually counterproductive militarily. Do any of the Democratic candidates have the brains to do this? (And what does this news do to Pelosi's position as House leader?)

One more time: WOW -- once in a blue moon I think maybe I'm too harsh in my judgment of the utter stoooopidity y'all are capable of, but then: not so much.

"If their claims are untrue, no doubt all those who were at the briefings will cry foul. "

Umm.... they can't. When someone who is cleared for it is presented with classified material in an authorized manner, THEY CAN NOT REVEAL IT. Not even somebody else leaks a lie about it.

What part of this is unclear to you? Have you NEVER had a position of confidential responsibility in your life?

SCI refers to "secret compartmentalized information". That means information which is never shared in ALL its parts to any single person, and whose parts are carefully parsed so that nobody who knows enough of ANY part, knows anything useful about any other part.

In fact, folks are selected to receive access to SCI, precisely because they are properly incurious about stuff they don't need to know: that includes members of Congress. (Somebody ask about "the geometry of the test condition", if you want to know what that means.)

"Special access" refers to information that only folks with some damned good OPERATIONAL reason to know, ever hear about.

No member of Congress would EVER have qualified for the compartmentalized information that we were torturing prisoners. That is simply not the way classification works. Being briefed that Bush was gonna 'enhance interrogations', sure. But exactly HOW? Nuh-uh. They're LEGISLATORS, you nitwits.

Remember -- classification is a wholly EXECUTIVE function. There are members of Congress who are cleared for ANY level of classified material -- but that's the whole point of SCI: it's not about how CLEARED you are, but whether as an operational matter you have any reason to know any specific piece of information.

No member of Congress had any operational reason to know precisely how we were doing "enhanced interrogation". Psst -- they don't get to know the nuke codes, either.

So no, they were NOT told that we were dunking AQ prisoners' heads underwater and then demanding that they tell us what the is the capitol of Maryland.

Ah... but you guys are too stooopid not to understand that classification serves an EXECUTIVE function, too self-righteous to remember Civics 101.

All Bush has to do is wave the "but we TOLD them... something" flag, and you will LEAP to blame folks who actually win elections, who are thus tainted by the slightest hint of political competence: and YOU guys will happily help Bush do the fast shuffle.

Honest, you guys couldn't be any dumber if you took lessons.

The whole FISA thing already established the broad belief that those outside America have no rights.

We've already determined the value of "furriners". Why is anybody shocked by this? I'll bet most of you helped make it happen by supporting the warrentless wiretapping of foreigners.

I'm not happy with the Dems on this, but I'm far less happy with the Bush administration and the Republicans. As others have noted, this could well be mostly a trap or a distraction set up by the Bush administration: inform a few senators & representatives via a toned-down 'informational presentation' and then scare them about the GWOT and national security issues and threaten reprisals for leaks, so as soon as the bad news gets out Bush can say that some senior democrats knew about the water-boarding and approved it.

However, even if the democrats just rolled over like patsies, for those not seeing a difference between the parties, I'd suggest that it is highly unlikely that either Gore or Kerry would have got us involved in such a mess in Iraq had they been president, nor would they have instituted torture as national policy, nor would they be pulling Bush-type crap to get around laws, treaties, and ethics and to dismantle all the protections we would usually have against this sort of malfeasance. With even a little additional moral stiffening from other institutions (such as an independent AG and Justice Department that actually care about following the law, a judiciary that was willing to hear cases and more willing to go against the president, or a media that has not been cowed and purchased into submission), the democrats involved might have found some spine to resist such an idea, if resistance was even needed in the first place.

Americanist - Your argument is too cute by half.
If Harman didn't get a classified briefing about 'enhanced interrogation' in some detail then why would she have written a critical letter in response? Even if congress critters are unable to say anything about what they were told on a classified basis, they certainly are allowed to respond about what they were NOT told, right?
For example, Rockefeller explains "In the last Senate Intelligence Committee meeting we did not discuss the weather, Saudi Arabia or our favorite desserts."

Members of Congress take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

According to Harman,

"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

So what happens when these two oaths conflict? What if you discover in the process of doing your duties as a member of the intelligence committee that someone in the administration -- maybe even the President -- is subverting the Constitution? Which oath takes precedence?

Right, the first one.

Jake:We're talking about foreigners. The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY. Maybe the Geneva Convention, but I don't think that's part of the oath.

Well Americanist thank god your elephantine intelligence makes up for the stoopidity of so many of us here. Now can you explain whether this is just bad reporting or, if not, why it doesn't contradict what you are saying:

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

Are you saying that the Post -- or its sources -- got this wrong? Or were the members of congress told about waterboarding -- contrary to what you believe possible?

Also, you make a big deal about how those who go to such confidential briefings would never disclose what they heard there. So what about this:

A congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage — they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice — and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

Is this just journalists making stuff up? Or did Pelosi talk about stuf you claim she never would?

And I repeat my earlier question: What is the purpose of such briefings if those who attend are not allowed to do anything with the information they receive -- not even talk to their colleagues about it? How do they help the governance of the country?

If the only purpose is -- as it appears to be -- that the Administration can later say "but Congress was briefed" (implying that Congress approved) then this intself merits a lot of screaming on the part of Congress -- at the very least. So far though, nary a peep. Maybe tomorrow.

What do you think upholding the Constitution means, Karmakin? It means upholding the law, including treaties. Treaties are even singled out in the Constitution for special attention. As the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Geneva Convention is a ratified and signed treaty, which means it has the force of law. If the President violates a treaty, he is violating the law, and thereby the Constitution. Any member of Congress who discovers this is bound by his or her oath to defend the Constitution.

What JS said and what Americanist said.

I'm not convinced that Pelosi *isn't* gung ho on torture, but we've all seen this particular drama before with surveillance briefings. In a few days the news will filter out that the briefings were somewhat less than complete in describing everything that goes on. By then story's job, control of news coverage will be finished.

Boronx - You might be right. But Pelosi's rather complete statement through a spokesperson about 'techniques designed and cleared with agency lawyers' is going to be pretty hard to wiggle out of, no?

Take a look at Glenn Greenwald’s revelation ( http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/democrats ) that Jay Rockefeller and Pelosi (through her selection of Silvestre Reyes) are even more intimately entangled in the torture scandal than the new Post article makes out.

Just lovely. Well, the fact that we can no longer by any stretch of the imagination utilize the torture issue in a Democrat-vs.-Republican political morality play does not remove us of our obligation to get rid of it—and the only effective way to get rid of it is clearly to purge the public, once and for all, of the idea that there are anything more than extremely rare situations in which it might be even STRATEGICALLY worthwhile. Until we do that, the torture advocates will now have a new, tremendously powerful political argument to the voters that we should retain it (as Bryan Preston is already eagerly showing us over at "Hot Air"). The case for the Dems to put some anti-torture military man (Sen. Webb?) on their ticket is now even stronger -- in fact, at this point I’d say it’s damn near imperative (which naturally means that they won’t be smart enough to do it). Once again, there’s an excellent chance that the country will end up acquiescing in frequent torture, and bewailing that fact only decades later, when it’s safely too late to actually punish anyone for it. (See “My Lai, Massacre of”.)

The utterly brilliant theAmericanist writes:

When someone who is cleared for it is presented with classified material in an authorized manner, THEY CAN NOT REVEAL IT. Not even somebody else leaks a lie about it.

Er, no. This situation is covered by the speech and debate clause (Article I, section 6 of the Constitution).

And for those who are claiming that the story is a pure Republican disinformation ploy -- Walter Pincus, who has a lot of credibility, is listed as a contributor. Of course, to find that out, you have to read all the way to the end....

NOTE It certainly took the trolls a long time to get rolling on this one. Waiting on a conference call?

Nepeta, I found that bit in the article, but the source was anonymous.

The story is what it is, lambert, the question is whether it's as damning as so many make out.

theAmericanist SHOUTING at all the STOOPID RUBES who comment here, all the while demonstrating an inability to understand LOGIC has got to be the highlight of the last few day's comments sections.

"Off the Table" Quid pro Quo for becoming Speaker of the House. Nice.

"With one known exception, no formal objections were raised..."

Isn't that a really screwed up way of saying "An official objection was raized..."? Or would such a straight forward statement run counter to the impression the Post writer was trying to foist onto their readers?

NANCY PELOSI SEEMS LIKE A COMPLETE CHAMELEON WHO SHOULD BE RUN OUT OF WASHINGTON ON A RAIL- tell me again, just what are the differences between Congressional republicans and Democrats?

ABC News: Thursday, December 29, 2005. 12:35pm (AEDT)
CIA renditions began under Clinton: agent
The US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) controversial "rendition" program was launched under US president Bill Clinton, a former US counter-terrorism agent has told a German newspaper.

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, has told Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.

"President Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger and his terrorism adviser Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al Qaeda," Mr Scheuer said.

"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."

CBS News: March 6, 2005
"The option of not doing something is extraordinarily dangerous to the American people," says Michael Scheuer, who until three months ago was a senior CIA official in the counterterrorist center. Scheuer created the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit and helped set up the rendition program during the Clinton administration.

"Basically, the National Security Council gave us the mission, take down these cells, dismantle them and take people off the streets so they can't kill Americans," says Scheuer. "They just didn't give us anywhere to take the people after we captured."

So the CIA started taking suspects to Egypt and Jordan. Scheuer says renditions were authorized by Clinton's National Security Council and officials in Congress - and all understood what it meant to send suspects to those countries.

"They don't have the same legal system we have. But we know that going into it," says Scheuer. "And so the idea that we're gonna suddenly throw our hands up like Claude Raines in 'Casablanca' and say, 'I'm shocked that justice in Egypt isn't like it is in Milwaukee,' there's a certain disingenuousness to that."

Ok, let's impeach Clinton for the extraordinary renditions.

What -- he's no longer in office?

Then I guess we'll have to settle for impeaching Bush.

The US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) controversial "rendition" program was launched under US president Bill Clinton

So? Who here has defended Clinton for rendering suspects? No one? So what's the point of bringing it up? Thinking that two wrongs (like three lefts) makes a right?

As no one here has made a point that is negated or answered by your charge, I see no point in bringing it up, save petulance.

i seriously doubt they told graham much of anything.

jm: "[Rep. Harman] could have stood on the House floor and told the world she had knowledge of illegal and reprehensible actions taken by government employees at the the behest of the president ..."

Since you've probably never worked on Capitol Hill, jm, and thus aren't privy to the means and methodology as to how such classified briefings are conducted, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

When a member of Congress is granted a security clearance that allows him or her the privilege of access to classified material, they also take an oath to not publicly disclose such material, nor to even divulge its contents to their congressional colleagues. If Rep. Harman ever spoke to other members or went public about this particular issue, she'd be subject to arrest.

Further, given the track record of this administration for playing its cards close to the vest, even with members of their own party, and further given their penchant for misleading and misdirecting Congress and the public, it is entirely plausible that Rep. Harman was never told the exact specifics of what the term "enhanced interrogation" meant -- which, if I might hazard to guess, is probably the case here.

We don't know the contents of Rep. Harman's letter of protest, because that's also been classified, but I would think that her protest was in the form of an admonition for the White House's failure to disclose in detail the exact nature of "enhanced interrogation" and the human subjects upon whom the techniques were being performed.

Again, as I and others stated earlier, the Democrats were in the minority in Congress, and as such were really in no position to demand information or subpoena materials. Only the committee chairs hold such authority. Therefore, given her position as ranking minority member of the House Select Subcommittee on Intelligence, Rep. Harman was never in a legal position to do anything else other than file a protest, which the White House promptly classified.

If people are going to criticize members of Congress -- and Lord knows, there's a lot to be critical about -- then I would also urge them to educate themselves about the legislative process and current congressional organization. Otherwise, we have a lot of people who are doing nothing more than venting their spleen to no real effect, and are thus literally flailing away in the dark, with no real idea as to where to direct their ire or displeasure.

An invaluable reference site to bookmark is THOMAS, the Library of Congress' official website. From here, you can access information about current legislation and download copies of the original legislation and various committee drafts, find out which bills are referred to which committees, whether hearings are scheduled, etc.

Plus, the site provides links to the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate websites, so you can get contact information about a particular representative or senator, see what committee(s) he or she might be serving on, etc.

A good place to start on this particular issue of "enhanced interro-- oh, Hell, let's just call it for what it is, "Torture" -- is to contact the present chair of the House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence is Rep. Silvestrio Reyes (D-El Paso, TX). He can be reached at (202) 225-4831, or by writing to 2433 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515-4316.

Also, there are two people to contact in the Senate. First up is Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , who can be reached by phone at (202) 224-6472, or by writing at 531 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.

Also contact Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), who chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He can be reached at (202) 224-5042, and by writing at 201 Russell Senate Office building, Washington, DC 20510.

Be sure to also contact your own respective congressman and senator to demand congressional hearings on this or any other issue you have concerns about.

I'm turning in for the evening. 'Night, all.

The issue isn't black and white as people suggest. The pressure against disclosing top secret information is huge.

Over the ensuing months, did Pelosi & Harmon try other means short of blabbing to the press to get torture stopped?

majarosh is correct - renditions started under Bill Clinton. I also doubt they would stop under a Hillary Clinton administration. One more reason not to vote for Hillary. Thanks, majarosh. Let's elect someone for whom freedom and human rights is more than just a campaign slogan.

Peace out.

"You may think that congressional leaders ought to jeopardize their careers and risk jail in order to publicly protest stuff like this, but, sadly, in the real world that's not in the cards." Kevin

It is the job of these congressional leaders to ensure that our intelligence agencies comply with law. The resolution creating the Select Committee on Intelligence states:

"It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

In the real world shouldn't we expect that these democrats would have strenuously objected to torture? In the real world shouldn't we have expected that these democrats go public if the administration persisted in violating the law?

Sorry, Kevin, but your "real world" admonition is very Joe Klein.

These briefings seem to carry a Catch 22. As I understand them, they are high security briefings. To me, that means you can't go public about any concerns you might have or you have violated the understanding under which you were briefed. Am I wrong? That's one reason I've never been comfortable with them. They make you complict in acts you may have grave doubts about.

Lambert, honest: it helps if you know what you're talking about.

"This situation is covered by the speech and debate clause (Article I, section 6 of the Constitution)..." is NOT true.

Kindly cite ANY example that backs up what you imagine is your point. Show us an instance in which a US Representative or Senator was told any classified information and revealed it during floor debate.

EVEN.ONE.FUCKING.TIME.

Well?

In case you don't know how this is done, it is called "evidence". I cited some to the opposite effect, when I pointed out that it was common for opponents of the Nicaraguan contra policy to avoid classified briefings so they could not be accused of leaking secrets.

THAT'S how it's done.

Dodger gets the game: basically, the more authoritatively informed Members of Congress are about classified programs, the more constrained they are in publicly debating 'em.

If you don't LIKE that, Lambert, you're making progress: cuz when you posted about it, you were too fucking ignorant to even KNOW it. Ignorance is not a sound foundation for opinion.

But again, SCI level material like the actual techniques and specific results of "enhanced interrogation" would never have been shared in advance with the Congress. For one thing, it's ILLEGAL (or was, at the time of the briefings), and as a rule you don't tell the folks who write the laws that you're gonna break 'em cuz their whole power is based on writing the rules that you have to follow. When you tell 'em you're NOT gonna follow those rules, it can get messy: it looks like you're asking permission, when at most, maybe later, you may demand forgiveness.

So you don't tell 'em.

And there is a good reason, beyond the obvious political and legal consequences: this sorta thing is COMPARTMENTALIZED information. Nobody is supposed to know too much about it.

Doubtless what they briefed the Congress on (as has been known for years) is that we've got these guys in custody, it's not clear what their legal status is, we think they know stuff that we want to know in order to protect America, so we're gonna get creative about how we ask 'em questions. I doubt strongly that there wasn't then a brief exchange (if in fact it wasn't how each briefing STARTED) describing what the relevant laws were, and an assurance that everything would be done within the law.

That's NOT what the Post piece implies, and it is a particularly below the belt sorta implication, cuz by definition (and by law) the principals cannot refute the charges.

The amazing thing is that ya'll don't seem to GET that. In the kangaroo court of public opinion, you're the joey in the pouch.

Remember, too, that for the Congress to receive regular, detailed briefings on classified programs involves a high level of trust: there is a limit to just how much the Congress can compel the Executive to reveal, just as there is a limit to how much the Executive can hide and still get Congress to cooperate with funding and political support.

So it's not the law, as such, that governs these kinds of briefings: it's the mutual understanding that what is said in 'em will NOT be revealed, particularly for the kinds of short-term political gains these leaks clearly seek.

And you guys fall for it: hell, you've DIVED into the muck like shitty spelunkers.

theAmericanist
So it's not the law, as such, that governs these kinds of briefings: it's the mutual understanding that what is said in 'em will NOT be revealed, particularly for the kinds of short-term political gains these leaks clearly seek.

The implication of your logic is kind of humorous. According to you, congressmen are desperately trying to maintain their ignorance of classified things, while the executive branch is desperately trying to keep them as informed as possible.

What's the basic objection to "extraordinary rendition?" I mean, you're allowed to capture your opponents soldiers in war time, aren't you? And the Geneva Convention doesn't require you to give them a trial in a court of law, does it? Is the objection that there was never a formal congressional declaration of war against A.Q.? I can understand the existence of such a program might make us more hated, so, I understand that, but what is the legal objection?

Am I the only one who frankly doesn't have a clue as to The Americanist's political leanings, among other reasons because I can't quite get through his florid postings to understand what the fuck he's talking about?

Good for Kevin to point this out, but I don't know how he can credit Harmon without knowing what she said in her letter or considering what other alternatives were available to her if she truly opposed the methods at issue.

To me, the story reflects the reality that persons with actual responsibility for protecting Americans will and should approve some level of "enhanced interrogation techniques" when deemed necessary to protect innocent Americans. It is fine that our policy and our candidates to espouse "no torture," but I think that in practice the real world will trump lofty principles on this issue. I also think rest of the world would expect us to do what is necessary to try to protect ourselves and that they would and are doing the same thing.

It is fine that our policy and our candidates to espouse "no torture," but I think that in practice the real world will trump lofty principles on this issue.

Brian: In this case the world world and lofty principles coincide. Toture doesn't work, and further erordes our soft power in the bargain. It quite literally makes it harder to attain victory against terrorists.

In this case the world world = In this case the real world.

Need coffee.

Methinks it's the blinders you're looking through, Woody.

(I have solid progressive credentials; but it's not about me.)

What I've said here, plain as can be, is that Pelosi, et al, were NOT told specifics about the interrogations. That would be SCI level information at the time, and would not have been shared.

To the extent they were briefed, they are obligated by law NOT to reveal what they were, and were not told.

So in bitching that Pelosi ought to resign, etc., you guys are falling for a very old trick. Executive branch sources claim (hint, imply, wink) that Congress was in on waterboarding all along, and the ones the fingers point at cannot speak up to refute the lie.

Clear enough?

SJRSM: learn to read. What I said was that Congress has very limited powers to compel the Executive branch to tell them classified stuff.

Going too fast for you?

So in order to be properly informed, since after all they write the checks for all this, Congress has to nurture a mutual trust with the Executive branch that they will be told what they need to know... in order to write the checks.

BUT -- there are limits to what the Executive branch can, or should even try to hide from the Congress, because they DO depend on Representatives and Senators not only to write the checks, but also to provide political support and legal cover for whatever it is the Executive is doing.

Still too fast for you? Read it again.

In previous cases (like the Nicaraguan contras), Congressional critics would simply not go to classified briefings so that they could not be accused of leaks.

In this case, that model doesn't work well: it wasn't a matter of covert funding for a war. In this case, it was FIRST, the claim that waterboarding, etc., are not legally torture, and SECOND, that changing that would simply a matter of Executive interpretation rather t