Tweet
I asked CIA spokesman George Little to respond to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) charge that the CIA misled Congress about torture. Here’s his response:
“The language in the chart — ‘a description of the particular EITs that had been employed’ — is true to the language in the Agency’s records.”
The chart in question is the CIA’s account of its congressional briefings. EITs means “enhanced interrogation techniques.” CIA Director Leon Panetta’s letter to Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) accompanying the chart includes the line, “This information, however, is draw from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.”
Have a go in comments.
Update: Note — as Greg Sargent did a couple days ago in an earlier iteration of this unfolding story — that the response doesn’t specify that Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding, which is what Hoekstra specifically accused her of knowing about. You can infer that waterboarding was one of the "particular EITs that had been employed," because it had been employed on Abu Zubaydah, but Little doesn’t say that outright.
Crossposted to The Streak.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Hmm, Congress/Obama vs. CIA/Cheney?
I note that there were at least two, and possibly four September 2002 briefings. Goss has never said that he was with Pelosi at the briefing. He has simply said “I was told”. So it’s possible that the “CIA description” is a composite summary…material that differed in each briefing was merged in the description. Goss may have not gotten the same briefing as Pelosi.
There is some evidence of this consolidation in the wording itself.
Note that there is some apparent redundancy in the description. If you describe the particular EITs that had been deployed…would that not also include those used on Abu Zubaydah? Why say it again?
We also now have both Bob Graham and Pelosi stating that they were definitely not told about waterboarding.
Here there is not specific descriptor of waterboarding or any other technique. It is only on 2/4-2/5/2003 [with other Congressional leaders being briefed] that waterboarding is specially mentioned.
So perhaps there is some evidence that the redundancy contains the CIA trying to finesse two separate briefings into a single “legal” description. Note that there is an odd verb tense shift. In the first sentence the phrase “use of EITs” on AZ is made. Does that mean ‘use’ in the past tense (already used?)…present time…or future application? Is it use in a definitive mode, or as a possibility? In the third sentence the term is definitely past tense “that had been deployed” [which presumably means actually used].
So if there were two meetings, one for Goss and a different one for Pelosi…or perhaps an additional supplementary add-on for Goss after Pelosi had left….this might explain the redundant language and tense shift.
And what the hell would Hoekstra know what Pelosi was briefed on? He was not there at the briefings in 2002 when Pelosi was briefed. His first briefing wasn’t until 2005…and it wasn’t with Pelosi.
It’s clear that he’s ASSuming that “waterboarding” was specifically mentioned…when all it says is EITs. That could mean anything…long, repeated questioning. Shouting at the detainee. “Enhanced Interrogation” is a concealing euphemism…that suggests that it’s only something that involves questioning. It doesn’t necessarily suggest, overtly, torture.
The descriptions are replete with variations of the above nature. Either internal redundancies or variations in what the House vs. the Senate Congressional leaders were told.
Take the February 4th and 5th briefings. These should have the same wording but they don’t. In the first the fact that tapes were made of interrogations of both al Nashiri and AZ are disclosed…in the second description on the fact that AZ (no al Nashiri) was taped is noted. In the second briefing it’;s noted that the IG is investigating the tapes and they would be destroyed soon thereafter. But the day before neither the IG study, nor possible destruction is noted. The DOJ approval process is broached in the first briefing, but isn’t cited in the latter.
And how much of this was told Rockefeller in his separate briefing? Is this a composite of what was disclosed to both Roberts and Rockefeller? It’s Odd that Hoekstra is riding point on this…where is Roberts?
Lot’s of differences.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov……rboarding/
CIA memo: “a description of the particular EITs that had been employed”
Alternate version that would allow for Pelosi and the CIA to be telling the truth: “a description of particular EITs that had been employed”
One word makes a big difference.
Alternatively, the CIA described EITs that had been employed, but did not explain that they had been employed. If that’s the case, then the CIA memo and Pelosi’s statement are technically consistent.