Yesterday, the CIA released a table of its briefings to Congress on enhanced interrogation techniques. Most of the heat of the story has been directed at Nancy Pelosi, because the memo seems to contradict her claim that she was never told that waterboarding was actually being used.
But the memo also mentions six briefings of South Bay Rep. Jane Harman. Her first briefing was on Feb. 5, 2003, shortly after she became the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She also had briefings on the topic on Sept. 4, 2003, July 13, 2004, Jan. 25, 2005, March 8, 2005, and Sept. 6, 2006. There was also a briefing for the full committee on Nov. 16, 2006.
The memo states that on July 13, 2004,
Harman's concern was that Congress was not given enough of a role in setting interrogation policy. In February 2005, she suggested a legislative compromise that would have permitted "coercive" techniques in order to stop a plot to kill Americans. Some critics, and even some supporters, have described the concept as "torture warrants."
Asked by the New York Times if it would be possible to distinguish between torture and coercive interrogation, Harman said, "We have to try."
But the memo also mentions six briefings of South Bay Rep. Jane Harman. Her first briefing was on Feb. 5, 2003, shortly after she became the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She also had briefings on the topic on Sept. 4, 2003, July 13, 2004, Jan. 25, 2005, March 8, 2005, and Sept. 6, 2006. There was also a briefing for the full committee on Nov. 16, 2006.The memo states that on July 13, 2004,
EITs were discussed, including a specific mention of waterboarding as one of the EITs. Discussion of CIA currently seeking reaffirmation from DOJ on use of EITs as well as renewed policy approval from principals to continue using EITs.Recall that shortly after her first briefing on the program, Harman sent a letter to the CIA expressing some reservations. In that letter, she was particularly worried that the techniques had not been approved by the White House:
In particular, I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?Now we know that in July 2004, her briefers made sure she knew that they had.
Harman's concern was that Congress was not given enough of a role in setting interrogation policy. In February 2005, she suggested a legislative compromise that would have permitted "coercive" techniques in order to stop a plot to kill Americans. Some critics, and even some supporters, have described the concept as "torture warrants."
Asked by the New York Times if it would be possible to distinguish between torture and coercive interrogation, Harman said, "We have to try."
"If you're serious about trying to get information in advance of an attack, interrogation has to be one of the main tools," she said. "It has to be made to work. I'm OK with it not being pretty."That idea went nowhere.
Leave a comment