Isn’t that interesting:
CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress last month that senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001, the chairman and other members of the House Intelligence Committee said in letters revealed Wednesday.
Exactly what actions Panetta disclosed to the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 are unclear, but committee chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said that the CIA outright lied in one case.
“These notifications have led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one case) was affirmatively lied to,” Reyes wrote in a letter Tuesday to Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the committee’s senior Republican. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.
Didn’t the CIA destroy a bunch of tapes of them torturing people? Why was it ever in doubt whether or not they had lied to or mislead Congress again? I keep forgetting why up was down in the Bush era.
Ugh
Why do we have a CIA again?
Thrashbleugrass
Up is still down for far too many people; I’m going to go out on a limb and say that instapundit links to hot airs comment about this being the white house providing political cover for pelosi before noon, and another hundred a- and b- list blogs linking to the both before noon
I’ve got a dollar riding on it
Montysano
When Pelosi accused the CIA of lying, the GOP and their echo chamber said some pretty ugly things about her. Can I assume that a full and heartfelt apology is forthcoming?
WyldPirate
Same old same old if you ask me. Egregious illegal crap is done by our government all the time.
It’s what the moneyed oligarchy that owns our government wants. And what they want is what they get. Obama won’t be any different than the others–a facilitator.
Mjaum
@WyldPirate
The CIA is not the government. They have misled and lied to the government, the part of the government specifically directed to oversee their actions, about cases involving national security.
In most countries, I believe something like this would be considered treason. It certainly would lead to careers ending.
Ugh
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that instapundit links to hot airs comment about this being the white house providing political cover for pelosi before noon
Per the front page of foxnews.com “GOP argues is an effort to protect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi”
WyldPirate
@mjaum
I know that. It’s part of the government, so what?
Treasonous and illegal acts are committed at all levels by all members of government. People get away with them all of the time.
lotus
OT, but this is interesting too: go check out The Guardian — Rupe’s Gnus been caught awfully red-handed:
NoW hacked the phones of two or three thousand British pols, celebrities, athletes . . . tried to pay (some of) them off to keep quiet, but somebody spilled.
fastandsloppy
Why do you hate America?
(I love the classics)
inkadu
Is there an “obvious” tag, or is that just for fark?
Morbo
I’d say it’s more vindication than revenge, but whatever.
Keith
What’s the over/under on how long it takes – if ever – for Drudge to link to this? Therein, IMO, lies his undoing in this age, as he expects to be the only source of breaking news and hence can suppress that which doesn’t fit his goals/narratives, but nowadays the Internet-savvy masses hear about stuff like this anyway, and he winds up missing what would have otherwise been scoops.
MattF
@Montysano
Ha ha. It doesn’t matter that the she-devil was right all along. Armani! Botox! Teleprompter! Birth certificate!
Fulcanelli
Shhhhhhh! If you listen carefully you can hear John Boehner’s faint screams in the distance. It’s morning in Obama’s America, bitches.
John Cole
BTW- I still think Pelosi knew more than she is admitting. I think there was an period of open secrets and denial plausibility in which we winked and nodded and “got tough on the people who hit us.”
Zach
There goes one of Newt Gingrich’s few “wins” in the public debate since he’s decided to run for President. Between stupidly calling for Pelosi’s resignation (when it was obvious she wasn’t lying) and calling Sotomayor a racist (no… wait… a racialist!), hopefully that’s enough to convince the GOP that Newt’s not all he’s cracked up to be, and that, even if he was, intellect alone won’t mimic Obama’s success absent common sense.
If you look at the timing, we’d already waterboarded before any of the CIA briefings on the technique… we just did it in conjunction with foreign intelligence services. The congressional briefings were just CYA so that people could later leak to Hoekstra what to request of the CIA to make it look like Pelosi looked bad. Rockefeller and Harman *did* know a lot, but they haven’t been particularly hypocritical about it.
Zach
@John Cole: I think everyone assumed we were torturing. I always assumed we tortured in extremely rare circumstances. I wouldn’t approve of it, but it seemed likely to have happened repeatedly during the Cold War and likely to happen post-9/11. I just didn’t imagine that it would be this widespread and that absurd legal justifications would be built to support it. I mean, go back and read the “prototypical interrogation” memo that was declassified. For “high value” detainees, the *starting point* of interrogations was naked, chained to the floor. Torture was option #1, despite what was claimed at the time and what’s still claimed today (if they cooperated from that point, they could win back their dignity).
Kirk Spencer
@WyldPirate:
I got tired of saying this when that “treason” word came from the right, I can see it’s going to be just as bad from the left.
In the US, “Treason” has a very specific definition. It has this because of abuses the framers of the constitution experienced – the habit of people with power applying the label to those who disagreed, for one example.
Thus in the US treason is:
Now I’ve seen some really stupid sh;t from people trying to use the “adhering to their enemies” or “giving aid and comfort” terms, but even those won’t apply here.
Illegal? You betcha. Treasonous? No. In my opinion, all you do when you label acts that way is demonstrate your rant is either hyperbolic or ignorant.
Brick Oven Bill
Re: Credible Testimony
Congressman Reyes, John Cole’s Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is asked whether Hezbollah is a Sunni or Shia organization:
“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah . . .” replied Mr Reyes. “Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”
flounder
Because of the journalistic doctrine that all stories must lack any historical context. Incidentally, this “Memento Doctrine” also allows much of the contrarianism you speak of, keeps total hacks like Kristol employed, and allows journalists to go back to proven liars like Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl as reliable Sunday morning guests.
Librarian
Mike Allen of Politico was on CNN this morning, saying, oooo, oooo, the Democrats better stop attacking the CIA because it makes them look weak on terror, and besides, “the public” supports the CIA. Of course, he didn’t have a shred of evidence to support that claim, no poll numbers, nothing. I guess he got it from where he gets most of his journalism from- out of his ass. He’s apparently cool with the CIA breaking the law and lying about it.
anonevent
This is all Pelosi’s fault. The CIA wouldn’t have to lie to her if she weren’t Pelosi. So, there.
WyldPirate
@Kirk Spencer:
I didn’t label the CIA “act” in question here as treasonous per se. And as you note, I also used the word illegal in my statement to differentiate between the two. I was simply making a cynical comment meant to convey my dismay that–in general–our nation is governed by a bunch of worthless, self-serving dirtbags.
If you need any more help on your reading comprehension, let me know. Otherwise, you can pick your nits elsewhere.
gopher2b
It’s pretty obvious its time to scrap the CIA and start over with a spy agency that (1) actually works, and (2) doesn’t torture people
Sloegin
So far, when the CIA and Panetta reply to the charge, their reply is: “It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress.”
Pretty much textbook non-denial denial. Why isn’t this instantly obvious?
joe from Lowell
It is instantly obvious, Sloegin.
The CIA has to say it anyway, even when we know they know we know they know we know. They know.
John PM
@gopher2b: #24
I have said that first part numerous times on BJ, but this goes beyond the CIA to all intelligence agenices in the federal government, of which I think there are at least 10 according to federal statute. The historical problem seems to be, however, that once the federal government sets up an intelligence agency, abuse follows soon after (see e.g., the FBI under Hoover). We need to ask a more basic question: Do we actualy need an intelligence agency? Most people assume the answer is yes, but this answer is not self-evident. Assuming the answer is yes, then what is the purpose of this new and improved intelligence agency? Saying that we need to start over with a spy agency that “actually works” is meaningless. Presumably, many of the people at the CIA think that it works just fine. Currently, the responsibilities of the Director of the CIA are to:
50 U.S.C. 403-4a(d)
Based on this, the CIA’s main purpose is to collect and analyze intelligence data, and then disseminate it to the appropriate agencies in the federal government. Of course, subsection (4) is a very broad catch-all provision and no doubt provides the CIA with the ability to conduct many of the questionable actions it has taken over the years. At the very least, I would take out subsection (4) and make the new intelligence agency a purely gathering and analytical organization. If any action needs to be taken based on intelligence, such decision would need to be made by the President and the appropriate Congressional committees. The approved action would then be carried out by the military. No more black-ops crap. That is my two cents.
Qbert
Funny, I recall how the media used Panetta’s earlier “nondenial” as ammunition against Pelosi.
LD50
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I recall reading that during the Bush era, the CIA conducted separate briefings for Democratic members of Congress versus those for Republicans. Has anyone else read that?
LD50
Of course not. Anything critical of Pelosi is “freedom of speech and constructive criticism of a public servant”.
Evidently Pelosi was neither a little girl once, nor just like us.
lotus
@LD50: #29
Yes, but I don’t have a link for it.
Kirk Spencer
@WyldPirate: Oddly, I tend to take the word “and” as a connective conjunction instead of the boolean conjunction you seem to be intending. No, you did not specify “this act” as treasonous, but in the context of the thread it’s what your post seemed to mean.
Reading comprehension is a fickle thing; often there’s a case to be made for unclear writing being the problem.
Zach
@LD50: If you look at the document Hoekstra requested and used to damn Pelosi, you’ll see that there were some separate briefings. Additionally, sometimes people are listed together, but actually received briefings apart from each other. This is pretty normal, I believe, and might explain why Hoekstra’s so damn sure everyone knew we were waterboarding so long ago and apparently wrong about it.
Mjaum
@Kirk Spencer
Mr. Spencer, I believe it was I who first introduced “treason” to this thread. However, I did include the words “in most countries”.
Even so, I find the idea of an intelligence service which is intentionally giving incorrect intelligence to the decision-makers in their government to be highly disturbing at the very least.
Also, I have no problem in finding logical ways in which what has happened could be defined as treason, even with the definitions as you give them. It rather depends on the definition of “their enemies”. Which, it seems to me, is a hole big enough to drive the Isle of Cuba through.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
It’s not just torture (or rather, it goes beyond just the torture). You may recall how the Bush White House was hot to trot for invading Iraq, and looking for a reason for Congress to authorise this. What was said by the CIA to Congress at the time, and how accurate did it turn out to be?
Anne Laurie
John, you’re forgetting that Nancy Pelosi had been assigned the ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’ role for that particular period. Part of the CIA’s long-established modus operandi is tailoring their ‘admissions’ for different audiences. I’m sure that Hoekstra, for instance, got to see lots of torture-pr0n photos and similar we’re-tuff-on-terrists spin, while Pelosi was treated as someone slightly more dangerous to Real America(tm) than Osama bin Laden. The fact that Pelosi and Hoekstra would thereafter describe two totally different realities was a feature, not a bug.
amocz
Once upon a time, in the long lost days before 9/11, the “turf” over which the games of the intel agencies were played was divided up, so that the FBI was responsible for “domestic” operations, where prosecution under the US legal system was at least a potential goal, so FBI evidentiary procedures tended toward the meticulous end of the spectrum; and the CIA was responsible for “foreign” operations, where compliance with the US legal code, or any legal code, was regarded as “optional” at best, and potential targets were arguably non-citizens without any “rights” which had to be observed, leading the CIA to adopt a more “cavalier” (i.e, like a cowboy) attitude as to the observance of legal codes and norms.
In particular, the idea that “you can’t lie to Congress about what you are doing, because they represent The People, who have a right to know, blah-blah-blah” is a proposition so utterly at odds with the mission and mindset of the CIA, that only complete fools or the professionally retarded classes can affect surprise at the “revelation” that, “OMG teh CIA is being less-than-truthful with the Congess about this and that aspect of the lawless behavior which has always been their stock-in-trade, OH NOOOES!!”
I am reminded of the scene in A Man For All Seasons, where Thomas More defends his willingness to give “the devil” his day in court to William Roper:
In the new legal landscape unveiled in the months after 9/11, anthrax, the USAPATRIOT Act, etc., the laws are indeed All Flat: “enforcement optional, due to reasons of national security that you, the people, are not entitled/too unreliable to know about, so you and your elected representatives can eat this bag of dicks, and like it!” The Obama Administration, in which I previously placed at least a little Hope For Change in the right direction (i.e., back toward the pre-9/11 status-quo) has been nothing but a disappointment, is essentially owned by Wall Street, and is not about to make any but the most cosmetic of changes to the restore the rule of law. That “thick forest of laws” must remain clear-cut, to provide us a free field-of-fire against the invading hordes of Islamocommexifascist bogeyterrorists that we are busy creating in Whereverstan. So if you know what’s good for you, you’ll keep your head down, your eyes and mouth shut (except when watching Faux Noise), then bend over and kiss your country goodbye. That is all.
–AManOfConstantZorro