Liberals back Speaker in briefing controversy on interrogation tactics

The Hill ^ | May 13, 2009 | Mike Soraghan

[jazusamo]

Some of the most vehement critics of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” are standing behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), despite accusations that she didn’t speak up forcefully enough when she first learned of them.

“The information she was given was minimal, maybe not even accurate,” said Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.). “She wasn’t in the majority in 2002. George W. Bush was the president.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a Judiciary subcommittee chairman who has pushed for sanctions against Justice Department lawyers who approved techniques such as waterboarding, says the important question is what the executive branch did to detainees. The rest, he said, is a diversion.

“No one says Nancy Pelosi authorized torture,” Nadler said. “It’s like a kid saying, ‘Well, she did it too.’ Well, she didn’t do it.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that Pelosi was being “super-careful.”

“I’ve always known Nancy to not mix her responsibilities with her public image,” Woolsey said.

Hinchey, Nadler and Woolsey hail from the left wing of the Democratic Caucus, as does Pelosi. But the left has not always been supportive of how Pelosi has handled Bush intelligence practices, such as warrantless wiretapping, and some liberal groups are not happy with revelations of how Pelosi handled the interrogation issue in 2002 and 2003.

Other members of the Progressive Caucus were more cautious Wednesday. Asked about how Pelosi handled the revelations of the administration’s interrogation program in 2002 and 2003, Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) declined to comment.

“I have no knowledge of what happened back then,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), walking into the House chamber.

Republicans, seeking to stave off investigations into the Bush administration officials who authorized the interrogation techniques that President Obama has deemed “torture,” have sought to turn the tables on Pelosi.

They say she received briefings from intelligence officials in September 2002 on techniques used against terrorism suspects like Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded. CIA documents released at the request of congressional Republicans show that one of her aides was briefed specifically on waterboarding in February 2003.

Pelosi maintains that she was never told detainees were being waterboarded, even though the practice began in August 2002. She has said she concurred in a protest after the 2003 briefing, but the practice continued for at least a month afterward.

Democrats also stress that they passed legislation in the House banning torture shortly after they took control of Congress in 2007.

Republicans turned up the heat Wednesday when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) threatened to try to call Pelosi as a witness in the Senate investigation of the interrogation program.

Members of those groups that have battled to expose the Bush administration’s interrogation practices have a mixed view of how Pelosi handled the briefings that addressed enhanced interrogation techniques. But it hasn’t persuaded them to back off on their call for independent investigation into Bush’s interrogation policies.

Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said it looks like Pelosi “knuckled under to national security” and accepted Bush administration explanations.

“I’m deeply disappointed to learn that Nancy Pelosi knew about what was going on at a time when Congress would have been in a position to do something about it,” Warren said. “During the Bush administration, Democrats were uniformly weak on recognizing legitimate human rights issues wrapped up in national security.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union’s Caroline Fredrickson was more hesitant to criticize Pelosi’s handling of the situation, saying the available information has been distorted by partisan sniping.

“We don’t know what version of the briefing they were given,” said Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. “That’s why we need an independent investigation by a special counsel.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights wants both a criminal prosecution and a “truth commission” to investigate the interrogation policies.

Democratic members say nothing would have been able to stop the Bush administration.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) said it’s an ongoing, unresolved question regarding what lawmakers can do with the information they receive.

“There have been heated exchanges in those briefings about what was being done, including torture and other issues,” said Abercrombie, who has gotten briefings as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “We are under strict legal sanction. This issue goes back as far as the Pentagon Papers. We’ve never resolved it.”

[jazusamo]

LOL!

Now I could believe that if she said it.

[Nateman]

Rush made an interesting point today about Pelosi : Obama seems to want her to twist in the wind. The # 2 House RAT is a close friend of Rahm. If Rush is correct this is very good news, it means the breakdown of party unity as recriminations fester.

We were fortunate that the same kind of thing happened under FDR when he wanted a different Senate leader and the resulting bad blood blunted his evil juggernaut.

[jazusamo]

Thanks! That’s interesting and it sounds reasonable, there’s been some here in the last week saying Obama’s not fond of Pelosi and that could explain it.