Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Pelosi May 2002 Statement Casts Further Doubt On Her Claims

    Pelosi May 2002 Statement Casts Further Doubt On Her Claims

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has denied being briefed in September 2002 about the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi claims she was told that the technique had not been used (when in fact it had been used a month earlier). Pelosi uses this September 2002 briefing, and the alleged concealment of waterboarding, to support her claim that the CIA misled Congress.

    Pelosi says she first learned of the waterboarding in February 2003, when her aide was briefed on the issue, and relayed the information to her. CIA Director Leon Panetta states that CIA records show that Pelosi was in fact briefed on the techniques used on Zubaydah at the September 2002 briefing.

    We do not know at this time what other records exist showing what was said at the September 2002 briefing, but this quotation from Pelosi in May 2002 lends credibility to the CIA’s account. Pelosi clearly was being kept apprised of the specific details Zubaybah’s interrogation and the difficulty of getting Zubaydah to give up all he knew.

    In May 2002, the government announced a terror alert based in part on information Zubaydah had revealed about attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge and other landmarks, although Zubaydah was being evasive as to whether there was an active plan. Pelosi was quoted as being aware of the details of the interrogation (italics in quotation mine):

    CNN.com, May 22, 2002: Last Monday night, the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force–a round-the-clock operation at the New York field office of the FBI–got a call from FBI headquarters. Abu Zubaydah, the highest al-Qaeda official to be captured by the U.S., had told interrogators that he had heard other Osama bin Laden loyalists discussing attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty and other U.S. landmarks. But, a federal law-enforcement official told TIME, Abu Zubaydah had said the conversations took place a while back and claimed he knew of no particular plan. Since his capture in March, Abu Zubaydah has shared some valuable information, says a senior U.S. intelligence source. “He’s not b.s.ing us on everything.” Then again, says Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, “he is also very skilled at avoiding interrogation. He is an agent of disinformation.”

    So as of May 2002, Pelosi knew the details of the interrogation of Zubaydah, and the problems the CIA was encountering due to Zubaydah’s evasiveness. It does not take any leap of imagination to believe that Pelosi, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, would have been kept informed of the progress of the interrogation, including the use of waterboarding months later.

    It would take an incredible leap of imagination to believe that the CIA would tell Pelosi about all the problems with the interrogation of Zubaydah, but not tell her what was being done to solve those problems. Particularly when the waterboarding revealed that the plot against the Brooklyn Bridge, about which Pelosi publicly spoke, was revealed to be real based on information Zubaydah provided after being waterboarded.

    A leap of imagination is exactly what Pelosi is asking us to do with her ever-changing explanations.

    —————————————————
    Related Posts:
    ►Pelosi Accuses CIA Of Lying
    ►Dems Lack Waterboarding Exit Strategy
    ►Pelosi Surrounds Herself With Herself

    Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Well, Reign2020, you’ve exposed yourself as the moral coward I thought you were. For goodness’ sake, I wasn’t expecting something so definitive you’d stake your immortal soul on it. But if you’re not willing to concede that it would be permissible to cause some pain and discomfort in order to elicit information from an Abu Zubadaiya, then frankly you have no grounds to make any pronouncements as to what is torture and what is not.

    The fact of the matter is that the definition of torture you have provided is necessarily subjective. What, exactly, constitutes “severe”? If you’re not willing to offer an example of what constitutes pain and suffering that doesn’t rise to the level of torture, why should you be offered any credibility when you so categorically claim that waterboarding is torture? You’re unwilling to participate in the actual debate, only to offer unsupported judgements. And yet the people who were actually involved in these decisions went through considerable deliberation and analysis to arrive at their conclusions. We’re supposed to take your word over theirs?

    As a disabled veteran having served in Iraq, and with 12 years in the military this whole thing makes me laugh. We are not talking about criminals here, we are talking about religious zealots/fanatics that want to kill anyone who doesn’t convert to their beliefs. There is no negotiations or middle ground with them, it is either kill them to the last or they will continue to spew their hate filled message and try to rebuild their ranks.

    So they got a little water poured on them, and it scared them. If it saved one innocent life then it is worth it. They are not soldiers and they didn’t sign the Geneva Convention, so they are entitled to no protection under it. They are not citizens of this country, so to my thinking they have no constitutional rights.

    You have our military that are stretched to the limits doing multiple tours in combat zones, but all the liberal whiners can do is worry about these scumbags? What about our troops and their families that have kids who barely know their father/mother because they have been deployed multiple times over the past 8 years? How about picking up a weapon and standing a post, so they can stand down? Maybe then any of democrats will earn some of my respect, and see how they enjoy the media’s Monday morning quarterbacking when a mission goes wrong.

    Maybe it is time that people really rethink our priorities? Try caring about our own instead of these vermin, and we might be started on the right track.

    Reign2020, like I said before. I have trouble believing that you are as ignorant as you pretend to be. Simply stating you definition of torture, interpreted as you think it should be interpreted, demonstrates an incredible lack of intellectual curiosity. Why even bother stating your point when it is so weak. Why join a discussion that you have no intentions of contributing anything meaningful to?

    The fact is that your definition and interpretation of torture are not the legal definition or interpretation. Professor Jacobson has already discussed and disposed of this issue, in his post:

    http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/no-prosecution-because-no-crime.html

    the legal definition of torture is found in:

    18 U.S.C. sec. 2340

    As used in this chapter–

    (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

    (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from–
    (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
    (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
    (C) the threat of imminent death; or
    (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

    (3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

    If you read that post you will notice that not only is your definition inaccurate, but the interpretation is hardly clear or settled. Specifically, the legal definition of torture requires the person to intentionally inflict SEVERE pain and suffering of a PROLONGED nature. Seeing as we subject our own soldiers to this treatment, it is doubtful that it would have such effects. Therefore, water boarding is far from a resolved issue. The fact that YOU have resolved the issue in YOUR own intellectually incurious mind, does not mean the rest of this country has.

    The fact remains that those who authorized water boarding and maintain that is not torture are making an intellectually consistent argument whether you agree with the premise behind it or not. However, Speaker Pelosi who authorized what she apparently thinks is torture has a lot of explaining to do.

    The two naive kids who first posted have the same rationale as ThinkProgress (which I posted on). We think it is, so it is, now do what we want.

    That just doesn’t work in the real world, kiddos.

    Grinder, how often do you smoke crack? One thing the MSM has never done is carry the water for Republicans. Maybe Pelois, Reid et.al, but not Republicans.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend