Message #162328

[Harconen]

            Hillary Clinton is asked by a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee if she agrees with former Vice-President Dick Cheney that additional documents should be released to confirm that the heavily criticized interrogation methods were successful. Clinton replies, “Well, it won’t surprise you, I don’t consider him a particularly reliable source of information.” Although Clinton and members of Congress are eagerly denouncing the treatment of terrorist detainees in order to disparage the Bush administration, CIA leadership reported details of its techniques to members of Congress multiple times between 2002 and 2006 and had received permission to follow the practices. Confirmation of the disclosure comes from Obama’s national intelligence director, Dennis Blair, according to an April 22 WeeklyStandard.com story. Members of Congress repeatedly signed off on “enhanced interrogation methods,” such as waterboarding. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was a member of the House Intelligence Committee during the period she claims to have known nothing about the interrogation techniques. The Washington Post reported that in September of 2002 Pelosi attended a meeting on the subject and “…was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.” Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) also attended. There were more than 30 such briefings, and former CIA director Porter Goss states, “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing.” One Congressman recalls, “The reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.” Blair has since stated, “…these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us, and they are not essential to our national security.” (Blair apparently believes that preventing a terrorist attack on Los Angeles was not worth the interrogation efforts.) [2479, 2480, 2498, 2535, 2654]

            Obama’s Justice Department asks a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit brought against Iran by American diplomats who had been held hostage at their embassy for 444 days in 1979–1980. [2613]

            There are reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had agents following the tax protests of April 15, and was keeping track of the organizers of each local event. FBI agents allegedly engaged in covert video surveillance and data collection, independent of local law enforcement. [2437, 2442]

            In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Company on April 20, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano states the United States needs stronger border security because of 9/11 terrorists entering the country across the border with Canada. She is immediately corrected by the interviewer, who points out that none of the perpetrators of 9/11 entered the United States via Canada. Napolitano’s strange response is, “I can’t talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here’s the future. The future is we have borders.” [2468]

            Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cancels plans to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) summit in May because Obama is not willing to meet with him during the conference. [2453]

            Having intentionally released classified terrorist interrogation memos from the Bush administration, Obama is questioned on April 21 about criminal investigations into the involvement of former officials. He responds, “If and when there needs to be a fuller accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break entirely along party lines… that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.” Although Obama has stated he will not prosecute CIA interrogators who were following orders, he would not rule out prosecuting those who drafted the orders and their related legal opinions—even though he had previously promised that he would not support such actions. “I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general, weighing the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. There are a host of very complicated issues involved there.” (Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had stated on April 19 that there would be no such prosecutions; White House aides later said Emanuel “misspoke.”) Publicly going after CIA or Bush administration officials may have the effect of watering down future interrogation techniques to the extent that they will become ineffective, because those involved will tread lightly out of fear of prosecution. Further, foreign intelligence agencies will be less likely to share valuable information with U.S. operatives. Terrorists following the situation will be pleased if there are prosecutions of U.S. officials or intelligence officers because it will signal to them that they themselves have less to fear if apprehended. [2458, 2494]

            On April 21, Obama states that if Congress wants an investigation of the background of the alleged CIA tortures of terrorist detainees he would prefer an independent commission “outside of the typical (Congressional) hearing process” and it should include “independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility.” Two day later the White House changes its mind, with press secretary Robert Gibbs saying, “The President determined that the concept didn’t seem altogether that workable in this case.” [2506]

            Obama has not suggested how his administration would obtain information from Osama bin Laden should he be captured. If bin Laden has been following the U.S. media, he knows he would be well fed; given first-rate medical care; never slapped or deprived of sleep; safe from exposure to loud, obnoxious music; guaranteed a warm cell free of insects; and never be waterboarded. He likely would also expect a trial in the United States with an outstanding legal defense team generously paid for by U.S. taxpayers—and perhaps even an acquittal based on “improperly gained intelligence information” or “religious discrimination.”