Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[American Horse]

Source for this assertion?

Let's go straight to the most recent source and a first hand participant:

PETER HOEKSTRA – WSJ April 23, 2009
Congress Knew About the Interrogations - WSJ.com
(here are two specific paragraphs on the subject)

“It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.”

“Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.”

(Peter Hoekstra, the author of these statements, and Porter Goss were there in the briefing rooms when other members read and commented on these memo’s and know first hand. Hoekstra is calling for release of the names of attendees, dates, times, and other information pertaining to these briefings to the public)

.

This piece by Hostra asserts "Congress knew" that prisoners were being waterboarded with scant details as to who knew what or how. It's a bit inconsistent in that it says "It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques," and "I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques."

That is not saying all of Congress knew, or that that members of Congress received the memos and approved them, or were aware of the actually activities being done. If selected Congress members were briefed, did the brief indicate that the CIA was going to be waterboarding prisioners? The article is not clear on these details.

Saying "Congress knew" based on this piece is a bit of a stretch, IMO. If in fact there were members of Congress who knew the CIA was waterboarding prisoners and approved that, I'd want that investigated also.

Sorry, this goes to the relative ignorance of the public on the way Congress works. Never would all members of congress go to a briefing on top-secret policy matters, and I don't believe I ever said that, instead mentioning "Congressional Leaders". All members do not have a need to know, the first pre-requisite of viewing classified material.

Instead, both houses of congress use the committee system. These committees are set up to involve members, numbering about 10 to 16 divided along proportional party lines, with expertise on issues relative to their oversight. After doing their work of learning all they can about an issue, including the kind we've been describing here, they vote as a committee and then make recommendations to the full house or senate. The committes are the whole house or Senate in proxy. That is the reason only members from this select group are pointed out.

Those from this select group who went to these breifings were what I earlier preferred to call "Congressional Leaders", which in this case included members of the committees and the other high level leaders such as Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority leader and Minority Leader. It helps to understand how work gets done in the Congress.

Thanks

 

[amrchaos]

Too bad the left conveniently ignores this point when the topic is abortion. It seems like it's only applied when it seems to further their side of the argument.

There are two issues that destroys the pro-Torture debate.

1)The question of morality and justice: Is it just to perform an immoral act if you can benefit from it?

You do understand that the stages before Birth involves a near symbiotic relationship between mother and fetus/child, and that the arguement actually centers on the mothers choice to continue the process or end it.

If you wish to use the "Since it is alive, it must be birth" arguement, do you wish to utilize every human sperm and egg? The egg and the sperm as well as the fetus are alive. All it need is a process to allow them to become a child.

If so, stop urinating. You are killing thousands!!

 

[Iriemon]

I agree with him. If it's enough to make a fuss about then we should know everything. The good and the bad and the ugly. Including what Congress knew and when they knew it.

Well, this is a good thread to see who some of the purely partisan hacks are, and who is principled.

If anything, liberals / progressives should be as adamant as anyone that all of these get released. Who is requesting it is completely irrelevant. We either want open, transparent government or we don't.

These should all be released.

The only exceptions I could see is if there were current intel in them that would be compromised.

 

[Iriemon]

Let's go straight to the most recent source and a first hand participant:

PETER HOEKSTRA – WSJ April 23, 2009
Congress Knew About the Interrogations - WSJ.com
(here are two specific paragraphs on the subject)

“It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.”

“Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.”

(Peter Hoekstra, the author of these statements, and Porter Goss were there in the briefing rooms when other members read and commented on these memo’s and know first hand. Hoekstra is calling for release of the names of attendees, dates, times, and other information pertaining to these briefings to the public)

.

This piece by Hostra asserts "Congress knew" that prisoners were being waterboarded with scant details as to who knew what or how. It's a bit inconsistent in that it says "It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques," and "I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques."

That is not saying all of Congress knew, or that that members of Congress received the memos and approved them, or were aware of the actually activities being done. If selected Congress members were briefed, did the brief indicate that the CIA was going to be waterboarding prisioners? The article is not clear on these details.

Saying "Congress knew" based on this piece is a bit of a stretch, IMO. If in fact there were members of Congress who knew the CIA was waterboarding prisoners and approved that, I'd want that investigated also.

Sorry, this goes to the relative ignorance of the public on the way Congress works. Never would all members of congress go to a briefing on top-secret policy matters, and I don't believe I ever said that, instead mentioning "Congressional Leaders". All members do not have a need to know, the first pre-requisite of viewing classified material.

The article stated that. "Congress knew ..." That implies to me that the Congress knew, not just select members.

 

[American Horse]

I agree with him. If it's enough to make a fuss about then we should know everything. The good and the bad and the ugly. Including what Congress knew and when they knew it.

Well, this is a good thread to see who some of the purely partisan hacks are, and who is principled.

If anything, liberals / progressives should be as adamant as anyone that all of these get released. Who is requesting it is completely irrelevant. We either want open, transparent government or we don't.

These should all be released.

It helps when everyone gets as much information as possible. We can either get our information, which is the foundation for our opinions, from places like this one or we can get it from as many NEWS sources as possible, including those which we find suspect or biased against our own views.

This Sunday in particular I would recommend that EVERYONE consult the TV schedule and then watch all of the following: NBC - Meet The Press with David Gregory, ABC - Sunday Morning with George Stephanopoulus, FNC - Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

In doing this we get a chance to hear the newsmakers in their own words. At the end of these first three sources hour of programming there is a "roundtable" discussion, usually between about four commentators. Hopefully the participants will be divided equally by party association. We should evaluate the show on that basis for weight of value. Listen to their opinions: do they repeat hackneyed phrases or do they introduce something new that you're not already hearing from your usual sources?

If the comentors do not represent a full airing of views, we are not getting a balanced informative account of events and their interpretation.

A recent phenomenon is that that all of these seem to be trying to adhere to some kind of balance, and are taking their role as a primary source for our video news seriously.

Before the three main Sunday shows mentioned above begin at about 9:00 AM, starting at 07:00 there is about 3-hours of Washington Journal on C-SPAN. C-SPAN's show consists mainly of a call in host reading from Newspaper articles from around the country and then taking viewers opinion calls on those subjects from three groups: (1) Democrats, (2) Independents (which are almost entirely Democrats, and (3) Republicans (about half of which are really Republicans)

 

[American Horse]

Sorry, this goes to the relative ignorance of the public on the way Congress works. Never would all members of congress go to a briefing on top-secret policy matters, and I don't believe I ever said that, instead mentioning "Congressional Leaders". All members do not have a need to know, the first pre-requisite of viewing classified material.

The article stated that. "Congress knew ..." That implies to me that the Congress knew, not just select members.

Have it your way....Are you, or were you aware of how our congress operates in this regard?

 

[Iriemon]

Sorry, this goes to the relative ignorance of the public on the way Congress works. Never would all members of congress go to a briefing on top-secret policy matters, and I don't believe I ever said that, instead mentioning "Congressional Leaders". All members do not have a need to know, the first pre-requisite of viewing classified material.

The article stated that. "Congress knew ..." That implies to me that the Congress knew, not just select members.

Have it your way....Are you, or were you aware of how our congress operates in this regard?

Congress operates a lot of different ways. Are you aware that bills come up for general vote before going to the president for signature? In that situation saying "Congress knew" something makes sense because the entire body knew about it.

The fact that a few select members of a committee knew about something means they knew, it doesn't mean that the entire Congress knew about it which is a nature inference of the phrase "Congress knew". Congress is in fact not a few select members of a committee but 435 reps and 100 senators.

 

[American Horse]

The article stated that. "Congress knew ..." That implies to me that the Congress knew, not just select members.

Have it your way....Are you, or were you aware of how our congress operates in this regard?

Congress operates a lot of different ways. Are you aware that bills come up for general vote before going to the president for signature? In that situation saying "Congress knew" something makes sense because the entire body knew about it.

Of course, and your point is taken that for the whole body to vote they need information? The members of the whole body get their information and guidance from the leadership, but not all are cleared for all classified material. The leaders of both parties are relied on to pass along to their caucus all the information they need for an informed vote prior to that vote.

The fact that a few select members of a committee knew about something means they knew, it doesn't mean that the entire Congress knew about it which is a nature inference of the phrase "Congress knew". Congress is in fact not a few select members of a committee but 435 reps and 100 senators.

Although every member did not go to the briefing room and have an opportunity to read the entire document, we know as a practical matter that the outline of what was in those briefings was well known by all; after all the public at large knew.

 

[Iriemon]

Have it your way....Are you, or were you aware of how our congress operates in this regard?

Congress operates a lot of different ways. Are you aware that bills come up for general vote before going to the president for signature? In that situation saying "Congress knew" something makes sense because the entire body knew about it.

Of course, and your point is taken that for the whole body to vote they need information? The members of the whole body get their information and guidance from the leadership, but not all are cleared for all classified material. The leaders of both parties are relied on to pass along to their caucus all the information they need for an informed vote prior to that vote.

The fact that a few select members of a committee knew about something means they knew, it doesn't mean that the entire Congress knew about it which is a nature inference of the phrase "Congress knew". Congress is in fact not a few select members of a committee but 435 reps and 100 senators.

Although every member did not go to the briefing room and have an opportunity to read the entire document, we know as a practical matter that the outline of what was in those briefings was well known by all; after all the public at large knew.

How do we know what was in those briefing? The public at large knew what when?

 

[Newby]

Playing word games with someone else, Iriemon??? What a shocker!!!!

Wonder what the definition of 'is' is?

 

[Newby]

Have it your way....Are you, or were you aware of how our congress operates in this regard?

Congress operates a lot of different ways. Are you aware that bills come up for general vote before going to the president for signature? In that situation saying "Congress knew" something makes sense because the entire body knew about it.

Of course, and your point is taken that for the whole body to vote they need information? The members of the whole body get their information and guidance from the leadership, but not all are cleared for all classified material. The leaders of both parties are relied on to pass along to their caucus all the information they need for an informed vote prior to that vote.

The fact that a few select members of a committee knew about something means they knew, it doesn't mean that the entire Congress knew about it which is a nature inference of the phrase "Congress knew". Congress is in fact not a few select members of a committee but 435 reps and 100 senators.

Although every member did not go to the briefing room and have an opportunity to read the entire document, we know as a practical matter that the outline of what was in those briefings was well known by all; after all the public at large knew.

I've got to rep you American Horse, just for playing her game with her. She must be taking lessons from Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Iriemon]

Playing word games with someone else, Iriemon??? What a shocker!!!!

Wonder what the definition of 'is' is?

Sure. Say, speaking of definitions, did you find that source that Obama has tripled spending yet?

How bout one about Obama promising there would be no earmarks?

Or are you just pouting for having been proved wrong yet again?

 

[American Horse]

Although every member did not go to the briefing room and have an opportunity to read the entire document, we know as a practical matter that the outline of what was in those briefings was well known by all; after all the public at large knew.

How do we know what was in those briefing? The public at large knew what when?

Now that part of the memos is known, as Cheney says, let's see it all with dates and attendees names, including all the reasons presented to the Congressional Leaders.

Wikkipedia - "The first use of the term "water boarding" in the media was in a New York Times article of May 13, 2004:

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding', in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.*

The American attorney Alan Dershowitz is reported to have been responsible, two days later, for shortening the term to a single word – "waterboarding" – in a Boston Globe article where he stated: "After all, the administration did approve rough interrogation methods for some high valued detainees. These included waterboarding, in which a detainee is pushed under water and made to believe he will drown unless he provides information, as well as sensory deprivation, painful stress positions, and simulated dog attacks". Dershowitz later stated to New York Times columnist William Safire that "when I first used the word, nobody knew what it meant".

* Risen, James; David Cay Johnston and Neil A. Lewis (May 13, 2004). "The Struggle for Iraq: Detainees; Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited In Top Qaeda Interrogations". The New York Times. THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: DETAINEES; Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited In Top Qaeda Interrogations - The New York Times.

 

[Iriemon]

Although every member did not go to the briefing room and have an opportunity to read the entire document, we know as a practical matter that the outline of what was in those briefings was well known by all; after all the public at large knew.

How do we know what was in those briefing? The public at large knew what when?

Now that part of the memos is known, as Cheney says, let's see it all with dates and attendees names, including all the reasons presented to the Congressional Leaders.

Wikkipedia - "The first use of the term "water boarding" in the media was in a New York Times article of May 13, 2004:

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding', in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.*

The American attorney Alan Dershowitz is reported to have been responsible, two days later, for shortening the term to a single word – "waterboarding" – in a Boston Globe article where he stated: "After all, the administration did approve rough interrogation methods for some high valued detainees. These included waterboarding, in which a detainee is pushed under water and made to believe he will drown unless he provides information, as well as sensory deprivation, painful stress positions, and simulated dog attacks". Dershowitz later stated to New York Times columnist William Safire that "when I first used the word, nobody knew what it meant".

* Risen, James; David Cay Johnston and Neil A. Lewis (May 13, 2004). "The Struggle for Iraq: Detainees; Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited In Top Qaeda Interrogations". The New York Times. THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: DETAINEES; Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited In Top Qaeda Interrogations - The New York Times.

Thanks.

I think what wasn't know is the extent of the memos authorizing it, though I think one of the memos were leaked out? And that the techniques were approved by the highest levels in the Bush administration.

 

[jreeves]

So the Navy tortures its own people?

SERE training is designed to help Naval pilots prepare for the consequences of becoming a POW.

So they torture them to prepare for torture?

 

[jreeves]

Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2] that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the Navy tortures its own people?

Hey fuckstick......where the hell do you get off saying that the Navy waterboards it's own people? They don't. The only group that would end up going through something like that would be a SEAL, and, they would be doing it to learn how to RESIST TORTURE.

It's obvious that you are a fucking civilian who has never served, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement.

Go back to reading Tom Clancy novels, and leave the military to those that actually know something about it.

Ya penis puffing asshole motherfucker.

I was referring to SEAL training, that would still be the Navy waterboarding their own people correct? No, I haven't served. Although, my grandfather, father and two of my brothers have served in the military. My father is a disabled veteran. My point was, the Navy doesn't torture its own people by waterboarding SEALS. Neither did the CIA torture high level terrorists when they waterboarded them. Calm down before your fucking head explodes. BTW thank you for your service.

 

[Maple]

You got to love it, Obama wants to cherry pick what's released. So sorry ain't gonna happen, now everything will come out. Even pictures which will further incite the fanatics in the middle east. Obama did this against the advise of 4 former CIA directors including his current one Leon Panetta. Now he is gonna eat it. He opened a huge can of worms, and he is attempting to stuff them back in the can.

Cheney has every right to defend himself and former President Bush against this administration. You can't just cherry pick what you want out there. These former CIA directors will be on the stand stating that water boarding worked when nothing else did, they can point to attacks both in Los Angeles and New York that were diverted, therefore saving American lives.

All this has done is tied the hands of our CIA, made our allies reluctant to release information to us because he is a blabber mouth that caves to the extreme left in this country.

BRING ON THE PROSECUTION AND LET IT ALL OUT, BRING ON THE PICTURES TOO.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I was referring to SEAL training, that would still be the Navy waterboarding their own people correct? No, I haven't served. Although, my grandfather, father and two of my brothers have served in the military. My father is a disabled veteran. My point was, the Navy doesn't torture its own people by waterboarding SEALS. Neither did the CIA torture high level terrorists when they waterboarded them. Calm down before your fucking head explodes. BTW thank you for your service.

So, in your own uninformed, unknowing opinion, having never been boarded yourself, and just listening to what your relatives have told stories about, you don't consider waterboarding torture?

Yeah.......you sound like Sean Hannity. You know.....the FAUX news anchor who volunteered to be waterboarded for charity for veterans on 21 April?

How about you? Ya wanna volunteer for something like that?

 

[sealybobo]

You got to love it, Obama wants to cherry pick what's released. So sorry ain't gonna happen, now everything will come out. Even pictures which will further incite the fanatics in the middle east. Obama did this against the advise of 4 former CIA directors including his current one Leon Panetta. Now he is gonna eat it. He opened a huge can of worms, and he is attempting to stuff them back in the can.

Cheney has every right to defend himself and former President Bush against this administration. You can't just cherry pick what you want out there. These former CIA directors will be on the stand stating that water boarding worked when nothing else did, they can point to attacks both in Los Angeles and New York that were diverted, therefore saving American lives.

All this has done is tied the hands of our CIA, made our allies reluctant to release information to us because he is a blabber mouth that caves to the extreme left in this country.

BRING ON THE PROSECUTION AND LET IT ALL OUT, BRING ON THE PICTURES TOO.

The Daily Show made fun of Rove & Cheney for their projecting.

All the shit they are saying about the Obama administration, they themselves were clearly guilty of doing those very same things when they were in the white house.

Can't remember if it was April 22, 23 or last nights show http://www.thedailyshow.com/ . Anyways, I am willing to bet you don't watch the Daily Show, or you wouldn't come on here and say such rediculous things. You need to. Its like I listen to Rush and watch Fox so I'm ready for the right wing bullshit.

The Daily Show makes fun of people like you dude. They expose you for the nonsensical things you say. And don't say you watch, because if you did, you'd be embarrassed saying such stupid idiotic things.

 

[Steerpike]

I've only heard one person who was waterboarded as a POW speak out on the issue - McCain.

He says it is torture. Haven't seen anyone who has had that experience disagree with him.