Thou Torturest the Truth: CIA’s Comedy of Briefing List Errors

[Are_grits_groceries]

Now that we know of another problem with the CIA's briefing list, I thought I'd collect all the known problems with the list in one place so those trying to claim the CIA has any credibility on this issue can see just how wrong CIA has been on this issue.

CIA has made errors on at least six different briefings, there are at least two briefings for which some of the attendees contest the CIA's version, and CIA claims to be unable to provide full details on seven other briefings. Crazy Pete Hoekstra also notes the CIA is missing a few briefings. And the CIA consistently uses the term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in the list, even though it did not use that term until 2004. No wonder Leon Panetta continues to say that "it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened." The CIA's own version of when it briefed and whom is riddled with errors.

April 2002 (two briefings), September 2002: When Bob Graham first asked the CIA when they had briefed him on torture, they gave him a list of four dates, two in April 2002, and two in September 2002. However, when Graham reviewed his famously detailed notes, he discovered he had not attended any briefing on three of those dates (both April dates and one September date). The CIA conceded he was correct on the issue.

September 4, 2002: According to the CIA, it briefed Nancy Pelosi and Porter Goss on the "use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah" and "the particular EITs that had been employed." While that description does not say clearly that the CIA told Pelosi and Goss they had already used these EITs, including waterboarding, on Abu Zubaydah, it implies it. However, both Pelosi's and Goss's description of the briefing indicates they were told torture might be used in the future, not that they were told it had already been used. And now Crazy Pete Hoekstra, after having reviewed the CIA notes, admits that, "when are made public it won't be crystal clear as to exactly what went on in the briefing."

http://firedoglake.com/

I'm sure the list will grow.

[creeksneakers2]

1. Hoekstra previously denied CIA claim of briefing him

Why aren't the destroyed CIA torture/interrogation tapes mentioned? On that subject, Hoekstra accused the CIA of lying about briefing him. I don't know why nobody brings this up.

NY Times 12/07/07

In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.

A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was the committee’s chairman between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed.”

The spokesman, Jamal Ware, also said that Mr. Hoekstra “absolutely believes that the full committee should have been informed and consulted before the C.I.A. did anything with the tapes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07intel.html?_r=1

Hoekstra and others are making the case that its outrageous to say the CIA lied. But in Hoekstra's case, he did the same thing, and on the same subject of receiving briefings, with briefings related to torture.

And how can the GOP claim that the CIA is so honest about what occurred concerning torture, when we know the CIA destroyed the interrogation tapes? We also know those tapes were requested by the 9/11 Commission and weren't provided.

So the CIA lied and the GOP called them liars. Why the different standards now?