GOP reveals classified info to bolster credibility.

[SirNitram]

Link

Republicans ignited a firestorm of controversy on Thursday by revealing some of what they had been told at a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Democrats immediately blasted the GOP lawmakers for publicly discussing classified information, while Republicans said Democrats are trying to hide the truth that enhanced interrogation of detainees is effective.

GOP members on the Intelligence Committee on Thursday told The Hill in on-the-record interviews that they were informed that the controversial methods have led to information that prevented terrorist attacks.

When told of the GOP claims, Democrats strongly criticized the members who revealed information that was provided at the closed House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing. Democrats on the panel said they could not respond substantively, pointing out that the hearing was closed.

In the bowels of the Capitol Visitor Center, members of the panel gathered behind locked doors on Thursday morning to begin a series of hearings on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

What began as a remarkably quiet and secretive hearing had, within a matter of hours, exploded into a political brawl over intelligence matters and national security.

Despite the weeks-long furor over how the CIA came to use enhanced interrogation techniques, and what members of Congress were told about their development and implementation, the committee’s first hearing on the issue during the 111th Congress almost came and went without notice. The hearing was announced publicly but was not open to the public.

According to Republicans, that was by design.

“Democrats weren’t sure what they were going to get,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), ranking Republican on the Intelligence panel, referring to information on the merits of enhanced interrogation techniques. “Now that they know what they’ve got, they don’t want to talk about it.”

The hearing was publicly described only as a subcommittee hearing on “Interrogations.” A committee spokeswoman would not comment on whether the development and use of controversial interrogation tactics were discussed.

But Republicans on the panel said that not only did the use of interrogation techniques come up Thursday, but that the data shared about those techniques proved they had led to valuable information that in some instances prevented terrorist attacks.

Hoekstra did not attend the hearing, but said he later spoke with Republicans on the subcommittee who did. He said he came away with even more proof that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA proved effective.

“I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked,” Hoekstra said.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a member of the subcommittee who attended the hearing, concurred with Hoekstra.

“The hearing did address the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been much in the news lately,” Kline said, noting that he was intentionally choosing his words carefully in observance of the committee rules and the nature of the information presented.

“Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots,” Kline said.

Neither Hoekstra nor Kline revealed details about the specifics of what they were told Thursday or the identity of the briefers.

Democrats lambasted their Republican counterparts for discussing the information that was provided behind locked doors.

“I am absolutely shocked that members of the Intelligence committee who attended a closed-door hearing … then walked out that hearing — early, by the way — and characterized anything that happened in that hearing,” said Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). “My understanding is that’s a violation of the rules. It may be more than that.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said, “Members on both sides need to watch what they say.”

Both Schakowsky and Reyes accused GOP members of playing politics with national security.

“I think they are playing a very dangerous game when it comes to the discussion of matters that were sensitive enough to be part of a closed hearing,” Schakowsky said.

Asked about the validity of Republican contentions that information shared in Thursday’s hearing showed the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques, Schakowsky said she could not comment on what was discussed at a closed hearing.

Reyes responded by saying he did not attend the entire hearing.

“I wasn’t at the whole hearing,” Reyes said. “As the chairman my view is we need to get the facts about how the enhanced interrogation techniques came about, not just the results.”

That task has become complicated for Democrats, as has the task of proving any effectiveness, or not, of waterboarding and other similar methods of interrogation.

While Democrats, led by President Obama, have firmly labeled those methods torture, cast doubt on their utility and called for their abolition, Republicans, led by former Vice President Cheney, have consistently said they have worked.

Cheney has called on Obama to declassify CIA information that he says will show that enhanced interrogation techniques have made the U.S. safer.

Since Obama’s release of the Bush administration legal memos justifying the use of many of those enhanced interrogation techniques, Democrats have been on the defensive on an issue they hoped would place them on the political and moral high ground.

And at the center of the storm has been House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Pelosi has been dogged for weeks about how much she was told by CIA officials about the development and use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques.

Pelosi last month accused the CIA of lying to Congress about its treatment of suspected terrorists and detainees.

Republican leaders have since demanded that Pelosi either back up those claims or apologize.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday pressed the issue.


“It’s been three weeks since I asked Speaker Pelosi to back up her allegations that the CIA lied to her or purposely misled her,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Allowing this to hang out there is unconscionable. And I just think the silence from Speaker Pelosi is deafening.”

On Thursday Pelosi was asked if she was still receiving intelligence briefings.

“I’ve said what I’m going to say on that subject,” she immediately replied.

Before the reporter could repeat the question, Pelosi answered, “Yes, I am. Yes, I am.”

As part of their line of attack, Republicans have called not just for open hearings on interrogations, but for an inquiry in which Pelosi would testify about what she was told by the CIA, as well as for the release of still-classified documents they say will back up their claims that waterboarding and other methods have yielded valuable intelligence.

“We’ve asked for hearings,” Hoekstra said. “Clearly the chairman and I are of different thinking on this. But I think a whole lot of questions would be answered if those materials would be released.”

Reyes contended that the committee is acting appropriately.

“We want to know everything there is to know about interrogation, wherever that leads us,” Reyes said. “This was just the first hearing.”

“They can talk all they want and they can continue to make a political issue out of it,” he said of Republicans. “We will continue to do our work.”

Say, aren't there laws against that? Not that they apply to Republicans, these days.

[Darth Wong]

One of the most aggravating things about the GOP defending torture by citing its success is that those interrogations also revealed the great danger of torture as an interrogation tool: the fact that, like the medieval Inquisitioners, you can use it to get whatever answer you want. After all, Cheney had certain prisoners repeatedly tortured until they confessed that Al-Quaeda was involved with Saddam Hussein: his casus belli for war against Iraq.

[General Zod]

Okay, so they got lucky and prevented a few terrorist attacks. . .how many of those confessions via torture gave completely useless information?

[Samuel]

Okay, so they got lucky and prevented a few terrorist attacks. . .how many of those confessions via torture gave completely useless information?

Well, it depends on what they mean by successful. Did they get new information, confirm what they have, etc. Of course, that is classified, but given the current results of such techniques we can assume it has similar accuracy.

[Stark]

Okay, so they got lucky and prevented a few terrorist attacks. . .how many of those confessions via torture gave completely useless information?

Shut up. If torture stops even one potential terrorist thinking about doing bad things to America - no matter how retarded their plan was - then it's worth torturing people who are held without trial for years. Fucking OBVIOUSLY.

[Master of Cards]

Okay, so they got lucky and prevented a few terrorist attacks. . .how many of those confessions via torture gave completely useless information?

Of course, that is classified

but if it worked so well then the Republicans would tell us about it then, its just classifed.

[Patrick Degan]

One of the most aggravating things about the GOP defending torture by citing its success is that those interrogations also revealed the great danger of torture as an interrogation tool: the fact that, like the medieval Inquisitioners, you can use it to get whatever answer you want. After all, Cheney had certain prisoners repeatedly tortured until they confessed that Al-Quaeda was involved with Saddam Hussein: his casus belli for war against Iraq.

As Jesse Ventura said: "Give me Dick Cheney, a waterboard, and an hour, and I'll have him confessing to the Tate murders" (Tate/LaBianco killings from 1968 performed by the Manson Family).

[The Yosemite Bear]

Hey then Charles could go free now that we found the "Real Killers" can you get him to confess to OJs crimes as well?

[Pablo Sanchez]

The classified nature of this information is actually a godsend to Republicans because it allows them to be as vague as they want to be. Look at what Hoekstra and Kline actually said, respectively:
"I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked."
"Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots."

They think, in their opinion, that the limited information that they received indicated--though potentially others may arrive at a different conclusion--the impression that something vague but positive occurred as a result of torture, though that's just an impression and not a statement of fact.

In other words, their statements are so packed with qualifiers that they are completely meaningless. If the raw information is ever leaked and it turns out that Hoekstra and Kline were being misleading, they can avoid allegations that they were lying about important reports by saying that it was only their impression and they guess they were wrong after all. But since the information is classified, then its unlikely they'll even have to do that. My assumption from their statements is that the CIA told congress about enhanced interrogations that revealed plots that were not serious threats, or had already been confirmed by conventional intelligence gathering. I have a few reasons for this assumption. First, neither of the congressmen used the phrase "saved American lives," and when you're parsing highly equivocal statements like these you have to assume that every word is significant. I read into it that they didn't say torture saved Americans because that would have been a direct lie. Second, no information about any plots disrupted by torture has emerged in the seven years since the use of torture commenced. Given the speed and enthusiasm with which the government has advertised purely aspirational terrorist plots, most recently last month in the Bronx, I find it hard to believe that they would keep mum if they had actually accomplished something significant in the war on terror. Doubly so, now that people have incentive to leak such information, in order to defuse an investigation that could land them in prison. Third, knowing how torture works, they could only have retrieved useful information if they already knew what questions to ask and had a sense of what the answers should be, hence the information gathered would need to be indicated by another source anyway.