« GOP-Tea Party “Fatal Attraction”
Republicans Have NOT Been Shut Out of the Process on Health Care Reform (UPDATED) »
John Brennan: GOP Leaders Briefed on Handling of Abdulmutallab
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said she wasn’t briefed about the C.I.A.’s use of waterboarding and other forms of torture, and C.I.A. officials provided documentation that she had been briefed, and there was this whole huge back and forth about what she knew and when, and whether she should have gone public with her knowledge? Remember how Republicans in Congress at the time buttressed their argument that there should be no legal investigation or trials of Bush administration officials involved in the C.I.A. interrogation program by pointing out that if that program was illegal, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats in Congress were complicit in it because they knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it?
Well, it appears that Republicans are going to have to drop their insistence that Abdulmutallab be designated an enemy combatant and interrogated in a military court where there is no due process and torture can be used. Because it now looks very much like Republicans leaders in Congress may be complicit in the legal, constitutional handling of Abdulmutallab’s arrest and interrogation:
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan revealed Sunday that he briefed four Republican congressional leaders on Christmas night about the arrest and subsequent handling of the suspect in an attempted sky bombing.
“None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point,” Brennan said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They didn’t say, ‘Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?’ They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we’d keep them informed. And that’s what we did.”
The revelation could undermine Republican complaints about the reading of Miranda rights to the Nigerian suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab.
Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, told David Gregory: “I explained to them that he was in FBI custody. That Mr. Abdulmatallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that ‘in FBI custody’ means that there’s a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.”
Of course, the Gang of Four (Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Christopher Bond, and Pete Hoekstra) are insisting now that Brennan “never told [them] about any plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber” and that “the Administration did not even consult our intelligence chiefs.” Well, the first excuse sounds very similar to Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that she was told waterboarding might be used, but not that it was used. And the second is flatly untrue.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “John Brennan: GOP Leaders Briefed on Handling of Abdulmutallab”
Great. So on one hand, we have Pelosi knowing about and possibly allowing torture, and on the other we have top-ranking Repubs knowing about and possibly allowing torture.
Let them insist whatever they want. It seems the more they talk, the dumber they look. What needs to happen is for someone in government to actually follow through with policies that rescind anything resembling torture. That means no more secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, indefinite detentions; all of which are still going on. Otherwise, we can just sit and watch the show as these two torture-loving parties try to lecture each other on how they're just not as bad as the other.
So, let me get this straight, for all you Palin lovers who want more American exceptionalism and waterboarding.
American citizens are allowed to breach the Geneva conventions and use torture in the struggle to impose geopolitical changes. No accountability as to whether the one being tortured even has any info to begin with.
Saudi citizens are *not* allowed to breach the Geneva conventions by flying airplanes into American civilians in order to bring about geopolitical changes.
Yeah… Help a guy out here. Because, seriously, I would need to put some heavy drugs into MC Escher in order to get a visualization of your logic.
That's the thing with unconventional, cruel warfare without accountability. It's not as if the US has exclusive rights to it or something.
“I explained to them that he was in FBI custody. That Mr. Abdulmatallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that ‘in FBI custody’ means that there’s a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.”
In other words the decision was already made and the process carried out the Republicans were only notified that it had been carried out. There was nothing they could have done about it at that point; where Pelosi who was on the Intellegence Committee could have objected to the process at the time but said nothing.
Oh on the side comments in military courts torture is not allowed and due process is afforded to the defendents. Military courts have also been approved by Congress to try enemy combatants.If you don't like the Military court procedures being used talk to the Democratic controlled Congress.
Sorry new cat, not accurate. Pelosi was never in an “advise and consent” capacity. Cmon, you know better than that. Bush was nothing if not consistent in his assertion that he was fully empowered to do militarily whatever he chose without review or consent of anyone.
Furthermore, just in case you are actually too “new” to remember, everyone “briefed” by the Bush administration was placed under gag order, so even telling their colleagues or constituents about the “briefing” was forbidden.
The Jack Bauer fantasies of the GOP adolescents are pathetic. In this case our ideals were upheld, the interrogation was successful, much more so than ANY Bush/Cheney torture has been shown to be, and the prosecution and conviction (no doubt) will also be successful. We don't need to descend into the swamp with N Korea, N Vietnam and the WWII Nazi and Japanese war criminals who used and rationalized inhuman acts.
I stand by my statement she could have objected in the committee whether she had any power to do anything about it or not. My reference
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/pelosi.w…
Gee, new cat, that's just about the same time frame in which Bush and HIS AG were treating the shoe bomber in EXACTLY the way Obama's did. I don't know what Pelosi could have done. I don't know what any of them knew or could have done. But I support a wide open investigation and grand jury. DO YOU?
I have zero tolerance for torture advocates. They have no moral authority whatsoever and do indeed stand with the most reprehensible criminal regimes in world history. You can pretend any kind of moral superiority you wish. You have none.
In addition if Pelosi was under a gag order not to talk to anyone why wasn't Jane Harman under the same order when she sent a letter of protest to the CIA?
“Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, told David Gregory: “I explained to them that he was in FBI custody. That Mr. Abdulmatallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that ‘in FBI custody’ means that there’s a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.”
As I am reading it, the Republicans mentioned were never notified the suspect was going to be put in FBI custody until after the fact. At that point it was to late to object Abdulmatallab had already been given his rights. This decision was in fact made before even the administrations own security advisers were notified ( as brought out in the Congressional hearings).
I do not a advocate torture. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions without evidence:
“You can pretend any kind of moral superiority you wish.”
And torture is this is not the point of this thread. My point is the Pelosi situation and the sited situation concerning the Republican congressional leaders is a case of comparing apples to oranges. I disagree with the argument made in the post thats all.
By the way nobody hated Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney more than I did so get off your liberal high horse and present a decent argument. Try staying on topic and backup your statements. I don't care if your want to call me a SOB just prove that I'm a SOB.
In addition if Pelosi was under a gag order not to talk to anyone why wasn't Jane Harman under the same order when she sent a letter of protest to the CIA?
Dude, the gag order applied to the press and members of Congress not included in the briefing. Harman was not under a gag order not to discuss the briefing with the people who briefed her.
Sheesh.
My point is the Pelosi situation and the sited situation concerning the Republican congressional leaders is a case of comparing apples to oranges.
No, it's not. Pelosi's critics (Republicans) said her argument that she didn't know about the waterboarding (because her briefers supposedly only told her, that enhanced interrogation techniques had been considered and judged legal, not that they were already using them) was just an excuse. I'm saying (in the above post) that when Republicans who were briefed about Abdulmutallab now, say they were told the FBI was interrogating him but they didn't know he was going to be Mirandized, are making the same kind of disingenous excuse — because of course they knew that Miranda warnings are a standard part of civilian interrogations.
If I knew about it, she knew about it. There are blog posts with extensive arguments regarding water boarding going back years before the Pelosi debacle.
OH! She wasn’t “formally” informed.
Ok…I get it.
My point was the Pelosi didn't even co sign the Harmin's letter sent to the CIA. In fact there is no evidence she said anything to anybody about Water boarding. This includes the CIA who she could have spoken with as you pointed out they were the ones who briefed her.
By the way I'm probably much too old to be referred as Dude. You Old Fart is probably more appropriate. Just kidding.
I think that what Kit Bond stated about thinking the WH would not be so stupid to Mirandize Abdulmatallab was out of line. Bond should be criticized for this statement but it doesn't change my argument.
On a lighter note I wish the President would put a gag on her now. Think about it President Obama it might also be a good idea from your perspective.
NC, this debate IS about torture, and about the moral values that America advocates for, fights for and stands for.
The flap over Abbumutallab is about torture advocates thinking something wrong was done by not using extra-constitutional methods on him, and denying him the very things that are the heart of American justice and indeed those of every civilized nation. Specifically: humane treatment (which was used and is being challenged by the right), the same rights and procedures afforded to everyone arrested by FBI, whether citizens or foreign nationals. The same procedures used for every single terrorism arrest and prosecution in the US under Bush.
Finally, the AG is the appropriate authority here and nothing out of the ordinary occurred in terms of the apprehension or handling of this criminal.
My comments were directed to the article stating or imply that the two seperate situations were the same and I don't believe they are that similar to draw any conclusions.
Discussing torture itself is a good topic I just don't want to get into to it right now. Its late and its lights out at the old folks home.