Jose Rodriguez Briefed Pelosi and Goss in Deceptive Abu Zubaydah Briefing
As MadDog noted, Judicial Watch just got some new documents detailing briefings Congress received. Or rather, they got new documents providing further proof that CIA has no fucking clue what it said to Congress during some key briefings (this batch shows, for example, that the fall 2003 briefings were never finalized into a Memo for the Record, just as earlier ones weren’t, and PDF 48 shows that many key briefings weren’t recorded).
But in what I’ve reviewed so far, the new documents reveal one important new detail. Page 44 of this PDF provides a mostly redacted record of the briefing CIA gave Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi on Abu Zubaydah’s torture on September 4, 2002. We know–because both Goss and Pelosi have described this detail the same way–that CIA did not tell the House Intelligence leadership that it had already tortured Abu Zubaydah. CIA told Goss and Pelosi about waterboarding, but spoke of it as a technique that might hypothetically be used in the future, not something that had been used 83 times on one detainee the prior month.
But we haven’t known who gave that badly deceptive briefing. Mind you, I had my suspicions. I thought it likely that Jose Rodriguez, then head of Counterterrorism Center, and the guy who ordered the torture tapes destroyed three years later, was a likely candidate to have done that briefing. But there was no proof.
Until today.
Assuming CIA’s own documentation is accurate (always a big assumption, given the CIA), then Jose Rodriguez–listed as D/CTC–is the one who gave Goss and Pelosi that deceptive briefing.
Jose Rodriguez went on to participate in destroying evidence of torture that should have been briefed to Congress. And these documents prove (again, presuming CIA’s documents are accurate) that Jose Rodriguez was deceiving Congress about torture right from the start.
Note, it appears that Rodriguez did NOT give teh briefing to Graham and Shelby, which was even less detailed than the one Pelosi and Goss gave. That was the Deputy Director of CTC. Not sure if Mudd was DD/CTC yet by then–will try to figure out.
Just because I want to record this detail to come back to: also on page 48, we learn that when Fristie got a briefing on torture just days before the torture tapes were destroyed, he was briefed on five techniques: waterboarding, abdominal slap, facial slap, sleep deprivation, and walling.
bmaz
For the purposes of our friendly wager would Rodriguez be considered a Principal ?
Wonder if this will anger Nancy enough to actually Do Something. Oh wait, she already knew she’d been lied to. And by whom. Probably sooner than we did.
Boxturtle (SoL has expired, we can’t even send them a sternly worded letter)
Is there a statute of limitations on war crimes and torture?
Note, statute of limitations does not end for war crimes that result in death, including this:
Were the deaths of the three detainees at Camp No at Guantanamo due to a torture that was either observed or monitored by medical personnel? Were videos taken for observational study (as Scott Horton implied in his column today)?
This story is not yet over.
ew: small typo – last sentence:
…that Jose Rodriguez
aswas deceiving Congress about torture right from the startAh, thanks. I’m pushing multitasking a bit far today.
emptywheel
some time ago a bill or amendment was past that expanded the DOJ ability to go afer war crimes and appeared to exempt certain said war crimes from SOL requirements. Am I remembering that correctly ? I am pretty sure that Leahey and Cogburn did co sponsor this legislation
ot but over at No Comment Scott Horton had up a pretty good interview done by Fox New’s Judge Napilatano regarding the homicides/suicides at Camp No . Pretty surprising since it was on Fox …
Also note PDF 84, which shows someone at CIA making corrections on the description of this meeting. It appears 3 people from CTC attended the briefing. I’m guessing, though it’s not clear, that Jonathan Fredman, head of CTC/LGL was one of the two besides Rodriguez.
Lots of interesting things on page 93, including the particularly bad problem on some rendition on February 25, 2005, and then Cheney briefing, then the redacted (but not entirely) description.
Right after thta Cheney did a briefing to SSCI. Plus, this my explain why they had to do the May memos the way they did (cue Mary, btw, to focus on the conditions of capture).
Note that page 26 of this PDF seems to correlate with the other description.
ANd note that Jennifer MIllerwise was attending IG briefings of SSCI on detainee issues in April 2005.
Sort of convenient, if you’re
the KingCheney, to put your former press person at CIA to sit in on congressional briefings, huh?See also BP.
EW, see your earlier post from April, Dick Cheney’s Counterterrorism Incompetence Continues to Endanger Us , and 1boringoldman’s comment:
(you might want to add Jose Rodriguez to the tags for that post)
the rest of the comment is apt here too
Page 8 of this PDF includes some details on the turning media on, and it being only accessed by cable.
@emptywheel 1: The deputy director/CTC at the time of Shelby/Graham briefing was Bruce Pease
Thanks.
NOte on page 41 of this PDF, someone was developing a list of which members of Congress were briefed on Novmeber 8, 2005, that included the two briefings on thta day (Crazy Pete Hoekstra and Duncan Hunter). That’s the day the torture tapes were destroyed, of course.
Note page 27 of this PDF lists two authorities before DOJ writes its first opinion. One of those would be the Presidential Finding from 9/17/01. THe other one MIGHT be the July 12, 2002 letter, but I doubt it. Which suggests there was another legal authority, one which should be listed in the IG Report (bc this seems to be related to the release of that).
Some stream of consciousness as I’m looking through this:
It really strikes me that staffers for the elite, “Uber Members” of Congress (the members who count as notifying the whole of Congress if you whisper in one or two of their ears) got briefings with their bosses, while the intel committees themselves and all of the rest of Congress, was sat out in the cold.
On p. 11 of the 100 pp pdf, is the attendee really “Scott Millert” or even “Scott Miller” or should that be Scott Muller (or do we know?) As much as I make them, I tend to think that misspellings of names in official documents detailing exec branch crime aren’t always begnin. [[Never mind, looks like later docs indicate it was Muller]]
The briefings for Feb 5, 2003 and Sep 4, 2003 have something blacked out after “References to EITs” and the briefing for Jan 28, 2004 has a blackout where the references to EITs appeared in the other items. So what was still being blacked out? It sure seems like Feb 2003 would have been a prime time to have been talking about the torture killing of non-Al Qaeda, Gul Rahman, but you don’t see “deaths from EITs” mentioned anywhere. hmmmm I know reports have said the killing was reported to Congress asap, but I’ve never seen anything that looked likely.
p12 – Moskowitz, as “Director of Congressional Affairs” was already coining the “Gang of 4” terminology that is NOWHERE AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW OR STATUTE.
I have always been, and still am, puzzled at why no one ever was briefing Hastert, especially after the first briefing given to Pelosi when she was on Intel put her “in the loop” as she moved on to being minority leader. No one ever really brief the full gang of 8 in almost forever – why were they so loath to mention anything to Hastert?
p 13 – the briefing was to go over EITs, but also to go over that there were tapes of the interrogation of AZ and “in late December 2002, the inappropriate ‘interrogation’ of terrorist operative Nashiri by CIA officers” You know, when even the CIA’s CYA memo puts quotes around “interrogation” – that’s bad. And should be discoverable. A long time ago. “Both Zubayda and Nashiri were described as founts of useful information, even though ti seems clear that they have not, even under enhanced techniqes, revealed everything they know of importance [redactions]”
Founts.
I guess that’s what happens when you fight the drowning – founting.
I think it’s interesting that they told them that the “techniques” were “approved by a bevy of lawyers from the [letter or two cut off]SC, the Vice President’s office and the Justice Department, including the Criminal Division and the Attorney General who opined that the techniques were legal under U.S.law.”
OK – what we know of from the Criminal division is that they did exactly the opposite, so this was blatant misinformation to Congress. We also know that the OVP and its lawyers opinions mean nada as a matter of law, and we have never ever ever seen what has been frequently referred to in written reports – Ashcroft’s actual sign off. I’d like to see that myself. Odd that they don’t bother mentioning Bybee (who the Senate was having up for approvals to the Circuit court at about this Feb briefing time) and OLC, but then, that’s probably partly bc it was so convenient to be briefing intel, not judiciary.
p. 14 Roberts winces over the hand drill – well bless his little heart. Maybe someone will ask him about why he winced when it was all such “good times, all American legal stuff” Re: the tapes of the “Zubayda debriefing” Roberts is listed as giving his assent to the destruction of the tapes, but if they were asking for assent, how did they intend to follow up with the missing Rockefeller, who was going to be briefed by a member of his staff, as to his assent? It’s nice that Muller (I guess this is when he had some spare time from covering up the CIA roles in killing missionary infants) certifed tha the tapes were a “perfect” match.
It’s interesting that Graham had wanted the committee to do its own assesment of the EITs and that Roberts’ staffer knew that and asked abou it. IMO, Graham knew all along where they were going, how bad it was, but in the end, rather than watching his Abu Ghraib tapes and being moved to expose and make right, he watched and decided to become a part of the cover up and immunity process. That’s wicked in ways I can’t deal with easily.
Page 6 of this PDF says that EITs on AZ had not started when Pelosi was briefed on AZ on April 24, 2002.
But they still redact when the torture began, which suggests it wasn’t August 1.
Page 12 of this PDF provides more details on the review Jose Rodriguez did of the Pelosi briefing description.
Argh – wrong Graham. So Bob Graham had wanted an independent SSCI investigation into legality and that’s what was shut down with the comments on how they were not going to let anyone watch the interrogations in real time.
17-36 are a quick read.
This Graham?
Mentions Tommy Franks telling Graham in Feb 2002 that resources were already being shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and then about George Tenet’s at first nonexistent NIE (~Graham: What! you want us to go to war and you haven’t done an NIE?) and then incomplete (none of the objections) NIE release to unadvantaged Congress at large. Does not mention Graham telling Congress what he thought they weren’t being told but needed to know to make a good decision. (Me: What! He let them vote for war on bad information?)
Check out page 24. Why is “JUdge Silberman” (meaning Lawrence?!?!?!) asking about whom in Congress got briefed?
Cuz he wants to give them tips on cover up?
Shake their hands?
Get their picture with him and Ollie?
There’s something really creepy about Frist, as a doctor, in 2005 sitting through a briefing on waterboarding and sleep deprivation and “walling” a helpless detainee, especially since by then we’d had Abu Ghraib and all kind of info on Zubayda’s mental states and lack of real intel value were coming out. Walling – explained as an interrogation tactic to the Senate Maj leader – who’s a doctor. Blergh – how ugly does it get?
I do think it’s interesting that the Feb 2003 MFR to the Senate crew talks about lots of lawyers involved in the approvals, but along with misrepresenting Chertoff’s input, fails to mention Bybee, given that the Senate had been sitting on Bybee’s nomination since 2002 and Bush had to re-submit his nomination jus that Jan of 2003. Senate deliberations were going on March 2003, with Bybee not really having been highlighted to Roberts or Rockefeller as being central to the ok of the torture techniques OVER the Pilate stance of Chertoff in Crim.
I really like how politely the memos discuss the torture briefing efforts. p 55 offers up a nifty thanks to all who assisted with listing the torture briefed members of congress.
p. 56 -Do we know what was briefed in January or February of 2004 that got on the list, but with a description totally blacked out? EIT, Detainee Interrogation Activities, CTC Interrogation programs, etc. are all listed, but this has the topic blacked out. Foreign black sites maybe?
What are all the redacted pages that look like they were out of a binder – with three ring holes?
p.95 – the MFR on Helgerson testifying about ghots detainees, blacked out stuff, al-Jamaii, the “three Saudis” and interrogation techniques – I’m blanking on “the ‘three Saudis'” What was that?
p. 99 under chronolgy and Key Legal Backgrond, after saying that DCI directed CTC in “mid-2002” to establith the program to capture, detain and interrogate, the next bullet point is, “In addition, CIA obtained DOJ’s informal concurrence of CIA’s legal analysis that CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques would not violate” CAT. Hmm, so CIA already had generated a legal analysis? And who/how was the “informal concurrenc” given?
This stuff needs to be issued with hand sanitizers.
BTW – why do you think they included Mark Esper’s name without redacting,when all the other staffers are being redacted, and why do you think they misspelled it?
Plausible deniability on a computer search that fails to return a result? Don’t I remember an EW post about David Addington’s search terms?
So, in light of all this evidence, Rodriguez was promoted, right?
Bob in AZ
Many thanks again EW for your fine dot connecting!
I note that on page 7 of the 1st PDF (100 pages) that on 4-Sep-2003, the CIA briefs HPSCI on “CTC Interrogation Programs”.
Programs as in “plural”.
And then on page 8 of the same PDF, on 15-Jul-2004, a briefing on “IG Report on CTC Program”.
So, just how many interrogation programs existed?
OK, p. 3 in this bunch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/CIA%20Record%20Production%200610%20Pt%201.pdf
has what looks like the Gul Rahman briefing listed, as taking place on 6/27/03 (not exactly prompt notification) but without any info on who was notified, etc.
p. 4 has something that might have been al-Libi, described as 04/01/05, “Detention History, Claims of Links to Iraq, and Recantations”
Several docs, including p. 6 of this group, indicate that there was an April 24, 2002 briefing of “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubayda” to HPSCI members Douglas Bereuter (sp?) Leonard Boswell, Richard Buerr, Michael Caslie (sp?) Gary Condit, Peter Hoekstra, Nancy Pelosi & Silvestre Reyes and something the same day to SSCI (which adds “and references to techniques”) members Graham, Bayh, Dewine, Kyle Rockefeller, Shelby, Thompson (Fred).
p. 7 has a black out of info topic for briefings from 10-27-03 thjrough 3-9-04, including some kind of briefing given on March 9, 2004 to Lugar and Biden.
p. 11 shows that Harman and Cramer and several others got a Feb 15, 2006 briefing on “Program history, description of facilities, philosophy and mechanics of interrogation planning, threshold for admission, and value of intelligence” and SSCI got the same thing on March 7, 2006. “Philosophy”
That one will stick with me – the Bush-Obama “Philosophy” of torture.
p. 29 et seq – wow, Helgerson was right in there pitching for torture with the other guys. That’s really disturbing. And the pitch about how none of the detainees who died where subjected to enhanced techniques – how does that jive with Rahman? Was he not considered a “high value detainee” under that definition, so his torture just doesn’t count?
p 38 – Muller breifing SAC/DEF that CIA’s rules on detainees were more stringent than Geneva required – blows your mind. But then they go on to say that there were blacked out things that were approved by the WH and AG and “These were deemed lawful and were not strictly under the Geneva agreement”
p44 nonsequitor but CIA’s Wippl who was forwarding torture response info to Congress is now a teacher at Boston U.
p 60 Elmer Fudd’s evil twin offers up remarks, APril 12, 2007. Apparently the barbaric treatment of guys like el-Masri, Errachidi, 11 yo kids, Arar, etc. was bc “the President directed all agencies of the US Government to work to assure that no such bararic act could happen again.” Ahh. In 2007 Hayden is telling Congress that Zubayda was an “up-and-coming lieutenant”
Good thing he isn’t Pinocchio’s evil twin.
He said they had to have the torture program (p 61) to make sure all “law enforcement” and other questions were asked – um, even though law enforcement had to withdraw from the interrogations bc of the torture. Oh, and they had to make sure there was no “filter” [like valid analysis] between Zubayda’s information and the US government [which I guess only has one branch as far as a uniformed torture supporter could see].
He says that the FBI interrogation techniques were unsuccessful. I’d like to see him say it to Soufan, face to face, man to uniformed toture supporter. Anyway – CIA “knew” that “Zubaydah was withholding information that could help us track down al-Qa’ida leaders and prevent attacks” No mention of spoof cites and bucket swinging.
He talks about a “handful” of techniques – let’s see, 13, plus any combo of the 13 and in any repetition pattern. I think math analogies aren’t his thing or else he has really really really big hands.
It’s too disheartening to read – and he wears a uniform, I can’t get over that he’d sit there in that uniform and do this.
It is worth noting that on 64 he’s wanting to brag about significant captures and cases that “involve law enforcement’s use of our detainee reporting” and goes on to give Padilla. Who was never allowed access to the detainees whose reporting resulted in his “capture” (uh, isnt’ that called getting off a plane?) Yeah, on 65 he’s bragging the big brag on Padilla. Who, at that time, was still in the So Car brig.
And who was never tried for any of that crap Hayden crows about getting from his torturees.
And interestingly – despite Bojinka Hayden claims that KSM wasn’t even on the CIA’s list of top Al-Qaeda associates until Zubayda filled them in.
That wascally wabbit.
Then this goes into a hearing (7/14/2004) with Jacoby (of the really chilling affidavit on Padilla Jacoby) Boykin and Alexander all testifying on torture as a good and bright and shining thing.
I white flag it for today. Not enough showers.
I saw that too and immediately thought – how did these folks miss the obvious correlation of “recantations” and torture?
And the answer must be that the policymakers insisted that they deliberately ignore the obvious because to do otherwise would betray the stupidity underlying the policy.
I think bc they were so busy arranging for him to be suicided in Libya. It tends to make you a little ADD, arranging so much evil.
I note on page 18 of the 1st PDF (100 pages) that on 1-March-2005, the HPSCI received from the CIA a “Briefing on Rendition Authorities”.
I’d guess that some HPSCI folks were now (2005) beginning to wonder how it was legal for the US to send detainees to other foreign countries for more torture and even murder.
Maher Arar filed his lawsuit in Jan 2004. That might have gotten a few minds thinking.
Then there was Khalid el-Masri. Not much in the briefings to indicate whether either the Arar or el-Masri matters were previously briefed to Congress, but since he was released in 2004 after a hunger strike and an article was coming out on him in Dec of 2005 (not a lot from Dana Priest these days, is there), and then there was the recanting by al-Libi in Jan 2004, after this rendition to torture.
It kind of makes you hope that someone would be questioning rendition, but it turns out, not much, not forcefully, and not to the extent that Obama wouldn’t get into office and leap on it like a dog with a squeaky as his new favorite toy.
Yup! After Abu Ghraib, the deaths of a number of detainees, and the MSM’s outbreak of conscience regarding detainee torture by the US, everyone lines up and nods their heads that rendition is the only way to go in the future.
I’m increasingly curious whether al-Masri was the second subject of the Combined Memo. He is mentioned in one of these–I think an early 2005 doc.
There was a request from (IIRC) SSCI that asked about recantations. But I think the request was much earlier–tied to the al-Libi recantation in 2004.
Thanks for returning to this post EW!
Unless I’m really out to lunch here today, I think “thar’s gold in them thar hills.” *g*
I’m kind of surprised that this latest CIA document dump hasn’t generated anything in the blogosphere except here, and not in the MSM either.
Report from physicians group says doctors helped interrogators refine harsh methods
And more from page 8 of the 1st PDF (100 pages) – on 16-Feb-2005:
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall to hear what the CIA’s answer was justifying rendition to foreign countries over our own usage of EITs/torture.
BTW – just one more thing I have to throw in for whatever reasons drive me
With the recurring story of the docs and psychs participation in structuring and recording and experimenting with enhanced interrogation, factored in with the DOJ memos saying, in essence, that it’s not torture if a psychologist is on hand to ok things, it brings me back to the very little bit that is in the public record on KSM’s children, the story in the British press about the children being in the US custody and the anonymous source saying that they had child psychologists with them.
It always bothered me in general, a child psychologist who would be willing to be a party to disappearing children. Once everything on the use of – and actual legal cover NEED for – psychologists to be on hand while enhanced techniques were being used, I took that a very different way.
And of course, Obama hasn’t done anything to clear this one up.
and OT, but fwiw –
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/06/06/lahorehigh-court-directs-govt-to-use-all-means-tode.html
Pakistan’s high court has ordered the federal government to use all means to defend Siddiqui, including to bring all documents and materials which might bear on her innocence to the US court’s attention.
Thanks, Mary, for remembering the children. KSM’s, too.
It’s nothing that deserves a thanks – I never do anything that would be likely to get a result. I guess in some ways that’s as bad as doing nothing.
Stop that silly talk.
I note on page 22 of the 1st PDF (100 pages) that on 7 Mar 2006, SSCI received a briefing entitled “Background on the Detainee Program. Clarification between [redacted word of 7-8 characters] and detainees.”
Can’t help but wonder what the redacted word is, and what are you if you’re being held by the US, but not as a “detainee”?
Prisoners? And why would “prisoners” be redacted?
I note on page 25 of the 1st PDF (100 pages), on 16 Nov 2006, SSCI members Roberts, Dewine, Hatch and Rockefeller received a CIA briefing on “Latest Status of CIA high-value terrorist detention program”.
Uhmmm…what high-value terrorists would that pertain to?
As of 2 months earlier on 7 Sept 2006, Junya had announced the transfer of 14 key terrorist suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to Gitmo.
Maybe the briefing was just how the latest transfers were getting acclimated at Club Gitmo.
Note more details (page 32) on Crazy Pete’s personal briefing on torture–though by this point he had already been briefed on this stuff.
From page 30 of the 1st PDF (100 pages), a Memorandum For the Record (MFR) on the 7/13/2004 CIA briefing for HPSCI by CIA DDO Pavitt, CIA GC Scott Muller, and CIA IG Helgerson:
Is that the one dated 2007? (Pardon my ignorance, and speaking out of turn, but I’ve just started following this thread.)
Yes, that’s the one. So in 2007 they officially stated that KSM had been waterboarded 183 times, but wouldn’t otherwise own up to it until somebody named Marcy Wheeler pieced it all together in 2009?
2007? I’m unsure what you’re referencing by 2007.
The text that I quoted is from a July 2004 briefing. There are additional dates on this MFR including November 2004 and December 2004 (printed).
And no, you’re not speaking out of turn. Jump in anywhere and anytime. *g*
Don’t let me distract you any more, other than to say this. At the top of the first page of that PDF is the date 11 April 2007. That’s what I was referring to, but as I looked at your 55, I suspect the 2007 is the transmittal date and the minutes or whatever they’re called are attached including those of the July 2004 briefing. Don’t trouble yourself. I’ll to look and see.
The point I was making was that they knew the number of waterboardings in 2007 (or, probably more accurately, in 2004), but sat on that for several years until Marcy teased it out.
Again, apologies.
Don’t apologize because you’ve just found another one of those gold nuggets. *g*
That 2007 date you refer to at the top of page 1 of this 1st PDF (100 pages) is the date that Christopher J. Walker, then the CIA’s Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs (OGA), was providing the information requested by then CIA Director Mikey Hayden.
And the way that I read it is that Mikey Hayden wanted the info to try to ratfuck the Democrats in the face of the coming storm on their charges that the CIA mislead/lied to Congress.
Nice, non-partisan, ratfucker that Mikey Hayden.
He’s a “look-forwarder”.
Steven Bradbury, at least, and whoever read him, knew in 2005. It was from two of his memos (quoting still classified info from the CIA IG’s 2004 report) that EW teased the truth out, and that’s before the CIA IG’s report was finally released (short form) last year.
Was that only a year ago? Migosh, it feels like forever. Releasing those memos now seems to me like the one good thing Obama/Holder have done.
Hi, skdadl. Yes, Marcy’s post of April 18, 2009, gets into the 183 number. Here it is.
One of my favourite weekends ever! Took the NYT a day and a half to catch up. If only Walter Cronkite were still around to do a “You Are There” segment on that weekend. ;)
G’night, friends.
G’night, dear skdadl.
They did it because — as Holder even explained in releasing them, IIRC — they expected them to be leaked anyway. They wanted to control the fallout. That’s all. I used to think it was a high-water mark for the administration, but have come to learn that they were never really moving in our direction to begin with, had a dishonest agenda. The misdirection via the closing of the black sites, and the disingenuousness regarding the Army Field Manual (w/Appendix M) demonstrates that.
From this list
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/CIA%20Record%20Production%200610%20Pt%201.pdf
p. 29 et seq – you have Helgerson involved in a briefing and a part of his briefing from the MFR is that he specifically mentions (before apologizing it away and not being a big deal) that he thought that the 183 (and the number is mentioned in the MFR) waterboardings might have been more excessive than what was authorized.
It’s worth a quick review to see how the IG glossed over everything. I notice over and over that when they list briefings relating to EITs the never have anything that seems to reference the Gul Rahman torture killing and then you have Helgerson in that section giving the assurance (which we’ve seen before, but it’s worth noting here again) that no one died from EITs – also with no mention of Rahman. The one listing that seems to have a correct reference has a 6/27/03 date but doesn’t really list who was briefed (p. 3 of the same pdf group linked)
So – where they saying that bc Rahman wasn’t a high value detainee the experimentation on him doesn’t count?
Thank you, emptywheel, for looking backward. Wonder if it might catch on the current administration….
Nah.
Amazing analyses by EW and Mad Dog-bravo!
O/t…drumroll,please….
Former Blackwater is putting itself up for sale – U.S. business …Jun 7, 2010 … The security firm formerly known as Blackwater is looking for new ownership.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37560756/ns/business-us_business/ – 3 hours ago
I note page 45 in the 1st PDF (100 pages), a Question For the Record (QFR) from someone on the SSCI (or a SSCI staff member) that has a redacted response from the CIA on 8 June 2005. That question is fookin’ good one:
Cheney? And would you be surprised?
Wonder why.
Obama quietly declines to nominate CIA watchdog
[Helgerson]
LINK.