Rockefeller to Politico: Read the Damn SSCI Narrative Already!!!

/37 Comments/in , /by

Jello Jay has finally resorted to explaining things to journalists reeeaaalllly slowly, so they can understand that this passage from the SSCI narrative, produced during Jello Jay’s tenure as Senate Intelligence Chair …

After the change in leadership of the Committee in January of 2003, CIA records indicate that the new Chairman of the Committee was briefed on the CIA’s program in early 2003. Although the new Vice-Chairman did not attend that briefing, it was attended by both the staff director and minority staff director of the Committee. [my emphasis]

… means that the new Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2003, a guy named Jay Rockefeller, maintains he did not attend the briefing that the CIA claims he attended. Spelled out all simple-like so reporters can understand it, Jello Jay’s stance reads like this:

We are not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the document. We can tell you that in the particular entry stating that Senator Rockefeller was briefed on February 4th of 2003 with an asterisk also noting him as later individually briefed — that is not correct, or at least is not being reported correctly by people reading the document. The Democratic staff director attended a briefing on Feb. 4, but Senator Rockefeller was not present and was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community. He was first personally briefed by the intelligence community on Sept 4th, 2003. [my emphasis]

And these passages from the SSCI narrative…

In May 2004, the CIA’s Inspector General issued a classified special review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, a copy of which was provided to the Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman and staff directors in June of 2004. The classified August 1, 2002, OLC opinion was included as an attachment to the Inspector General’s review. That review included information about the CIA’s use of waterboarding on the three detainees.

[snip]

In July 2004, the CIA briefed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee on the facts and conclusions of the Inspector General special review.

… suggest that Jello Jay first learned the full extent of what we were doing with waterboarding in 2004, when he received the IG report that revealed (among other things) that the CIA wasn’t doing what the OLC memos said it was doing.

Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly stated he was not told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program’s legality and effectiveness. With more information coming to light in 2004, Senator Rockefeller became increasingly concerned about the program,

And this earlier public statement from Jello Jay (as well as details suggesting he pressured CIA to review whether the program violated CAT) …

In May 2005, I wrote the CIA Inspector General requesting over a hundred documents referenced in or pertaining to his May 2004 report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation activities. Included in my letter was a request for the CIA to provide to the Senate Intelligence Committee the CIA’s Office of General Counsel report on the examination of the videotapes and whether they were in compliance with the August 2002 Department of Justice legal opinion concerning interrogation. The CIA refused to provide this and the other detention and interrogation documents to the committee as requested, despite a second written request to CIA Director Goss in September 2005.

It was during this 2005 period that I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA’s detention and interrogation activities. In fact, all members of the congressional intelligence committees were not fully briefed into the CIA interrogation program until the day the President publicly disclosed the program last September.

… suggests Jello Jay has been pushing to examine what CIA was really doing.

… and in early 2005 he launched a full-scale effort to investigate.

Let’s hope that, now that Jello Jay has spelled this all out for the reporters who are unable to read two documents in the same week, they will at least inquire where the discrepancy comes from–and why Leon Panetta is unwilling to vouch for the credibility of CIA’s own record-keeping.

image_print
37 replies
  1. klynn says:

    Let’s hope that, now that Jello Jay has spelled this all out for the reporters who are unable to read two documents in the same week, they will at least inquire where the discrepancy comes from–and why Leon Panetta is unwilling to vouch for the credibility of CIA’s own record-keeping.

    Finally. Hope.

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    This is interesting:

    was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community.

    Rockefeller could have ended the sentence by putting the period after anyone, but he didn’t. He tacked on “in the intelligence community”. I take that to mean he did get report on the meeting from the staffer. FWIW.

    Of course, that means the CIA document was crafted pretty deliberately to mislead. I’m still stuck on the “cut and paste” error that, as far as I can tell, no one else has mentioned. I have this nagging feeling that it is important, but I can’t figure out why.

    • emptywheel says:

      Agree that the cut and paste error is critically important (not least bc it ought to shut Hoekstra up once and for all about this document).

      I think the 2005 briefings were not documented. Which is critically important, bc we know that’s when Congress started pushing back in earnest, only to be shut down by CIA and the Administration.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Also, the September 03 briefings are titled “RDI Briefing”. I’m going to be in meetings the rest of the afternoon, but I did a quick search and didn’t turn up any immediate candidates for the meaning of that acronym.

        • SparklestheIguana says:

          Seems unlikely, but Respiratory Disturbance Index? “The respiratory disturbance index is similar to the apnea-hypopnea index, however, it also includes respiratory events that do not technically meet the definitions of apneas or hypopneas, but do disrupt sleep.” Wikipedia.

        • drational says:

          In 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence [USD(I)] led
          two initiatives that eventually evolved into RDI: an effort to take stock
          of Defense Intelligence; Defense Human Intelligence (HUMINT) reform.
          • In early 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) launched its RDI
          initiative to improve defense intelligence operations.
          • In 2004/2005, the 9/11 Commission, Weapons of Mass Destruction
          Report, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and the
          Director of National Intelligence Strategy validated/highlighted the need
          for Remodeling Defense Intelligence.

          If this is it, and it is defense intelligence releted, then we can figure they were not talking about waterboarding, which was CIA only….

        • WilliamOckham says:

          I saw that one, but it doesn’t feel right. There was also a contractor named dNovus RDI (since merged with somebody else), but I don’t see any evidence they were involved in torture. I’m thinking RDI must have some specific CIA (or maybe even Congressional) meaning because the Senate briefing included the DCI and DDCI. That’s the only briefing that had that kind of firepower, I think.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          I think I have it figured out (and it’s a bit of a letdown):

          Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation.

        • tx49holdem says:

          I believe RDI refers to “Remodeling Defense Intelligence” as described in this DOD news link (see middle of page). http://www.defenselink.mil/new…..x?id=15475

          I also believe dNovus RDI is most definitely involved w/ CIA, Zubaydah, torture related events based on the kinds of contracts etc. that they handle for govt. It is a Texas based firm (established 2001) w/ huge amounts of govt contracts & large dollar amount, extensive, solely republican, campaign contributions (esp. 1995 – 2000… Bush, Bush, Bush). See this link where KForce, Inc. acquired dNovus: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/…..s/2061686/

          Also, the head of dNovus is Jim Gerretson – see below info @ his 2007 announced DNI title for dNovus RDI:

          http://www.dnovus.com/
          companynews.asp

          “Gerretson as Director, National Intelligence and Information Operations

          San Antonio, Texas — July 7, 2004, dNovus RDI is pleased to announce the hiring of Jim Gerretson as the dNovus Director of National Intelligence and Information Operations. Mr. Gerretson was previously Director of Information Assurance (IA) at Lockheed Martin, with customers in the Federal, State, Local, HealthCare and Commercial sectors.

          Mr. Gerretson has over 28 years experience in the areas of IA, Network and Computer Security, Network Engineering, Systems Engineering and Program Management. As Director of IA for Lockheed- Martin, (formerly Affiliated Computer Services Defense, Inc.) he led a team of 120 in providing IA services including penetration testing, security consulting and networking design, cyber-forensics, security products evaluation, security policy evaluation and creation, and security training for the NSA, DoD, State, and commercial organizations. He was a Cryptologic Technician in the US Navy and held technical positions with Ford Aerospace, JG Vandyke & Associates, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

          Mr. Gerretson has testified before committees of the U.S. Congress as an expert witness on Information Security matters, and has been a featured speaker at national and international conferences, including the Information Warfare Conference in London. “

          If you dig a little more there is historical links of dNovus RDI w/ a firm called ACS (Dallas based) where legal issues arose over bribery & fixed contract pricing etc.

          Tis a dirty little big circle of friends and allies…

        • bmaz says:

          Hey, thanks, good info. Lovely outfit it sounds like. Jeebus, are there any private spook shops that aren’t run by wingnuts??

      • DWBartoo says:

        Does “shut down” mean out-maneuvered or was some magic, secret word simply spoken? Perhaps, some variation of that wonderful ‘pixie dust’ was sprinkled liberally about or possibly, blackmail most foul was loosed upon the land?

        Maybe it was all of these things. Whatever was expedient. (Though a certain amount of ongoing ‘comfortable’ complicity is still not out of the question. Unless, of course, Congress finally decides to do something other than … nothing.)

        You are doing wonderfully well at sorting things out, EW.

        You and your ‘gang’ are deftly untangling, with stellar research and excellent suppositions, the deliberately woven,and multi-layered but ultimately not very cunning, deceits of, as bmaz put it, the “criminal enterprise”.

        Thank you, all. Very much.

        DW

  3. dmvdc says:

    Hey, EW, did you see the document that Glenn Greenwald posted a link to, the submission to a British court that contains the language from a letter/communication between the Obama administration and the British government related to the evidence regarding Binyam Mohammed’s treatment? This paragraph was very interesting to me:

    Quite distinct from the significant harm to the U.S.–U.K.
    partnership if the seven paragraphs–or underlying documents–
    are released, is the impact of President Obama’s
    declassification of the OLC memoranda. The memoranda focused
    solely on intelligence-gathering methods previously utilized by
    the CIA. In releasing the memoranda, President Obama made clear
    his administration’s intention that the enhanced interrogation
    techniques discussed therein would no longer be utilized by the
    United States Government. Neither in the memoranda, nor in any
    statements of the administration accompanying their release, was
    reference made to the identity of any foreign governments that
    might have assisted the United States. Given the
    declassification of the highly sensitive information contained
    in the memoranda, the fact that the President refrained from
    providing any information about foreign governments is
    indicative that the United States continues to preserve the
    secrecy of such information as critical to our national
    security.

    The letter is to the British government. The British court had asked the government to seek the Obama administration’s view on release of the information they have concerning Mohammed’s treatment, to see if it differed from the Bush administration’s position, particularly in light of the release of the 4 new memos. In light of that background, the language in the U.S. letter makes it sound like the information that the British court has about Binyam Mohammed implicates a third country, which could in turn implicate the extraordinary rendition program.

    That, in turn, is interesting, for many reasons. Certainly on its own merits, it’s interesting. But it’s also interesting because the 4th Circuit not that long ago held in the Abu Ali case that Saudi Arabia was not acting on behalf of, or as an agent of, the United States when they interrogated (and likely tortured) Abu Ali. That holding was the basis for rejecting Abu Ali’s claim about the evidence used at his trial to convict him.

    Of course, the U.S. letter to the British government is deeply troubling, because we’re threatening to withhold intelligence information that would help Britain protect British citizens from terrorist plots or attacks if the British government releases the information they have on Binyam Mohammed’s treatment. This whole episode is so dirty and sordid. Trickle, trickle, trickle of information, and Obama is now vigorously trying to keep secrets, too. I fear what the final picture will look like when we know everything.

    But we have to know. We must know the truth.

    • skdadl says:

      And Nell @ 19: I just don’t understand the persistence in claiming that the role of any foreign government still needs to be shielded in this case (or in so many others), since we already pretty much know that the CIA (and MI5/6) used Moroccan and Pakistani interrogators as proxies.

      Somebody has to break through the profound immorality of that entire attachment, including the paragraph you quote, dmvdc, and it sure doesn’t look as though Obama is going to do it. So here’s to those High Court judges — give us the seven paragraphs and the [43?] documents, and help everyone who is fighting similar injustices in many other countries.

    • MarkH says:

      In order to maintain the good relationship Americans and Brits are very likely too keep secrets. I can’t imagine they would be so self-serving as to ruin that for some other petty reason. The world is changing and we depend upon good leadership to smooth the way. That’s true everywhere and I see no reason we shouldn’t trust a little…but tie our camels when we can.

  7. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    – 2003 —
    January
    February – CIA claims Rockefeller briefed; however, this is not true.
    March
    April
    May
    June
    July
    August
    September – Rockefeller finally briefed
    October
    November
    December
    ——

    – 2004 —
    January
    February
    March
    April
    May – Rockefeller receives written CIA IG classified report; Aug 1, 2002 OLC memo is one of the attachments
    June
    July – Rockefeller finally briefed on the CIA IG report of May 04
    August
    September
    October
    November
    December
    ——

    – 2005 —
    January
    February
    March
    April
    May – Rockefeller sends written request to CIA IG for 100+ documents related to the May 2004 report on detention and interrogation, including a report about CIA interrogation videotapes (and their compliance with Aug 1, 2002 OLC memo). The CIA refuses Rockefeller’s request; Porter Goss is CIA Director.
    June
    July
    August
    September – Rockefeller repeats his request of May 2005, this time sending it directly to CIA Director Porter Goss.
    October
    November
    December

    Throughout 2005, Rockefeller is unsuccessful in his efforts to get the Senate Committee on Intelligence to investigate possible problems with detention and interrogations; Senators — even those on the Intel Committee — remained uninformed…

    … to be continued…

  10. Nell says:

    There are two possible ‘third countries’: Pakistan and Morocco.

    Binyam Mohamed was captured in Karachi in April 2002, held in a series of houses in Pakistan (likely CIA, but unclear if Pakistani ISI, CIA, or both).
    May 2002 — interrogated by British intel at one of the houses after five weeks of captivity. They told him the Americans were planning to send him away.
    21 July 2002 — rendered from Islamabad to Rabat, Morocco for 18 months of torture. Held incommunicado. Brits maintained intel relationship with the US (CIA) on him, feeding info (”far beyond that of a bystander or witness”).
    Jan 2004 — to CIA Dark Prison in Afg (darkness/loud music/isolation torture).
    May 2004 — to Bagram (end of ‘disappeared’ period; on-the-books prisoner, seen by Red Cross}
    Sept 2004 — to Guantanamo.

  11. freepatriot says:

    I think I figured out the disconnect

    the freepi can’t unnerstan us if THE CAPS LPCK AIN’T ON

    I been spendin some spare time studying lower life forms, and that’s what I come up with …

  12. Frank33 says:

    Somebody has some explainin to do. There is a Mr. Blue, let us call him. He is a mysterious CIA contractor who seems to have been directing Torture (and probably a

    Mr. Red, and Mr. Green and others). Presumably, Mr. Blue was directing a cover up as well, both of Torture and its ineffectiveness. But Torture IS EFFECTIVE when done to produce FALSE CONFESSIONS. It does appear that not just Cheney, but also Gonzo were in the loop.

    As President Bush’s top lawyer, Alberto Gonzales pressed counterterror officials to use brutal interrogation techniques on terror suspect Abu Zubaydah in 2002, even when those techniques hindered Zubaydah’s cooperation, a former FBI agent who was present is expected to testify Wednesday before Congress…

    Soufan will testify that within an hour of Abu Zubaydah’s arrival at the secret prison, he was revealing parts of the 9/11 plot and had identified the mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Soufan has contended publicly that the FBI approach to interrogation had been so successful, George Tenet ordered that the gravely ill Zubaydah be kept alive…

    A top Johns Hopkins surgeon was flown in to treat Zubaydah, and the two FBI agents helped nurse the terrorist into good health. The former operative tells ABC News that the intelligence continued to flow, as Soufan interviewed Zubaydah in the hospital while tending to his recovery. But that all ended when the CIA’s team of specialists and a contractor arrived to take over interrogations…

    The contractor, who has been identified by former intelligence officials as James E. Mitchell, was a former military psychologist. Mitchell, along with another psychologist, has been described to ABC News as an architect of the CIA’s harsh interrogation plan…

    “It was imposed upon us,” says the source. “And not only [at CIA] headquarters, they were getting requests specifically from the White House.”

    According to an intelligence officer involved in Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation, Mitchell had “no idea about intelligence, no idea about interrogations, no idea about interviews.”

  13. Twain says:

    What a joke it is to put Jello Jay and intelligence in the same sentence. He has always seemed lacking in that department to me.

    • MarkH says:

      Don’t underestimate him. In some ways he’s like Obama. He’s smart, well educated, a very experienced politician, understated and not quite as jiggly as EW has declared. On the negative side, since he’s not very overt you never know precisely where he stands until he acts. In that way the intelligence committee is almost perfect for him.

  15. CanuckStuckinMuck says:

    Hey, Jane. Wouldn’t it be funny if the moribund press actually got up off its collective ass and inflamed a sense of outrage in the nouvelles-challenged populace, thereby saving the Obama administration from having to mandate investigations and the prosecution of those responsible for the EITs?
    What a wonderful world this would be…..

  16. CanuckStuckinMuck says:

    Sorry, EW. The post above my last subliminally influenced me to address you as Jane. Please forgive me.

  17. KayInMaine says:

    I would love it if the media would focus on the republicans who were part of the House/Senate Intelligence Committees back then. Oh wait! Not fair to the republicans! It’s all the Democrats fault! Spit.

Comments are closed.