An Inconvenient Truth: Harman Opposed Torture

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:42:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Greenwald writes:

Bush-defending opponents of investigations and prosecutions think they've discovered a trump card: the claim that Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman were briefed on the torture programs and assented to them.

An inconvenient truth to both Republicans and Harman hating liberals - Harman opposed torture (see also Marcy Wheeler):

Goss has given only one on-the-record interview on these CIA controversies since leaving the CIA director job. In the December 2007 interview, he said that Congressional leaders including Representatives Pelosi and Harman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), had been briefed on CIA waterboarding back in 2002. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Goss told the Washington Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." Who was the lone person the article identified as objecting to the program?

Jane Harman.

"Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program," the Post reported. "Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy. ‘When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy,' she said. ‘I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything.'"

An inconvenient truth for many I know.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Morning Open Thread | How to Achieve "Never Again" On Torture >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

An Inconvenient Truth: Harman Opposed Torture | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

BTD loves to stump the stumpers :) (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:46:23 AM EST

or stomp the stompers. Something like that. We just can't seem to get you onboard for some demonization anymore than we can andgarden onboard for some good riot.

I stomp for the truth (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:47:18 AM EST

: That you do (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:15:08 PM EST

: Excellent post! (none / 0) (#36)
by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 05:50:46 PM EST

I personally refused to judge Harman based on what has been recently reported. I've always held her in high esteem. You have justified (!!!) my esteem for Harman. We all need to support her.

: Thank you (none / 0) (#40)
by lambert on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:50:37 PM EST

for following through on this one. Since it's a recent story, we get to see all the players in action....

Here! Here! (none / 0) (#5)
by RonK Seattle on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:40:15 PM EST

I can approve of Harman's position on torture (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:29:45 PM EST

all the while disapproving of her old position on wiretapping. Much as I can like some things about Obama and dislike others. Clinton too - both of them.

My head doesn't even explode.

Precisely (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:39:08 PM EST

It is worth noting that Harman changed her position on warrantless wiretapping when faced with a primary challenger in 2006.


Pols will be pols (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:40:02 PM EST

after all.


: Indeed (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:40:58 PM EST

It was a combination of (none / 0) (#25)
by otherlisa on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:57:14 PM EST

the primary challenge and a genuine "come to Jesus" moment from what I have heard (reliable sources).

Re: torture, yes, I remember hearing her speak on this issue and was really pleasantly surprised to hear her genuine outrage (she's my Congress-critter).


"I was briefed" (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by Andreas on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:58:47 PM EST

I was briefed, ... I was not free to disclose anything.

She was not free to disclose war crimes? Nonsense. She was a member of the committee to prevent disclosing those crimes.

seriously (none / 0) (#10)
by jussumbody on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:21:08 PM EST

If she'd made more noise she might have at least made Pelosi and Jello squirm a bit more and think twice about being co-opted into Cheney's web of crime.

As far as opposing torture, it didn't seem to rise to the level of opposing the actaul torturers in public. She still "shilled" to allow the torturers to spy on the rest of us, and herself, to her immense shock.


She was bound not to disclose it (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:30:20 PM EST

by law.

Ben Masel has brought forth the only cogent argument for how she could have done it - the Speech and Debate clause.


: Not by law, only by Rule of the House, (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:00:53 PM EST

and thus subject only to the discipline of her colleagues.

: Unconscionable (none / 0) (#41)
by jussumbody on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 11:23:00 AM EST

How can a secrecy oath to cover up illegal actions of the US government be considered enforceable? Those actions were illegal, and therefore the people doing them were not acting within their duties as government agents.
Are you defending her silence because not to remain silent would have required courage? I thought defending the consitution was part of another oath that spineless weasle of a woman took when she got elected. Didn't realize there was an escape clause if such defence required courage or personal sacrifice.
Goss (subhuman monster that he is) is right about her double supersecret get out of jail free memo in case the political or prosecutorial winds changed. She's a highly paid, and I assume she claims to be highly qualfied, public servant with a considerable staff and legal counsel available to her. She coulda and shoulda found a way to bring this out and make her opposition public, even in the most nonspecific ways necessary to preserved the alleged information that could somehow compromise the nation's security.

The only credible argument (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:29:30 PM EST

I have heard by which she could disclose it ius Ben Masel's - invocation of the Speech and Debate clause on the floor of the House.

Is that your argument?


Notice the shift in her defense? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:57:48 PM EST

It has always been "I could have gone to jail," which was not the case, per US v Gravel.

the gravel ruling left open the possibility of discipline by her colleagues in the House, censure or removal from Committee posts by simple majority, or expulsion by 2/3.

Now, it's "because of strict rules of secrecy." Presumably the House's own rules. I'm thinking she's finally followed one of my links to Gravel.


I think at that time, (none / 0) (#15)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:33:35 PM EST

she would have been quickly arrested and disappeared into some mental institution.


She certainly would have been lambasted (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:39:37 PM EST

It would have taken a great deal of courage,


I have a pretty vivid memory of (none / 0) (#26)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:58:16 PM EST

the statements that were coming out of the Republicans at that time. I remember very direct warnings that anyone in Congress being arrested for talking about anything that they felt would compromise "homeland" security. The villification of Congress - specifically Democrats in Congress - was well underway fairly early on in this process. I remember also being offended - totally offended - that so many people in America could think that members of Congress would betray this country. I was so naive. Never occured to me that the Republicans were doing just that. Well, it sort of did, but I never appreciated at that time the full scale of what was really happening at that time.

Anyhow, I think that the Bush Administration would have loved to have had a Democratic member of Congress arrested. It would have had the effect of further strengthening their hold over the remaining members in part because I do not believe that that many Americans would have objected to such an act at that time. People would have believed them when they said that Harman was a traitor and they would have accepted that providing proof publicly would be "too risky" while we were at war. She would have been disappeared and few to none would have objected.


"I do not believe ..." (none / 0) (#28)
by Andreas on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:15:18 PM EST

Do not blame the American people.

All of these crimes could happen due to the behavior of the Democrats. The terrorists arround Bush and Cheney would not have been able to do what they did without the Democrats.


I don't think that I am excusing the (none / 0) (#30)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:25:53 PM EST

Democrats, but I think the American people did their part here too. That was a very scary time in Washington. I kept thinking that someone would stand up and call bs, but no one did in congress. A few did outside, but they were quickly discredited and dispatched. It was a scary time.


Atrios feels the anthrax scare... (none / 0) (#37)
by lambert on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:41:16 PM EST

... which, let us remember, targeted Democrats (and IIRC was also presented as being weaponized) had a lot to do with the atmosphere. I think he could be right. Capitol Hill is still a small town, and small group dynamics come into play.


: It was 9/11 that freaked them out. (none / 0) (#42)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:46:22 PM EST

I live amongst these people. They were devastated by that event - they all felt like failures and were terrified to do anything that might impede the prevention of another attack. They are just like most Americans. Only a few are going to be leaders and show courage under that kind of duress. The sad thing is that they were all elected to be leaders and they became obedient followers. The anthrax attacks were directed at people who seemed to have not gotten quite frightened enough for someone's liking. Then we had the nutjob and that boy who went around shooting and killing people all over the area. They were terrorized just like the rest of us were and the Bush Administration milked that for all it was worth.

As I recall (none / 0) (#23)
by Steve M on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:45:18 PM EST

Mike Gravel established that you don't need to be on the House floor to make use of the Speech and Debate Clause. A subcommittee room will do just fine!


: I stand corrected (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:47:50 PM EST

: Better chance of being in front of (none / 0) (#27)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:59:15 PM EST

a CSPAN camera on the floor though.

How do we know she's telling the truth? (none / 0) (#4)
by NealB on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:40:08 PM EST

Will the person who received the letter at the CIA be identified to corroborate this and produce the letter? I'll believe it when I see it.

Don't think she sent it to anyone. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:42:36 PM EST

Filed it. I suppose she could have written it now and backdated it.


Not true (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:44:28 PM EST

She sent it to the relevant government officials.


Of course you are correct. (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 12:59:30 PM EST

She sent it to CIA and CIA responded in writing. She advised CIA not to destroy interrogation video tapes, which CIA had advised her and Goss it intended to do. I don't see that she objected in the letter to any specific interrogation techniques. Requesting preservation of evidence.


You have a copy of the classified letter? (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:31:11 PM EST

do you have a link? I think you are mistaken in your characterization but I am eager to see the contents of the letter.


Link (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:19:32 PM EST

Harman letter and CIA reply


: Certainly goes beyond (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:59:41 PM EST

just the destruction of the videotapes.
And beyond waterboarding for that matter.

I heart BTD (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by lambert on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:46:39 PM EST

"Do you have a link?" is a question we ask CONSTANTLY at Corrente. If you don't -- unless you're in Op-Ed and/or rant mode, or admit you're lazy or time-pressured -- you're playing games.

And Oculus comes up with great data! Thank you, thank you.


I assume the briefings probably included (none / 0) (#16)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:36:52 PM EST

the Justice Department's opinions as to the legality of the methods. I certainly wish the congressional leadership had ordered their own legal review. Would that have been within their powers?

Kudos to Harman for at least going on the record against it in some way. Was Pelosi briefed at the same time? Could explain more of the distance between those two if Pelosi approved and Harman did not.

Legal review would certainly (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:09:10 PM EST

have fallen under the Speech or Debate clause, as interpreted in Gravel, which held he could discuss classified material with his staff, as preparation for debate.

Not shielded, delivering materials for publication.


Yes (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:38:19 PM EST

Pelosi was briefed.


: Yes, upon re-reading the post I saw that. (none / 0) (#18)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:39:08 PM EST

Interesting.

: What would be the effect of no way to record what (none / 0) (#43)
by jawbone on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:51:51 PM EST

the Congress Critters were briefed on? No pen, paper, pencils, recording devices, no staffers?
They could go back an record to the best of their memories what they'd been told, but then could not discuss the info w/ staffers, iirc. Would this have undermined their standing as witnesses?
Not making excuses, just trying to realize the obstacles placed in their way.
If they'd said something on the floor, could it have turned into a he said/she said, which seemed to happen even if those trying to hold the admin to account had hard facts, right?

"Bush-defending opponents (none / 0) (#31)
by Cream City on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 02:47:39 PM EST

of investigations and prosecutions"? Uh, a lot of Dems including Obama seem to want to do so . . . and I wouldn't bet on only Bushies being behind this lie that was promulgated about Harman.

There seem to be many agendas in play in this.

: Indeed (none / 0) (#39)
by lambert on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:49:58 PM EST

I bought the original story -- partly because there have been so many betrayals by Dems since 2006, they're still going on, and this seemed to fit right into that pattern.
But it looks like I was wrong. IIRC, the Kos front pager's headline included the words "... Blue Dog..." along with Harman, which is true, but not germane.