CASEY: Inconsistent interrogation tales (Commentary)

The Washington Times ^ | June 7, 2009 | David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

[jazusamo]

As the controversy continues over what and when Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation methods (EIM), there is a significant overlooked dimension to this Washington melodrama.

If the speaker, as she admits, was informed as early as 2002 of the program, including the possible use of waterboarding, but was powerless to challenge that policy - except by using it as a political tool in the 2006 congressional elections - the entire web of practical, legal and institutional arrangements known as "intelligence oversight" is useless, a congressional Potemkin Village. This would weaken Congress' hard-won post-Watergate authority to share responsibility for the nation's intelligence activities.

~snip~

Mrs. Harman did not, as has since been claimed, condemn or reject EIM use as illegal or inconsistent with American values. She acted as an engaged committee member, questioning whether - in addition to legal vetting - the admittedly "profound policy questions" raised by the use of EIMs, had "been as rigorously examined as the legal questions." In particular, she asked what type of policy review took place, and "whether the most senior levels of the White House [i.e., the president] have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States."

Mrs. Pelosi's reaction was different. When briefed, she raised no questions regarding EIM use. It was only after the CIA program leaked, and became a roiling political issue that congressional leaders - including Mrs. Pelosi - began to condemn EIM use. More important, given the briefing notes released by the CIA, Mrs. Pelosi's claims that she either did not fully understand the program or had no power to affect the administration's policy choices here are not credible.

[Liberty Valance]

Pelosi should step down from her leadership position in Congress. Her dhimmitude is embarassing for the entire nation and will only get people killed.

[Don Corleone]

This would weaken Congress' hard-won post-Watergate authority to share responsibility for the nation's intelligence activities.

"Kongress...I don't need no stinkin' Kongress now that I am King!" B.O.

[jazusamo]

Couldn’t agree more. She’s used Intel and her position as Speaker for political purposes instead of the security of the nation, she doesn’t belong in Congress.

[okie01]

The authors make a rather profound point, which hasn't been aired to date: If Pelosi's assessment of the congressional role in intelligence oversight is correct, then it serves no useful purpose and should be eliminated.

So, which is it, Nancy? Were you lying? Or were you admitting that Congress has no business overseeing the Executive's intelligence function?

[jazusamo]

Exactly. I wasn’t sure that point hadn’t been made but I haven’t seen it until now.