Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cheney Led Briefings of Lawmakers to Defend Interrogation Techniques
WASHINGTON - Former vice president Richard B. Cheney personally oversaw at least four briefings with senior members of Congress about the controversial interrogation program, part of a secretive and forceful defense he mounted throughout 2005 in an effort to maintain support for the harsh techniques used on detainees.
Former vice president Richard B. Cheney personally oversaw at least four briefings with senior members of Congress about the controversial interrogation program, part of a secretive and forceful defense he mounted throughout 2005 in an effort to maintain support for the harsh techniques used on detainees. The Cheney-led briefings came at some of the most critical moments for the program, as congressional oversight committees were threatening to investigate or even terminate the techniques, according to lawmakers, congressional officials, and current and former intelligence officials.
Cheney's role in helping handle intelligence issues in the Bush administration -- particularly his advocacy for the use of aggressive methods and warrantless wiretapping against alleged terrorists -- has been well documented. But his hands-on role in defending the interrogation program to lawmakers has not been previously publicized.
The CIA made no mention of his role in documents delivered to Capitol Hill last month that listed every lawmaker who had been briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" since 2002. For meetings that were overseen by Cheney, the agency told the intelligence committees that information about who oversaw those briefings was "not available."
The revelations do not shed light on whether top Democrats, as Republicans contend, were aware that waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, was being used on terrorism suspects as early as the fall of 2002. That discussion has dominated Capitol Hill since last month, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was not present at any of the briefings that included Cheney, accused the agency of intentionally misleading her in a 2002 briefing about the use of waterboarding.
An official who witnessed one of Cheney's briefing sessions with lawmakers said the vice president's presence appeared calculated to give additional heft to the CIA's case for maintaining the program. Cheney left it to the professional briefers to outline the interrogation practices, while he mounted an impassioned defense of the program.
"This is a really important issue for the security of the United States," the official recalled Cheney saying.
The CIA declined to comment on why Cheney's presence in some meetings was left out of the records. One senior intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the identities of individual briefers are intentionally concealed in all cases -- their names do not appear in any of the CIA documents that describe congressional briefings. In at least some cases, he added, the identity of the briefer was never recorded in the agency's internal records.
For all but seven of the 40 meetings listed, however, the documents outlined which agency led the briefing and which provided support. And on at least five occasions, they spelled out that then-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden led the classified meetings.
Since leaving office in January, Cheney has mounted a vigorous public defense of the interrogation practices. Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, he said CIA officials approached the White House in 2002 with the request to use harsher techniques such as waterboarding.
"We all approved it. I'm a strong believer in it. I think it was the right thing to do," said Cheney, who is now pushing for the declassification of the information gained from the detainees who were subjected to the most brutal techniques.
Several members of Congress who took part in the Cheney meetings declined to comment on them, citing secrecy concerns. But there was little doubt that he was leading the charge on the issue.
"His office was ground zero. It was his office you dealt with at the end of the day," recalled Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who jousted with Cheney over the system of interrogations.
One of the most critical Cheney-led briefings came in late October 2005, when the vice president and Porter J. Goss, then director of the CIA, read Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) into the program on the interrogation methods, according to congressional and intelligence sources.
One knowledgeable official described the meeting as contentious. Cheney and Goss, with other CIA officials present, tried to persuade the former Vietnam POW to back off an anti-torture amendment that had already won the support of 90 senators.
The McCain amendment would have ended practices such as waterboarding by forbidding "cruel, degrading and inhumane" treatment of detainees. The CIA had not used waterboarding since 2003, but the White House sought to maintain the ability to employ it.
In the meetings with lawmakers, Cheney was adamant that the enhanced interrogations were needed to preserve national security, according to two participants. He advocated briefing more lawmakers about the program, against the wishes of National Security Council officials who sought to inform only the top members of the intelligence committees.
Lawmakers at times challenged Cheney and CIA officials about the legality of the program and pressed for specific results that would show whether the techniques worked. In response, the CIA briefers said that half of the agency's knowledge about al-Qaeda's plans and structure had been obtained through the interrogations.
Before the McCain briefing, Cheney met with a friendlier audience, his longtime friends Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who oversaw the Pentagon's annual spending bill, to which the McCain amendment was attached. Cochran said yesterday that it was the first time he had been given a full description of what waterboarding entailed.
"I found the conversation with the vice president to be very candid, straightforward, helpful," Cochran said.
CIA records indicate that another briefing -- for which the briefer's name is "not available" -- was given to Senate GOP leaders on Nov. 1, 2005. That was the same day Cheney made a regular appearance at the weekly Tuesday luncheon for Senate Republicans. Cheney usually engaged only in brief, quiet asides with senators at the lunches. But at this meeting -- the day before The Washington Post published a detailed account of the CIA's secret overseas prison system -- Cheney rose to speak, and the room was cleared of all staff.
He discussed the value of the interrogation program and the information gleaned by using the harsh techniques, according to numerous contemporaneous media accounts.
Cheney's briefings on interrogations began in the winter of 2005 as the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, Sen. John D. Rockefeller III (W.Va.) and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), publicly advocated a full-scale investigation of the tactics used against top al-Qaeda suspects.
On March 8, 2005 -- two days after a detailed report in the New York Times about interrogations -- Cheney gathered Rockefeller, Harman and the chairmen of the intelligence panels, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), according to current and former intelligence officials. Weeks earlier, Roberts had given public statements suggesting possible support for the investigation sought by Rockefeller. But by early March 2005, Roberts announced that he opposed a separate probe, and the matter soon died.
Cheney's efforts to sway Congress toward supporting waterboarding went beyond secret meetings in Washington. In July 2005, he sent David S. Addington, his chief counsel at the time, to travel with five senators -- four of them opponents of the CIA interrogation methods -- to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On the trip, Sen. Graham urged Addington to put the interrogations at secret prisons and the use of military tribunals into a stronger constitutional position by pushing legislation through Congress, rather than relying on executive orders and secret rulings from Justice Department lawyers.
Subsequent court rulings would challenge the legality of the system, and Justice Department lawyers were privately drafting new rules on interrogations. Addington dismissed the views of Graham, who had been a military lawyer.
"I've got all the authority I need right here," Addington said, pulling from his coat a pocket-size copy of the Constitution, according to the senator, suggesting there was no doubt about the system's legal footing.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.



31 Comments so far
Show AllThe CIA made no mention of his role in documents delivered to Capitol Hill last month that listed every lawmaker who had been briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" since 2002. For meetings that were overseen by Cheney, the agency told the intelligence committees that information about who oversaw those briefings was "not available."
Gee, I'm sure glad that the Panetta-era CIA would never mislead Congress. Kind of makes you understand why he was so quick to defend his predecessors.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
rj: agreed
the same applies to brother obama and bush baby
true the new boss is more charming....
more adept at using the english language......
i'm also quite sure that those innocent folks being killed over there in iraq and afghanistan would rather be killed by obama over bush baby
any day
slam dunk
It's a deep rooted paranoia that causes these people to torture other human beings.
Like the Chinese in Guantanamo prison, they were training in Afghanistan to be fighters for their people against (I think) the Chinese. If they go home they will face charges and possibly death!
It makes no difference, they can't get this paranoia out of their heads, thinking that these people are out to get them.
Maybe this is the only way they can live with themselves? Accuse them of torture and they react by defending at all cost what they did.
I can only hope that the U.S. sheeple realize soon that these criminals are standing butt naked and are not here to help anybody but themselves.
Don't BUY THE LIES!
"Don't BUY THE LIES!"
---which the WaPo is selling as hard as it can, to wit:
"...waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning..."
Waterboarding will kill you if it isn't stopped in time, therefore it is REAL drowning, albeit done on dry land;
WaPo can't bring itself to use the word "torture," instead parroting the bipartisan euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques."
If this isn't complicity after the fact, I don't know what is.
Time line, time line, time line.
For several months since leaving office, Dick Cheney has been braying to the Faux News/Rush Limbaugh segment of the US mainstream media spectrum about how a deeply classified CIA memorandum lists between twelve and fourteen separate jihadi evil doer plots that were successfully thwarted on Little George's watch due to the valuable intelligence information gained through use of torture (rebranded as enhanced interrogation techniques). This memo is the basis for Cheney's repeated claims that waterboarding, stress positions, sexual humilation and other abusive practices actually work, and these methods in fact saved thousands or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives that would have otherwise been lost in 9/11 style terrorist attacks.
Now we are told (as this WaPo news article puts it) that "the CIA had not used waterboarding since 2003." This latest historical narrative clearly is designed to make the Bush/Cheney regime's use of torture as official US government policy just a short blip in time - from 2002 through 2003 - a program ended by the Bushies themselves even before the Abu Ghraib photo scandal and the Taguba report broke into the public domain in the early spring of 2004.
No point investigating, or holding anybody involved legally accountable you see, for just a few moments of perhaps excessive overreaction to the ticking time bombs. Let us turn the page and move forward. No need for a partisan witch hunt by Monday morning quarterbacks is the theme of the neocons' refrain.
If we are to take this revisionist history at face value, then we are supposed to believe that over a dozen separate Al Qaeda plots to attack targets on American soil were heroically disrupted courtesy of highly credible, timely intelligence information gathered by our CIA interrogators during just a few months when the enhanced techniques were being used. This scenario is utterly implausible.
The Obama White House should call Dick Cheney's bluff, declassify the infamous CIA report, and hand it over to the Senate and/or House Intelligence Committees for full, public investigation into the truth of Deadeye Dick's repeated claims that torture in fact did help to keep America safe. What current national security interest of the United States could possibly be harmed by reconstructing a dozen terrorist plots that were supposedly foiled years ago?
On the wider focus of this article - Vice President Cheney's personal role in briefing selected Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate at various times during 2005 - I see a tempest in a teacup.
Dick Cheney has already stepped up into the spotlight as the prime apologist for torture, and for trying to make torture a matter of partisan policy choice rather than a settled issue of law. If he also tried to put a bipartisan gloss on these crimes under cover of the Congressional oversight process, that's just all the more reason for the present Congress to act upon the 911 Commission's urgent policy recommendation that the whole legislative oversight mechanism be drastically overhauled.
If our spooks have indeed decided they want to play in the sandbox of domestic partisan give-and-take in alliance with the dark forces of the Dick Cheney wing of the GOP, then the Democratic half of the nation's two party system should get a spine. Enact some meaningful reforms to curtail the black ops boys, reassert primacy of the rule of law, and hold our spy extablishment accountable to the Constitution for clandestine activities past, present, and future. For good measure, entitle the legislation "The Anti-Blowback Act of 2009."
Time to take the toys away from the boys.
Bill from Saginaw
The Bush Admin and the Joint Chiefs of Staff along with most of the high command will most likely not be brought to any true form of justice.
The "money guys" have been in control from the inception of the USA, and they will not give up easily. I they allowed these recent "criminal crew" members of American Leadership ---stand trial---it may be difficult to find others who would be willing to be "muppets" ---in the future--(if America has one)----'naw', they will always have someone in American Leadership to take the risk.
If however the American people and in particular the "legal community" call for the above mentioned member of the former government to be handed over to the International Court of Justice for trials as international criminal. Criminals who acted in bad faith, and committed heinous acts of war and other crimes against humanity. There is ample evidence already in the hands of the "body politic" and this of course would be expanded with the 'testimony' if the 'small fish against the large fish' for light treatment. They conspired to commit these crimes in Washington,D.C. and intended the majority of them to be conducted "outside of the USA territorial jurisdiction. This alone would make them subject to the International Courts jurisdiction.
Then when I expect something from the "Legal community" that is truly meaningful, I am reminded of my favorite "Lawyer Joke";
'Hey, have you heard all of those Lawyer jokes,---- well ya know they are all really true'.
In fact it is no irony that the current President is a "Constitutional Lawyer" (as opposed to the previous who still has not finished his 'favorite book'---"Look Spot Look") has not mentioned the very stark reality that the USA is in violation of over 243 Treaties--all within the jurisdiction of Constitutional Art VI---while the USA is in a war in Iraq for violating UN Res 1441-another treaty--and while there in that country, illegally, they are committing many acts of criminal violations of several treaties, and agreements.
How will the USA explain these shortcomings---in the future Trials that the world will/may/convene after the 'collapse of the USA'?
I wonder, will there be a "Lawyers underground Rail Road", and where could they go?---Who would take them? What country (on this planet anyway) would desire to have so many "American Lawyers" as refugee/asylum recipients?
America, how much longer will the world tolerate you?
Good Luck America, you really need it.
i would like to see cheney get a chance to explain all of the nuances of his torture techniques fully and with flow charts from the docket of a war crimes trial
like you i doubt that will happen - although i think there is a chance the nwo/controllers will offer both cheney and bush for trial
it would be a good strategy for them - deflect the sheeple once again
keep in mind, neither of them is of any use to anyone anymore
When will anyone have the courage to be honest in their reporting and start using the correct terminology: it's "Torture", not "(Enhanced) Interrogation Techniques".
Maybe we should all go out and rob a bank, and when we're at the police station declare "I didn't rob the bank, I merely used Enhanced Withdrawal Techniques. President Bush and Cheney did it all the time, I'm just emulating them."
If there was no doubt about the legal authority, Cheney would not being doing verbal gymnastics about the right and authority to carry out these heinous crimes. As for Addington, he is leftover trash from Iran-Contra. If this is ever brought before an open court, Addington will be the first to be charged.
It's not paranoia that drives these people to do these heinous acts. There is something very disgusting and deviant that has permeated thru the country and the military. It's time americans recognize this as fact. That is why Obama and Bush/Cheney do not and did not want any of this information and exposure to see the light of day. When America looks itself in the mirror honestly - it's not a pretty picture.
"Enhanced Withdrawal Techniques."
---LOL, thanks!
Jeevee
Cheney shows more demonic psychosis each & every day. What keeps the good people of the U.S. of A. from having him locked up on the most dangerous "mental hospital" ward available—permanently?
While Dick Cheney and his talking-heads insist that "enhanced techniques" have prevented other al Qaeda attacks in this country, how do they explain attacks on Americans and our allies in other countries? Are we to believe that al Qaeda had more attacks planned in the U.S. but were prevented from happening because of "enhanced techniques"? If so, I would like to see some evidence.
"The (other) attacks include the October 2002 bombings of two nightclubs in Bali, Indonesia, which killed more than 200 people, almost all of them Americans and citizens of their Australian and British war allies; the following year brought the heavy bombing of the US-managed Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic receptions and 4th of July celebrations held by the American Embassy; and other horrendous attacks in more recent years on US allies in Madrid and London because of the war." -William Blum
It's a good article if you have time to read it. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6524
Cheney is now busy 'creating' the environment for his own escape from the Constitution. "We all approved it"...sure,cause he rammed it down their throats (to get a smoking-gun tie to Iraq as THE big instigator for the 9/11 attack.) he's after the fact covering his butt...
At times, I think I'd be freer(sp?)shouting free speech slogans in Tiananmen Square...
Cheney -- Reptilian overlord in this Habitation of Dragons.
snoop: i think of cheney more fully as an evil shape shifting alien lizard
the kind of lizard who sulks under the sump pump living on crawling insects
nowhere near as grand as a dragon
Point well made. To which we might add:
...Spawn of a creature that deposits its eggs in cold, stagnant water by the dark of the moon.
So?
I can still hear that bastard saying that on syllable "Fuck You!" to the American people. In fact, that's what that whole administration said to us for eight solid years, and are still saying it.
I know the Dems say "Screw You!" instead, but the man of the hour is Cheney, and his "So?" was delivered with such cold uncaring that we should never forget it.
I can't wait to see this guy go down.
I hope they drag his ass over the hot coals.
I'll make this brief and to the point.
Want to really understand US foreign policy / CIA / anti-democratic tendencies of the United States Government? Pick up a copy of Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA." I have, finally and ultimately, reached the point where I truly believe that those who still have any faith in the electoral process in this country are idiots. The intelligence agencies, military, corporate interests, and the bought and paid for politicians have robbed this nation of whatever degree of democracy it once possessed.
Anybody who seriously followed the line of US foreign policy during the last 30 years should understand that we have finally evolved into what we once propagandized the USSR to be: a ravenous, duplicitous, raping and killing machine intent on only satisfying its own interests, and in direct contradiction to its professed values.
I am ashamed of my country. I am ashamed of my government. As a citizen, a veteran, a parent, I think I need not say more.
Dear Kane, Warrick, and Tate --
If you make compromises to get this topic into the POST and to the POST's many readers, more power to you. Please forward my message to your editors.
I spend thousands of dollars each year on information, most of it in print. The following is why I no longer purchase THE WASHINGTON POST. This is why I no longer purchase THE NY TIMES. This is why I no longer feel tempted to linger on the news even when I am so brain-dead as to be pawing at the TV:
Can't your editors spell "torture"?
If I beat my wife and children, do your editors consider my conversations with them "enhanced"? If I pull an unconscious body from a lake and resuscitate the person, would your editors have you write that I saved someone who had "simulated drowning"?
In no other field but journalism would such language pass for objective.
I canceled most of my news subscriptions in April of 2003 (no coincidence), but I have been tempted by headlines since. I loved the papers for decades despite their cant.
Yesterday I saw a headline on the TIMES that said that the US military accepted responsibility for a few of the Afghans they had killed, and I told myself, "I had better go online." I'd gladly plop a couple quarters on the counter just to smell the paper, but but I know the NYT will just clip a few hedging acknowledgments from some general and either bury or just not print the details of the murder itself.
I can't be bothered.
Today, as I moved to criticize your wording, I told myself, "Yes, but this sounds like they work for a commercial paper" and I scrolled up to identify your captors.
I feel shame to criticize your otherwise fine work when your bosses probably do not allow you better. You have likely devoted far more of your lives to news per se than I ever will, and I feel unjust. There sure seems a lot in all this "investigative reporting" stuff that's worth saving and probably requires that someone ante up a couple bucks for it.
For goodness sakes, please forward this to your editors and tell them that I cannot bother with them if you-all cannot write the news?
May all your pleasures be unsimulated and may you remain for all your natural and earthly days unenhanced.
Look. What's the purpose of listening to anything Cheney says. He's been caught in such momentous lies he has negative credibility. Ergo, everything he says is disinformative. An evil man, period.
Darth Viper's foray onto the public stage in 2009 in defense of institutional torture won't enhance US national security but WILL enhance the breakdown of the rule of law, an environment which Darth Viper knows is crucial to the general health of the imperial enterprise. You little people just keep enjoying your fossil fueled luxuries/conveniences and don't think too hard about it.
Let all pray that someone somewhere will gain enough cajones to lock this idiot up somewhere forever. What is he tryiny to prove? He is not the self appointed Dictator anymore, or has Obama gave him another cabinet position? This clown is very sick and dangerous. What is Eric Holders job? The slob Dickieboy must go.He has done much greater harm to this Country than any of the prisoners he deem so dangerous. But we must remember he is a repug.
it should be clear enough by now to one and all that this was cheney's baby. rummy stood right behind him ready to implement the torture in real time. i would not even be surprised to find out that w did not know till afterwards. this was all well thought out and structured, to suit their means. the cover up is just as bad as the crimes. den haag is calling. frog march them to their seats. let the trials begin.
Let's please call it for what it was and is: TORTURE! TORTURE! TORTURE! I'm really sick of the ridiculous euphemism; 'harsh interrogation techniques' and even more pathetic; 'enhanced interrogation technique' constantly used as a psychological device to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting and completely naive US citizenry! Cheney/Bush and their criminal cabal are guilty of murder, torture, rape, theft, environmental destruction, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against God!! I probably left a bunch, but these are the main ones that demand accounting for in the tragically neglected halls of JUSTICE!!!
'enhanced interrogation' enhansed en-terror-gation
The Anti-Christ haunted the bowels of spook central until the Bush Crime Family's CIA
fabricated just the dodgy dossier he needed for the warcrime of the New American Century.
But let's remember that in a wanna-be democratic republic, however wax-and-wane wobbly, it usually remains in The People's interest to defend institutionalized free speech -- which of course also means [defending] the right of an audience -single or collective - to freely mock and discredit royalist foghorns like Dick Cheney, et al.
Unless you can make the case that anti-democratic, US public opiners like Cheney are functionally indistinguishable from a sociopath yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre, it's best to allow the 1st Amendment to work mostly unimpeded, as intended. And it's intent, given a reasonable diversity of the ownership of public media, is to let in-humanists reveal themselves over time.
Herbert Marcuse, in his circa 1960's essay, A Critique of Absolute Tolerance, argued that ['bourgeois'] Constitutionalist free speech-defending positions such as mine, were naive at best and functionally complicit with corporate capitalist meta tyranny at worst.
I don't agree with Marcuse on this all-important point. Not because I have delusions about the near-total co-option of Americas's MSM news-framing by the ruling oligarchy, but because that co-option is not yet total; is in fact still vigorously and openly challenged by a mostly-free dissident press, however popularly ignored for the moment.
I think that most of us, here on this opinion site at least, want to see come about a democratically-driven, humanist revolution in the US --one that might by popular assent yield a non-capitalist political economy, if that's what the majority of us choose; but also one that might, alternatively, transform America's present corrupted capital market system into a something resembling the non-Marxist political economies of Scandinavian nations.
But as soon as I hear anyone advocating official restrictions on popular free speech, I also hear the same anti-humanist, self-defeatingly hyper-statist/culturally-fascist groundwork being proposed that the Bolsheviks established shortly after they came to dominate Russia's 1917 direly-needed but tragic revolution.
Dissenters and free-speechers, there, (especially the Mensheviks -those highly organized and dominantly popular democratic socialists) quickly became 'legally' muzzled by the less-principled Bolsheviks and, as they and others persisted in questioning Who Controls the Revolution, either banished or shot.
Whatever else we humanists and progressives do in the USA to help overthrow our elitist, increasingly one-dimensional perceptual, human/earth ruining, System, we must not repeat that fatal mistake made by most other modern revolutionaries: viz, officially disallowing multi-parties, individual opinion, popular dissent, and legally-guaranteed free public speech.
Resolution of impediments to legally equalized free speech for all members of a polity is of course always the sine qua non, always the meta-cognitive bugaboo, always the final Catch-22 challenge of any decently-intended, do-unto-others political and/or economic revolution.
But I think history shows, despite Marcuse's otherwise analytically-credible mix of Freudian and Marxian principles to describe a new society, that this free speech question --always a bothersome paradox for impatient modern visionaries, is never resolved in the interests of flesh and blood people simply by overview thinkers, or angry citizens as the case may be, dismissing its significance in the name of some Revolution's or moral end-point's allegedly newly-revealed Truths.
Until Cheney is legally charged and convicted, by public demand, for his provable violations of national and international law, the rest of us democracy-believers are obliged to freely let him speak his fallen mind and his creaturely-horrid views of human governance and moral virtue.
It's also practically advisable that we meanwhile do just-this in the case of Cheney, since the psychological disease of authoritarianism that he personally embodies and politically sponsors, must be, if not directly legally treated, is otherwise allowed to be seen and condemned by popular instinct -- much as our society, almost morally-lost as it is, nevertheless still marked the good-as-confessed sociopath O.J. Simpson as a model of Who Not To Believe, and How Not To Be Human. <><><>
Apologies for the prolixity.
Correction to post of terry a, above:
2nd to last paragraph, 4th sentence: strike the word 'is' immediately in front of the word 'otherwise.' (otherwise, the whole meaning, there, is semi-opposite....)
Ugh!
Too late at night for me to easily write and quick edit.
My life is a rat-race and I'm getting too tired at these usually wee hours.
I think the neuro-medical term for my condition is called wee-wee brain.
Whatever.
Sorry