Dick Cheney, the “Not Available” Briefer?

I’m going to make a wildarsed guess and suggest that when the CIA lists "not available" in a series of 2005 torture briefings to Republicans in Congress, they really mean "Dick Cheney attended, but we don’t want to tell you that."

At least, that seems to be the case for a briefing of John McCain the CIA describes as taking place in "late October 2005." As I pointed out earlier, that briefing appears to have been an attempt–partly successful–on the part of the Bush Administration to convince McCain to water down the Detainee Treatment Act that had passed the Senate earlier that month. 

As it turns out, whereas the CIA can’t seem to come up with details about that briefing (such as the date or the briefer), the WaPo covered a McCain meeting with Dick Cheney and then-CIA Director Porter Goss not long after it happened. 

The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday [October 20] to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.

[snip]

Cheney’s proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week’s discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.

McCain, the principal sponsor of the legislation, rejected the proposed exemption at the meeting with Cheney, according to a government source who spoke without authorization and on the condition of anonymity.

I guess maybe the CIA needs an introduction to the Google so it can refer to the public record to flesh out its briefing list?

If this was, in fact, McCain’s briefing, it might explain why McCain has imagined great heroism on his part in his one briefing on torture. It’s not that McCain got the briefing and decided to pass the DTA (as he suggested). Rather, he objected to watering down the DTA entirely, and instead acquiesced, eventually, to just watering it down legally. Or perhaps he counts one of Cheney’s earlier attempts to gut the DTA as his heroic stand against torture?

In any case, perhaps the CIA is also protecting Porter Goss with this "Not Available" BS (all but one of the "Not Available" briefings appear under his tenure, and only three of the briefings that occurred under his tenure list briefers, none of them Goss himself). But in the case of the McCain briefing, both the vagueness about the date of the briefing and the positions of the briefers may be hiding an attempt on Dick Cheney and Porter Goss’ part to persuade McCain to water down his anti-torture amendment. 

image_print
40 replies
  1. phred says:

    Thanks EW! A post on the “not available” briefer info : ) Lets hope this gets some traction…

    • emptywheel says:

      It started in 2003 (or at least, that’s when Cheney stopped reporting on classification and declassification activities, perhaps becuse he had insta-declassified Plame and didn’t want to tell anyone). THe White House actually fought over whether he was expempt for several years (at least until Harriet was WHCO). They finally resolved on the pixie dust resolution (that is, they finally decided AGAINST making the fourth branch argument officially) in 2007, when Congress was going to defund Cheney.

      • MaryCh says:

        Hi Marcy,

        Congratulations on being recognized and rewarded as the stellar investigative reporter we appreciate so much!

        As to the insta-de/classification, could it be that it occurred functionally at the time (Cheney simply reciting classified info in conversations), and only became insta-de/classification retrospectively after folks like you were constructing the paper trail? It’s always seemed like Cheneyball BS to me.

        [apologies if this has been sifted to a fine powder earlier on FDL]

  2. sojourner says:

    Regardless of “4th Branch” and other purported reasons, I think we all have to agree that Cheney, with all due respect to the office of OVP (which Cheney seems to need), is a sick SOB — or at least it appears that way. If it looks like an SOB, and smells like an SOB, then it IS an SOB or something like that…

    Sokay, let’s have some real discovery, and let Dick get up on a stand and ’splain himself so that we can all understand. Then we can convict him. That is fair, isn’t it?

    Personally, I think he will be gone before we get to do that, though. Sad day…

  3. Loo Hoo. says:

    At that point, Cheney simply had to tell McCain that if he wanted to be the republican nominee for prez, he had to play ball.

    And McCain, being the prostitute he is, agreed.

  4. bmaz says:

    I guess maybe the CIA needs an introduction to the Google so it can refer to the public record to flesh out its briefing list?

    Of course if they were using FBI computers, they may not be modern enough to access the web.

    • Leen says:

      My note and record keeping is damn bad. Think they might have a record keeping job for me?

      12/Bmaz. Zingo

  5. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    2003 (or at least, that’s when Cheney stopped reporting on classification and declassification activities, perhaps becuse he had insta-declassified Plame and didn’t want to tell anyone

    Before the start of the war? Or during the period in which they were trying to track down “Joe Wilson’s wife”{May, June 2003]? Interesting to know how the timing of Fourth Branch’s failure to report classification synchs with the activities of Rhodes, Chalabi, Feith, Cambone, Bremer, and a few others in that network.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s a yearly report, so it doesn’t much matter (that is, it only became noticeable at the end of the year when he didn’t report). But the EO he used to justify it was on March 25, 2003.

  6. JohnLopresti says:

    Maybe the temporary exoneration of the vice president in the March 18, 2004 published Scotus opinion including a didactic Scalia dissent in the energy task force matter had provided a sense of assurance the names of the participants in the subsequent torcha briefing in 2005 could remain redacted. Scroll to middle of file for the dissent ~18 pp.

  7. SparklestheIguana says:

    You know what else happened late October 2005. Scooter indicted. So you know Cheney was doing a slow burn that month. He probably didn’t “brief” McCain, he probably waterboarded him.

  8. perris says:

    I guess maybe the CIA needs an introduction to the Google so it can refer to the public record to flesh out its briefing list?

    wow

    hope rachael picked you up on that

  9. bmaz says:

    Hey, they (State Dept) have located Zelikow’s dissenting memo:

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who chairs the subcommittee presiding over Wednesday’s hearing, has sought to obtain a copy of Zelikow’s memo from the State Department. More than one copy of the February 2006 memo has apparently been located; one is in the process of being declassified, a committee source said on condition of anonymity.

    • Rayne says:

      I noticed this morning that ABC News mentioned Zelikow’s objection to torture in their crawl this morning; unfortunately, I missed what led that tidbit on the crawl because I had to run out the door.

      Seems bizarre this is finally surfacing in day-to-day reporting instead of being buried.

  10. drational says:

    OK. So now we have Cheney/Goss fingerprints on hit jobs on Harman and Pelosi, and as many Congressional Dems as they could list in this memo for Hoekstra. Doesn’t anyone else think this is a play to get an independent prosecutor? As soon as they get an independent prosecutor, the selective memo declassification drips stop and the congressional committee hearings go toothless so as not to jeopardize prosecutions. This very public, very prolonged torture discussion gets held behind closed doors.

    Or are they just stupidly reckless because they think they can get away with it?

    • emptywheel says:

      Uh, my vote is stupidly reckless. WTF would they want an independent prosecutor? They’d lose all control over someone with subpoena power. This is about gaming public opinion with a very bad hand.

      • drational says:

        Because right now they are being raked over the coals by slow and deliberate declassification of documents they no longer control. Because they are facing the continuous PR nightmare of multiple public hearings arranged and run by Democrats who are as invested in political advantage as they are in debating the details of torture.

        Once an independent prosecutor is named, do you think that Obama could get away with selectively declassifying CIA memos? Do you think that Congressional hearings would continue effectively if there was a special prosecutor investigation simultaneously? Why try to present your case to the public when you no longer have declassification power? If you are facing this kind of asymmetric battle, why not opt for presenting your case to a Grand Jury? You only have to convince 12 people you were right.

        Maybe they are not thinking about how to game this, but if public hearings on the democrats terms are inevitable, which would you choose? They certainly were able to get out of the Plame deal only losing a bishop….

        Maybe I am overestimating Cheney and the desire of Democrats to use the torture issue to continue to pound the GOP, but I guess we will see.

    • Leen says:

      Jane “this conversation does not exist” Harman’s “waddling” on over to the Aipac espionage investigation and trial has sure disappeared on the radar screen.

      the problem for Jane is the conversation does exist on tape

  11. radiofreewill says:

    The Goopers are hammering away on their Causus Belli – that Pelosi knew about Bush’s Waterboarding in ‘03 – and Didn’t Object – and so she – and All of the Dems – are Complicit with Bush and All of the Goopers, too.

    So, in Gooperland, the combination of Zubaydah “making” Bush Waterboard him, and – after the fact – Pelosi “not objecting” – means to them that Bush and the Goopers get a free pass on Torture!

    This is how the Abusive Sociopaths – the ‘Leaders’ – of the Republican Party think!

    Why do the Goopers even bother to wear ties? They should just show-up in Congress un-shaven and wearing wife-beaters…

  12. Aeon says:

    It looks like the May 28 DOD photo dump is now in doubt. From this morning’s WaPo:


    Hesitation at White House On Releasing Abuse Photos

    The Obama administration signaled yesterday that it may be rethinking its promise to release several dozen photos depicting abuse or alleged abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody abroad.

    White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday that President Obama has “great concern” about the impact that releasing the photos would have on soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Asked whether the Justice Department’s decision might be reversed, Gibbs declined to reaffirm the government’s intentions.

    “I don’t want to get into that right now,” he said, adding a moment later that “I’m not going to add much to that right now.”

    A follow-up e-mail to Gibbs seeking clarification was not returned. Two other members of the White House communications department declined to elaborate, pointing back to Gibbs’s comments during the briefing.

    The comments drew immediate criticism from a lawyer for the ACLU. “The suggestion that they may be reconsidering that decision . . . is deeply troubling to us,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the group’s National Security Program.

    • Nell says:

      Thanks for the heads-up on the possible cold feet on photo release.

      This is rank b.s. — it has everything to do with U.S. public opinion and not the safety of troops (who shouldn’t be in Afghanistan or Iraq in the first freaking place).

      The Arab and muslim publics are already fully informed about U.S. torture; they’ve lived it. They’re also still being subjected to bombings and missile strikes and raids on their houses, so they don’t need torture photos to make them loathe U.S. troops.

      It’s the U.S. public, whose acceptance of torture they don’t have to look at is near 50%, that the Obama administration doesn’t want to see these images.

      • Nell says:

        What Obama’s really worried about is the impact of the release of more torture images on the speedy confirmation of his sickening promotion of Stanley McChrystal, Iraq torture task force commander, to head the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

        • dosido says:

          Without linking through and apologies for my ignorance, someone on the radio was asserting that Gates is too politically savvy to put forward someone who would have that kind of stain on their record.

  13. JohnLopresti says:

    The memo link is now broken. Namely in the piece to which bmaz pointed @12, at the end of the “update” paragraph in Laura’s article in Foreign Policy May 13 2009 entitled “Zelikow advocates independent investigation into torture policies”.

  14. RickMassimo says:

    I am now convinced that whenever a member of the Bush administration is not publicly identified, it’s Dick Cheney.

  15. MattYellingAtTheMoon says:

    You know what else is “Not Available,” an open, honest and transparent government. McCain has long ago lost his spine, Dick Cheney is a war criminal and the CIA is still a bunch of cowboys.

    Obama’s blocking of the prisoner abuse photos has really got my dander up. I put up an entry with my thoughts. Check it out:
    http://yellingatthemoon.com/20…..lease.aspx

  16. darkblack says:

    ‘Safety of troops’…In a war zone. The duckspeak never ceases, hmm?

    Frankly, I think the Agency’s omission might have to do with the undisclosed location of the briefer.

    ;>)

    And I, too, would like to offer my congratulations to Emptywheel and her team on the Hillman Foundation award…Work of this caliber deserves no less.

  17. dosido says:

    Can we cut out the blogwhoring here? esp. on the day that Marcy has won a prestigious award? that would be great and thank you.

  18. PPDCUS says:

    Congratulations on your well deserved award, Marcy.

    There’s little between us and the abyss http://www.editorandpublisher……1003969297

    Seven Days in May … 2009: Cheney’s fifth branch

    Dick Cheney skulked out of public view for most of Bush 43’s eight disastrous years, like a huge termite undermining the U.S. Constitution’s foundational supports – leaking classified information whenever it was to his political advantage.

    Now out of office, he’s assumed the role of James Mattoon Scott with key operatives still working for him inside the federal government and in the MSM.

    We need a list of his Preakness pool wagers right now.

    • DLoerke says:

      You don’t want that list…most of America’s fighting men are on the Preakness list and waiting for the race to start. Mount Thunder is ready.

Comments are closed.