The Lost Moral Compass

The focus on CIA interrogation methods brought to light by two missing videotapes reveals an Administration -- and perhaps a nation -- that lost its moral compass in the wake of 9-11.

The Washington Post reports that the CIA briefed a bi-partisan Congressional committee on interrogation methods -- supposedly including waterboarding -- in September 2002, a full year after the events of 9-11. However, no leader -- Democratic or Republican -- protested publicly or privately, according to the report. One of the four Democrats did vote against the Iraq war resolution, however. And those briefed in such a manner are sworn to public silence.

The CIA is required by law to periodically brief the "Gang of Eight" -- both party leaders of each intelligence oversight committee and the party leaders of each chamber. The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 mandated that the CIA “fully and currently [inform]” Congressional oversight committees of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity.”

As a condition of this privilege, Congressmen are sworn to silence, according to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who replaced Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) after House reorganization in January 2003. Moreover, current Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA) told a reporter in April 2007:

Don't you understand the way Intelligence works? Do you think that because I'm Chairman of the Intelligence Committee that I just say I want it, and they give it to me? They control it. All of it. All of it. All the time. I only get, and my committee only gets, what they want to give me.

We are enmeshed in cyclic tension between exuberant executive behavior (the CIA) and legislative oversight (when Congress is led by the opposition party). In this conflict between executive action and legislative oversight, we are reliving history.

However, before calling for the heads of Democrats (and Republicans) who are accused, in the WaPo article, of endorsing torture (at least tacitly), we need to remember the political climate five years ago. And, with my cynical hat in place, let me remind you that the intelligence community was just given a black eye on Iran. Don't discount attempts to change the channel, so to speak.

Flashback to 2002
The September 2002 CIA briefing reported by the Post was more-than-likely part of the White House PR effort to convince Congress to vote "yes" on the Iraq War Resolution, which was introduced on 2 October 2002. Another CIA briefing was held in October, according to the WaPo.

In September 2002, when the first CIA briefing took place, the White House was beating the drums of war. Much of the rhetoric of that time has subsequently been shown to be false; however, Congressional votes "for" war reflected the will of the people.

Most Americans, per polls of that time, supported invading Iraq; many believed Iraq was involved in 9-11. Most people -- perhaps Congressmen included -- thought another terrorist attack was a real and imminent concern, due to Administration rhetoric; Bush introduced a color-coded terrorist advisory system in March 2002.

The White House was publicly linking Saddam Hussein with 9-11. In an October 2002 speech, President Bush said:

[Hussein] could bring sudden terror and suffering to America... [Iraq is] a significant danger to America... Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.... we're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using unmanned aerial vehicles for missions targeting the United States... America must not ignore the threat gathering against us.

In 2002, the Senate was barely controlled by Democrats; the House, by Republicans. Exactly who was present and what was detailed at the CIA briefings has not been made public; the WaPo article is based on anonymous, but multiple, sources.

However, there were more statesmen -- people who could resist the carefully nurtured imperative to "strike back" at someone, anyone, for what had been done to us a year earlier -- than you might remember. Check out the 23 Senators and 133 Representatives who voted "ney". In the Senate, it was 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent. In the House, it was 126 Democrats, six Republicans and one Independent.

Of those opposing the war resolution, how many were among the eight who were probably briefed in September? Only one: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Were those other seven votes influenced by the CIA briefings? How many Senators and Representatives followed suit, based on an assumption that "The Gang of Eight" knew something that they did not? How many followed suit because their party's leaders had been briefed?

If you have an urge to throw stones, I suggest you start with those seven (four Republicans and three Democrats).

The top four Intelligence Committees Congressional leaders in August 2002, per the Internet Archive:

• (then) Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL). Goss chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006.
• Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). Graham was chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence in August 2002. He left the Senate after the 2004 election.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Pelosi was the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence in 2002.
• Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-AL). Shelby was vice-chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence in August 2002. He is no longer a committee member.

House and Senate leaders in August 2002, per the Internet Archive:

• Sen. Thomas Daschle (D-SD), Majority Leader
• Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Minority Leader
• Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Speaker of the House
• Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Minority Leader

How much "opposition" we can expect when Congress and the White House are under different party control is a subject for another day. As is the degree of truth-seeking we can expect from the Fourth Estate, which served as an enabler in 2002 and 2003 just as much as any elected Democrat.

Now, about the matter the national moral compass in 2002.

The moral compass of the White House is clear: it no longer pointed true. But the bearing of the moral compass and potential political hypocrisy of the Gang of Eight remains unclear. I want to know exactly how those September and October briefings came about. I want to know what, exactly, they covered. I'm not yet ready to condemn the eight for complicity and for having a moral compass that is off course, but I am skeptical.

See Congressional Intelligence Committees - Senate and House. Also, from Linda Lowen, Cruel and Unusual Pelosi: Nancy Knew About Waterboarding Since 2002; from Amy Zalman, a definition of waterboarding.