Senate Takes First Step to Declassify Report on CIA Interrogations

The next step: bringing the massive report to the public.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 26: Committee chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (C), ranking member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) (R) and Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) (L) listen during a hearing before the Senate (Select) Intelligence Committee September 26,2 103 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The hearing was focused on the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Legislation.
National Journal
Elahe Izadi
April 3, 2014, 11:44 a.m.

In a closed hear­ing Thursday, the Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee voted 11-3 to de­clas­si­fy por­tions of a CIA re­port de­tail­ing post-9/11 in­ter­rog­a­tion tac­tics.

The law­makers sent their re­quest to the White House to de­clas­si­fy more than 500 pages of a 6,200-page re­port, in­clud­ing an ex­ec­ut­ive sum­mary, find­ings, and con­clu­sions about an in­ter­rog­a­tion pro­gram in­volving more than 100 de­tain­ees.

“The pur­pose of this re­view was to un­cov­er the facts be­hind this secret pro­gram, and the res­ults were shock­ing,” Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein said. “The re­port ex­poses bru­tal­ity that stands in stark con­trast to our val­ues as a na­tion. It chron­icles a stain on our his­tory that must nev­er again be al­lowed to hap­pen.”

The Cali­for­nia Demo­crat ad­ded that the re­port also de­tails prob­lems with the CIA’s man­age­ment of the pro­gram, which ran between 2001 and 2009, and its in­ter­ac­tion with the ex­ec­ut­ive branch and Con­gress about it.

Pres­id­ent Obama has said he fa­vors de­clas­si­fic­a­tion, but the CIA is ex­pec­ted to have some in­put in­to how much is re­leased. It’s un­clear how long it’ll take, though, un­til the pub­lic gets to see the re­port. Fein­stein said she hopes it will take as little as 30 days for the White House to re­lease por­tions of it.

The con­tents of the re­port con­clude that the CIA misled the pub­lic on as­pects of its in­ter­rog­a­tion pro­gram in the wake of 9/11, in­clud­ing “en­hanced in­ter­rog­a­tion tech­niques,” The Wash­ing­ton Post re­por­ted earli­er this week.

A num­ber of Re­pub­lic­ans have stated pub­licly that they didn’t sup­port the re­port’s find­ings, and have ex­pressed con­cerns that it was pro­duced by Demo­crat­ic staff and doesn’t in­clude in­ter­views with CIA of­fi­cials. “This re­port is totally biased,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has said.

Non­ethe­less, all but three voted in fa­vor of de­clas­si­fy­ing it.

Rank­ing mem­ber Saxby Cham­b­liss of Geor­gia voted to de­clas­si­fy por­tions of the re­port be­cause “we need to get this be­hind us.”

“This com­mit­tee has got im­port­ant work that needs to be done. I was nev­er in fa­vor of this re­port be­ing done. I think it was a waste of time,” Cham­b­liss said. “We had already had a re­port done by the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee on this is­sue. This is a chapter in our past that should have already been closed. However, the gen­er­al pub­lic has the right to now know what was done and what’s in the re­port.”

Fein­stein would not dis­close how in­di­vidu­al sen­at­ors voted, but con­firmed all three nos were Re­pub­lic­ans. GOP Sen. Richard Burr of North Car­o­lina said in a state­ment that he voted in fa­vor of it “to give the Amer­ic­an people the op­por­tun­ity to make their own judg­ments.” “I am con­fid­ent that they will agree that a 6,300 page [sic] re­port based on a cold doc­u­ment re­view, without a single in­ter­view of In­tel­li­gence Com­munity, Ex­ec­ut­ive Branch, or con­tract per­son­nel in­volved, can­not be an ac­cur­ate rep­res­ent­a­tion of any pro­gram, let alone this one.”

Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also voted in fa­vor of the de­clas­si­fy­ing the re­port. Aside from her, Burr, and Coburn, the oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans on the com­mit­tee are Sens. Marco Ru­bio, Dan Coats, James Risch.

Some law­makers are already call­ing for the de­clas­si­fic­a­tion of the en­tire 6,200-page re­port, such as New Mex­ico Demo­crat Sen. Mar­tin Hein­rich.

“When people see the con­tent, when it’s de­clas­si­fied, I think people will be shocked at what’s in­side,” Hein­rich said of the ex­ec­ut­ive sum­mary.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
25 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
25 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
25 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
25 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×