CIA Still Trying To Block Release Of Senate's $40 Million 'Devastating' Report About CIA's Torture Program

from the it's-going-to-come-out-eventually dept

Wed, Dec 18th 2013 11:04am — Mike Masnick

Back in October, we wrote about how the Senate Intelligence committee was sitting on an apparently devastating report about the CIA's torture program. The report apparently cost an astounding $40 million to put together (I still have trouble understanding how this is even possible...), but the CIA was fighting against ever having it released, arguing that it was inaccurate and painted them in an unfairly bad light. The report is so devastating that even Senator Dianne Feinstein, long seen as the intelligence community's leading apologist, has been at the forefront of arguing for its release.

Foreign Policy magazine is now reporting that, even as the CIA continues to fight against it, some sort of deal has been reached to release at least part of the report.

On Thursday night, Feinstein said the CIA and the Obama administration have agreed that portions of her committee's exhaustive, 6,000-page report should be shared with the public. News of the agreement follows an intense struggle between the CIA and lawmakers that will likely shape how history views one of the most controversial periods in the post-9/11 era, when the CIA used tactics that President Obama and others have condemned as torture in an attempt to elicit information about terrorism.

At a hearing concerning the nomination of Caroline Krass to become the next general counsel for the CIA, Senator Mark Udall demanded that the document be made public, and threatened to block the nomination until the document was released. Senator Feinstein also quizzed Krass about getting access to related documents, concerning the CIA's legal rationale for its torture program and drone strikes -- only to have Krass refuse to commit to providing those documents. According to the Reuters report Krass told the committee she "did not believe members of the Senate panel had the right to see" those documents.

While so much of the focus concerning the intelligence community has been on the NSA these past few months, there is a growing amount of evidence that the CIA is also completely out of control, and views itself as being beyond basic Congressional oversight. It is a reminder that reforms for fixing the intelligence community cannot and should not focus merely on correcting this program or that program, but on a true and comprehensive overhaul of the entire system.

And it should start with releasing this 6,300 page report that American taxpayers paid $40 million to produce.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: caroline kass, cia, dianne feinstein, drones, mark udall, torture

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:12am

40 million?!
My god! The government's getting less wasteful with its money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:15am

...there is a growing amount of evidence that the CIA is also completely out of control...

More and more the public is drawn to this "out of control" part. Start with local police who are routinely killing innocent bystanders in an effort to get the bad guy, right on up through the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, DHS, TSA, IRS; where does it friggin' stop? The whole government is totally out of control with no apparent ability to distinguish between what is allowed legally and what they decide to take as being legal.

You have tons of examples with the NSA exposures of laws being read to say one thing, often with redefinitions of the English language to make it possible and then hiding how that makes it right.

Given how corporations are right in the middle of all this with enabling datamining and often selling that data to the government or the spy groups just hacking in to get it and you've set up the finest government corruption money can buy.

It's no coincidence these strange set of bed pardners. When you look around at the economy and the living conditions at large, it is resembling the Great Depression era more than it is resembling anything else.

Damn, I'm starting to sound like ootb; lord help me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:20am

My Jewish side is telling me they could have probably got it done for about 13.5 Million.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:25am

Plausable Deniability....
It's not that the politicians don't have a right to the information, but if they had the information they would be expected to do "something" about it.

The TLA's (Three letter agencies, Thug Like Agencies, take your pick) seem to think that as long as nobody knows what they are really doing, they can't be held accountable for their actions. They justify and rationalize this to themselves by saying that they are providing plauseable deniability to those in charge....

/s or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:27am

"Some sort of deal"
What the actual fuck? This shouldn't be a negotiation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:27am

Seems to go along with this article about the NSA/CIA not wanting us mere citizens to know what they are actually doing, in an effort to protect us from ourselves.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB450/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:39am

"According to the Reuters report Krass told the committee she "did not believe members of the Senate panel had the right to see" those documents."

Isn't this comparable to telling your boss to "butt out", because that's none of your business? Isn't Congress in charge of CIA oversight?

I'm afraid Caroline Krass, is too incompetent to become general console for the CIA, if she doesn't even know who's the CIA's boss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed Allen, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:47am

It is a distraction
Obama: "Nobody is buying our NSA excuses!"
Feinstein: "We can distract them by sacrificing the CIA."
Obama: "Do that! The torture was started by Bush anyway."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:48am

Didn't Obama say he "has their backs" and they should just "do their job however they see fit", which he later proved by imprisoning the guy who uncovered the CIA torturers?

Obama will try to keep this hidden as much as possible. Everything Obama said in the electoral campaign was a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2013 @ 11:53am

I'm shocked
The report is so devastating that even Senator Dianne Feinstein, long seen as the intelligence community's leading apologist, has been at the forefront of arguing for its release.

Given that Feinstein goes out of her way to lick the boots of her masters in the intelligence community, I would have thought that she would be working extra hard to bury a report that the CIA hates.

I'm honestly shocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 12:36pm

Re: I'm shocked
I think the smell of more power to her little kingdom tempts. She has previously demanded that NSAs foreign affairs be reviewed in her committee. Given she knows the report, I am certain that what she wants released is a) completely benign b) about things her committee doesn't currently review or c) things she has an interest in bringing forth to strenghten Obamas "no torture" stance. Jumping to column d) is a radical jump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 12:57pm

Re: 40 million?!
Wonder how many contractors can retire now.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 18 Dec 2013 @ 1:13pm

Re: Plausable Deniability....
"Krass told the committee she "did not believe members of the Senate panel had the right to see" those documents"

Thanks for interviewing... next!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 18 Dec 2013 @ 1:15pm

Re: "Some sort of deal"
Exactly.

Head of CIA? Provide this document!

No.

You're fired. Former deputy head of CIA, now head of CIA, provide this document!

Repeat until you get the document.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 1:30pm

Coupled with cosmetic changes at the NSA...
...this might just draw some attention away from Haydn and company for a while. Feinstein would find that agreeable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 1:31pm

Re: It is a distraction
yes, you beat me to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 18 Dec 2013 @ 1:35pm

Because math.
...this 6,300 page report that American taxpayers paid $40 million to produce.

In case you were wondering that works out to roughly $6,350/page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 2:31pm

Feinstein...
do i even have to say it? these "stein"s are pretty good at hiding bad things
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2013 @ 2:41pm

Re: Because math.
The cost seems pretty high, but breaking it down to cost per page literally means nothing. Who knows how much research and time had to be paid for just to begin the initial draft of the document?

This comes up with software sometimes, by managers who cost things out by "line of code". For major software projects, the cost per LOC tend to be between $50 and $100 (but there's a large variance). It takes less than a second to actually write a line of code, but it can take an hour to determine what that single line should be, to test it for correctness, and to correct it if it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 18 Dec 2013 @ 7:04pm

Here's what I don't get...
If the Obama administration oversees the CIA and wants this report to come out, why can't it simply issue an order to make it happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2013 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Because math.
Not to mention that doing it by line of code encourages bad code! Under their line of code efficiency measurement. The following (newlines following semicolons omitted for space).

print("H");print("e");print("l");print("l");print("o");print(" ");print("W");print("o");print("r");print("l");print("d");print("!");print("\n");

This affront to good practice is 13 times more efficient under that model. And that is without engaging in any IOCCC trickery. Evaluating cost by line shows a complete lack of knowledge of coding and ineptitude in management.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 Dec 2013 @ 10:49pm

when the CIA used tactics that President Obama and others have condemned as torture
Yet, Obama has failed to close down Guantanmo. Double standards much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 12:48am

40,000,000

Google Search - .01 cent
Lining pockets fee - 39,999,999.98
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2013 @ 5:52am

Re: Re: Re: Because math.
"Evaluating cost by line shows a complete lack of knowledge of coding and ineptitude in management."

Well, duh! That's why they're in management!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2013 @ 9:09am

Re: Re: Re: Because math.
Yes, it's a classic case of measuring something because it's easy to measure, rather than because it actually gives you any insight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]