Senator Wyden Toying With The Idea Of Releasing The Senate's CIA Torture Report

from the the-pressure's-on dept

Fri, Jul 25th 2014 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

Senator Ron Wyden is apparently getting tired of waiting for the White House to use up its buckets of black ink in redacting everything important in the Senate's big torture report. He's publicly pondering the idea of using Senate privilege to just release it himself.

As you may recall, the Senate Intelligence Committee spent years and $40 million investigating the CIA's torture program, and the 6,000+ page report is supposedly devastating in highlighting (1) how useless the program was and (2) how far the CIA went in torturing people (for absolutely no benefit) and (3) how the CIA lied to Congress about all of this. The CIA, not surprisingly, is not too happy about the report. At all. Still, despite its protests, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to declassify the executive summary of the report.

However, the CIA got to take first crack at figuring out what to redact, which seemed like a massive conflict of interest. Either way, the CIA apparently finally ran out of black ink in late June, and asked the White House to black out whatever else was left. The State Department has already expressed concerns that releasing anything will just anger the public (our response: probably should have thought of that before sending the CIA to torture people). And, now it appears the report is being held up due to "security" concerns.

At least some are getting anxious about this. Senator Wyden has apparently deliberately mentioned Senate Resolution 400 to two separate reporters recently. The key part of Resolution 400 is as follows:

The Select Committee may, subject to the provisions of this section, disclose publicly any information in the possession of such committee after a determination by such committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure. Whenever committee action is required to disclose any information under this section, the committee shall meet to vote on the matter within five days after any member of the committee requests such a vote. No member of the Select Committee shall disclose any information, the disclosure of which requires a committee vote, prior to a vote by the committee on the question of the disclosure of such information or after such vote except in accordance with this section

Now, this still means he'd need to get the rest of the Committee to go along with the plan, which could be difficult. But, really, it seems that this move is just an effort to remind the White House that if it keeps dragging its feet, the Intelligence Committee (the majority of whom have already supported releasing this document) can take matters into its own hands.

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: cia, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, torture report

35 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 6:08pm

Welcome, but a titch late
Such a move should have been immediately put into consideration the second it was known that the CIA, the absolute last group that should have redaction rights to the document, were instead going to be first in line to remove any 'inconvenient' information from it.

Just like you don't let an accused criminal have redaction rights over the police report covering their activities before it's presented in court, putting the CIA, the very agency under investigation, in control of the findings is a conflict of interest, and/or a showing of contempt towards the public, so vast it should never have been considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:01pm

CIA will probably now spy on Ron Wyden out of spite for daring to exercise oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re:
  They probably already were. Every time Wyden has given the public a hint, the government already knew what he was hinting at.
  We didn't.
  He'd be seen as a threat in the eyes of any bureaucrat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Thought I read that all congressional members and staff were being spied upon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:14pm

Whenever I hear that a congress critter is "toying" with something, it makes me think he is looking for personal gain or political leverage, and doesn't give two craps about the actual subject.

Either release and deal with it, or sit down and stop trying to gain advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:46pm
  
  Re:
  Not always I'd say, sometimes they're just tossing the idea out there to gauge the reaction to it, both public and politically, so they have an idea whether or not they'll have enough support should they bring it up officially.
  
  Also, at least in this case, it's likely only to gain some good PR, rather than trying to shake down some companies for 'donations'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vel the Enigmatic, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except Wyden has been consistent. He's probably one of the most trustworthy Senators right now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 9:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      True, the second half was more 'But if it wasn't an attempt to gauge potential reactions, this is what it would be.'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Whatever (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 9:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      trustworthy Senators
      
      oxymoron?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - CK20XX (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 10:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed it is most of the time. But you gotta keep your eyes open for the few good ones. They do exist, and if you don't pick them out, then your blanket distrust will not only undermine all authority, but also the basis for replacing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 1:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's also chairman of the Senate finance committee and has decided to try to fight the BS of corporate tax inversion.
        
        He holds pole position for the race to be my write-in for 2016.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 8:31pm

Is this the report about how the US is breaking the Geneva Convention and international law by torturing, force feeding, executing, and indefinitely detaining enemy combatants without trial?

All in the name of fighting terror of course. Although, I'm sure most people will find what's in the report pretty terrifying.

Maybe that's why the report is being redacted and delayed. The CIA and Whitehouse are trying to figure out a way to make their war crimes sound less terrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 25 Jul 2014 @ 9:02pm

Correct me if I'm wrong...
Can't Wyden technically present and read the entire executive summary on the floor of the Senate and be shielded from any legal recourse for doing so (though I'm not saying he should do such)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 4:27am
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong...
  Sure, he'd be shielded from legal recourse. However, the breach of protocol would almost surely guarantee him being booted out of SSCI. Hence why he and Udall had to unfortunately remain silent until Snowden
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 25 Jul 2014 @ 9:46pm

Take Out The Terrorist Politician
Hes just ASKING for a CIA drone strike on his office on Capitol Hill. The Israelis are showing in Gaza how you can surgically pinpoint the Terrorist lairs with minimal civilian bycatch, we can do the same thing here in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- barack obama, 25 Jul 2014 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re: Take Out The Terrorist Politician
  75% civilian casualties isn't exactly "minimal bycatch"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 26 Jul 2014 @ 12:21am
    
    Re: Re: Take Out The Terrorist Politician
    The usual bycatch when the U.S. does a drone strike is quite more than 75% of civilian casualties. Most of them are declared "terrorist sympathizers" or whatever else sounds ominous enough. As long as they had brown enough skin, nobody will check too closely.
    
    Now it takes chuzpe to intentionally bomb UN schools and claim that one is only "defending oneself". But if Israel can get away with that, why not the U.S.?
    
    The newspapers and channels will happily regurgitate any garbage they are fed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Take Out The Terrorist Politician
  Poe's law
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 11:20pm

If he is not careful he will end up having an "accident" much like those that expose the criminality in the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 26 Jul 2014 @ 1:06am
  
  Not the only tool in the box
  While an 'accident' would likely be a bit too high-profile to be greenlit(and honestly, when talking about people who are fine with ordering and carrying out torture, not much else would hold them back), remember it wasn't too long ago that it was revealed that the NSA, and their British equivalent, have programs specifically designed to destroy the reputations of people, programs that the CIA would probably find of great interest, assuming they don't have their own versions already.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 1:53am

Just a reminder that some german soldiers were brutally "executed" for less than this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 3:56am

It's our property
That is: this report is the property of the American people. We paid for it. (We also paid for all the activities it covers, unfortunately.) There is absolutely no question that it should be immediately published in full, unredacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 5:59am

DO IT! This time even Feinstein might support him doing that, so I doubt he would get in too much trouble (he shouldn't get into ANY trouble, since he has Senate immunity, but who knows these days with the out of control Obama/Holder team).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 26 Jul 2014 @ 6:40am

I don't know why anyone is looking forward to the release of this report. It will be nothing but page after page of black ink with anything even vaguely useful blacked out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 26 Jul 2014 @ 2:06pm

Take the vote so we can see who is a patriot and who has sold out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 26 Jul 2014 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  Good idea, but you can bet they'd vote in such a way that there were no names mentioned, only the final outcome.
  
  Wouldn't do after all to have a nice, easy to read sheet that listed who was in favor of hiding the details regarding the CIA torturing people for no gain and then lying about it, versus those who rightly believed that such information needs to be public, if for no other reason than to hopefully make it less likely to happen again. /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jul 2014 @ 4:13pm

Public anger
The State Department has already expressed concerns that releasing anything will just anger the public

That this is even a consideration in whether or not to release the report makes me angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 26 Jul 2014 @ 6:51pm
  
  'But people might get angry if they read it'
  Best response to that was the one made in the article: 'probably should have thought of that before sending the CIA to torture people'.
  
  They act like people getting angry over the report going public is a bad thing, whereas the truth is if people weren't angry over a report on how a government agency tortured prisoners, then something is seriously wrong.
  
  Being angry, even furious, at a gross injustice like that should always be the default position, for any sane and rational person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2014 @ 12:20am
    
    Re: 'But people might get angry if they read it'
    I don't think that is the larger point. CIA is an intelligence agency like NSA and they fear any kind of release pointing to their activity. Angered public will tear a hole in their cozy political relations and potentially even worse: The complete autonomy granted by plausible deniability.
    
    I would question that the angering hasn't already happened in this case since the congress has already shot them very hard. The political damage has already been done and the public is already somewhat aware. They fear that further damage to their political independence might pursue as a result of the release. That is where it hurts. Political oversight is a bitch.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 27 Jul 2014 @ 4:02am
      
      Re: Re: 'But people might get angry if they read it'
      Some political damage has been done, and the public is somewhat aware, but much like the NSA's activities, where people suspected what they were doing, but were only able to do anything about it when solid proof was provided, there's a big difference between 'The CIA is probably doing X', and 'The CIA is doing X, and here's the proof'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jul 2014 @ 6:32pm
    
    Re: 'But people might get angry if they read it'
    You're right, but as the AC said in his response, my point was a little different. It's that if decisions about what we are or are not to be made aware of is based even a little on whether or not we'll get angry, then things have gone off the rails: it's government agencies treating as as if they are our rulers rather than our employees.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 29 Jul 2014 @ 12:07am
      
      Re: Re: 'But people might get angry if they read it'
      Ah, I get what you're getting at now, and you're right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2014 @ 8:24pm
  
  Re: Public anger
  But if the public gets angry they might want to change things. That would mean democracy, and everyone knows democracy is an act of treason, an attempt to seize power from the rightful rulers: the rich.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2014 @ 4:26am

Since When
Since when did "angering the public" become an good enough excuse not to release information on what the government is doing? It should be released because it would anger the public. If the government is doing something that would anger the people that it represents then it's doing something wrong and should stop doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ink jet stock manipulation, 28 Jul 2014 @ 1:10am

Buy printer ink stock
Clearly this is an attempt to prop up printer ink refill companies? 842 pages of 100% redacted bold black areas will surely impact sales in a positive manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]