Lead Investigator For CIA 'Torture Report' Explains Why It Was Necessary To Hijack A Copy Of The 'Panetta Review'

from the keeping-the-CIA-(slightly-less-dis)honest dept

The Guardian has published a long report detailing Senate staffer Daniel Jones' experience with the CIA while acting as the Senate Committee's chief investigator during the compilation of the "Torture Report." While much has already been written about the CIA's actions during this time, the Guardian's multi-part piece gives the public an insider's look at the effort the agency went through to disrupt the preparation of the report.

The process started off on the wrong foot. It was the New York Times, not the agency itself, that initiated the Senate's examination of the CIA's counterterrorism efforts.

In November 2005, a senior CIA official named Jose Rodriguez destroyed 92 videotapes depicting the brutal 2002 interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abdel Rahim Nashiri. Rodriguez’s tapes destruction remained a secret to his congressional overseers for two years, until a 6 December 2007 New York Times article revealed it; they barely even knew the CIA taped interrogations at all.

Daniel Jones spent the next five years digging through any documentation he could pry from the CIA's hands and slowly came to the conclusion the agency had lied to everyone -- including two consecutive presidents -- about its interrogation practices.

One document contained crucial information that proved Jones' conclusion: the Panetta Review. But the CIA didn't want to hand it over. The Senate's agreement with the CIA meant that the agency controlled access to the documents in its possession -- documents it provided extremely limited access to. Jones worked in a single room set up by the CIA for examination of documents and it only dropped files into the shared drive Jones could access if it felt like it. It also removed files periodically without warning or explanation.

In March 2010 Jones and his colleagues started noticing that they had difficulty accessing documents they knew they already had. Simple search terms weren’t retrieving certain records anymore.

“We noticed they were gone right away,” Jones said.

It would have been easy to disappear documents, even in substantial amounts. The agency had provided millions of pages. The only way it could have happened was for the agency to have removed the information from a computer network the CIA set up for the Senate that Jones did not know the agency could access

When asked about this, the CIA first blamed the tech team it had hired to set up the system used by the CIA to provide access to Senate staffers. Then it blamed the White House. Finally, it took a look at itself in a closed, opaque investigation and managed to come to the conclusion that the CIA itself was to blame for the missing documents.

This was still early on in the process and was on top of other pre-existing headaches. The DOJ's decision to open its own investigation of torture allegations should have been good news, but instead, it just created more problems for Jones and the Senate Subcommittee.

Typically, when the justice department and congressional inquiries coincide, the two will communicate in order to deconflict their tasks and their access. In the case of the dual torture investigations, it should have been easy: Durham’s team accessed CIA documents in the exact same building that Jones’s team did.

But every effort Jones made to talk with Durham failed. “Even later, he refused to meet with us,” Jones said.

[...]

The lack of communication had serious consequences. Without Durham specifying who at CIA he did and did not need to interview, Jones could interview no one, as the CIA would not make available for congressional interview people potentially subject to criminal penalty. Jones could not even get Durham to confirm which agency officials prosecutors had no interest in interviewing.

The 6,700-page report was finished by the end of 2012. By mid-2013, the CIA was already disputing the content and the conclusions reached by the Senate investigation while still stonewalling on declassification. Jones, who had uncovered a wealth of lies delivered to the Bush administration, was somewhat surprised to see the current head of the CIA (John Brennan) continuing the CIA tradition with President Obama, delivering briefings to him that contradicted the contents of the Senate report, but agreed with the CIA's internal investigation: the so-called "Panetta Review."

Having observed this, Jones decided to break the rules the CIA had set down for Senate staffers.

Inside the small room in Virginia the CIA had set up for the Senate investigators, Jones reached for his canvas messenger bag. He slipped crucial printed-out passages of what he called the Panetta Review into the bag and secured its lock. Sometime after 1am, Jones walked out, carrying his bag as he always did, and neglecting to tell the agency security personnel what it contained. After years of working together, no one asked him to open the bag.

Jones didn't leak the document. Nor did he just hand it over to the Senate Subcommittee. Instead, he placed it in the Subcommittee's safe to ensure the CIA didn't control the only copies of the Panetta Review. It was a move that needed to be made. The CIA had zero interest in releasing the documents and, shortly after the Torture Report's release, it somehow managed to "accidentally" destroy the agency's only copy of it.

Jones' removal of the review led to the CIA and Senate demanding criminal investigations of the other party and the eventual punishment of one person involved in the investigation: staffer Alissa Strazak, the other lead investigator during the compilation of the report. She found her promotion to General Counsel of the US Army blocked by senators critical of the report's findings. The DOJ never filed any charges. The FBI won't even read the report. And the CIA has emerged pretty much unscathed and possibly looking forward to having a new president to lie to in 2017. (Although if it's Trump, it may not have to lie quite as frequently…)

Filed Under: cia, classified info, daniel jones, panetta review, senate intelligence committee, torture report

CIA Inspector General Claims It Accidentally Deleted CIA Torture Report After Being Asked To Retain It

from the keystone-cops dept

The saga of the CIA torture report continues to get stranger and stranger. As we noted, last week, the appeals court shot down a FOIA lawsuit from the ACLU to get the full report released. If you remember, only the heavily redacted ~500 page executive summary of the report had been released, with another ~6,500 pages or so still locked away. And we do mean locked away. The Justice Department has basically told the entire executive branch not to open the report, and Senate Intelligence Committee boss Richard Burr has been demanding the report be sent back to the Senate so it can be destroyed. Senator Feinstein had actually distributed copies fairly widely throughout the administration, with the goal being that the full report would get read and, you know, the US government wouldn't torture people again.

Part of the reason why the DOJ instructed everyone in the executive branch not to read it was to play a game with the whole FOIA process. Only documents held by the executive branch are subject to FOIA requests. Things in Congress are exempt. So Burr has been making sure that everyone believes the report is "a Congressional record" and the DOJ is arguing that by not opening the report, the executive branch doesn't run the risk of accidentally making the document subject to FOIA requests. But, as part of that, the DOJ also told everyone in the executive branch not to destroy their copies either -- asking it to "preserve the status quo" during the course of the FOIA lawsuit.

According to a detailed report at Yahoo, the CIA's Inspector General's Office then destroyed its copy of the report, but insists it was all an accident, and they'd like another copy... to lock up and not read:

[L]ast August, a chagrined Christopher R. Sharpley, the CIA’s acting inspector general, alerted the Senate intelligence panel that his office’s copy of the report had vanished. According to sources familiar with Sharpley’s account, he explained it this way: When it received its disk, the inspector general’s office uploaded the contents onto its internal classified computer system and destroyed the disk in what Sharpley described as “the normal course of business.” Meanwhile someone in the IG office interpreted the Justice Department’s instructions not to open the file to mean it should be deleted from the server — so that both the original and the copy were gone.

At some point, it is not clear when, after being informed by CIA general counsel Caroline Krass that the Justice Department wanted all copies of the document preserved, officials in the inspector general’s office undertook a search to find its copy of the report. They discovered, “S***, we don’t have one,” said one of the sources briefed on Sharpley’s account.

Sharpley was apologetic about the destruction and promised to ask CIA director Brennan for another copy. But as of last week, he seems not to have received it; after Yahoo News began asking about the matter, he called intelligence committee staffers to ask if he could get a new copy from them.

Feinstein is apparently none too pleased about all of this and has just sent a letter to CIA director John Brennan, asking him to give the Inspector General's office a copy:

As you may be aware. the office of the CIA Inspector General has misplaced and/or accidentally destroyed its electronic copy and disk of the Senate Select Committee on lntelligence's full 6,700-page classified Study of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. I write to request that as Director of the CIA, you provide a new copy of the Study to the office of the CIA IG immediately.

Your prompt response will allay my concern that this was more than an "accident." The CIA IG should have a copy of the full Study because the report includes extensive information directly related to the ongoing oversight of the CIA.

Furthermore, on February 5, 2015, as part of ongoing FOIA litigation, the Department of Justice declared to a federal judge that "it can assure the Court that it will preserve the status quo regarding the Full Report absent either leave of court or resolution of this litigation in the government's favor." Therefore, providing the CIA IG with a copy of the full report immediately will also ensure that DOJ lawyers can inform federal judges that the status quo was adhered to and has been restored.

The Yahoo report also notes that the CIA and the Justice Department apparently never bothered to tell the judge that this copy had been destroyed, despite promising that it wouldn't be months earlier. The DOJ apparently told Yahoo reporter Michael Isiskoff that since the Inspector General's Office is a part of the CIA, and the CIA itself still had a copy, it felt that the status quo had been retained.

And, yes, while the Inspector General's office is a part of the CIA, it's the part that's supposed to be overseeing the rest of the organization to make sure it doesn't violate the law in this manner. As the qrticle notes:

“It’s breathtaking that this could have happened, especially in the inspector general’s office — they’re the ones that are supposed to be providing accountability within the agency itself,” said Douglas Cox, a City University of New York School of Law professor who specializes in tracking the preservation of federal records. “It makes you wonder what was going on over there?”

It certainly does make you wonder...

Meanwhile, there's also some dark irony in the fact that the only reason this report exists in the first place was as a response to the Senate's discovery that the CIA illegally destroyed videotapes detailing the CIA's torture program.

Filed Under: cia, cia inspector general, dianne feinstein, john brennan, richard burr, torture report

Appeals Court Shoots Down ACLU, Says Full CIA Torture Report Is Beyond The Reach Of FOIA Requesters

from the 7,000-pages-of-compiled,-edited,-heavily-reviewed-'work-product' dept

Unless the Supreme Court chooses to get involved, it looks like we'll never get to see the full "Torture Report." We'll just have to make do with the Executive Summary, which was released at the end of 2014. The summary is just 500 pages out of ~7,000 total. The rest of these pages remain in the hands of the Senate and the CIA, and neither is willing to part with them.

FOIA enthusiast Jason Leopold's request for the full document has already been shut down. The ACLU's request was similarly denied by the DC District Court. The Appeals Court has reached its decision, and it agrees with the lower court.

The denial hinges on the court's determination that the full report is nothing more than a collection of Congressional communications and documents, rather than being in the possession of the CIA where they could (theoretically) be accessed via FOIA requests. The court cites a 2009 letter from the Senate Committee to the CIA that spells this out explicitly.

Any . . . notes, documents, draft and final recommendations, reports or other materials generated by Committee staff or Members, are the property of the Committee . . . . These documents remain congressional records in their entirety and disposition and control over these records, even after the completion of the Committee’s review, lies exclusively with the Committee. As such, these records are not CIA records under the Freedom of Information Act or any other law.

In other words, the Senate Committee -- with a single letter -- managed to convert not only the finished Torture Report, but all of the documents it used to compile the report, into Congressional "work product," making it completely inaccessible by the general public.

According to Appellants, when an agency has been given possession of a document created by Congress, the document is presumptively an agency record unless Congress has clearly expressed its intent to control the document. In Appellants’ view, Appellees cannot establish a clear assertion of congressional control with respect to the Full Report because it was disseminated to Appellees without any restrictions. We disagree. The June 2009 Letter manifests a clear intent by the Senate Committee to maintain continuous control over its work product, which includes the Full Report. Therefore, the Full Report always has been a congressional document subject to the control of the Senate Committee.

The court finds that the only entity with the power to release the full Torture Report is the Senate Committee controlling the "work product." Considering there were attempts to bury the much smaller Executive Summary, it's safe to say the current committee, along with any successive committees, aren't going to be interested in releasing the full report, not as long as there is a compelling interest (read: the CIA, administration, etc.) in keeping it a secret.

Based on Feinstein's 2009 letter, and a communication accompanying its release to the Executive Branch in 2012 solely for the purpose of eliciting comments, the court declares the Torture Report to be completely exempt from the FOIA.

When Senator Feinstein transmitted the draft of the Full Report to the Executive Branch on December 14, 2012, her transmittal letter made it clear that the Committee would determine if and when to publicly disseminate the Full Report. Nothing changed as the final edits and corrections were made to the Full Report. The limited transmittal of the Full Report to Appellees in 2014 certainly did not vitiate the command of the June 2009 Letter or otherwise authorize public dissemination.

[...]

On the record before us, the Senate Committee’s intent to retain control of the Full Report is clear. The Full Report therefore remains a congressional document that is not subject to disclosure under FOIA.

This decision, while logical in its determination of the Committee's intent, exposes a glaring hole in the FOIA -- one which allows agencies to drive truckloads of documents through into the darkness beyond. "Work product" can be almost anything, even completed reports. All it takes to move something out of the public's reach is a government employee declaring that the documents they don't want to release are somehow still in a nascent, "deliberative" state. Feinstein's 2009 letter makes it clear she wanted the full report to stay out of the public's hands, so she declared the documents unfinished and "removed" them from the CIA's control. The courts don't always buy the government's "work product" arguments, but there's the rub: it takes a lawsuit to reach this point, something that's not always an option for FOIA requesters.

Filed Under: cia, executive summary, foia, torture report, transparency
Companies: aclu

If The CIA Apologizes For Lying About Torture, But Doesn't Tell Anyone About The Apology, Does It Really Count?

from the 14-months-later... dept

Remember the Senate Intelligence Committee's massive CIA torture report, that details how the CIA conducted a vast program of torturing people, which had no actual benefit, and then lied to Congress (repeatedly) about it? The same report that, when the heavily redacted executive summary was released, ex-CIA officials insisted would result in attacks on America that never actually happened?

This was also the same CIA torture report that the CIA vehemently disagreed with. Even prior to the (again, heavily redacted) executive summary being released, CIA Director John Brennan had responded to the report, insisting that it was full of lies and misleading claims. That initial response, which happened in the summer of 2013 took issue with many of the claims in the report. When the redacted executive summary of the report was finally released, the CIA apparently publicly posted a "correction" about its claims concerning the report, in which it noted that many of the statements the CIA had made in attacking the torture report were actually... not true.

And here's the real kicker: while the CIA "released" this "correction" on its website as a "note to readers" it didn't actually tell anyone about it. Instead, just as everyone was talking about the release of the executive summary of the terror report, and claiming that the CIA was contesting a bunch of key findings in the report, the CIA had actually posted a document on its own website detailing how its own denials were basically wrong. And some of them were big denials -- including about the effectiveness of the torture program on Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM). A key part of the Senate's report was that KSM was repeatedly tortured, but didn't cough up anything particularly useful. The CIA vehemently denied this and insisted that what KSM gave them was useful. But in this "note to readers" (again, which was never revealed to anyone), the CIA admits that it clearly overstated the value of KSM:

Rather than "the individual managing the plot," we should have written "the individual who was in a position to advance the plot." This terrorist had raised Canary Wharf as a potential target and was tasked by KSM to conduct surveillance of Heathrow Airport's security, but the plot was shelved after KSM's arrest....

... Instead of "KSM provided information on an ai-Qa'ida operative named Zubair. .. ," we should have written that "KSM provided information that led us to understand the significance of a Jemaah lslamiya operative named Zubair." We acknowledge that in various representations, including President Bush's 2006 speech, CIA introduced a sequencing error regarding Majid Khan's arrest/debriefings, and KSM's arrest/debriefings. We repeated that error here and on page 26 of Tab C (see next erratum). However, despite that error, our description of the impact of the information acquired from KSM in the Hambali case remains accurate. It was the combination of information from both terrorists that caused us to focus on Zubair as an inroad to Hambali....

... In our review of this case, we correctly acknowledged that CIA allowed a mistaken claim that KSM played a role in Majid Khan's capture to appear in the Inspector General's 2004 Special Review, and we correctly wrote that this claim was a one-time error. However, our effort to provide an example of a more accurate "typical representation" of the relationship between KSM's information and Khan ran afoul of the sequencing error noted in the previous erratum. Although information from KSM was used to elicit further details from Khan, by then Khan already had provided the information that, together with what we learned from KSM, enabled us to advance our search for Hambali....

...We incorrectly stated that KSM's information preceded Majid Khan's information. We stand by our overall conclusion regarding the value of KSM's information.

In other words, a bunch of things the CIA insisted were inaccurate in the Senates Torture Report were actually quite accurate, and it was the CIA that was being inaccurate. And, sure, the CIA "admitted" this in its "note to readers" but then failed to actually tell anyone about this "note to readers." In fact, while the document was available on the CIA website no one even seemed to notice it until a few days ago. And that includes the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The document, entitled “Note to Readers,” was not formally provided or flagged separately for the Senate Intelligence Committee, which only became aware of its existence in the last week — more than a year since the document was publicly posted.

The “Note” was also noticeably absent from the CIA website’s swath of December 2014 releases related to the Intelligence Committee study, and was not mentioned in either of the agency’s archived press releases on the subject.

Not surprisingly, Senator Ron Wyden, who has been one of the leading voices in getting this report out to the public, was not at all pleased to find out about all of this:

“The CIA justified this program by claiming that it produced otherwise unobtainable information. CIA officials have now admitted their go-to example was wrong,” Sen. Ron Wyden, a prominent Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told BuzzFeed News.

“These are significant admissions by the CIA that should not have been hidden in an obscure endnote,” Wyden said. “Director Brennan has tried to insist that the CIA did not provide policymakers with false information about torture, but these corrections seem to be an admission that they did so, and did so repeatedly.”

It still seems worth asking why President Obama continues to allow CIA Director John Brennan to retain that role. He appears to have no problem letting him get away with lying and purposeful obfuscation over activities of the CIA to the Senate Committee that is in charge of overseeing the CIA.

Filed Under: apology, cia, lies, note to reader, senate intelligence committee, torture, torture report

CIA Director Freaks Out After Senator Wyden Points Out How The CIA Spied On The Senate

from the not-so-cool-under-fire dept

If you're a CIA Director, one would assume that you know how to be cool under fire, right? Apparently that's not the case for current CIA Director John Brennan who seemed to completely freak out when Senator Ron Wyden started asking questions about the CIA's infamous decision to spy on the network and computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were compiling a report on the CIA's torture program. The details are a bit complex, but the short version is that the Intelligence Committee, which has oversight powers over the CIA, had been set up in a CIA building, with special access to CIA documents, and a special search tool. Apparently, at some point, that search tool returned a document which the CIA had never intended to share with the intelligence committee staffers. That document, called "the Panetta Review" was a draft document that then-CIA chief Leon Panetta had tasked people internal at the CIA to prepare on what the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers were likely to find as they went through the documents.

Yes, this is fairly meta. You had Senate staffers reviewing CIA documents, and at the same time, the CIA reviewing those same documents to try to get out ahead of any controversy -- and to make matters confusing, the Senate staffers then got access to that CIA review document as part of their regular searches. When the CIA was questioned about this Panetta review, they freaked out, wondering how the Senate staffers got their hands on the document, and did what the CIA does: they spied on the Senate staffers' computers and network to try to determine how they got the document in the first place. This was despite a promise from the CIA that the Senate staffers' computers and network were considered off-limits (due to an even earlier incident). That resulted in Senator Dianne Feinstein accusing the CIA of illegally spying on the Senate (its overseers). In response, Brennan first denied the spying altogether, and then insisted that it was the Senate staffers who broke the law, saying they illegally mishandled classified CIA documents in how they handled the Panetta Review.

Eventually, the DOJ decided that there wasn't enough evidence that either side broke the law, and refused to make any criminal charges either way. While both the CIA's Inspector General and a special review board Brennan himself set up found that the CIA did, in fact, spy on the Senate staffers' network and computers, and that this was inappropriate, neither seemed to say that it rose to a truly controversial level. Not surprisingly, the review board Brennan set up himself cleared him of wrongdoing.

Mixed in with all of this are remaining questions about how involved Brennan himself actually was in all of this (he refuses to say) and an ongoing request for an apology. While the CIA's Inspector General claimed that Brennan apologized for the breach, later reporting by Jason Leopold at Vice showed that Brennan had drafted an apology, but never sent it. Instead, he apparently provided a very narrow apology solely to Feinstein and then vice chair Saxby Chambliss, basically of the "I'm sorry if what did upset you" manner.

Given this, during a rare open Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Wyden decided to quiz Brennan about all of this, leading to a rather sarcastic and testy exchange that needs to be watched to be believed: Immediately, Brennan gets snarky, noting that "This is the annual threat assessment, is it not? Yes?" implying that he doesn't think it's appropriate for Wyden to be bringing up this "other" topic in such a hearing. And it only gets worse from there. He immediately jumps to the argument, again, that it was the Senate staffers' fault for getting access to a document he didn't want them to see. He then says the CIA therefore had an "obligation" to find out how that happened. And then he, somewhat insultingly, suggests that Senator Wyden had not actually read the IG's account, or the report of the review panel that Brennan himself set up.

Wyden cuts him off, quoting directly from the report and notes that other agencies have all said it would be inappropriate to review Senate oversight computer systems, and asks Brennan if he disagrees. Brennan is clearly pissed off:

Brennan: Yes, I think you mischaracterize both their comments as well as what's in those reports. And I apologized to the Chairman and the Vice Chairman about the de minimis access and inappropriate access that CIA officers made to five emails or so of Senate staffers during that investigation. And I apologized to them for that very specific inappropriate action that was taken as part of a very reasonable investigative action. But do not say that we spied on Senate computers or files. We did not do that. We were fulfilling our responsibilities.

Wyden: I read the exact words of the Inspector General and the Review Board. You appointed the Review Board! They said nobody ought to be punished, but they said there was improper access. And my point is, in our system of government, we have responsibilities to do vigorous oversight. And we can't do vigorous oversight if there are improper procedures used to access our files.

Wyden then admits his time is up... but Brennan's so angry that he won't give up. He breaks all proper Senate hearing protocol and jumps back in, asking Wyden to say, again, that it was the Senate staffers' fault for accessing the Panetta Review:

Do you not agree there was improper access that senate staffers had to CIA internal deliberative documents? Was that not inappropriate or unauthorized?

Wyden angrily points out that everything the Senate staffers did was appropriate, and anyway, he's now asking about the CIA's activities, and points to the Inspector General review and the other review board... all the while with Brennan angrily shaking his head at Wyden. When Wyden finishes, Brennan goes back to being snarky, saying:

And I'm still awaiting the review that was done by the Senate to take a look at what the staffers actions were.

And then there's this:

Separation of powers between the executive, legislative branches, Senator, goes both ways.

In short: even if you have oversight over us, don't mess with the CIA, Senator. That's quite a statement.

He then goes on to again claim that Wyden is mischaracterizing everything, and that what the CIA did was entirely appropriate. Wyden concludes:

It's pretty hard to mischaracterize word for word quotes that use the words "improper access."

Indeed.

Filed Under: cia, john brennan, oversight, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, separation of powers, spying, torture report

Senate Intelligence Committee Members Ask White House For Official Apology From CIA For Hacking Senate Computers

from the CIA:-it's-time-to-let-unacknowledged-wrongdoing-remain-unacknowledged dept

Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich and Mazie Hirono -- all members of Senate Intelligence Committee -- have sent a letter to the President demanding an official apology from CIA head John Brennan for the agency's surveillance of Senate staffers working on the Torture Report.

"In January 2014, CIA personnel conducted an unauthorized, unprecedented search of Senate committee files, including the emails and other files of Senate staff investigating the CIA's use of torture," says the letter...

"The CIA Inspector General stated in a July 2014 report that this search involved 'improper agency access to [Senate Intelligence Committee] files.' A review board selected by CIA Director Brennan concluded in December 2014 that this CIA search 'resulted in inappropriate access to [Senate Intelligence Committee] work product'."

[...]

"We believe that it is necessary for you to ensure that senior officials in your administration recognize the importance of adhering to the rule of law," the lawmakers wrote to Obama. "We ask that you instruct Director Brennan to acknowledge that the CIA's unauthorized search of Senate files was improper and will not be repeated."

The White House and CIA have yet to comment on the letter and there's nothing in the history of the incident that suggests either will move forward on this. Obama's on short time and the CIA already cleared itself of all wrongdoing with an in-house "investigation" and further showed its disdain for independent oversight by throwing its Inspector General and his report on the spying efforts under the bus.

Jason Leopold and Vice obtained hundreds of documents through FOIA requests that appeared to show the opposite of what the CIA's internal investigation claimed. But it was the CIA that had the last word, proclaiming itself innocent and simultaneously accusing Senate staffers of improperly accessing restricted documents.

But the most damning document -- at least in the context of a demand for an official apology from the CIA -- was the apology the agency unofficially disavowed when it cleared itself of hacking allegations.

[T]he documents turned over to VICE News included a July 28, 2014 letter from Brennan that was addressed to Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss, who was then the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, in which he apologized to them and admitted that the CIA's penetration of the computer network used by committee staffers reviewing the agency's torture program was improper.

The thing is, Brennan never signed or sent this apology. It just sat in a Torture Report-related file until it was FOIAed. Brennan even offered a closed-door, off-the-record apology to Dianne Feinstein, but to date, the final official word remains the CIA's: we did nothing wrong.

Filed Under: cia, john brennan, martin heinrich, mazie hirono, president obama, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, spying, torture report

DOJ Has Blocked Everyone In The Executive Branch From Reading The Senate's Torture Report

from the this-is-ridiculous dept

A year ago, we were writing a ton on the famed Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report. This report, which Committee staffers spent years on, cost $40 million, and clocked in at nearly 7,000 pages of detailed analysis of the US's hugely questionable (both morally and legally) torture program in the wake of 9/11. After much fighting, the Senate finally released a heavily redacted executive summary, but since then there have been some questions about what happens with the full report. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was (believe it or not!) the driving force behind the report, had copies of the full report delivered to the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department and the Justice Department. However, there has been a lot of confusion over whether or not anyone actually read it. The DOJ clearly announced that officials had read the whole thing... but later claimed that no one had even opened the report. Obviously, the DOJ lied with one of those statements.

There had been some hope that ex-Senator Mark Udall might choose to release some of it from the Senate floor before leaving office, but that didn't happen.

And, with the changing of the guard, the new head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, demanded that all the federal government agencies that received the report should return it to him so he can destroy it and make sure that no one ever sees what's in the report. As we noted, however, this whole thing seemed to be an effort to state publicly that the document was a Congressional record. That matters because Congressional records are not subject to FOIA requests. Executive branch records are subject to FOIA requests -- and the ACLU has made a FOIA request to the exec branch for a copy of the report.

The DOJ has taken Burr's lead and claimed that the report is a Congressional record, and that's also why they insist that no one at the DOJ has opened it -- to maintain that it has not become an executive branch record subject to FOIA. Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is pissed off about this -- because her staffers spent years putting together this report, detailing massive abuses by the CIA and others in torturing people, and the whole point of it was to help the government learn how badly it messed up and to stop it from doing it again. But if no one reads it, then that won't happen. And, the DOJ now says that not only has it not read it, it has instructed everyone in the exec branch not to read it for fear that reading it would make it subject to FOIA:

Nearly a year after the Senate released a declassified 500-page summary of the report, the fate of the entire document remains in limbo, the subject of battles in the courts and in Congress. Until those disputes are resolved, the Justice Department has prohibited officials from the government agencies that possess it from even opening the report, effectively keeping the people in charge of America’s counterterrorism future from reading about its past. There is also the possibility that the documents could remain locked in a Senate vault for good.

Senator Feinstein (along with Senator Pat Leahy) has sent a rather angry letter (reasonably so!) to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, expressing her strong displeasure over this state of affairs:

Dear Attorney General Lynch and Director Comey:

We firmly believe that appropriate DOJ and FBI officials must read the full 6,700-page Senate Intelligence Committee Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program in order to understand what happened and draw appropriate lessons. This is exactly what Director Comey promised during his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 12, 2015, when he said he would designate FBI officials to read the full, final version of the Committee's Study and consider the lessons that can be learned from it. Director Comey also acknowledged that former FBI Director Bob Mueller ordered FBI agents not to participate in the CIA program. Unfortunately, as the executive summary of the Study makes clear, the Department of Justice was among those parts of the Executive Branch that were misled about the program, and DOJ officials' understanding of this history is critical to its institutional role going forward.

We are gravely disappointed that, according to Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik's letter dated August 5, 2015, the Department of Justice is citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, ACLU v. CIA as an excuse to refuse to allow Executive Branch officials to review the full and final Study. This DOJ decision prevents the FBI and other parts of the Executive Branch from reading the full 6,700-page Study and learning from the mistakes of the past to ensure that they are not repeated. Further, personnel at the National Archives and Records Administration have stated that, based on guidance from the Department of Justice, they will not respond to questions about whether the Study constitutes a federal record under the Federal Records Act because the FOIA case is pending.

The record in the FOIA case does not support DOJ's decision. According to the court filings in the FOIA case, DOJ represented that it would "preserve the status quo" pending appeal, but the context in which that commitment arose makes clear that DOJ was agreeing not to return the Study to the Senate Intelligence Committee. DOJ's commitment not to return the Study while the FOIA litigation is pending in no way precludes appropriately cleared individuals in the Executive Branch from reading the Study. We urge that you reconsider your position and disseminate the full and final Committee Study to appropriately cleared senior individuals in the Department of Justice and FBI, and instruct other appropriate federal departments to take the same position. For the same reason, we urge you to explicitly commit to retaining copies of the full 6,700-page Study.

We hope you agree that the legacy of this historic report cannot be buried in the back of a handful of Executive Branch safes, never to be reviewed by those who most need to learn from it. We look forward to hearing from you on this important issue.

The DOJ's argument that it has to block anyone from reading the document, lest it magically switch from a Congressional document to an executive branch one is apparently puzzling to experts.

“It’s quite bizarre, and I cannot think of a precedent,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. He said there are any number of classified Senate documents that are shared with intelligence agencies and remain as Congressional records, even if they are read by members of the executive branch.

But it's not at all bizarre when put into the simple context of recognizing that this administration has bent over backwards refusing to look back on the nature of what the CIA did and whether or not it violated the law or international agreements on torture (or basic morality). This is just another way to avoid facing up to the mistakes of the past, and conveniently using a FOIA lawsuit as a method for making sure this information remains in the dark.

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, doj, foia, loretta lynch, richard burr, senate intelligence committee, torture report

John Oliver Gets Helen Mirren To Read CIA Torture Report As An eBook To Get People To Read It

from the would-be-helpful dept

Another week, another John Oliver report that covers topics we talk about on Techdirt. This time, it's the CIA torture report, put together by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The 6,000+ page document is still classified, but the 500+ page executive summary (still with lots of redactions) was released last December as you may recall. There were plenty of interesting revelations in it -- and we're sure the full report has many more. The "true believers" in torture took the fingers-in-ears-"we're-not-listening" approach to dealing with it. The DOJ announced that it had not opened the report. Apparently, the former CIA boss Porter Goss claimed he hadn't read the executive summary either -- even though he mocked John McCain for not having read it either.

Either way, John Oliver decided to do something about this, and asked famed actor Helen Mirren to create an audio book version of the work (which, you know, he can do because it's in the public domain), clips of which were played on the show. The segment highlights that torture doesn't work and that people ridiculously think it does because it works in TV shows even if basically every actual study shows it doesn't. And then it makes the more important point: even if it did work (which it doesn't), it shouldn't matter because it's the wrong thing to do.

I've been searching around trying to find a link to the full audiobook, which Oliver insists was recorded, but so far can't find anything other than the snippets in the show itself. Hopefully it really does exist.

Either way, kudos to Oliver for taking topics that we tend to talk about in our small corner of the world here and exposing them to a much wider audience -- and including Helen Mirren in the process.

Filed Under: cia, helen mirren, john oliver, torture, torture report

Looks Like CIA's 'Torture Revealed Osama's Courier' Story Now Even More False Than Previously Believed

from the making-it-up-as-we-go-along dept

For quite some time now, there have been serious questions about how how the US was able to track down Osama bin Laden's "hiding place" to send in special forces to kill him. The story many people have heard was that the CIA was able to identify the "courier" who was used to help bin Laden communicate with the outside world, and then used that info to figure out where he was. And, a big part of that story -- especially as immortalized in the movie Zero Dark Thirty -- was that the CIA's torture program was instrumental in revealing that information. However, even before the big Senate Intelligence Committee study on the torture program was released, it was revealed that the torture program had nothing to do with identifying the courier, known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

However, as you may have heard over the weekend, Seymour Hersh published a somewhat epic story, arguing that almost everything about the bin Laden killing was a lie, and a bunch of stories -- including everything about al-Kuwaiti -- were made up after the fact. Hersh's story is well worth reading (as are some of the criticisms of it that question some of the details). But one key aspect of the report is that finding a courier had absolutely nothing to do with finding bin Laden. Instead, it was a so-called "walk in" -- a Pakistani intelligence official who knew that Pakistan already had captured bin Laden -- who reached out to the US, seeking the $25 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's whereabouts.

In other words, even the Senate's torture report gets the story wrong completely. In the Senate report, the identifying of al-Kuwaiti came from traditional interrogation, rather than the torture part. The CIA's response was basically that it was the torture part (the bad cop) that enabled the information to come out separately (good cop). But Hersh's report says the whole courier story is made up whole cloth. While some have questioned the details of Hersh's report, there's now independent verification from other sources to NBC that bin Laden was actually found via a "walk-in," rather than the courier (warning: stupid NBC autoplay video at that link).

In Hersh's version, the plan had been to kill bin Laden, and later (perhaps weeks later) come up with a story saying bin Laden had been killed by a drone strike. A few things went wrong -- including one of the US helicopters famously crashing, and there was enough buzz that the US rushed to publicly announce the killing, including Obama's famous speech that, apparently, created havoc since it messed up a bunch of previously agreed to things about how the killing would be presented, and was done without first clearing it with the intelligence community. This resulted in the CIA being rushed in to concoct some cover stories, and some CIA officials quickly realized that this would be a fantastic way to pretend that torture had been useful:

Gates also objected to the idea, pushed by Brennan and Leon Panetta, that US intelligence had learned of bin Laden’s whereabouts from information acquired by waterboarding and other forms of torture. ‘All of this is going on as the Seals are flying home from their mission. The agency guys know the whole story,’ the retired official said. ‘It was a group of annuitants who did it.’ (Annuitants are retired CIA officers who remain active on contract.) ‘They had been called in by some of the mission planners in the agency to help with the cover story. So the old-timers come in and say why not admit that we got some of the information about bin Laden from enhanced interrogation?’ At the time, there was still talk in Washington about the possible prosecution of CIA agents who had conducted torture.

‘Gates told them this was not going to work,’ the retired official said. ‘He was never on the team. He knew at the eleventh hour of his career not to be a party to this nonsense. But State, the agency and the Pentagon had bought in on the cover story. None of the Seals thought that Obama was going to get on national TV and announce the raid. The Special Forces command was apoplectic. They prided themselves on keeping operational security.’ There was fear in Special Operations, the retired official said, that ‘if the true story of the missions leaked out, the White House bureaucracy was going to blame it on the Seals.’

In Hersh's version of the story... the courier never even existed (bin Laden was actually pretty cut off from everything). He also notes that there was no firefight at the compound, since the Pakistanis had planned out the whole thing and made sure that no one was guarding bin Laden. But the US made up the idea of a firefight so that it could "kill off" the courier, al-Kuwaiti, who never really existed:

There was another reason to claim there had been a firefight inside the compound, the retired official said: to avoid the inevitable question that would arise from an uncontested assault. Where were bin Laden’s guards? Surely, the most sought-after terrorist in the world would have around-the-clock protection. ‘And one of those killed had to be the courier, because he didn’t exist and we couldn’t produce him. The Pakistanis had no choice but to play along with it.’

In other words, if true, not only did the torture not produce the courier, there was no courier at all. And the whole debate about whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Hassan Ghul gave up information on al-Kuwaiti during torture efforts or during regular interrogations is entirely meaningless. The whole thing was fiction, invented after the fact. For what it's worth, there were other stories concerning the torture program that seem equally bizarre in retrospect, if Hersh's story is true. Take this Daily Beast article about al-Kuwaiti, in which it claims that one guy was interrogated, and denied ever hearing of al-Kuwaiti:

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees told CIA interrogators about an especially important courier who went by the name Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti. A series of subsequent interrogations, including one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confirmed the courier's importance. In 2004, al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul revealed that the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al Qaeda's operational commander after Mohammed's arrest. A year later, al-Libi himself was captured, and he protested so adamantly that he'd never heard of al-Kuwaiti that the CIA took it as further evidence that he was their man.

Either way, the idea that torture had anything to do with anything is growing progressively weaker... and yet, we still have people defending the torture program, and no one is ever likely to be punished legally for it.

Filed Under: abu ahmed al-kuwaiti, cia, isi, lies, osama bin laden, pakistan, seymour hersh, torture, torture report, walk in, waterboarding, zero dark thirty

The Exposure Of CIA Torture Is Finally Costing Someone A Job: Former Senate Staffer Alissa Starzak

from the halls-of-power-still-clogged-with-assholes,-apparently dept

Oh, good. As if there was ever any doubt that the exposure of CIA torture was never going to result in anyone involved being held responsible, the current push to knock a former Senate staffer off her career path further confirms the government's preference for shooting messengers.

Alissa Starzak, a former Democratic majority staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee, played a critical and controversial role during her time on the panel: She was a lead investigator for the torture report, and was one of two staffers involved in an ongoing feud over damning internal CIA documents obtained by the committee.

Currently serving as deputy general counsel for the Defense Department, Starzak was nominated last July to serve as general counsel to the Army.

But the critics of the torture investigation -- namely, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- are orchestrating a quiet campaign to stall Starzak's nomination.

Burr confirmed to The Huffington Post that he is working to keep the former investigator from getting approved by the Senate.

This would be the same Richard Burr who ridiculously demanded everyone in possession of the full, unredacted CIA Torture Report return their copies immediately, presumably so he could memory-hole the damning documents as quickly as possible.

So, while everyone else involved walks away with their careers pretty much intact -- and covered by the president's mawkishly-worded admission that "we tortured some folks" -- Starzak will be about the only person to emerge from this horrific debacle with her options limited.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is divided against itself. Feinstein tackled the CIA's torture programs, facing down fellow committee members while doing so. Since Burr can't hang Feinstein -- largely because she's still a very hawkish on NSA surveillance -- he's just going to fit Starzak with a noose and hang Feinstein in effigy.

Starzak wasn't involved with the torture review for long, leaving Feinstein's staff for a job with the Department of Defense in 2011, but she managed to secure a key document that served as a touchstone for future Senate investigative work. While digging through the documents the CIA allowed the Senate to access on its computers in the agency's basement, she came across the files later known as the "Panetta Review." At the time (2010), they seemed unimportant. It wasn't until the CIA began defending itself against claims made in review drafts that Senate staffers realized how instrumental this file was.

It was in June 2013 that the CIA, now under the leadership of John Brennan, sent the committee its official response to the completed torture study. The agency largely defended its use of torture -- in stark contrast with what the Panetta Review said -- which tipped Senate staffers off to the document’s importance.

After the CIA issued its response, Senate investigators sat through dozens of hours of meetings with agency staff in an effort to resolve the discrepancies between the official CIA line and the Senate’s findings. But those meetings yielded little. Newly aware of the relevance of the Panetta Review -- as it backed their findings and undermined the agency’s official response -- staffers slipped the document back to their secure committee spaces sometime in late 2013.

This move led to CIA claims that the Senate had improperly accessed documents… which led to the Senate accusing the CIA of spying on staffers. This finally resulted in CIA opening its own investigation into the Senate allegations and (of course) clearing itself of any wrongdoing, while raising new accusations about Senate staffers' improper access.

So, while CIA, DOJ and administration officials are free to duck questions about their involvement in the approval (either explicit or tacit) of the CIA's torture programs, Burr and others are holding Starzak's future hostage until she answers for this supposed improper behavior.

Critics are now holding up Starzak’s nomination -- and say they are willing to kill it entirely if need be -- to get more answers about the Panetta Review. Specifically, they say, they want the committee’s Democratic staffers to provide more information about how the file was discovered in 2010 and how, in late 2013, staffers slipped the printed documents back to the committee’s secure office spaces, in apparent violation of an agreement with the agency.

“Clearly it looks like … [she] knew that this document existed, knew that people were reading it and as a counsel didn’t try to keep people from doing it,” the lawmaker familiar with the controversy said. “[I want] information that fills in the blanks of what happened. And she clearly knows something.”

It's nothing but thug tactics, wrapped in the faux concern for an intelligence agency's operational security. Burr is irritated that Senate staffers didn't play by the CIA's self-serving ruleset -- not because rules mean much to him, but because it resulted in the exposure of truly vile behavior from officials and operatives Burr routinely defends. And he's willing to let the record show that he prefers punishing those who expose torture to punishing the torturers themselves.

Filed Under: alissa starzak, cia, cia torture, dianne feinstein, panetta review, richard burr, senate, senate intelligence committee, torture report