A few questions as follow-up to Dianne Feinstein's Statment on the CIA

[Scuba]

Yesterday, MannyGoldstein posted regarding Dianne Feinstein's "Statement on Intel Committee's CIA Detention, Interrogation Report". That post is here.

Here's DiFi's statement.


After reading DiFi's statement, I posted some questions on Manny's thread and got multiple requests to post them as an OP, so here they are ...


1. Who was the member of the Senate Intelligence Committe who voted "no" in the 14-1 vote on March 5, 2009, when the Committee voted to initiate a comprehensive review of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program? Just curious.

2. Do you find it troubling that when the Senate Intelligence Committee asks the CIA to produce documents, the CIA proposes an alternative arrangement?

3. Do you find it troubling that the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't smack their knuckles with a ruler when they propose an alternative?

4. Are you flabbergasted that when the CIA determined they would not allow Congress to see certain documents, they outsourced their document selection process to "outside contractors"?

5. Do these "outside contractors" have higher security clearances than members of the Senate Intelligence Committee?

6. Do you think the CIA's forwarding of over six million documents "without any index, without organizational structure" was an attempt to obsfucate the content of some sensitive documents? (Or am I just an overly-suspicious person?)

7. Do you find it troubling that the IT personnel at the secure facility that the CIA originally blamed for removing documents were "almost all contractors"?

8. What do you make of the CIA claiming the White House ordered the documents removed and the White House denying this?

9. Do you find it curious that there have been claims in the press that the Senate Intelligence Committee gained access to documents to which they had no right? (Debunked by DiFi.)

10. To repeat DiFi's own question: How can the CIA’s official response to the Committee's study stand factually in conflict with its own "Internal Panetta Review&quot ? Does this alone not constitute an attempt to deceive the Committee?

11. Are you astonished that the CIA denied the Senate Intelligence Committee access to the final Panetta Review?

12. Do you find it troubling that the CIA refuses to answer the 12 questions that DiFi sent to Brennan on January 23rd? Or more to the point, that the CIA seems to be blowing off requests from the Committee responsible for their oversight?

13. Do you agree that the CIA spying on their bosses is a bigger scandal than the CIA Detention and Interrogation program they appear to be trying to cover up? Are you experiencing any sense of deja vu?

14. Will our Republic survive this crisis?

[newfie11]

1. Great questions. Waiting to see the answers from others. Nt

[HereSince1628]

2. I fear we are about to learn a terrible lesson

The limit of power isn't morality or the law, it's how far it can be pushed...iow, what can be gotten away with.

I suspect this is rather about how the senate investigation threatened an end of the project, and of the individuals who ran the project using the trappings of national security to construct what was intended to be unchallengeable power over the quaint Potemkin storefront that is the constitutional government of the Republic.

Secret power is a terrible and dangerous thing, the greatest domestic threat to any democracy

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Can anyone imagine a decent creditable Sen Church type inquiry

into the NSA/CIA run by Sen. Feinstein?

I can't

[HereSince1628]

6. What has been revealled is that oversight was supposed to be a charade

The CIA controlled the review, tried to obsfuscate with a blizzard of documents, and monitored the committee staff as they laboriously searched for snowdrifts in the whiteout.

Somehow, somebody slipped the Internal Paneta review into the forest of documents and it was discovered, and it was removed.

The National Security apparatus clearly considers itself beyond the reach of the elected, and clearly has the desire escape oversight.

What is revealed is that the CIA apparently intends to allow no credible inquiry.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. I agree a charade some are saying

there is secret whistle blower in the CIA trying to get things out.

Why doesn't he just go through the proper channels?...... LOL!!!

[questionseverything]

35. great discussion between marci wheeler and brad

of bradblog from his radio show

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10535

mp3 link at end of article

wheeler has an incredible knowledge of what has transpired to this point and near the end of interview makes this point,,,,,,the cia is slow walking releasing anything, hoping the reps take the senate in nov because if they do this whole "torture thing" will go away

she also points out Obama's justice department has shielded this torturers to this point

[Scuba]

38. Yeah, stalling 'til the election makes sense. But I think the torture will play second fiddle ...

... to the lying/hiding stuff from the Senate Intel Committee.

If the Agency isn't accountable to our elected officials, then it needs to be dissolved immediately.

[LiberalEsto]

46. +1 nt

[struggle4progress]

3. I don't know how the Committees work but I don't think the Senate itself records the votes

of individual members unless someone demands it

Neither the 5 March 2009 announcement of the investigation nor the REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE COVERING THE PERIOD JANUARY 3, 2009 TO JANUARY 4, 2011 (pdf) appears to provide the division of the vote

You could try calling Feinstein's office to see if the 5 March 2009 votes of the SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE "to begin a study of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program" is a matter of public record and if they'll tell you who voted against the study. If they won't, you have to make a guess from the list of members at the time, provided below; you could call some of their offices and see whether any of them will tell you how they voted. I think I'd put my money on one of the rightwingers CHAMBLISS, BURR, COBURN, or RISCH, none of whom seem to be supporting Feinstein on this, and my favorite would be Chambliss

... Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the panel, told reporters that “we don’t know what the facts are,” and he said the committee needs to figure out internally what happened ... Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, also indicated the matter is far from settled. “We’re having some hearings on that,” Risch said as he walked into a closed Intelligence Committee meeting ...
Senators offer concern but no clear path on suspected CIA breach of intelligence panel
By David Lightman and Sean Cockerham
McClatchy Washington Bureau
March 11, 2014

... One of Chambliss’s closest friends, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who also serves on the panel, said “there’s a lot of the story that’s not out there” ...
Dianne Feinstein’s CIA charge scrambles Senate
By BURGESS EVERETT and MANU RAJU
3/11/14 3:54 PM EDT
Updated: 3/12/14 2:52 PM EDT

... Mr. Chambliss and Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the committee’s two senior Republicans, are not publicly supporting her — and have even questioned her decision to air her grievances ...
Senator’s Simmering Battle With C.I.A. Over Detentions Report
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and MARK MAZZETTI
MARCH 12, 2014

... Chambliss said he “reluctantly” took the Senate floor Wednesday evening to urge that the Intel committee’s internal dealings remain within the committee. He also disassociated the committee’s GOP members from the interrogation report that the panel has been working on for years and may vote to declassify by the end of March ...
Saxby Chambliss breaks with Dianne Feinstein on CIA allegations
By BURGESS EVERETT | 3/12/14 7:08 PM EDT


DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri, Vice Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia
RON WYDEN, Oregon
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
BILL NELSON, Florida
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
ORRIN HATCH, Utah
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
JAMES RISCH, Idaho
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio Member
MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio Member
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Ex Officio Member
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio Member

[ProSense]

21. Good work. n/t

[2banon]

29. Interesting thanks..

Maybe when Russ Feingold returns from his mission in Africa, someone with connections can get that from him..

[Scuba]

33. Thanks for digging all this out. Good addition to the thread.

[idendoit]

5. Congress holds the CIA purse strings.

They don't have the political will to get the CIA back on the leash, what with the ghosts of 9/11 still lingering. That having been said, it seems most Americans are more than willing to let private for profit entities hold their information and direct their lives.

[HereSince1628]

8. I think it is naive to believe Congress controls all the CIA's money

It's apparent from news stories that over decades the CIA has maintained multiple revenue streams.

[Enthusiast]

11. Like drug smuggling.

I'm just saying.

[HereSince1628]

19. Among others, yes.

[2banon]

30. Their own businesses, legal and illegal

They have their own empire within an empire.

[HereSince1628]

34. That is the story that's emerged from the media over time.

[2banon]

39. On that point..

I personally can not call up from memory any of the M$M doing a story on these CIA Businesses...as a focus point. From time to time, a reference might be made as a brief mention in passing, on a different story. Mostly in the press, where it's alluded to but largely glossed over. Americans are largely in the dark about all of this and the establishment's ptb aim to keep that way.

[idendoit]

44. So let's see if the CIA can do with less tax payer support.

[KingBob]

7. Please remember

Please remember this is the Senate OVERSIGHT Committee. They have, not only the right, but the obligation to see ever document and the ability to question anyone they see fit. Period.

As for a "new" Church investigation, we are already long overdue.

Good luck to our Republic.

[Aerows]

41. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee

have the same clearance as the Director of the CIA. Hence, you are absolutely correct - they can see any damn thing they want.

[LiberalEsto]

47. God forbid the repukes win the Senate in November

The November 2014 election could mean that all this stuff gets buried up again and never sees the light of day.

If the repukes on this committee can just stall and stall things until the clock runs out, and the kochroaches throw enough money into key Senate races, I shudder to think what could happen.

[Scuba]

57. Count on it.

[Augiedog]

10. Terrorists

This by definition makes the CIA an enemy combatant of the USA and therefore a terrorist organization attempting to overthrow the Constitutional authority of the United States Senate...anyone really surprised?

[merrily]

12. I hope DiFi and her post office buying husband retire.

[Maedhros]

36. Really. That's all you have to say about this?

I'm the first person to question Feinstein's actions, but what she is revealing is full-on treason by the CIA.

[Aerows]

42. Not just her, but 14 other Senators

7 of which are Democrats. Do you think the Republicans would NOT throw them under the bus if they were lying, breaking the law or making too much of things for political gain? I highly doubt it.

[Enthusiast]

13. The CIA has obviously overstepped their mandate and must be reined in.

They have a sense of autonomy that is not in keeping with a sound democracy.

And you know what?

You can use this issue to determine which candidates are deserving of your vote. Any candidate against slapping the CIA down and forcing them to be completely subservient to the Senate Intelligence Committee is an unfit candidate.

I mean slap. Remove the upper echelon CIA leadership, replace them with employees that understand their strict limitations in a representative democracy. The very same can be said for the NSA or any other government agency.

[Scuba]

16. Yep, every candidate for federal office needs to be put on the spot about this.

[Enthusiast]

22. I'm sure they won't approve of our sentiments and might consider some sort of punishment.

[L0oniX]

24. Posting the op on Facebook. Will probably get unfriended. F them.

[DeSwiss]

14. ANSWER (to all questions): Police State.

- This concludes the question and answer period. Please turn yourself in at any local HSO for interrogation and to receive your complimentary torture regime. And thank you for participating in your democracy. You will receive five Citizen Points for each question.

Your Citizen Points can be used to obtain any goods or services at any participating store or outlet (on pain of dissolution) for 30 days from the date of award.

Let's go shopping!!!

K&R

[L0oniX]

26. Secret LSD concentration camps are waiting for you.

Wild in the Streets - 1968

[randome]

15. You didn't need to type out all those questions.

The Senate has the right and the responsibility to see whatever they damned well want. I doubt this is the Constitutional crisis some want to imagine it to be but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

43. What makes you so upset that someone

typed up a list of questions? Are you afraid of other people asking the same questions, loudly, so that sunlight gets shown on this issue?

I think these questions should be asked publicly, loudly and on every broadcasting element in the US to make sure we, the American people get the answers.

What purpose does it serve to NOT answer these questions?

[Number23]

50. I don't know about that

I doubt this is the Constitutional crisis some want to imagine it to be

Unlike so many others, including Snowden's revelations, this may be an issue that could result in serious charges with serious consequences.

[Rex]

17. Very good questions! Glad you took the time to make this OP!

The CIA is long overdue for an overhaul.

[underpants]

18. Great post. There is also a disconnect in reporting about this being W era torture

https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10152220959232092

[ProSense]

20. Good questions. The

timeline is interesting.

The removals happened in 2010. It's not hard to believe that there are people at the CIA who don't want this information to come out.

Reading into Senator Feinstein's statement and the timeline: Brennan wasn't head of the CIA when the documents were removed, but interestingly he lost out on the position in Obama's first term because of his support for torture.

Feinstein:

As CIA Director Brennan has stated, the CIA officially agrees with some of our study. But, as has been reported, the CIA disagrees and disputes important parts of it. And this is important: Some of these important parts that the CIA now disputes in our committee study are clearly acknowledged in the CIA’s own Internal Panetta Review.

To say the least, this is puzzling. How can the CIA’s official response to our study stand factually in conflict with its own Internal Review?

Heads will likely roll at the CIA at the conclusion of an investigation into the removal of documents. It's likely there could be criminal charges. Still, the main purpose of this trampling on the separation of powers is an attempt to hide Bush's torture program.

The report, if as damaging as Feinstein states, should result in war crime prosecutions.

It's interesting that the most sought-after documents on torture, ones the CIA is desperate to keep from the public, were created/turned over by Leon Panetta.

Feinstein:

<...>

On March 5, 2009, the committee voted 14-1 to initiate a comprehensive review of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. Immediately, we sent a request for documents to all relevant executive branch agencies, chiefly among them the CIA.

The committee’s preference was for the CIA to turn over all responsive documents to the committee’s office, as had been done in previous committee investigations.

Director Panetta proposed an alternative arrangement: to provide literally millions of pages of operational cables, internal emails, memos, and other documents pursuant to the committee’s document requests at a secure location in Northern Virginia. We agreed, but insisted on several conditions and protections to ensure the integrity of this congressional investigation.

Per an exchange of letters in 2009, then-Vice Chairman Bond, then-Director Panetta, and I agreed in an exchange of letters that the CIA was to provide a “stand-alone computer system” with a “network drive” “segregated from CIA networks” for the committee that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA—who would “not be permitted to” “share information from the system with other (CIA) personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.”

It was this computer network that, notwithstanding our agreement with Director Panetta, was searched by the CIA this past January, and once before which I will later describe.

<...>

There are several reasons why the draft summary of the Panetta Review was brought to our secure spaces at the Hart Building.

Let me list them:

The significance of the Internal Review given disparities between it and the June 2013 CIA response to the committee study. The Internal Panetta Review summary now at the secure committee office in the Hart Building is an especially significant document as it corroborates critical information in the committee’s 6,300-page Study that the CIA’s official response either objects to, denies, minimizes, or ignores.

Unlike the official response, these Panetta Review documents were in agreement with the committee’s findings. That’s what makes them so significant and important to protect.

When the Internal Panetta Review documents disappeared from the committee’s computer system, this suggested once again that the CIA had removed documents already provided to the committee, in violation of CIA agreements and White House assurances that the CIA would cease such activities.

As I have detailed, the CIA has previously withheld and destroyed information about its Detention and Interrogation Program, including its decision in 2005 to destroy interrogation videotapes over the objections of the Bush White House and the Director of National Intelligence. Based on the information described above, there was a need to preserve and protect the Internal Panetta Review in the committee’s own secure spaces.

Now, the Relocation of the Internal Panetta Review was lawful and handled in a manner consistent with its classification. No law prevents the relocation of a document in the committee’s possession from a CIA facility to secure committee offices on Capitol Hill. As I mentioned before, the document was handled and transported in a manner consistent with its classification, redacted appropriately, and it remains secured—with restricted access—in committee spaces.

- more -

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=db84e844-01bb-4eb6-b318-31486374a895

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024654245

The Senate and the CIA at War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024648419

[L0oniX]

23. After Cointelpro ...no one should have expected them to stop.

[G_j]

25. K&R

[Solly Mack]

27. K&R

[tea and oranges]

28. K&R

[2banon]

31. K&R'd

[fascisthunter]

32. Kicked and Recommended! (nt)

[Maedhros]

37. Does anyone believe that the attempted censoring of the Internal Panetta Review

was not instigated by Panetta? Some CIA functionary is not going to defy the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee without blessing from the top.

[2banon]

40. I might have believed that at one time, but not anymore

I had for some lame reason assumed Panetta was a "good guy" Apart from such lame assumptions (that I have now shed myself of I hope) logic and common sense would hold that Panetta would have dealt with these matters more directly when he was in the position to do so, and made immediate attempts in that regard. And now Panetta is busy denying everything. so, there's that.

[LiberalEsto]

48. Seems to me that Panetta should be hauled before the committee under oath nt

[2banon]

49. Agreed. But he's wired to cover this up in the name of National Security

But he should still be hauled in. It would be behind closed doors anyway, or at least the most salient part of any testimony that would be offered up.

[questionseverything]

51. panetta just made a list describing which docs went out to the senate

from di fi's statement those docs damned the cia (which agreed with senate report)

it was brenan that started the cover up from what I understand

marci does great job explain in this interview

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10535

[2banon]

52. that's very interesting..

well then, I stand corrected.. let's see how this plays out..

[questionseverything]

53. at the end of the article in that link was a really good interview with marci wheeler

it is the first half hour,,,,i thought it was very worthwhile listening

wheeler has been on this since before the tapes were destroyed

on how this plays out ,i pray it ends with some cia prosecutions at least and bush & co prosecutions as the best outcome

[2banon]

55. I saw you post that link earlier, I think.. thanks! n/t

[Maedhros]

56. Brennan didn't take over the CIA until 2011.

Much of the shenanigans occurred in 2010.

[questionseverything]

58. i am not going to go out on a limb defending panetta

but his "report" does damn the torture, which agrees with the senate report that condemns torture

that is what the cia does not want out there

if he had glossed over the torture in his list or report the senate would be out there on their own....so I can give him some credit for that

but investigations under oath are appropriate ,no problem with that I just do not want brennan off the hook since he is the one threatening senate staff

[Maedhros]

59. Oh - I agree completely. Brennan needs to be held accountable and either

a: clean house, publicly or
b: be fired.

My point is that there is no way that some low-level operative made the call to fuck with Feinstein.

[questionseverything]

60. needs to be a c. option..prosecuted

the cia lawyer is at the heart of this and he is not low level

unfortunately I think current admin has promoted him

no matter who we elect the cia seems to act as the police/protectors of the 1 %

[Maedhros]

62. C: Indict and convict. [n/t]

[myrna minx]

45. Good Questions. n/t

[pacalo]

54. K&R.

Scuba!

[woo me with science]

61. I have not heard a single news outlet

do a better job than you have here.

Thank you for this post.

[Rex]

63. Corporate media report unbiased on the CIA?

NEVER...they might get a phone call!

[woo me with science]

64. kick

[woo me with science]

65. kick

[woo me with science]

66. Kick