House members denied look at CIA report

[Ichingcarpenter]

A senior Democratic lawmaker on the House Intelligence Committee says members of the panel have not been allowed to read the Senate report on CIA interrogations.

Asked if lawmakers with high-level security clearance could read the voluminous investigation on the CIA's use of waterboarding and other "enhanced" interrogation tactics since Sept. 11, 2001, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said "those of us on the House Intelligence Committee were not able to access the report."
Some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were "shocked" by the findings in the 6,200 page, four-year committee investigation.

According to reports, Senate investigators found that the CIA misled lawmakers and other decision-makers on the effectiveness of its harsh interrogation techniques.



Read more: http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/204405-intel-panel-lawmaker-denied-access-to-cia-report#ixzz2zzLxj2wV
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[LuvNewcastle]

1. We can't change anything without change at the CIA,

and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Not with these weenies in charge. They're all too afraid of them to do anything about it.

[Octafish]

12. Secret Agents and Secret Agendas.

Don't necessarily overlap with Democracy.

[merrily]

2. If the Senate Intelligence Committee can't read the Senate Report on the CIA, who can?

Wasn't the Senate Committee getting double top secret info from Bushco all along? Also one of the House Committees?

I recall that, once waterboarding hit the public fan, Bushco claimed they were and they claimed they weren't given EVERYthing. I doubt we'll ever know details because they agreed to keep everything secret in order to get the information in the first place. So, it became Bushco's word against the word of some Democratic members of the committee.

I guess the point of their getting it was so that they could send sternly worded double secret letters to someone in Bushco, if so moved? I know the existence of at least one of those letters was made public at the time of the "he said, she said, for all the good it did.

To the people who have a Constitutional duty to represent us:

Please don't take an oath to uphold the Constitution and your duties to us under the Constitution, then swear never to tell us things being done in the name of the nation, especially those things that are illegal and cause people to hate us enough more than on 911.

Thanks ever so, Merrily

P.S. Happy belated Easter and Passover

[elias7]

4. I think it's the house intel committee, but still....

One would think there should be access to them, and really, access to the public.

[merrily]

5. Thanks. That makes a lot more sense, LOL.

That'll teach me to skim.

Then again, sometimes that's all I can manage.

[GoneFishin]

3. All about dodging accountability, and scarcely anything to do with national security.

If someone with some balls tears down the secrecy fence around them and exposes these corrupt criminals, I won't wish that person any ill will. And I don't give a damn which party is in the White House.

[merrily]

7. Someone else without too many attachments in the US, who is

will to risk being a fugitive all his life, or worse, just may turn up.

I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

[Enthusiast]

6. Does this mean the CIA has absolute power over the nation and elected representatives?

Are we there yet?

[merrily]

8. Yet?

[GoneFishin]

11. "Confessions of an economic hit man" is pretty much the answer.

And that is what they did to get what they wanted before the internet and dragnet surveillance.

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how to get what you want from anyone if you had access to the resources of the CIA.

So what's stopping them? Their conscience?

Their exemplary code of ethics?

Their strict allegiance to honesty?

[Octafish]

9. Since November 22nd, 1963.

Can't mention it on tee vee, even RFK's kids who said their dad, the slain President's brother and the Attorney General of the United States, suspected conspiracy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022416498

America, we have a problem. Glad this Congress is starting to notice.

[Hestia]

10. Feinstein said on the Senate Floor that the report would be made public when the CIA

allegations of snooping on committee members working computers. She said the public needs to know all about what happened.

Doesn't this fly in the face of being public transparency if committee members are being denied "security access" to the reports? Must be some real damage to CIA and they are scared so they pull the "security clearance" ace in the hole. Maybe we can clamp down on the CIA after this report is made public. No more above and beyond reproach and being above the president and congress/senate.

It seems that any mid-level bureaucrat can pull security clearance on any report about anything that makes the agency or person to look bad. That needs to stop. Our - the people's - working documents do not need to be high security.