Skip to main content

Dianne Feinstein’s  Senate Intelligence Committee has the unredacted CIA torture report. Sending the report to the President for him to redact was a pointless charade if Feinstein doesn’t like the redactions.

Who has final say on the report’s redaction is a legitimate question now. How many times will the report be passed like the hot potato that it is from Capitol Hill to the White House until Feinstein decides it’s just right? Will the report be released in our lifetimes?

If Feinstein's committee has final say on the redactions, as she said in a statement today, to the extent that the public will never see it unless she approves, why bother sending it to the White House. She was at the White House on July 31 in a face-to-face meeting with the President. Why wasn't this resolved at that meeting?

The bottom line is the public wants to see this report now.

Forget about the distraction of those who parrot the far-right’s  blame Obama catcalls. They are obviously not on top of this issue.  I heard so much griping from them about  the Democratic party I thought  they’d be all over Feinstein right now to cut the crap and release the unredacted report that we know she has. But their minds are focused on Obama right now and on unconventional culinary items that would even make the jaded Anthony Bourdain raise an eyebrow.  

What else should interested citizens ask these days?

  • Who are the 6 Senators on the Intelligence committee who voted against adopting the CIA torture report in December 2012?
  • Who are the 3 Senators on the Intelligence Committee who voted against making the CIA torture report public in April 2014, and the one whose vote is missing?
  • Are any of these Senators up for reelection this year?
  • Why aren’t their names written across the sky right now for the entire nation to see?

Anyone can call Feinstein and the other Senators on the committee to urge them to release the unredacted CIA torture report now.

Senator State Party Phone number
Richard Burr North Carolina Republican (202) 224-3154
Saxby Chambliss Georgia Republican (202) 224-3521
Daniel Coats Indiana Republican (202) 224-5623
Tom Coburn Oklahoma Republican (202) 224-5754
Susan Collins Maine Republican (202) 224-2523
Dianne Feinstein California Democrat (202) 224-3841
Martin Heinrich New Mexico Democrat (202) 224-5521
Angus King Maine Independent (202) 224-5344
Barbara A. Mikulski Maryland Democrat (202) 224-4654
James E. Risch Idaho Republican (202) 224-2752
John D. Rockefeller IV West Virginia Democrat (202) 224-6472
Marco Rubio Florida Republican (202) 224-3041
Mark Udall Colorado Democrat (202) 224-5941
Mark Warner Virginia Democrat (202) 224-2023
Ron Wyden Oregon Democrat (202) 224-5244

The Senate Intelligence Committee initiated the study of CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program in March 2009. Committee staff received more than 6 million pages of materials, the overwhelming majority of which came from the CIA, but also included documents from the Departments of State, Justice and Defense. Committee staff reviewed CIA operational cables, memoranda, internal communications, photographs, financial documents, intelligence analysis, transcripts and summaries of interviews conducted by the CIA inspector general while the program was ongoing and other records for the study.

In December 2012, the committee approved the report with a bipartisan vote of 9-6 and sent it to the executive branch for comment. For the past several months, the committee staff has reviewed all comments by the CIA as well as minority views by committee Republicans and made changes to the report as necessary to ensure factual accuracy and clarity.

Apr 20 2009
Senator Feinstein Urges President Obama to Withhold Judgment on Prosecutions Related to CIA Interrogation Program
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today urged President Obama to withhold judgment on potential criminal prosecutions related to CIA interrogations until the committee completes its review of the Agency’s program.

Here is Senator Feinstein’s letter to the President:

April 20, 2009
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to respectfully request that comments regarding holding individuals accountable for detention and interrogation related activities be held in reserve until the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is able to complete its review of the conditions and interrogations of certain high value detainees.
This study is now underway, and I estimate its completion within the next six to eight months. A study of the first two detainees has already been completed and will shortly be before the committee.

Sincerely Yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Dec 13 2012
Feinstein Statement on CIA Detention, Interrogation Report Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today released the following statement after the committee voted 9-6 to approve its Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation.

Mar 11 2014
Statement on Intel Committee’s CIA Detention, Interrogation Report
Washington—Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today spoke on the Senate floor regarding the committee’s study on the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program:
“Over the past week, there have been numerous press articles written about the Intelligence Committee’s oversight review of the Detention and Interrogation Program of the CIA, specifically press attention has focused on the CIA’s intrusion and search of the Senate Select Committee’s computers as well as the committee’s acquisition of a certain internal CIA document known as the Panetta Review.
Apr 03 2014
Intelligence Committee Votes to Declassify Portions of CIA Study
Washington—Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement after the committee voted to declassify the executive summary and conclusions of its landmark report on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Time to fess up, America (23+ / 0-)

    The CIA Must Tell the Truth About My Rendition At 12 Years Old

    Lying on the Oval Office desk, I'm told, is an official report about what happened to me and my family on that night all those years ago. Our story will be part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA rendition and interrogation. The only question is whether you will be able to read it, or whether it will be hidden under a smear of black ink.

    Yet key evidence is available for anyone to read on the internet: a Libyan intelligence fax with my father's name and "rendition" scrawled over it; transmissions between the Libyans and the CIA organizing who would pay for the plane; faxes detailing the plane's landing requirements. They were found in an abandoned intelligence compound after Colonel Gaddafi fled Tripoli during the Libyan revolution.

    I sometimes imagine President Obama reading the Senate report, and wonder whether he ever asks himself who the people named in the report really are. There are other people who have read my name in the report as well: the team of editors, holding their black marker pens and deciding which bits of the report to redact before it gets published. I wonder who will decide whether my name gets a black line drawn through it, and whether he or she will stop to think what that means.

  •  I have her office on speed dial (18+ / 0-)

    I have been pestering her about this for five years.

    Orwell was an optimist.
    My Home Page

    by RepackRider on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:08:18 PM PDT

    •  No wonder her staff sounds so weary when I call. (11+ / 0-)

      I can actually hear them letting out those deep sighs before they rush me off the phone.

      It should be a wake-up call when a EU Parliament member is asking in a debate speech how far up it goes if they spied on 'Mrs. Feinshtein' and how do we know that it isn't directed from the opposition.

      •  Well, the problem is, of course, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10, kharma

        You have no leverage.

        Weren't you the one who sent Sen. Feinstein a letter proclaiming that no matter what she does, no matter how criminal or corrupt, no matter how harmful it was to the country, the Democratic party, or the cause of progress, that you, Mark Lippman were going to cast your vote for her in the general election.


        •  No sir, I wrote no such letter and that's not (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, unfangus

          a position I'd ever take. I assume you're using a rhetorical device to make a point. It's a good point but sometimes excessive rhetoric can hinder, not help communication. I'm willing to hold up my end.

          I've said here before that voting is a transaction, as opposed to being strictly a moral decision. That means a voter gives something, their vote, to get something, public policy they favor. Morality counts. How could anyone trust a crooked candidate to deliver their part of the bargain? The voter's intellect and conscience calculates a best choice which is rarely going to be an ideal choice.

          The candidates have to be compared against each other, not judged alone. If one favors a free-trade agreement, the voter has to examine what the other candidates say. It makes no sense to eliminate a Democrat who favors free-trade if all the other candidates do, too. It's not the only issue.

          Understanding the issues, and their relative importance, makes the candidate comparison systematic. For me, climate change and the NSA are the two critical issues. I could end up with no one to vote for, and disenfranchising oneself is the worst offense of all.  The voter turnout for people in the top income bracket is typically double the turnout for the lowest income bracket. Turnout matters.

          It matters because of something inherent to the two party system. The difference in turnout rates among the competing parties often determines the winner. It's a statistically proven scientific fact. In a two-party race, the turnout of one party or another matters even more. If one is able to turnout at a rate much higher than the other, it determines the race.

          In practice, some people see this as choosing between bad and worse. If worse means labor can expect a jobs program with prison factories surrounded by barbed wire, I'll choose bad over that.

          Sorry about the word count.

  •  I'm afraid that Sen. Feinstein (6+ / 0-)

    would find that VERY disturbing.

  •  This is from Senator Feinstein's remarks, 4/3/14, (17+ / 0-)

    after the Senate Intelligence committee voted to declassify the executive summary of their detailed report:  

    “The purpose of this review was to uncover the facts behind this secret program, and the results were shocking. The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen.
     “This is not what Americans do...
     But the thing is this is what Americans have done, and nothing changes until the report is released and it becomes a part of our national consciousness, and we as a people get to process it through. Otherwise her remarks are just BS.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:18:33 PM PDT

  •  I get the feeling they're killing time (7+ / 0-)

    till after the election.

    Lame duck months are the best time to bury unpleasantness, leave things unaddressed, and set up someone else for blame.

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:31:56 PM PDT

  •  The only way to transcend this abomination... (7+ / 0-) to confront it.  Other countries like South Africa and Chile have and so should we.   Until we do our reputation will sink even lower.  The "leader of the free world"?  Yeah right.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action. UID: 9742

    by Shockwave on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:52:40 PM PDT

  •  Of course, she should release the (9+ / 0-)

    ...unredacted report.  How else can prosecutors know who to pursue on war crimes charges.  And how else can the public know that war crimes laws in the US are being enforced.

    If she doesn't within a couple of weeks, someone with access to the report should leak it to one of the many journalistic outlets with secure dropboxes.

    And multiple Senators should read the unredacted text into the Congressional record.

    Then be ready to see Eric Holder try to indict all of them under the Espionage Act of 1917.

    Because the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 supersede the Constitution and prevent members of Congress from individually doing their jobs like Mike Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers.

    Yes, DiFi, relese the damn report.  The White House has no authority to prevent the Congress from accomplishing oversight.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:54:55 PM PDT

    •  I agree. I hope someone would leak it if it comes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Santa Susanna Kid

      to that.

      I'll have to look up the Mike Gravel reference.

      •  Access to this report (0+ / 0-)

        is strictly limited to a select few and any leak would be immediately traced to that specific individual who would be charged with multiple felonies.This situation and this era is so different than that of Mike Gravel that any comparison is moot.People who seriously suggest that a sitting Senator has the power to flaunt US law and the national security apparatus and only lack the personal integrity to do so are seriously deluded.I want this information to be made public as much as anyone else but it will have to come legally through the committee,no one's going to deliberately,blatantly violate the espionage act to do it.

        'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable' A..Einstein

        by unfangus on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:15:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Note that Sen. Feinstein (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Lippman

    and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence arrogate unto themselves less power than a lowly journalist. Contrary to what Michael Kinsley claims, when a journalist gets classified information, it's up to the publication to decide what to print. Granted, they have no governmental obligations like the Senate does, but the Senate is only beholden to the rules it has made for itself. And those it can change with a vote.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:05:12 PM PDT

    •  Because Congress was derelict the system of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      oversight failed. If they don't want journalists and whistle blowers to leak classified information, they have to do their oversight job.

      Most of them have little qualification to do it effectively. Being stupid enhances plausible deniability too.

  •  They are all slow walking this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Lippman, kurt, unfangus

    until after November. (and to be clear,remember that all the VSP are now planning to release is the Executive Summary) Rather makes one wonder who and how many inside the Beltway are hoping for a Sen. Burr run Senate Intelligence Committee,so that it all gets swept under the rug.  
     I hope your diary gets more people involved in trying to get this released. Certainly many of us who have been writing and calling for years could use some reinforcements.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:19:47 PM PDT

  •  When the committee voted for release in April (4+ / 0-)

    it was for the executive summary. The descriptions Feinstein already gave about the content set my expectations. I wouldn't be shocked if they connected the dots to show that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice knew what they did was torture while they said it wasn't and ordered the destruction of evidence. Connected to that is the lack of control over the CIA and by extension the other intelligence agencies.

    I don't have readers. I don't fit into a niche. I have one foot in the EU where there's an organized left and no one mocks anyone for what they suspect about US intelligence.
    Things look different from the outside. The basis for Section 702 of FISA is that you don't have to worry as American citizens, they're only spying on foreigners. It's widely accepted on this site. Similar reasoning was used to justify torture 10 years ago. The US Constitution doesn't protect offshore foreigners.

    Treaties don't seem to have any importance which makes the free-trade negotiations a comical farce.

    If the CIA is spying on Congress it's not too far-fetched to figure a political motivation.

    Clapper lies at hearings and it's no big deal.

    US spies are discovered in Germany and Obama learns about it from Merkel, not the CIA that supposedly reports to him.

    Secrecy makes it hard to determine the full extent of what's going on.

    The judicial system was hindered by the CIA's destruction of evidence and ends up accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

    This is how the government it taken apart piece by piece.
    With fear, anger, confusion, and doubt the public loses its way. There's nothing but rightwing tactics here through and through. In the US there's no organized left, no offense to anyone, to give people an anchor.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site