The still-secret CIA torture report

The Senate’s report on the CIA torture program remains off-limits to the public, as Politico reports that diverse Washington factions are negotiating what can–and cannot–be shared with the American people about the agency’s actions.  What does one call this?  “Contempt for democracy” says Sullivan.


  1. What is the fear, here…that the American public would feel worse about the truth of the asassination than we have for 50 years? Free the files, CIA.

  2. PKM says:

    Orwellian? Kafkaesque? Take your pick. Or maybe Dickensian. The Exemplary Understatement Award goes to … – Hina Shamsi. “At last month’s hearing, Shamsi told Boasberg that it didn’t ‘seem plausible,’” that the agency had not received a copy of the 6,300 page report. The implausibility may have stemmed from the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee and the agency have been “sparring” over the redaction (censoring) of the report for nigh on two years. Who knew that a 6,300 page report could fit onto a CD? An in-house Continuing Education Conference has been convened in Langley to introduce the staff to the concept of a flash drive. “Shamsi asked Boasberg on Tuesday to order the CIA to file a sworn declaration about why officials didn’t realize they had the full report, but the judge declined.” Left unstated were the two most likely reasons why the declaration invitation was declined: 1) Boasberg feared the declaration would run longer than the 6,300 page report, or 2) Boasberg feared that he might split his gut laughing at the implausibility of the declaration.
    Also omitted from the article is the declination of the Justice Department (Executive Branch) to investigate at the request of the Senate Committee (Legislative Branch) the committee’s allegation that it had been the subject of an intelligence operation by the agency (Executive Branch). Not to worry. In his letter dated March 19, 2014, Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid advised the head of the agency that Reid had instructed the Senate’s Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate the matter. That’s got to have the agency quaking in its collective cloak & dagger. Reid did not mention that the last investigation conducted by the Sergeant-at-Arms involved Aaron Burr challenging a colleague to a duel. Reid’s letter, however, does contain a candid assessment of the agency’s counter-accusation that the committee’s staffers had hacked Langley’s computers: “an allegation that appears on its face to be patently absurd.” Hmm …, now that’s a phrase that might have fit in nicely with the contention that the agency did receive a copy of the 6,300 page report that has been the subject of headlines in the N.Y. Times and Washington Post, except that they did not realize they had a copy – implausible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.