There Are Interviews with CIA Officials Regarding Torture, and the White House Is Hiding Them


Transparency and accountability, watchwords of … ha, ha, ha, just kidding.
Credit: Trevor McGoldrick / photo on flickr

When the Senate's report on enhanced interrogation and torture was released earlier this week, one of the immediate defensive talking points from the CIA was that the Senate did not interview any of their employees. The Senate report makes note of this issue in a footnote, saying that the CIA wouldn't require its staff to cooperate and attributed it to a Department of Justice investigation.

Just before that footnote is an additional note that the White House also withheld thousands of documents from the Senate investigation, claiming executive privilege. Brian Doherty wrote about that detail Tuesday.

Apparently among those documents are interviews with about 100 witnesses with information about the interrogation program. The New York Times has filed a lawsuit to try to get access to these reports to see why no charges have been filed as a result of the investigation. The White House is fighting having to disclose the records:

The Obama administration has urged a court to reject a request to disclose thousands of pages of documents from a Justice Department investigation into the torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency, including summaries of interviews with about 100 witnesses and documents explaining why in the end no charges were filed

The administration made the filing late Tuesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by The New York Times, hours after the Senate Intelligence Committee made public a 524-page executive summary of its own investigation into C.I.A. torture. The committee based its report on a review of C.I.A. documents but did not conduct any interviews.

The Justice Department materials, the court filing revealed, include 10 reports and memorandums totaling 1,719 pages — more than three times the number of pages in the Senate report released Tuesday — as well as "numerous" pages of reports on interviews with current and former C.I.A. officials.

According to the Times, the Justice Department is fighting the release of the documents because it would "affect the candor of law enforcement deliberations about whether to bring criminal charges."

Read more here. CIA Director John Brennan gave a press conference this afternoon essentially going over the same points used in the agency's official response (pdf) to the Senate report. When a reporter asked him directly if he thought destroying video tapes of interrogations had been appropriate, he vaguely responded that people "took actions at the time that they believed were the right thing to do. Let's leave it at that." If those are the kind of responses to expect, what exactly were Senate staffers going to get from their own interviews anyway?

NEXT: Will Bipartisan Opposition Kill the Cromnibus?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m shocked

    1. It’s really none of your business what those of us in the governing sector do with our information. You people have no need, business, or right to know what we will do to you should you express your disagreement in ways we deem inappropriate.

      If you just re-establish your blind allegiance to us in government like our schools taught you you’ll be happier people.


  2. Most transparent….!
    Uh, well.

    1. Come on, tell me you can’t see through them.

  3. …he vaguely responded that people “took actions at the time that they believed were the right thing to do. Let’s leave it at that.”

    Only a government employee could violate national and international laws and get away with this sort of statement.

    1. “What’s that saying about the ballot box and the ammo box? I can’t remember.

      Oh well, they were bad people anyway. I’ma go watch the Kardashians & scratch my balls.” [/AmericanPublic]

  4. I see two possible motives:

    1) The hidden information would make the Obama administration look bad.

    2) The hidden information would make the Bush administration look less bad.

  5. I suppose they don’t want to show that the EIT’s did lead to some actionable intelligence. Or the administration is trying to protect Obama’s legacy. I’m thinking both tbh.

    1. My guess would be that whatever value this has as partisan political fodder ultimately matters less than government officials protecting their own kind and being, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about the general concept of public investigations into the activities of the more secretive branches of government.

  6. Well, clearly


  7. The Senate report makes note of this issue in a footnote, saying that the CIA wouldn’t require its staff to cooperate and attributed it to a Department of Justice investigation.

    I cannot make sense of that word “it”.

  8. This can’t be true. Tony was just telling me yesterday that Obama was facilitating telling the truth about CIA torture practices.

  9. The CIA gave briefings on its enhanced interrogation techniques to the Senate, including Diane Feinstine and Nancy Pelosi, who gave their tacit approval then. Enhanced interrogation was not torture, according to Administration attorneys. These Democrats have short, selective memories.

  10. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.