CIA Postpones Release Of Big Torture Report That Could Undercut Cheney
Updated below.
Hmmm, looks like we’re going to have to keep waiting: The CIA has postponed the release of a highly-anticipated 2004 report on torture that was set for release today and is said to conclude that there’s no proof torture foiled terror plots, a source familiar with the process confirms to me.
CIA spokesperson George Little also just emailed that the CIA expects the process to conclude “soon,” a clear sign it won’t be today.
The report, which has a long section detailing whether torture is “effective,” could dramatically undercut Dick Cheney’s claims that torture works and have a major impact on the debate over the legality of the torture program. As I’ve noted here before, for these reasons, Dem Hill staffers have called the report the “Holy Grail.”
The CIA had previously indicated that the report — which was produced in 2004 by the CIA’s Inspector General and was subsequently released in heavily redacted form — would be declassified today, at least in part, in response to the Obama administration’s requests. The CIA is still debating internally how much of it to declassify.
CIA spokesperson George Little emails me this:
“We continue to review the document to see what additional material can be released in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The process, which we expect to conclude soon, is working just as it should.”
The “soon” means not today. The report is said to conclude that “it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks,” in the words of one of the recently-released torture memos, which made a passing reference to it. It is also said to raise serious questions about the legality of certain aspects of the torture program, which could fuel calls for a serious inquiry.
But it looks like we’ll have to wait to find out what, and how much, the report will tell us.
*******************************************
Update: Here’s the letter to the ACLU, which was seeking the document, confirming the CIA’s delay.
Update II: A source confirms that the release of the report has been pushed back only one week, so next Friday it is. For now.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
No reason given for the delay other than: ‘we’re still looking?’
Why am I not totally buying that?
By the way – no more “posting too fast” messages since this morning – thanks.
ok Tena, thanks much. And nope, no other reasons…
Greg, you are just bound and determined to move those goalposts and make this only about whether an “imminent specific attack was thwarted.” You know that this discussion is about far more than your own favored narrow question. Does the gathering of intelligence matter not at all? How about learning about how the organization works and its leadership structure? How about the arrests of al qeada leadership?
.
“CIA briefers said that half of the agency’s knowledge about al-Qaeda’s plans and structure had been obtained through the interrogations.”
.
What about the House Intelligence Committee investigation of interrogations: “Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a member of the subcommittee who attended the hearing, concurred with Hoekstra. “The hearing did address the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been much in the news lately,” Kline said, noting that he was intentionally choosing his words carefully in observance of the committee rules and the nature of the information presented. “Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots,” Kline said.”
So, sbj – you arguing in favor of torture now? Way to go.
THe bottom line really is that it doesn’t make one damn bit of difference whether it worked or not – it was illegal.
That’s like saying “I had to break Monty’s kneecaps to get the money he owes me, but by god it worked.”
sbj — it’s cheney who has put the goal posts there. He has said that the documents he wants will PROVE that torture has saved thousands of lives.
.
beyond that, the report in question is said to raise serious questions about the legality of the program beyond what we’ve heard before, as you’ll see if you click through to the wapo story (lowest link)
Dude, let’s get this weekend off on the right foot. It’s time for a Flashback Republican Style.
.
Oh sbj, the guy who thinks we should shout consequences to Iran, but not any that might impact the outcome of the situation. Speaking of moving goalposts, didn’t we invade Iraq to disarm them of WMD, or because they had ties to 9/11, or was it just ties to bin Laden, or was it just to spread democracy? I keep forgetting.
sbj~ even though I told myself that I wasn’t going to engage anymore, because you have simply become no more than the “anti” to almost every single Greg post…I neglect to inform myself that I must waiver…For all of your round and round to try and justify yourself or those that agree with you…I will state simply…The United States does not torture!!!! It is against the law…we do not do it…I don’t care if we disrupted/got information about plots…we all now know that our intelligence information is flawed (there were no WMD’s in Iraq)…we had all sorts of intelligence prior to the Iraq War and look how accurate it was! We also had intelligence about the pending 9/11 attack (Memo from August 6th), but the Bush Administration did nothing…we didn’t get that information from Gitmo now did we??? We prosecuted the Japanese after World War II for waterboarding (we called it torture then)…trying to make an argument for it now, because of 9/11 is so hypocritical that it defies logic. We do not torture, period. Yes we send our military soldiers to SERE school and they are waterboarded there…why?…to try and survive if they are ever captured by the enemy and TORTURED!!! Even at our own military schools we explain waterboarding (among other things) as torture…Good Lord Man…talk to someone that has been a POW…talk to John McCain, talk to Jesse Ventura…talk to others that have been waterboarded or POW’s…if they say it is torture, who in the world are YOU to deny that??? I am sure that you will come back with some sort of post with this link or that link or this guy says _____, but you trying to excuse this behavior on behalf of our Government says way more about you than anyone else.
@Greg: Thx for the reply. Cheney said, “I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives.” And you are arguing that this report will not be able to prove that torture foiled specific terror plots.
.
The two are not one and the same.
.
By gathering intelligence about the structure and leadership and arresting leadership we MAY have, indeed, “saved thousands . . . of lives.” Who is to know? How can that be quantified? If you catch the number three man did you save a life? Would he have later hatched a plot? That’s my point. I don’t believe Cheney has said that we stopped any specific plot – and you repeatedly argue that “torture” did not stop a plot. I’ll read the story, though, shortly.
.
Kudos to Greg for reporting on topics (gay revolt) that do not reflect too well on Obama.
@JennD: “I am sure that you will come back with some sort of post with this link or that link or this guy says _____, but you trying to excuse this behavior on behalf of our Government says way more about you than anyone else.”
.
So you’re not really interested in my response and are, in fact, saying that you won’t believe or consider whatever I write.
.
THAT says a lot about you.
sbj~ oh…I use to be interested in your responses, but you have become anti everything Greg posts, to the point that one questions your true desire for dialogue, as opposed to just being the anti-whatever Greg posts. And in this case (torture) no I won’t believe or consider anything that you have to say on the issue. Anyone that is trying to justify torture by saying – ‘yea, but we got intel’ – lacks the necessary skills to be reasoned with.
sbj- and by the way…why does Greg have to post negatives on President Obama? It’s his blog, he can post whatever he wants to. Why does it need to be balanced? There are plenty of other blogs out there that are anti-Obama…its not like we are short of them, what do you care??? If you want to see anti-Obama posts, then go to the hundreds of other blogs out there…certainly all comments are welcome (obviously)…but why in the world should Greg listen to you as the ulitimate “blog-police”…let me ask you a question…do you go to the anti-Obama sites and ask them to post something more “balanced”, more “pro-Obama”? Do you make a diligent effort to point out the pro to their anti argument…Greg should post what he wants…it’s his site.
The letter says they’re aiming for the 26th, a week from today.
I love how sbj just skips over me. But he doesn’t pick and choose, not at all.
@Greg: This looks like it will be an interesting report. I hope you will include the CIA response and be sure to tell your readers that even after the report was issued that the program was again provided legal justification to resume. It seems to me that Panetta is merely trying to protect national security secrets and persons who felt they were operating legally.
.
One little bit jumped out at me: “The report said waterboarding, meant to simulate drowning, was used more often than had been proved effective.”
.
Does that mean that waterboarding had indeed been PROVEN effective?
.
@Chris: Did you even ask me a question?
.
@JennD: I have been commenting on Greg’s posts both here and at TPM for, I guess, 2 or 3 years now. I appreciate his honesty and reporting. He encourages readers to suggest topics. I have never argued that Greg’s site must be balanced – honest, yes. I like to read the ‘opposition’ and, apparently unlike some (wink, wink), I don’t want to wear blinders or only listen to those I agree with – it does not strike me as intellectually stimulating.
sbj~ Please copy and paste all of the comments that you have made on the anti-Obama blogs suggesting topics and encouraging honesty (just because you disagree with a point of view doesn’t mean it is dishonest)…also, it is interesting that you accuse me of “wearing blinders” and “only listening to those I agree with” – you don’t even know me or the fact that half of my family are raging conservatives and trust me, our conversation is notoriously stimulating (intellectually and otherwise) – I have voted for both parties in the past, Dems and Reps – so don’t even start with all of this BS about only listening to those I agree with, because you are dead wrong. I am however, a moderate and with the way the GOP is going (Cheney/Limbaugh/Rove)(defending torture/going to war without raising taxes), I am safely in the Democratic catagory for a good long while.
@sbj, no I suppose I didn’t. Just love how I get glossed over.
@Chris: I am serious, dude. I’ve read your post and you appear to be asking rhetorical questions about why we invaded Iraq . . .
.
@JennD: White flag!
@sbj, and nothing about moving goalposts. I forgot we are never to bring up George Bush and the Republicans since they are irrelevant to anything happening today. I just think it’s rather pointless to accuse Greg of moving goalposts when no administration moved more goalposts than Bush.
sbj~ at home and one bottle of wine later…i am also waving the White Flag…
I am accustomed to Stupid (from politicians or what politicians think about public) but this takes the cake. This handling of this issue has gone so far over the cliff, I don’t think anyone will bother helping Prez. Obama pull his people involved in this back to safety.
Greg, I see you post a lot of “news” that appears to be what you want (GOP humiliated, Dems bolstered) more than what is the full story.
I thought your job as a partisan was done. Yes or no?
Of course torture “works”. Whatever pretext they start out with, ultimately the torturers’ goal becomes the infliction of pain. In that sense, torture works.
However it ought to be anathema to stoop to the level of nuts like Cheney and debate whether torture is “effective” in eliciting useful information. The question is irrelevant because torture is illegal.
Because it’s illegal, both Cheney and Bush have always denied that their policies authorized torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore the debate need not stoop any lower than the question of whether the US did in fact inflict torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment on prisoners. And since waterboarding is all of those things, that “debate” is over as soon as it begins.
If Cheney tried to shift the terms of the debate again to, say, whether waterboarding etc. was merited in the case of these prisoners, would you follow him down that path as well Greg? Why not just stick to the point – that cruel and degrading treatment is illegal?