{"id":186280,"date":"2014-03-11T18:55:00","date_gmt":"2014-03-11T23:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2014\/03\/11\/we-now-get-the-chance-to-see-how-much-corruption-barack-obama-will-tolerate-in-the-state-security-apparatus\/"},"modified":"2014-03-11T18:55:00","modified_gmt":"2014-03-11T23:55:00","slug":"we-now-get-the-chance-to-see-how-much-corruption-barack-obama-will-tolerate-in-the-state-security-apparatus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2014\/03\/11\/we-now-get-the-chance-to-see-how-much-corruption-barack-obama-will-tolerate-in-the-state-security-apparatus\/","title":{"rendered":"We Now Get the Chance to See How Much Corruption Barack Obama will Tolerate in the State Security Apparatus"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>We have know that the President tolerated it when <a href=\"http:\/\/40yrs.blogspot.com\/search?q=clapper+lied&amp;max-results=20&amp;by-date=false\">Director of National Intelligence James Clapper blatantly and unashamedly lied to Congress<\/a>, but this is a much bigger deal.<\/p>\n<p>Dianne Feinstein<sup>*<\/sup> just <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2014\/mar\/11\/feinstein-accuses-cia-intimidation-torture-report?google_editors_picks=true\">took to the floor of the Senate and accused the CIA of obstructing a senate investigation and attempting to intimidate the Senate Intelligence Committee Staff<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">The chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, on Tuesday accused the Central Intelligence Agency of a catalogue of cover-ups, intimidation and smears aimed at investigators probing its role in an \u201cun-American and brutal\u201d programme of post-9\/11 detention and interrogation.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">In a bombshell statement on the floor of the US Senate, Feinstein, normally an administration loyalist, accused the CIA of potentially violating the US constitution and of criminal activity in its attempts to obstruct her committee\u2019s investigations into the agency\u2019s use of torture. She described the crisis as a \u201cdefining moment\u201d for political oversight of the US intelligence service.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">Her unprecedented public assault on the CIA represented an intensification of the row between the committee and the agency over a still-secret report on the torture of terrorist suspects after 9\/11.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">Feinstein, who said she was making her statement \u201creluctantly\u201d, confirmed recent reports that CIA officials had been accused of monitoring computer networks used by Senate staff investigators. Going further than previously, she referred openly to recent attempts by the CIA to remove documents from the network detailing evidence of torture that would incriminate intelligence officers.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">She also alleged that anonymous CIA officials were effectively conducting a smear campaign in the media to discredit and \u201cintimidate\u201d Senate staff by suggesting they had hacked into the agency\u2019s computers to obtain a separate, critical internal report on the detention and interrogation programme.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>While it is tempting to focus on the obvious irony of Feinstein&#8217;s outrage in the face of her previous full throated support of intellligence excesses, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2014\/mar\/11\/edward-snowden-dianne-feinstein-hypocrisy-nsa-cia\">as Edward Snowden does<\/a>, this is a much bigger issue.<\/p>\n<p>If what Feinstein alleges is true, and I am inclined to believe it because it is a statement against her normal interests, which is as a CIA fanboi, it lends credibility.<\/p>\n<p>Going over her speech, here is what she presents:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Senate Intelligence Committee demanded that all relevant documents be turned over to them so that they might be able to investigate the CIA&#8217;s torture program.<\/li>\n<li>The CIA balked, and so the committee and then CIA Director Leon Panetta negotiated an arrangement whereby the staff would access these documents at a CIA secured facility.&nbsp; Here is the relevant quote:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<blockquote>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">Per an exchange of letters in 2009, then-Vice Chairman Bond, then-Director Panetta, and I agreed in an exchange of letters that the CIA was to provide a \u201cstand-alone computer system\u201d with a \u201cnetwork drive\u201d \u201csegregated from CIA networks\u201d for the committee that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA\u2014who would \u201cnot be permitted to\u201d \u201cshare information from the system with other [CIA] personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>Unsurprisingly, the CIA provided the documents without any sort of index or any search facility, though one was later added at Senate requests<\/li>\n<li>It was this computer system that the CIA searched, in contravention of their agreement.<\/li>\n<li>The CIA also insisted on additional multiple level levels of review that were not a part of the agreement.<\/li>\n<li>When the staff found something relevant, they would save it to disk at the securely located computer, or print it out.<\/li>\n<li>The staff found that documents that they had flagged as important were disappearing.<\/li>\n<li>The CIA denied this, then blamed the IT staffers, and finally claimed that this was ordered by the White House, who denied this, and ordered the CIA to cooperate, &#8220;<i>The matter was resolved with a renewed commitment from the White House Counsel, and the CIA, that there would be no further unauthorized access to the committee\u2019s network or removal of access to CIA documents already provided to the committee.<\/i>&#8220;<\/li>\n<li>In 2010, the staff found a draft of the &#8220;Internal Panetta Review,&#8221; an internal review that Panetta commissioned by on torture that demolished the official CIA response to the (as yet unreleased) Senate report.&nbsp; It specifically contradicted the official report in a number of ways, most notably:<\/li>\n<ul>\n<li>The practices were far more brutal that officially revealed.<\/li>\n<li>There was no meaningful intelligence derived from torture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<li>Because of the importance of the document, it mirrored the Senate Committee conclusions, the staff printed it out for safe keeping, and placed it in the secure safe in the Senate Intelligence Committee Offices.&nbsp; <b><span style=\"font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps;\">This was done in accordance with the document handling procedures agreed between the CIA and Intel Committee<\/span><\/b>.<\/li>\n<li>The CIA then disappeared the Panetta report from the Senate staffers computers. <\/li>\n<li>The CIA has still refused to supply the Panetta Review to the Senate.<\/li>\n<li>On January 15, 2014, &#8220;<i>CIA personnel had conducted a \u201csearch\u201d\u2014that was John Brennan\u2019s word\u2014of the committee computers at the offsite facility. This search involved not only a search of documents provided to the committee by the CIA, but also a search of the \u201dstand alone\u201d and \u201cwalled-off\u201d committee network drive containing the committee\u2019s own internal work product and communications<\/i>.&#8221;<\/li>\n<ul>\n<li>Note that even if this does not qualify as obstructing a Congressional investigation (I think that it does), it is a violation of the law for the CIA to conduct surveillance in the US&nbsp;&nbsp; If they needed to search the computers (assuming that Congressional immunity does not apply) they would have to go the the FBI. (Which they must have hated)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<li>The CIA has refused to provide additional details on the scope of the search, which, &#8220;<i>May also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance<\/i>.&#8221;<\/li>\n<li>The CIA&#8217;s Inspector General looked at the searches done by the CIA, and concluded that they needed to be investigated <b>criminally<\/b>, and made a referral to the DoJ.<\/li>\n<li>In response, the acting general counsel of the CIA made a criminal referral of the Senate staffers to the DOJ.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Here is the money quote:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">I should note that for most, if not all, of the CIA\u2019s Detention and Interrogation Program, the now <b><span style=\"font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps;\">acting general counsel was a lawyer in the CIA\u2019s Counterterrorism Center\u2014the unit within which the CIA managed and carried out this program<\/span><\/b>. From mid-2004 until the official termination of the detention and interrogation program in January 2009, <b><span style=\"font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps;\">he was the unit\u2019s chief lawyer. He is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study<\/span><\/b>.<\/p>\n<p>And now this individual is sending a crimes report to the Department of Justice on the actions of congressional staff\u2014the same congressional staff who researched and drafted a report that details how CIA officers\u2014including the acting general counsel himself\u2014<b><span style=\"font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps;\">provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice about the program.<\/span><\/b> <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(<i>emphasis mine<\/i>)<\/p>\n<p>While Feinstein does not mention the counsel&#8217;s name, it is public knowledge that the CIA&#8217;s acting general counsel is Robert Eatinger, who among other things, <b><span style=\"font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps;\">Authorized the Destruction of the CIA Torture Tapes Against the Instructions of the Bush White House and the Director of National Intelligence<\/span><\/b>.<\/p>\n<p>The White House response is a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/storyline\/cia-senate-snooping\/white-house-obama-has-great-confidence-cias-brennan-n50021\">a statement of, &#8220;Great Confidence,&#8221; in CIA director John Brennan<\/a>.&nbsp; So Obama wants to keep this guy.<\/p>\n<p>As I have said before, the <a href=\"http:\/\/40yrs.blogspot.com\/search?q=worst+constitutional+law&amp;max-results=20&amp;by-date=true\">worst constitutional law professor ever<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>I expect further stonewalling on the part of both the CIA and the Obama administration.<\/p>\n<p>What <b>should<\/b> happen is that Eatinger should be placed on leave, and his security clearance should be suspended, but I imagine that he will continue to do damage to the Constitution of the United States, and then he will retire with a full pension.<\/p>\n<p><sup>*<\/sup><span style=\"font-size: 78%;\">Full disclosure, my great grandfather, Harry Goldman, and her grandfather, Sam Goldman were brothers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Full speech follows: <br \/><a name='more'><\/a><\/p>\n<h1><a href=\"http:\/\/www.feinstein.senate.gov\/public\/index.cfm\/press-releases?ID=db84e844-01bb-4eb6-b318-31486374a895\">Statement on Intel Committee\u2019s CIA Detention, Interrogation Report<\/a><\/h1>\n<p><i>Washington<\/i>\u2014Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne  Feinstein (D-Calif.) today spoke on the Senate floor regarding the  committee\u2019s study on the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOver the past week, there have been numerous press articles written  about the Intelligence Committee\u2019s oversight review of the Detention and  Interrogation Program of the CIA, specifically press attention has  focused on the CIA\u2019s intrusion and search of the Senate Select  Committee\u2019s computers as well as the committee\u2019s acquisition of a  certain internal CIA document known as the Panetta Review.<\/p>\n<p>I rise today to set the record straight and to provide a full accounting of the facts and history.<\/p>\n<p>Let me say up front that I come to the Senate Floor reluctantly.  Since January 15, 2014, when I was informed of the CIA\u2019s search of this  committee\u2019s network, I have been trying to resolve this dispute in a  discreet and respectful way. I have not commented in response to media  requests for additional information on this matter. However, the  increasing amount of inaccurate information circulating now cannot be  allowed to stand unanswered.<\/p>\n<p>The origin of this study: The CIA\u2019s detention and interrogation  program began operations in 2002, though it was not until September  2006, that Members of the Intelligence Committee, other than the  Chairman and Vice Chairman, were briefed. In fact, we were briefed by  then-CIA Director Hayden only hours before President Bush disclosed the  program to the public.<\/p>\n<p>A little more than a year later, on December 6, 2007, a New York  Times article revealed the troubling fact that the CIA had destroyed  videotapes of some of the CIA\u2019s first interrogations using so-called  \u201cenhanced techniques.\u201d We learned that this destruction was over the  objections of President Bush\u2019s White House Counsel and the Director of  National Intelligence.<\/p>\n<p>After we read about the tapes\u2019 destruction in the newspapers,  Director Hayden briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee. He assured us  that this was not destruction of evidence, as detailed records of the  interrogations existed on paper in the form of CIA operational cables  describing the detention conditions and the day-to-day CIA  interrogations.<\/p>\n<p>The CIA director stated that these cables were \u201ca more than adequate  representation\u201d of what would have been on the destroyed tapes. Director  Hayden offered at that time, during Senator Jay Rockefeller\u2019s  chairmanship of the committee, to allow Members or staff to review these  sensitive CIA operational cables given that the videotapes had been  destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>Chairman Rockefeller sent two of his committee staffers out to the  CIA on nights and weekends to review thousands of these cables, which  took many months. By the time the two staffers completed their review  into the CIA\u2019s early interrogations in early 2009, I had become chairman  of the committee and President Obama had been sworn into office.<\/p>\n<p>The resulting staff report was chilling. The interrogations and the  conditions of confinement at the CIA detention sites were far different  and far more harsh than the way the CIA had described them to us. As  result of the staff\u2019s initial report, I proposed, and then-Vice Chairman  Bond agreed, and the committee overwhelmingly approved, that the  committee conduct an expansive and full review of CIA\u2019s detention and  interrogation program.<\/p>\n<p>On March 5, 2009, the committee voted 14-1 to initiate a  comprehensive review of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program.  Immediately, we sent a request for documents to all relevant executive  branch agencies, chiefly among them the CIA.<\/p>\n<p>The committee\u2019s preference was for the CIA to turn over all  responsive documents to the committee\u2019s office, as had been done in  previous committee investigations.<\/p>\n<p>Director Panetta proposed an alternative arrangement: to provide  literally millions of pages of operational cables, internal emails,  memos, and other documents pursuant to the committee\u2019s document requests  at a secure location in Northern Virginia. We agreed, but insisted on  several conditions and protections to ensure the integrity of this  congressional investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Per an exchange of letters in 2009, then-Vice Chairman Bond,  then-Director Panetta, and I agreed in an exchange of letters that the  CIA was to provide a \u201cstand-alone computer system\u201d with a \u201cnetwork  drive\u201d \u201csegregated from CIA networks\u201d for the committee that would only  be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA\u2014who would  \u201cnot be permitted to\u201d \u201cshare information from the system with other  [CIA] personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It was this computer network that, notwithstanding our agreement with  Director Panetta, was searched by the CIA this past January, and once  before which I will later describe.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to demanding that the documents produced for the  committee be reviewed at a CIA facility, the CIA also insisted on  conducting a multi-layered review of every responsive document before  providing the document to the committee. This was to ensure the CIA did  not mistakenly provide documents unrelated to the CIA\u2019s Detention and  Interrogation Program or provide documents that the president could  potentially claim to be covered by executive privilege.<\/p>\n<p>While we viewed this as unnecessary and raised concerns that it would  delay our investigation, the CIA hired a team of outside  contractors\u2014who otherwise would not have had access to these sensitive  documents\u2014to read, multiple times, each of the 6.2 million pages of  documents produced, before providing them to fully-cleared committee  staff conducting the committee\u2019s oversight work. This proved to be a  slow and very expensive process.<\/p>\n<p>The CIA started making documents available electronically to the  committee staff at the CIA leased facility in mid-2009. The number of  pages ran quickly to the thousands, tens of thousands, the hundreds of  thousands, and then into the millions. The documents that were provided  came without any index, without organizational structure. It was a true  \u201cdocument dump\u201d that our committee staff had to go through and make  sense of.<\/p>\n<p>In order to piece together the story of the CIA\u2019s detention and  interrogation program, the committee staff did two things that will be  important as I go on:<\/p>\n<p>First, they asked the CIA to provide an electronic search tool so  they could locate specific relevant documents for their search among the  CIA-produced documents\u2014just like you would use a search tool on the  Internet to locate information.<\/p>\n<p>Second, when the staff found a document that was particularly  important or that might be referenced in our final report, they would  often print it or make a copy of the file on their computer so they  could easily find it again. There are thousands of such documents in the  committee\u2019s secure spaces at the CIA facility.<\/p>\n<p>Now, prior removal of documents by CIA. In early 2010, the CIA was  continuing to provide documents, and the committee staff was gaining  familiarity with the information it had already received.<\/p>\n<p>In May of 2010, the committee staff noticed that [certain] documents  that had been provided for the committee\u2019s review were no longer  accessible. Staff approached the CIA personnel at the offsite location,  who initially denied that documents had been removed. CIA personnel then  blamed information technology personnel, who were almost all  contractors, for removing the documents themselves without direction or  authority. And then the CIA stated that the removal of the documents was  ordered by the White House. When the committee approached the White  House, the White House denied giving the CIA any such order.<\/p>\n<p>After a series of meetings, I learned that on two occasions, CIA  personnel electronically removed committee access to CIA documents after  providing them to the committee. This included roughly 870 documents or  pages of documents that were removed in February 2010, and secondly  roughly another 50 were removed in mid-May 2010.<\/p>\n<p>This was done without the knowledge or approval of committee members  or staff, and in violation of our written agreements. Further, this type  of behavior would not have been possible had the CIA allowed the  committee to conduct the review of documents here in the Senate. In  short, this was the exact sort of CIA interference in our investigation  that we sought to avoid at the outset.<\/p>\n<p>I went up to the White House to raise this issue with the then-White  House Counsel, in May 2010. He recognized the severity of the situation,  and the grave implications of Executive Branch personnel interfering  with an official congressional investigation. The matter was resolved  with a renewed commitment from the White House Counsel, and the CIA,  that there would be no further unauthorized access to the committee\u2019s  network or removal of access to CIA documents already provided to the  committee.<\/p>\n<p>On May 17, 2010, the CIA\u2019s then-director of congressional affairs  apologized on behalf of the CIA for removing the documents. And that, as  far as I was concerned, put the incident aside.<\/p>\n<p>This event was separate from the documents provided that were part of  the \u201cInternal Panetta Review,\u201d which occurred later and which I will  describe next.<\/p>\n<p>At some point in 2010, committee staff searching the documents that  had been made available found draft versions of what is now called the  \u201cInternal Panetta Review.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>We believe these documents were written by CIA personnel to summarize  and analyze the materials that had been provided to the committee for  its review. The Panetta review documents were no more highly classified  than other information we had received for our investigation\u2014in fact,  the documents appeared to be based on the same information already  provided to the committee.<\/p>\n<p>What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not  their classification level, but rather their analysis and  acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing.<\/p>\n<p>To be clear, the committee staff did not \u201chack\u201d into CIA computers to  obtain these documents as has been suggested in the press. The  documents were identified using the search tool provided by the CIA to  search the documents provided to the committee.<\/p>\n<p>We have no way to determine who made the Internal Panetta Review  documents available to the committee. Further, we don\u2019t know whether the  documents were provided intentionally by the CIA, unintentionally by  the CIA, or intentionally by a whistle-blower.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, we know that over the years\u2014on multiple occasions\u2014the staff  have asked the CIA about documents made available for our investigation.  At times, the CIA has simply been unaware that these specific documents  were provided to the committee. And while this is alarming, it is also  important to note that more than 6.2 million pages of documents have  been provided. This is simply a massive amount of records.<\/p>\n<p>As I described earlier, as part of its standard process for reviewing  records, the committee staff printed copies of the Internal Panetta  Review and made electronic copies of the committee\u2019s computers at the  facility.<\/p>\n<p>The staff did not rely on these Internal Panetta Review documents  when drafting the final 6,300-page committee study. But it was  significant that the Internal Panetta Review had documented at least  some of the very same troubling matters already uncovered by the  committee staff \u2013 which is not surprising, in that they were looking at  the same information.<\/p>\n<p>There is a claim in the press and elsewhere that the markings on  these documents should have caused the staff to stop reading them and  turn them over to the CIA. I reject that claim completely.<\/p>\n<p>As with many other documents provided to the committee at the CIA  facility, some of the Internal Panetta Review documents\u2014some\u2014contained  markings indicating that they were \u201cdeliberative\u201d and\/or \u201cprivileged.\u201d  This was not especially noteworthy to staff. In fact, CIA has provided  thousands of internal documents, to include CIA legal guidance and  talking points prepared for the CIA director, some of which were marked  as being deliberative or privileged.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the CIA has officially provided such documents to the  committee here in the Senate. In fact, the CIA\u2019s official June 27, 2013,  response to the committee study, which Director Brennan delivered to me  personally, is labeled \u201cDeliberative Process Privileged Document.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>We have discussed this with the Senate Legal Counsel who has  confirmed that Congress does not recognize these claims of privilege  when it comes to documents provided to Congress for our oversight  duties.<\/p>\n<p>These were documents provided by the executive branch pursuant to an  authorized congressional oversight investigation. So we believe we had  every right to review and keep the documents.<\/p>\n<p>There are also claims in the press that the Internal Panetta Review  documents, having been created in 2009 and 2010, were outside the date  range of the committee\u2019s document request or the terms of the committee  study. This too is inaccurate.<\/p>\n<p>The committee\u2019s document requests were not limited in time. In fact,  as I have previously announced, the committee study includes significant  information on the May 2011 Osama bin Laden operation, which obviously  postdated the detention and interrogation program.<\/p>\n<p>At some time after the committee staff identified and reviewed the  Internal Panetta Review documents, access to the vast majority of them  was removed by the CIA. We believe this happened in 2010 but we have no  way of knowing the specifics. Nor do we know why the documents were  removed. The staff was focused on reviewing the tens of thousands of new  documents that continued to arrive on a regular basis.<\/p>\n<p>Our work continued until December 2012, when the Intelligence  Committee approved a 6,300-page committee study of the CIA\u2019s Detention  and Interrogation Program and sent the report to the executive branch  for comment. The CIA provided its response to the study on June 27,  2013.<\/p>\n<p>As CIA Director Brennan has stated, the CIA officially agrees with  some of our study. But, as has been reported, the CIA disagrees and  disputes important parts of it. And this is important: Some of these  important parts that the CIA now disputes in our committee study are  clearly acknowledged in the CIA\u2019s own Internal Panetta Review.<\/p>\n<p>To say the least, this is puzzling. How can the CIA\u2019s official  response to our study stand factually in conflict with its own Internal  Review?<\/p>\n<p>Now, after noting the disparity between the official CIA response to  the committee study and the Internal Panetta Review, the committee staff  securely transported a printed portion of the draft Internal Panetta  Review from the committee\u2019s secure room at the CIA-leased facility to  the secure committee spaces in the Hart Senate Office Building.<\/p>\n<p>And let me be clear about this: I mentioned earlier the exchange of  letters that Senator Bond and I had with Director Panetta in 2009 over  the handling of information for this review. The letters set out a  process whereby the committee would provide specific CIA documents to  CIA reviewers before bringing them back to our secure offices here on  Capitol Hill.<\/p>\n<p>The CIA review was designed specifically to make sure that committee  documents available to all staff and members did not include certain  kinds of information, most importantly the true names of non-supervisory  CIA personnel and the names of specific countries in which the CIA  operated detention sites.<\/p>\n<p>We had agreed up front that our report didn\u2019t need to include this  information, and so we agreed to redact it from materials leaving the  CIA\u2019s facility.<\/p>\n<p>Keeping with the spirit of the agreements, the portion of the  Internal Panetta Review at the Hart Building in our safe has been  redacted. It does not contain names of non-supervisory CIA personnel or  information identifying detention site locations. In other words, our  staff did just what the CIA personnel would have done had they reviewed  the document.<\/p>\n<p>There are several reasons why the draft summary of the Panetta Review was brought to our secure spaces at the Hart Building.<\/p>\n<p>Let me list them:<\/p>\n<p>The significance of the Internal Review given disparities between it  and the June 2013 CIA response to the committee study. The Internal  Panetta Review summary now at the secure committee office in the Hart  Building is an especially significant document as it corroborates  critical information in the committee\u2019s 6,300-page Study that the CIA\u2019s  official response either objects to, denies, minimizes, or ignores.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the official response, these Panetta Review documents were in  agreement with the committee\u2019s findings. That\u2019s what makes them so  significant and important to protect.<\/p>\n<p>When the Internal Panetta Review documents disappeared from the  committee\u2019s computer system, this suggested once again that the CIA had  removed documents already provided to the committee, in violation of CIA  agreements and White House assurances that the CIA would cease such  activities.<\/p>\n<p>As I have detailed, the CIA has previously withheld and destroyed  information about its Detention and Interrogation Program, including its  decision in 2005 to destroy interrogation videotapes over the  objections of the Bush White House and the Director of National  Intelligence. Based on the information described above, there was a need  to preserve and protect the Internal Panetta Review in the committee\u2019s  own secure spaces.<\/p>\n<p>Now, the Relocation of the Internal Panetta Review was lawful and  handled in a manner consistent with its classification. No law prevents  the relocation of a document in the committee\u2019s possession from a CIA  facility to secure committee offices on Capitol Hill. As I mentioned  before, the document was handled and transported in a manner consistent  with its classification, redacted appropriately, and it remains  secured\u2014with restricted access\u2014in committee spaces.<\/p>\n<p>In late 2013, I requested in writing that the CIA provide a final and  complete version of the Internal Panetta Review to the committee, as  opposed to the partial document the committee currently possesses.<\/p>\n<p>In December, during an open committee hearing, Senator Mark Udall  echoed this request. In early January 2014, the CIA informed the  committee it would not provide the Internal Panetta Review to the  committee, citing the deliberative nature of the document.<\/p>\n<p>Shortly thereafter, on January 15, 2014, CIA Director Brennan  requested an emergency meeting to inform me and Vice Chairman Chambliss  that without prior notification or approval, CIA personnel had conducted  a \u201csearch\u201d\u2014that was John Brennan\u2019s word\u2014of the committee computers at  the offsite facility. This search involved not only a search of  documents provided to the committee by the CIA, but also a search of the  \u201dstand alone\u201d and \u201cwalled-off\u201d committee network drive containing the  committee\u2019s own internal work product and communications.<\/p>\n<p>According to Brennan, the computer search was conducted in response  to indications that some members of the committee staff might already  have had access to the Internal Panetta Review. The CIA did not ask the  committee or its staff if the committee had access to the Internal  Review, or how we obtained it.<\/p>\n<p>Instead, the CIA just went and searched the committee\u2019s computers.  The CIA has still not asked the committee any questions about how the  committee acquired the Panetta Review. In place of asking any questions,  the CIA\u2019s unauthorized search of the committee computers was followed  by an allegation\u2014which we have now seen repeated anonymously in the  press\u2014that the committee staff had somehow obtained the document through  unauthorized or criminal means, perhaps to include hacking into the  CIA\u2019s computer network.<\/p>\n<p>As&nbsp;I have described, this is not true. The document was made  available to the staff at the offsite facility, and it was located using  a CIA-provided search tool running a query of the information provided  to the committee pursuant to its investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Director Brennan stated that the CIA\u2019s search had determined that the  committee staff had copies of the Internal Panetta Review on the  committee\u2019s \u201cstaff shared drive\u201d and had accessed them numerous times.  He indicated at the meeting that he was going to order further  \u201cforensic\u201d investigation of the committee network to learn more about  activities of the committee\u2019s oversight staff.<\/p>\n<p>Two days after the meeting, on January 17, I wrote a letter to  Director Brennan objecting to any further CIA investigation due to the  separation of powers constitutional issues that the search raised. I  followed this with a second letter on January 23 to the director, asking  12 specific questions about the CIA\u2019s actions\u2014questions that the CIA  has refused to answer.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the questions in my letter related to the full scope of the  CIA\u2019s search of our computer network. Other questions related to who had  authorized and conducted the search, and what legal basis the CIA  claimed gave it authority to conduct the search. Again, the CIA has not  provided answers to any of my questions.<\/p>\n<p>My letter also laid out my concern about the legal and constitutional  implications of the CIA\u2019s actions. Based on what Director Brennan has  informed us, I have grave concerns that the CIA\u2019s search may well have  violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United  States Constitution, including the Speech and Debate clause. It may have  undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective  congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other  government function.<\/p>\n<p>I have asked for an apology and a recognition that this CIA search of  computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. I have  received neither.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the constitutional implications, the CIA\u2019s search may also  have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as  well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting  domestic searches or surveillance.<\/p>\n<p>Days after the meeting with Director Brennan, the CIA inspector  general, David Buckley, learned of the CIA search and began an  investigation into CIA\u2019s activities. I have been informed that Mr.  Buckley has referred the matter to the Department of Justice given the  possibility of a criminal violation by CIA personnel.<\/p>\n<p>Let me note: because the CIA has refused to answer the questions in  my January 23 letter, and the CIA inspector general review is ongoing, I  have limited information about exactly what the CIA did in conducting  its search.<\/p>\n<p>Weeks later, I was also told that after the inspector general  referred the CIA\u2019s activities to the Department of Justice, the acting  general counsel of the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of  Justice concerning the committee staff\u2019s actions. I have not been  provided the specifics of these allegations or been told whether the  department has initiated a criminal investigation based on the  allegations of the CIA\u2019s acting general counsel.<\/p>\n<p>As I mentioned before, our staff involved in this matter have the  appropriate clearances, handled this sensitive material according to  established procedures and practice to protect classified information,  and were provided access to the Panetta Review by the CIA itself. As a  result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice  Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime. I view the  acting general counsel\u2019s referral as a potential effort to intimidate  this staff\u2014and I am not taking it lightly.<\/p>\n<p>I should note that for most, if not all, of the CIA\u2019s Detention and  Interrogation Program, the now acting general counsel was a lawyer in  the CIA\u2019s Counterterrorism Center\u2014the unit within which the CIA managed  and carried out this program. From mid-2004 until the official  termination of the detention and interrogation program in January 2009,  he was the unit\u2019s chief lawyer. He is mentioned by name more than 1,600  times in our study.<\/p>\n<p>And now this individual is sending a crimes report to the Department  of Justice on the actions of congressional staff\u2014the same congressional  staff who researched and drafted a report that details how CIA  officers\u2014including the acting general counsel himself\u2014provided  inaccurate information to the Department of Justice about the program.<\/p>\n<p>Mr. President, let me say this. All Senators rely on their staff to  be their eyes and ears and to carry out our duties. The staff members of  the Intelligence Committee are dedicated professionals who are  motivated to do what is best for our nation.<\/p>\n<p>The staff members who have been working on this study and this report  have devoted years of their lives to it\u2014wading through the horrible  details of a CIA program that never, never, never should have existed.  They have worked long hours and produced a report unprecedented in its  comprehensive attention to detail in the history of the Senate.<\/p>\n<p>They are now being threatened with legal jeopardy, just as the final  revisions to the report are being made so that parts of it can be  declassified and released to the American people.<\/p>\n<p>Mr. President, I felt that I needed to come to the floor today, to  correct the public record and to give the American people the facts  about what the dedicated committee staff have been working so hard for  the last several years as part of the committee\u2019s investigation.<\/p>\n<p>I also want to reiterate to my colleagues my desire to have all  updates to the committee report completed this month and approved for  declassification. We\u2019re not going to stop. I intend to move to have the  findings, conclusions and the executive summary of the report sent to  the president for declassification and release to the American people.  The White House has indicated publicly and to me personally that it  supports declassification and release.<\/p>\n<p>If the Senate can declassify this report, we will be able to ensure  that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will  never again be considered or permitted.<\/p>\n<p>But Mr. President, the recent actions that I have just laid out make  this a defining moment for the oversight of our Intelligence Community.  How Congress responds and how this is resolved will show whether the  Intelligence Committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating  our nation\u2019s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be  thwarted by those we oversee.<\/p>\n<p>I believe it is critical that the committee and the Senate reaffirm  our oversight role and our independence under the Constitution of the  United States.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We have know that the President tolerated it when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper blatantly and unashamedly lied to Congress, but this is a much bigger deal. Dianne Feinstein* just took to the floor of the Senate and accused the CIA of obstructing a senate investigation and attempting to intimidate the Senate Intelligence Committee &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[971,998,970,969,1102,972],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-rights","category-congress","category-corruption","category-evil","category-intelligence","category-justice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186280"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}