Mark Udall: CIA Took “Unprecedented Action” Against SSCI on Its Own Torture Report

Mark Udall just wrote Obama a sometimes cryptic letter asking him to commit to declassifying the Senate Intelligence Report torture report. In it, he:

  • Asserts a significant amount of what has been declassified about the torture program is “misleading and inaccurate”
  • Asks for more information about what led to the development of the CIA report
  • Asks why the findings of the CIA report were not included in CIA’s (John Brennan’s) response to the torture report
  • Suggests CIA is withholding the final version of the internal CIA report that corroborates many of SSCI’s report (it has provided a draft)
  • Says he will hold Caroline Krass’ nomination to be CIA General Counsel

But I’m particularly interested in this oblique comment:

As you are aware, the CIA has recently taken unprecedented action against the Committee in relation to the internal CIA review, and I find those actions to be incredibly troubling for the Committee’s oversight responsibilities and for our democracy. It is essential that the Committee be able to do its oversight work — consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers — without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it is today.

“Unprecedented” is a pretty strong word.

Senator Udall’s office was unable to offer more clarity about this unprecedented action.

Updated: Changed the title because it implied Udall was saying this unprecedented action was about covering up torture, which is more than he said.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

19 Responses to Mark Udall: CIA Took “Unprecedented Action” Against SSCI on Its Own Torture Report

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @VinceWarren Doesn't look like the GJ to me, looks like the cops. And they don't look covered by weak MO GJ law. Still disgusting though.
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos Right. But are her policies that bad (I honestly don't know answer) or is it just.....her?
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @matthewacole @ggreenwald Agree completely. But also curious how Margaret Court always left out of these discussions of the greatest.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DLind The Apple store. They are geniuses.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @fordm You would have to be a pretty big dick not to make that kind of deal with client. I don't know anybody who wouldn't make some deal.
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield Exactly. And its only real secrecy protections are oriented to the jurors, not others attendant thereto. Pretty lame.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BradMossEsq @BuzzFeed Nevertheless, it would have never occurred without climate supplied by the leaks. Leaks are the yeast of democracy!
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield Maybe I missed it, but I found little of the usual state equivalent of Rule 6. Most focused only on GJurors themselves.
20mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield Only by Google, but I looked for MO GJ secrecy law and found shockingly weak and little.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BradMossEsq @BuzzFeed Of course none of this would be occurring without the Snowden leaks, so they should be praised and people thankful!
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JonathanTurley Yeah, the forensic report really does NOT say that at all and the Post-Dispatch should retract its story.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @davidrook Yes, that is true. Likely just not possible.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
March 2014
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031