美参议院要求中情局提交“强化审讯”内部报告

查看原文

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the C.I.A. for an internal study done by the agency that lawmakers believe is broadly critical of the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program, but was withheld from congressional oversight committees.

The committee’s request comes in the midst of a yearlong battle with the C.I.A. over the release of the panel’s own exhaustive report about the program, one of the most controversial policies of the post-Sept. 11 era.

The Senate report, totaling more than 6,000 pages, was completed last December but has yet to be declassified. According to people who have read the study, it is unsparing in its criticism of the now-defunct interrogation program: a chronicle of C.I.A. officials’ repeatedly misleading the White House, Congress and the public about the value of brutal questioning methods that, in the end, produced little valuable intelligence.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, disclosed the existence of the internal report during an Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday and said he believed it was begun several years ago, “is consistent with the Intelligence’s Committee’s report” and “conflicts with the official C.I.A. response to the committee’s report.”

“If this is true,” Mr. Udall said during a hearing on the nomination of Caroline D. Krass to be the C.I.A.'s top lawyer, “this raises fundamental questions about why a review the C.I.A. conducted internally years ago — and never provided to the committee — is so different from the C.I.A.'s formal response to the committee study.”

The C.I.A. responded to the committee report with a vigorous 122-page rebuttal that challenged both the Senate report’s specific facts and overarching conclusions. John O. Brennan, one of Mr. Obama’s closest advisers, who took over the C.I.A. this year — and who himself denounced the interrogation program during his confirmation hearing — delivered the agency’s response to the Intelligence Committee himself.

It is unclear what the C.I.A. specifically concluded in its internal review.

Mr. Udall said he would not support Ms. Krass’s nomination until the C.I.A. provided more information to the committee about the interrogation program.

Ms. Krass did not respond directly to Mr. Udall’s statements about the internal C.I.A. review.

Dean Boyd, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency agreed with a number of the Senate review’s findings, but found “significant errors in the study.” “C.I.A. and committee staff have had extensive dialogue on this issue, and the agency is prepared to work with the committee to determine the best way forward on potential declassification,” he said.