中國網(wǎng)站品牌欄目（頻道）
|
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.
|
據(jù)《紐約時報》12月17日報道，在當(dāng)天提名卡羅琳?克拉斯為中央情報局（CIA）首席律師的聽證會上，美國眾議院情報委員會要求中情局提供該機構(gòu)關(guān)于拘留和審訊項目的內(nèi)部報告。有議員認為，該內(nèi)部報告也對審訊項目持批評態(tài)度。 參議院情報委員會去年12月通過了一份針對中情局“強化審訊”手段的調(diào)查報告。據(jù)知情人士透露，這份長達6000頁的報告毫不留情地批評了該機構(gòu)業(yè)已停止的審訊項目，認為中情局官員多次誤導(dǎo)白宮、國會和公眾對于殘酷的審訊項目價值的認知，而這些審訊產(chǎn)生的有用情報事實上微乎其微。對此，中情局以一份長達122頁的報告進行了“還擊”，不僅對情報委員會調(diào)查報告的具體事實進行了辯駁，還推翻了報告的結(jié)論。 科羅拉多州民主黨參議員馬克?尤德爾在當(dāng)天的聽證會上稱，中情局幾年前就開始起草一份關(guān)于審訊項目的內(nèi)部報告，該報告基本內(nèi)容與參議院情報委員會的調(diào)查報告一致，但與中情局的“還擊”報告相沖突。他表示，不會支持克拉斯的任命，除非中情局向情報委員會提供更多有關(guān)審訊項目的信息。 中情局發(fā)言人迪安?博伊德說，中情局贊同參議院情報委員會的一些調(diào)查結(jié)果，但是發(fā)現(xiàn)“報告中有重大錯誤”。他說：“中情局和情報委員會工作人員已經(jīng)就此展開廣泛對話，雙方將一起確定可能的解密的最佳方式?！?/p> 相關(guān)閱讀 曼德拉追悼會驚現(xiàn)“假翻譯” 辯稱精神分裂導(dǎo)致失態(tài) （譯者 聞竹 編輯 嚴(yán)玉潔） |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
