CIA-Senate dispute 101: 9 questions about who's spying on whom

Did the Central Intelligence Agency spy illegally on Senate Intelligence Committee computers? That’s what Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California charged Tuesday in an extraordinary Senate floor speech. The CIA has denied wrongdoing and has its own questions about how Intelligence Committee staffers turned up a sensitive internal report on the agency’s past use of harsh interrogation techniques.

Here are nine questions and answers about a complex story that starts with waterboarding and ends in a secret CIA facility in northern Virginia. 

Gary Cameron/Reuters
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, walks into a closed hearing in Washington March 11. A dispute between the CIA and a US Senate committee that oversees it burst into the open on Tuesday when Feinstein accused the agency of spying on Congress and possibly breaking the law.

1. What’s the background?

Gary Cameron/Reuters
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, walks into a closed hearing in Washington March 11. A dispute between the CIA and a US Senate committee that oversees it burst into the open on Tuesday when Feinstein accused the agency of spying on Congress and possibly breaking the law.

The CIA began using so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects at black sites around the world in 2002.These included use of waterboarding to simulate drowning, stress positions, and sleep deprivation.

Following a series of news reports detailing this activity, the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2009 authorized a comprehensive review of the program. While panel lawmakers had been informed of the program by agency briefers, a preliminary staff inquiry showed that the interrogations were harsher than they had been described, according to Senator Feinstein, the committee chairman. The panel was also concerned about the CIA’s destruction of some videotapes of interrogations, seeing it as possible destruction of evidence.

1 of 9

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.