Senators Say Secrecy Impedes Oversight of Torture Policy
Updated below
By resisting congressional requests for documents, the Bush Administration has effectively diminished Congress’s oversight power, as the review of government policy is often replaced by lengthy contests over access to records.
In the final six months of the current Administration, for example, the Senate Judiciary Committee still finds itself unable to gain access to influential records of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) relating to interrogation, detention and torture.
“After more than five years of requests, we have only recently received access to redacted versions of OLC legal opinions related to the CIA’s interrogation program,” wrote Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) on August 19.
“The failure to provide other documents that we have sought repeatedly, however, leaves us without basic facts that are essential to this Committee’s ability to conduct its oversight responsibilities.”
“I have been stonewalled even in my repeated request for something as simple as an index of OLC opinions,” wrote Sen. Leahy.
The Administration has not asserted executive privilege in this area, and national security classification is not a barrier to the cleared Committee staff. The requested documents have simply not been provided.
In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Senators Leahy and Specter asked Mr. Fielding to turn over ten specified legal memoranda and other OLC documents on detention and interrogation policies.
The Senators set a deadline of Friday, August 29 at 10 AM for delivery of the requested documents. They did not indicate how they might respond if the documents are not received.
Update and clarification: The Department of Justice has provided copies of all OLC opinions dealing with CIA interrogation policy to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The dispute between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department reflects in part a disagreement over jurisdictional boundaries between the two Committees.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.