ShareThis Page
Nation

Spy bill with disclosure demands is blocked

| Friday, Dec. 16, 2005

The Senate's efforts to wrap up an intelligence spending bill hit a snag this week when a Republican lawmaker blocked legislation that would force the Bush administration to divulge more about secret CIA prisons and the prewar Iraq intelligence.

It's unclear who the senator is or what the precise objections are.

Two separate amendments -- from Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John Kerry, D-Mass. -- would require the national intelligence director to provide classified information on secret CIA prisons to congressional intelligence committees. The agency has not acknowledged that the sites exist.

Another Kennedy-sponsored provision would require the White House to give the Senate Intelligence Committee copies of the president's intelligence briefings that discussed Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion. The measure requests the documents from Jan. 20, 2000, through March 19, 2003, covering parts of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Kennedy is pushing for amendment to show that Congress did not receive the same prewar intelligence that the White House did, as some administration officials have stated. He wants the president's daily briefs as part of a Senate inquiry into the Iraq intelligence.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me