Q&A with former CIA lawyer John Rizzo

The Senate, the CIA and the White House are still negotiating over the delayed release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report examining the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program for al-Qaeda detainees. John Rizzo served as either the CIA’s Deputy or Acting General Counsel between 2001 to 2009, the first nine years of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror, and became a controversial figure due to his role in approving some of the CIA’s most controversial programs. He is the author of Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA. We spoke to Rizzo about the ongoing debate surrounding the publication of the report. 

NEWSHOUR: What makes this report so important?

JOHN RIZZO: Having not seen it, I’m just speculating. But it is a four-year effort, $40 million. I would like to think it will be a comprehensive look at the entire history of the program. I am pessimistic, however, given the way this report was prepared by only the Democratic side of the Senate Intelligence Committee. No one from CIA — including me — current or former who was involved in the program, none of us were ever interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It could be a worthwhile and valuable product, but by all indications it is going to be a political product with a distinct point of view that I honestly believe the seven Democrats on the committee had in mind from the beginning.

NEWSHOUR: How do you respond to people saying the CIA is trying to run out the clock or block a report that may damage its reputation?

JOHN RIZZO: To be clear, I have not seen the report. I asked to have access to it and was denied by Chairman [Dianne] Feinstein. So I have no idea what’s in it. All I know is what I’ve been reading in media reports. It does appear, however, that it is the Obama White House who have taken the lead in negotiations with Chairman Feinstein. Also playing a role is the Director of National Intelligence. So, the notion that it’s the CIA that is dragging its feet, if that’s what the allegation is, seems to me misleading at best. The White House could support the report coming out in any sort of form, and it would basically be declassified tomorrow. So I just don’t think their complaint reflects the reality.

NEWSHOUR: Senator Ron Wyden raised the issue of redacted names and says he would like to see pseudonyms used so that citizens can identify how many agents were involved in actions documented in the report. Why would the CIA want to totally black out names in the report?

JOHN RIZZO: We’re talking about undercover operatives, CIA agents. Not senior officials of the CIA, which would include myself. I assume my name, wherever it appears, will appear with my true name, and that’s fine. What we’re talking about are people, many of whom are still at CIA undercover and carrying out assignments around the world. Clearly, a pseudonym is a better protection than just having their real names, but even pseudonyms can become a problem. I’ve found in my experience, for those who are really intent in uncovering identities, if pseudonyms appear in a certain pattern in the report in certain contexts it is not that difficult to discern who exactly is being talked about. It would therefore put them in potential jeopardy. Do you think it’s certain death for these people? No. The point is, why take any sort of risk along those lines?

NEWSHOUR: Some in the senate, including Senator Wyden, have raised balance of powers concerns here. How do you respond to those who say the CIA is overstepping its authority here?

JOHN RIZZO: In terms of separation of powers, the executive branch has classification control over executive branch information. That power ultimately rests with the White House and with the President of the United States, himself. Again, this is not a dispute between the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is a dispute apparently between the executive branch and the legislative branch. Honestly, from the outside, I think both sides are acting in good faith, and hopefully this can still be worked out.

NEWSHOUR: Senator Wyden is threatening to push for a Senate override to declassify the report. What do you think that would mean? Knowing the politics here, do you think that’s likely?

JOHN RIZZO: The chances of that effort being successful is minimal in the extreme. Again, there is a process for that sort of thing. So he’s free to pursue it. If, by chance, the senate prevails and does override, then so be it. That will never happen. There should be a way to reach an accommodation on this. I can’t believe there isn’t.

NEWSHOUR: What would an accommodation look like?

JOHN RIZZO: The issue here is the CIA interrogation program. It’s wisdom, it’s efficacy, morality and legality. It took four years to generate. It took $40 million. I have no objection to the report coming out. Personally, I think the report should come out. But I don’t see how potentially jeopardizing or compromising the identities of undercover operatives is necessary or appropriate in order to have that debate about the substance of the program. Why bring up names of people doing very difficult work in good faith? The senior officials like me, our names should be in the report. I have no problem with that.

NEWSHOUR: What are the report’s implications for national security?

JOHN RIZZO: Part of national security is protecting intelligence sources’ identities. So anything that would compromise identities of undercover personnel would negatively affect national security.

NEWSHOUR: What is significant about the ongoing debate surrounding this report?

JOHN RIZZO: I went through a lot of battles when I was at CIA between the executive branch and congress about congressional oversight and access to information and declassification. This, from my perspective, is nothing more than that. In all of those previous cases, there was an accommodation reached that perhaps neither side was totally happy with but it was reached and everyone moved on. That’s my hope that that’s what will happen here. I don’t know anyone at CIA who object to this report being released after all this time and all this money.

Hopefully there will be new insights, new details. The debate and discussion that could be generated by all this is not a bad thing. It could be a useful thing and a valuable thing in a democracy. How does the US government react? What are the limits and extent to which you can take aggressive actions to combat terrorist acts? That’s a valuable dialogue to have. So hopefully the report, as large as it seemingly is, will have that effect.

NEWSHOUR: What do you hope to see happen?

JOHN RIZZO: In terms of identities and pseudonyms of CIA agents, that’s important for people that are involved. It’s important to their potential safety. As for the report itself, it should come out, along with the CIA’s rebuttal, and the rebuttal of the senate Republicans on the Intelligence Committee. All of it should come out, and the American people should make their own judgments about it.