Trump’s CIA Pick Said He Was Against Waterboarding. Then He Changed His Tune.

Mike Pompeo’s answer appeared to change from his Senate confirmation hearing to his response to written questions.

Tom Williams/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Senate is set to confirm as the new head of the CIA on Monday a man who is open to revisiting the practice of waterboarding—even if that’s not what he told the Senate Intelligence Committee during his confirmation hearing.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the nation’s top spy agency, appeared before the committee on January 12 for a televised hearing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Pompeo whether he’d restart the “CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques that fall outside the Army field manual.” That was a clear reference to waterboarding, a practice considered torture by many international experts.

“Absolutely not,” Pompeo responded. He said he would always comply with the law and couldn’t “imagine [he] would be asked by the president-elect or then-president” to have the CIA torture someone.

But on Friday, the day Trump was assumed the role of president, the intelligence committee released Pompeo’s written answers to questions posed by senators after the initial hearing. Feinstein again brought up waterboarding, asking specifically whether Pompeo would commit to “refraining from taking any steps to authorize or implement any plan that would bring back waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation [technique].” Pompeo gave a different answer this time.

“I will consult with the experts at the Agency and at other organizations in the U.S. government on whether the Army Field Manual uniform application is an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country or whether any rewrite of the Army Field Manual is needed,” Pompeo wrote. “If any such differences are justified, a fundamental requirement is that such differences fully comply with law, including laws governing the treatment and interrogation of individuals.”

The written questions also elicited Pompeo’s thoughts on the CIA’s collection of publicly available information on Americans, a controversial practice given that the CIA is generally a foreign-focused intelligence agency that’s supposed to engage in only limited domestic activity. “I made the statement…in the context of if ‘someone’s out there on their Facebook page talking about an attack or plotting an attack against America,'” Pompeo wrote in response to questions from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “In such cases, publicly available information can provide relevant information and generally involves fewer privacy concerns than other collection techniques.”

Pompeo added that “of course there are boundaries” to the CIA’s collection of such information and that any such activity would be “conducted in accordance to the Constitution, statutes, and applicable presidential directives.”

Pompeo’s thoughts on this matter were laid out in a January 2016 Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which he said that Washington was “blunting” the “surveillance powers” of the intelligence community by refraining from collecting people’s personal information and called for a “fundamental upgrade to America’s surveillance capabilities.” He said the country should re-establish its bulk metadata collection program and “[combine] it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.”

Wyden asked about the database in the written questions. Pompeo responded that he hadn’t “consulted legal experts on a hypothetical database” or studied which third-party information would be available to include in the database.

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch urged senators to vote against Pompeo’s confirmation, citing concerns about his thoughts on torture and surveillance.

“Pompeo’s responses to questions about torture and mass surveillance are dangerously ambiguous about whether he would endorse abusive practices and seek to subvert existing legal protections,” Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, the group’s US program co-director, said in a statement. “Pompeo’s failure to unequivocally disavow torture and mass surveillance, coupled with his record of advocacy for surveillance of Americans and past endorsement of the shuttered CIA torture program, make clear that he should not be running the CIA.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate