I’ve had a couple of really weedy posts examining the CIA’s response to the torture FOIA (Cherry-Pick One, Cherry-Pick Two, FOIA Exemptions). And I wanted to pull back a bit, and explain what I think they might mean.

We’re getting all these documents because the CIA is trying to avoid being held in contempt for not revealing the now-destroyed torture tapes in a response to this FOIA in 2004.

Back in May, the CIA admitted it was deliberating about Abu Zubaydah’s torture on a frequent basis. Two days ago, it changed its mind.

The EO on classification says the Director of CIA has to make intelligence programs special access programs. But it appears that someone at NSC made torture a SAP.

The Chamber of Commerce wants you to forget it has been sucking at the federal teat for the last nine months.

Sheldon Whitehouse says we got no actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah through waterboarding.

David Corn reports that the SSCI has included its torture briefings in its investigation on torture–and wonders whether that might get Cheney in trouble. I’m guessing that Cheney’s briefing of SSCI may be the least of the investigation.

AP thinks it’s a sign of bias if you suggest that corporate managers ought to be punished for bad business decisions.

There are more revelations on the way from the CIA.

Leon Panetta admits he’s protecting the identities of contractors.

Leon Panetta says we can’t have the CIA documents because it’ll show the intelligence gaps the CIA had.

You mean, like the fact they had no idea who Abu Zubaydah really was?!?!?