All language subtitles for The.Report.2019.1080p.WEB.H264-STRiFE

How long you been
working on this project, Dan?

Five years.

Five, wow.

Every day? Nights, weekends?

It's been very consuming.

Do you have
a relationship, Dan? Family?

Just trying to get
a better sense of who you are.

When it started, I was
seeing someone, but, you know,

with the nature of the work
and the hours...

I wasn't a very good partner.

Five years,
and it could all go away.

Just vanish in the face
of these allegations.

I can certainly imagine

an ambitious young man
like yourself

spends years
with his head buried

in some terrible spectacle,

gets frustrated
with the process,

sees an opportunity
to get the truth out faster,

maybe crosses a line.

I'm assuming this is
the most important thing

- you've ever been a part of.
- I didn't do it.

Or I can see
an equally ambitious senator

encouraging you to do something.

Now would be
a good time to tell me.

That did not happen.
What I did, I did on my own.

I acted alone.

You ever sleep, bro?

I used to. Got in the way of work.

Anything in that bag
contain the real names

of CIA officers,
assets or partners,

or any information
that would be in violation

of the agreement between
the Central Intelligence Agency

and the United States Senate?

- Have a good night, Jay.
- You, too, Dan.

So, you did steal the document?

I did not steal it.
I relocated it.

Everyone has their own words.

The language is built
to choose sides.

Now, why did you relocate it?

They could send you
to jail, Dan.

I think I should
start at the beginning.

- You Dan Jones?
- Yeah.

- Denis McDonough.
- Hi.

Thank you so much
for meeting me.

Come on in, yeah. Absolutely.

So, thanks for coming in.

Uh, tell me your story.

My second day of grad school
was September 11th.

I was headed to a lecture,
and everything just... stopped.

The next day, I changed all my
classes to national security.

Good man.

So, what's the long-term plan?

Where do you see yourself
in ten years?

Are you running for office?

Oh, uh, no. No politics for me.

I think I'd be more effective
behind the scenes,

somewhere I can
really make a difference.

So, what about before Harvard?

Uh, what'd you fill up
your days with then?

Teach For America
for three years in Baltimore.

Seventh-graders.

I read that you taught
high school Spanish

in Saint Paul, Minnesota,
after college?

And LBJ's first job was teaching

at the Mexican school
in South Texas.

Knowing how
to deal with children

is a highly useful skill
when working on the Hill.

But from my perspective
as Senate staff,

I would wait until
things turn around up here.

I think Senator Daschle
would say the same thing.

Go get some real-world
experience in counterterrorism,

in... foreign policy.

Try the CIA. Try FBI.

Have them teach you what they
don't teach you in a classroom.

Then you can come back here, and...

help us fix all the things that
Bush and Cheney are breaking.

McDonough.

Yes, Senator, uh, one second.

The boss. Here.

Keep in touch, huh?

- Thank you very much for your time.
- Absolutely.

I do not have
that information right now,

but I can certainly get that
for you in the next 15.

Yeah.

In regards to
the bomb plots in Germany,

three men were arrested
in Medebach

with 1,500 pounds
of hydrogen peroxide

and 26 military-grade
detonators.

The CIA suspects
the Islamic Jihad Union...

Excuse me.

Uh, can I borrow you
for a minute, Dan?

Uh, Senator would
like to see you.

Yeah, of course.

- Morning, Dan.
- Morning, Senator.

Have you seen the story today
in The New York Times?

- No, Senator, I have not.
- Evidently, the CIA destroyed

tapes of interrogations
of Al Qaeda detainees.

Did the Intel Committee know
there were tapes?

No. This is the first
I've heard of it.

So, I want to find out
what was on the tapes

and why they were destroyed.

We want you to lead
the investigation, Dan.

But if the tapes were
destroyed, how do we...

They're saying
they have written records.

Thousands of pages.
Let's see about that.

I want you to find out
exactly what they have

and read every word of it.

This report on the
destruction of tapes by the CIA

- has been two years in the making.
- Thank you.

The findings are very troubling,

but it will remain classified.

Based on these revelations,
a larger study into

the entire CIA Detention
and Interrogation Program

is clearly in order.

All in favor, say "yay."

- Mr. Whitehouse?
- Yay.

- Mr. Burr?
- Yay.

- Mr. Rockefeller?
- Yay.

Mr. Chambliss?

- Nay.
- Mr. Risch?

I think this is a waste of time.

Now, I know you voted
against this, Saxby...

But you already had
your tapes investigation.

Yes, but the rest of us
voted to go further, 14 to one.

It's our job
to provide oversight.

All during the campaign,
you got candidate Obama saying

how he wanted to be the first
post-partisan president.

Saxby, you know me.

It's my intention
that this report be seen

as coming from the entire
Intelligence Committee,

not just the Democrats.

So, who takes the lead?

Well, I was thinking Dan Jones.

He spent four years doing
counterterrorism at the FBI.

He's already got
the security clearances.

The rules are the same
as the tapes investigation.

No politics, no bias,

and the senator isn't interested

in opinions or theories,
just facts.

Based on what
you found out already,

this could go to
a pretty dark place.

You need to keep your
personal feelings out of it.

That's the first thing
Republicans are gonna look for.

No talking to the press
or your girlfriend

or any family members.

Nobody outside of the committee.

You're gonna get a team of six...

Three Republicans,
three Democrats...

But there can't be
any Republican sentences

or Democratic paragraphs.

And how long do we have?

We're hoping you can
wrap it up in a year or so.

You're gonna have to keep the
senators updated on your work.

Nobody wants any surprises.

There's a covert CIA off-site
in Virginia.

You start tomorrow.

- Jones, right?
- Sean.

- Hi. Dan.
- Sean Murphy from the Agency.

- Let's go inside.
- Okay.

Identification, gentlemen.

The room we've designated is a SCIF.

No phone reception, no photos...
You know the drill...

Lead walls.

And, per the agreement,

the room is off-limits
to everyone

- except committee personnel.
- Absolutely.

No one inside
without your permission.

- And the computers?
- Right here.

Your own dedicated server,
air-gapped workstations.

We'll be updating
the database as we go.

The files will be loaded
on here as we collect them

- from across the Agency.
- Great.

We'll want all relevant
documents as soon as possible.

- Well, we got to vet it first.
- Vet?

There's a lot to...

Director Panetta
agreed to give us

everything pertaining
to the program.

Wh-Who would be,
who would be vetting it?

It's a big agency.

We got to make sure
you don't get anything

you're not supposed to.

Make yourself at home.

There's... no printer?

No paper.

No documents are allowed
to leave the room

without CIA approval.

Paper has a way of getting
people in trouble at our place.

I think at some point
we're gonna need a printer.

And paper.

At our place...

paper's how
we keep track of laws.

Okay.

Calling this
an obvious terrorist attack

based on very
preliminary information,

the information that

intelligence officials
are getting...

You're not gonna like this.

A possible
hijacked plane, and of course

the-the very horrifying video
of the plane...

We confirmed some of the names.

The hijackers?

Two of the guys from
the Malaysia meetings.

The San Diego guys.
They took down Flight 77.

Pentagon.

The coordination that took place

to have two planes
hit the towers...

Attention, everyone, please.

We have reason to believe
the Counterterrorism Center

is a potential target.

We're asking all personnel
to evacuate, immediately.

Jim Miklaszewski

there from the Pentagon.

Of course, the president
has the authority

to scramble
military, uh, forces,

and, uh, this is a case,
obviously,

in which, uh, retaliation,
if indeed it proves to be

a terrorist incident,

will be contemplated.

We also have to work, though,

sort of, the-the dark side,
if you will.

We've got to spend time
in the shadows

in-in the intelligence world.

Uh, a lot of
what needs to be done here

will have to be done quietly,
without any discussion...

Fucking warned them.

August 6th
presidential briefing:

"Bin Ladin Determined
to Strike in U.S."

- Flashing red lights.
- And before that,

in July, what did we say?

"There will be
significant terrorist attacks

against the United States in
the weeks and months to come."

It's not your fault.

It is a mean, nasty, dangerous,
uh, dirty business out there,

and we have to operate
in that arena.

But we need to make certain
that we have not

tied the hands, if you will,
of our intelligence community.

Counterterrorism Director Black
and I saw President Bush

at Camp David this weekend.

And the president gave me
his word that there will be

no changes in CIA leadership as
a result of Tuesday's attacks.

We will look forward now,

not waste time second-guessing
or looking for blame.

Going forward, we will be
the tip of the spear

in the battle against Al Qaeda.

As I said
to the president, two weeks,

we'll have flies walking
across Al Qaeda eyeballs.

I've asked Chief Counsel Rizzo
here to walk us through

where we are from
a legal standpoint.

The president has issued
a memorandum of notification

giving CIA the power to capture
and detain suspected terrorists

on the battlefield.

Detain them where?

Are we bringing them
to the U.S.?

We're really not
in the prison business

- over in Counterterrorism.
- Look,

the budget for Counterterrorism
last week was what?

$600 million?

The budget this week is
whatever you need it to be.

And we are in whatever business
it takes to get the job done.

Initially, CIA legal

stated that any facility used
to hold detainees

had to meet the requirements
of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons,

but then Deputy Director Pavitt

thought that was
gonna be too limiting.

So, who came up
with the black sites?

Not totally clear.

My guess is either

a senior officer
at Counterterr... CTC,

or Alec Station bin Laden unit

decided black sites
were the best option.

Well, did the CIA
tell the State Department

they were making deals
to hold people on foreign soil?

Where was Secretary of State
Powell in all this?

Well, I found a memo.

The CIA's general counsel...

said the decision was made

not to tell Powell
about the program,

because...

"He would blow his stack

if he were to be briefed
on what was going on."

Well, who decided that?

Someone inside the White House.

Mm-hmm.

What about interrogations?

President Bush's memoranda

just authorized
capturing and detaining.

It didn't say anything
about interrogations.

And who gave them permission
to play that role?

Nobody. It looks like
it started with legal at CTC.

Do you want me to brief Senator McCain
on this? I know he's interested.

The Republicans just
pulled out of the study, Dan.

Good morning.

Where is everybody?

Attorney General Holder
opened a criminal investigation

into the CIA.

As a result, the Agency
won't allow any of their people

to be interviewed
for our report.

The Republicans don't see
how we can move forward,

so they're out.

So, does this mean we stop?

I mean, the committee
voted to investigate.

The senator says we keep going.

But we can't actually talk
to anyone who was involved

- in the program.
- Right. According to CIA legal,

CIA personnel is
only speaking to DOJ.

And is DOJ gonna
share their findings?

I mean, can we work with them?

I've reached out
to the special prosecutor.

I'm waiting to hear back.

Okay, but if nobody who
actually worked on the program

is going to talk to us,
how do we investigate?

So, we have the files,

their e-mails and cables,
their memos.

We have to use
their own communications

to tell the story.

Do you have any idea
how hard that's gonna be?

The tapes investigation
took two years, Dan,

and this is about a lot more
than what was on the tapes.

Uh, we don't even know
what this is.

Right, but we do know
who it starts with.

We go one detainee at a time.

You speak English?

My name is Ali Soufan.
I'm with the FBI.

You're under arrest.

- You understand?
- No. Where are you taking me?

Your wound is infected.

But we're going to
take good care of you.

I want to show you something.

He's talking to
someone off-screen.

He's calling him Mukhtar.

You know who that is?

Mukhtar.

A man who lost his mind?

No, not him.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Abu Zubaydah confirmed
that KSM is the leader

of all Al Qaeda operations
outside of Afghanistan.

He trained the hijackers.

We're calling him
the mastermind.

Outstanding.

Hats off to the bin Laden group.

Whichever one of
your people did this,

I want to call them and
congratulate them in person.

Who was it?

Wasn't our guy.

What? Who got it?

FBI is working Zubaydah.

An FBI guy got this?

Yes, Ali Soufan.

Uh, they used him
in the Cole investigation.

He's part of their counterterrorism group.
He speaks Arabic.

I don't care who speaks Arabic.

This is not just
a criminal investigation.

We are gathering
intelligence here.

That is what we do.

The FBI is looking at the past.

We need to stop attacks
in the future.

I want CIA in the room
with this guy, okay?

I want CIA
in the room with Zubaydah.

So, who do we have
who can work on him?

CIA runs sources,
people who cooperate.

That's not these guys.

Every second we are not
draining the detainee's brain,

we are rolling the dice.

We need our people in the room.

We need to be the ones
asking the questions now.

I heard from someone
over in Technical Services,

a woman named Miriam,

about a couple of
Air Force psychologists

who came in and pitched a whole
new approach to interrogations.

Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen.

Miriam says Mitchell
has the special sauce.

Zubaydah didn't
tell us everything,

because we stopped short
of where we needed to go.

SERE stands for Survival,
Evasion, Resistance and Escape.

It's a program to help prepare
U.S. Special Forces

for whatever they might
encounter if captured.

Now, I have over 14,000 hours

observing SERE
interrogation techniques.

Bruce here has more than that...

Uh, observing, as opposed to...?

I took a course in conducting
interrogations as well.

I worked with volunteers
in actual simulations.

We feel we can reverse engineer

these SERE techniques
to induce learned helplessness.

Can you explain what that means,

"reverse engineer"?

Instead of using
these techniques

to protect our people,

we use them to achieve
compliance in the detainees.

Our plan involves, uh,
using individual assessments

of detainees to create
a program designed to induce

debility, dependency and dread.

- We call these the three "D"s.
- Three "D"s.

And there's science
to back this up?

Oh, yes. Yes, sir.

Excuse me, Dr. Mitchell.

Can you elaborate on, uh, the
techniques you'll be employing?

Absolutely.

The, uh, the attention grasp.

Walling.

Facial hold.

The facial slap or insult slap.

Cramped confinement.

Wall standing.

Stress positions.

Sleep deprivation.

Waterboarding.

Use of insects.

And mock burials.

Well, from my perspective,
this seems like it could be

a potential game changer,
but, of course...

it's up to Director Rodriguez.

I think if we're serious about
stopping the next threat,

we need to put on
our big boy pants

and provide the authorities
these guys need.

These approaches might...
raise some eyebrows at Defense.

Well, we're not at Defense.
We're at the CIA.

Besides, you just said,

we use this SERE stuff
on our guys all the time.

I don't see a problem.

Shortly after the CIA's decision

to engage Dr. Mitchell,
Abu Zubaydah was moved

to a cell that was lit
24 hours a day.

Loud noise was fed into
his cell to disrupt his sleep.

What about the guy
who got him talking?

Ali Soufan?

Wait, he's FBI, not CIA.

So, we can ask him
questions, right?

No rule against that.

We can try.

There's only
one interrogation technique

Rapport building.

You get close to these guys,
and they open up.

But the CIA didn't believe that.

Just look at Abu Zubaydah.

Well, you got him to talk.
How'd you do that?

I walked in one day and
played him a tape of himself.

Most of it was
of a phone conversation.

Uh, we had tapped his phones.

But he forgot to hang up
at the end of the call,

so we had all this
background noise of his house.

Then my partner walked in

with a big box
full of cassette tapes.

We told him we had bugged
his safe house;

we had been listening
for months;

we knew everything,
so lying was pointless.

He looked at
the box full of tapes and...

And all-all the tapes
were blank.

Of course they were.
But he didn't know that.

So, he talked.

Uh, what happened when
the contractors showed up?

Who the fuck is this?

Dr. Mitchell
is an Air Force psychologist,

and he's developed
a new method of interrogation.

Why-why do we need a new method?

He's not telling you everything.

We think he knows more.

We put him at number three

or number four
in Al Qaeda leadership.

He probably knows the next move.

Do you speak Arabic, Jim?
Does Gary here?

Don't need to.

C-Can I ask you something?

Have you ever interrogated
any sort of extremist before?

- Know much about Al Qaeda?
- No.

Have you ever interrogated
any sort of terrorist before?

- No.
- Any sort of criminal?

No.

Have you ever interrogated
anyone before?

It's not important.

He's a human;
I'm a psychologist.

He knows a secret,

and I'm gonna get him
to tell that secret to Gary.

What-what are you going
to do to him that isn't...

What am I gonna do?

What is Jim gonna do?

Jim's gonna do what works.

Let's go, shitbird!

Move it, asshole!

Help! Please!

You can't just shave
a Muslim man.

Do you know what that means?

He's going to shut down.

Got to humiliate him,
right off the bat.

Same reason
we took away his clothes.

Why the loud music?

Sleep deprivation.

We stop the music
when he starts talking.

Then he can sleep.

Tired people tell the truth?

Learned helplessness.

You're familiar with
Dr. Martin Seligman?

Seligman did
an experiment with dogs.

He put them in a cage

with a barrier
running down the middle.

And one side of the cage
was electrified

and the other wasn't.

At first,
when he shocked the dogs,

they'd jump over the barrier
to get away.

And then
he electrified both sides.

There was no escape.

No belief they could
change anything.

He'd open the door to the cage,
they wouldn't even leave.

It's learned helplessness.

That's what we're
gonna instill in this man.

You'll see.

A coffin? You're gonna kill him?

Let's call it a confinement box.

I got this one,
and I got a smaller one.

And you're gonna
put him in there?

With these, which, based on
my evaluation, he hates.

Are you out of your mind?

We don't do this.

You know this is
against the law.

The most senior people
have signed off on it.

We're putting him on trial.

How are we gonna build
a case against him?

Who says he's getting a trial?

I wanted to arrest him
right there on the spot.

- I told the Bureau that.
- What'd they say?

They briefed Director Mueller,

and told me to get the hell
out of there, so I did.

- When was that?
- Late May, mid-May or...

'Cause I'm finding records
that say that Mitchell left

a little while later,
early June,

for R & R and some meetings
at headquarters.

But we had one
high-value detainee in custody,

Abu Zubaydah.

And after Mitchell left,
the CIA put him in isolation,

and didn't ask him
a single question for 47 days.

Are you fucking kidding me?

The whole country was
on red alert that summer.

If they were so concerned
about the next attack,

why'd they stop
asking questions?

Right, it doesn't
make any sense.

Once the psychologist showed up,

almost nothing did anymore.

The CIA said
Zubaydah was involved

in every major
terrorist operation

carried out by Al Qaeda.

They told the president

he was number three or four
in the organization.

Yes, that was
my understanding as well.

And the claim that
Zubaydah was a major player

was the main justification they
gave to the Justice Department

for needing to go harder.

They were certain
he knew about the next attack.

But last night I found this.

Turns out Zubaydah wasn't three
or four in the organization.

He wasn't part of
Al Qaeda leadership at all.

They only had one source
calling him that,

and that source later admitted
he was lying.

So, they exaggerated who he was

to the president
and the Department of Justice

in order to get legal approvals
for these new techniques?

Is that what you're saying?

I think that's a possibility.

The program
really starts with him.

Have you guys
used this thing before?

The waterboard?

No, it's a Navy thing.

But we watched a video.

We tested it on each other,

just to get a feel
for the experience.

Is it safe?

Yes.

♪ Monarch to the kingdom
of the dead... ♪

Who are
the operatives inside the U.S.?

I don't know!

♪ Infamous... ♪

When is the next attack?

I don't know.

One, two, three, four, five,

six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22,

23, 24, 25, 26.

When is the next attack?

Who are the operatives
inside the U.S.?

Anything in that bag
contain the real names

of CIA officers,
assets or partners,

or any information that would
violate the agreement between

the Central Intelligence Agency
and the United States Senate?

- All good.
- All right, good night.

- Have a good night, Jay.
- Get home safe.

Good night.

Dan Jones?

Do I know you?

No, but I think I can help you.

- Help-help me with what?
- The EIT program.

That's what you're
looking into, isn't it?

I need to know
I won't be named, anywhere.

I'm still with the Agency.

My even being here with you,
talking, is...

What was your involvement?

Office of Medical Services,
black sites.

- So, you're a doctor?
- Physician's assistant.

The American Medical Association

won't allow doctors
to be involved.

Do no harm.

We're the next best thing.

I was there
when the contractors arrived.

They made tapes of the
Abu Zubaydah interrogations,

but there's a 21-hour period

where the transcripts
are missing... nothing.

They were using the waterboard.

Zubaydah lost consciousness.

He was choking to death,
drowning.

Not just thinking
he was drowning,

he was actually
fucking drowning.

I was told that the waterboard

was only gonna be used
as a last resort.

The contractors did
an assessment of the prisoner,

- and they made a call...
- What kind of assessment?

Th-They bounced him
off the walls a few times

and then strapped him down and
poured water down his throat.

We understand this is
a different approach,

- but it's based on science.
- Science?

Oh, come on. What science?

- Have you seen their science?
- They believe the waterboard

is working here
to create compliance.

Well, of course they do.

They're the ones who get
to decide when it's used.

And they're also the ones who
get to decide if it's working.

How is that even ethical?

The people we're dealing with
weaponized daily life.

Would you like to talk about
the ethics of that?

We're here to make sure

that nothing like that
ever happens again.

They're training their people

to resist
traditional interrogations

in the back of a cave somewhere.

So we need to change
our approach

before another bomb goes off
or another building falls down.

Okay, okay.

What is gonna happen when one
of our soldiers gets captured

and takes out a card with
the Geneva Convention on it

and wants to be treated
like a human being?

You think his captors
aren't gonna remember

the way these people
were treated here?

- And for what?
- Do you have a kid at home?

We're not gonna get beat again.

Besides the chief of station,

did you report your concerns
up the chain of command?

We got a cable from
Director Rodriguez

telling us to stop putting
our objections in writing.

No paper trail.

I told them if they were gonna
keep using the new techniques,

I wanted out.

I wasn't the only one.
Guys were choking up.

It's all in the e-mails.

As early as November 2001,

the CIA's legal team
circulated a memorandum

describing a novel legal defense

for their officers
who might engage in torture.

Come on. They actually
called it torture?

The CIA?

They just forgot
we have laws against that?

Yes, sir.
Mitchell and Jessen renamed it

"enhanced interrogation"
to help sell it,

but the Agency was
talking about doing it

before they even had
a single detainee.

How did the CIA know

they needed to torture prisoners

before they even had one?

That didn't come from
Cheney and Addington?

Seems like it happened
the other way around.

The CIA took it
to the Bush White House

and John Yoo at
the Office of Legal Counsel.

So, here's where we're at.

The crime of torture,
as described in Section 2340,

requires that the defendant...
In this case, an interrogator...

Intends to cause
severe pain or suffering.

But in this case, that's not
the interrogator's intent.

Right. The intent is to gain
intel, save American lives.

But, John,
what if the techniques

the interrogator employs
do nonetheless

cause pain and suffering?

How do we deal with that?

Well, the key phrase is
"severe pain or suffering."

But 2340 never actually defines
the term "severe."

We found this definition
in a Medicare statute.

"Acute symptoms that place the
individual in serious jeopardy

- "and are hard to endure."
- Meaning?

To constitute torture,

the damage done must rise
to the level of organ failure,

impairment of bodily function,
or death.

So, basically, if someone dies,
we're doing it wrong?

If the president
deemed it necessary

to... crush the testicles
of a child

to stop a plane
from crashing into a building,

to save American lives,

there is no law or treaty
that could stop him.

I can make the same argument for

gouging out a prisoner's eyes
or dousing him with acid.

In our opinion,

if it provides unique
intelligence that saves lives,

and doesn't cause
any lasting harm,

then it's legal
for the president to order it.

What do we mean
when we say "unique"?

Intelligence that couldn't have
been obtained any other way.

And you've discussed all of this

with the White House, I assume?

And?

Did they tell Bush what
they were gonna do to Zubaydah?

- No.
- And National Security Advisor Rice...

- Where was she in all this?
- National Security Advisor Rice

was told about the program,
but she was also told

the president
would not be briefed.

Who tells the president's
national security advisor

not to brief the president?

Cheney and Addington.

According to CIA records, Bush
wasn't told about the program

until April of 2006,
four years later.

And the records we found state

that when the president was
finally told about the program,

he expressed discomfort
with the image of a detainee

chained to the ceiling,
wearing a diaper,

and forced to go
to the bathroom on himself.

How long till you can
get this thing done, Dan?

We've got to get this out.

What about this guy, Gul Rahman?

Captured in Peshawar,
November 2002.

He's not at Gitmo.
He's-he's not anywhere.

Gul Rahman.

Gul...

No. They didn't tell
the committee about him.

He's detainee number 24.

HQ says he knows

operational detail
about Al Qaeda.

The guy's an asshole.

Threw his food at us, he
threatened to kill the guards.

I've asked headquarters
to approve the application

of the enhanced measures
for this detainee,

and the request
has been approved.

- Oh, great. We haven't had any luck loosening him up.
- Mm.

Come on!

Ran him up and down the hall,

beat the crap out of him...
Nothing.

Even been trying this thing
they call short shackling.

Chain a dude's hands
to a bolt on the floor.

Then you chain his feet
to the same bolt.

Farmers call it hog-tying,
I think.

He finally admitted
to something.

What was that?

Gul Rahman.

What you want to do first is
take away his sense of control.

If you like, I could spend
some time showing you

how to achieve this
with the enhanced techniques.

Great.

We got another 30 guys here
to deal with.

I heard you told the doctor
you were cold.

♪ The beautiful people ♪

- ♪ The beautiful people ♪
- ♪ Ah ♪

♪ The beautiful people ♪

- ♪ The beautiful people ♪
- ♪ Ah... ♪

Senator, do you have
a few minutes this morning?

Absolutely. Come on in, Dan.

The senator is
needed on the floor for a vote.

Uh, give her five minutes.

Did you sleep last night, Dan?

Uh, Senator, a prisoner died.

♪ There's no time ♪

♪ To discriminate,
hate every motherfucker ♪

♪ That's in your... ♪

Gul Rahman.

They thought he was maybe
working for an Afghan warlord

or that he knew something
about an attack.

- Did he?
- No, he died before they found out

anything besides his name.

Dumped cold water on him
one night

and found him dead in his cell
in the morning.

The autopsy said hypothermia.

- Where did you get this from?
- Inspector general's report.

CIA did their own investigation
into the death of Gul Rahman.

The officer in charge
was recommended

for a performance bonus.

They promoted him.

He's still out there
in the field.

Well, are you accusing the CIA
of murder, Dan?

Because that sounds like
where this is going.

We have proof
the deputy director

coached the officer in charge
how to cover up what happened,

told him to be careful
what he put in writing.

So, why would they need
to cover it up

if they were following
standard operating procedure?

Why didn't they tell
the committee?

Why didn't they tell you?

I'm gonna need to review
all this personally.

It's very disconcerting.

"Disconcerting"?
"Very disconcerting"?

Dan, you need to be
careful here.

You're getting
emotionally involved.

They fucking killed a guy, and
nobody was held accountable?

W-We don't know
he was a terrorist.

- We barely even know his name.
- I understand.

And what you need
to understand is that

her name is going
on this report, not yours.

Senate staff doesn't
have to run for reelection,

but she does.

Their legal argument said EITs
wouldn't cause lasting harm.

So how long is Gul Rahman
gonna be dead for?

Are you guys seeing
this Panetta review?

It just showed up.

I don't understand.

Looks like the CIA did
their own investigation.

It confirms everything
we've been finding.

So, what are you
gonna do with it?

Hopefully, nothing.

Special Prosecutor Durham,
please?

I've already left
several messages.

It's Dan Jones again from
the Intelligence Committee.

How are you?

Good. I just wanted
to check in again to see

if the special prosecutor
is available

to meet on the CIA probe.

It can be off the record.
I just want to compare notes.

Yeah, same number. Thank you.

You know, we got to think back

to the period after 9/11.

We didn't even know who hit us.

We didn't know that
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was

the mastermind of 9/11

or the operational commander
of Al Qaeda.

And then we started rounding up
these terrorists.

We caught Abu Zubaydah.

We caught, uh,
Ramzi bin al-Shibh and KSM.

And these guys provided us
information under questioning

by the CIA that stopped
a number of terrorist attacks.

They were pl-planning to blow up

the U.S. consulate
in Karachi, Pakistan.

- Shit.
- They were planning to blow up

our Marine camp in Djibouti...

- Good morning.
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was

indicted in New York for trying
to blow up airplanes in 1995.

The CIA already knew about him.

They knew he was close
to bin Laden.

They knew about him before
Zubaydah ever identified him.

How long have you been here?

Also, according to this cable...
A few hours...

A CIA officer in Islamabad

began working someone
they call Asset X.

X claimed to have
direct access to KSM,

but was eventually turned away
when he asked for money.

- How much money?
- Few thousand bucks.

Two years later, after
they've been putting him off,

putting him off, putting him
off, they finally pay him,

and almost immediately
he sends a text

"I'm with KSM."

It had nothing to do
with the waterboard.

- Good morning.
- Good morning.

One, two, three,

four, five, six...

Who are you
working with in the U.S.?

Seven, eight, nine, 10, 11...

We have your kids!

- 12, 13, 14, 15,
- ♪ Yankee Doodle, keep it up ♪

- 16, 17...
- ♪ Yankee Doodle dandy... ♪

It will stop if you talk!

♪ And with the girls be handy,
Yankee Doodle... ♪

Where is the next attack?

Canary Wharf! Canary Wharf!

♪ Stuck a feather in ♪

♪ His hat and called it... ♪

Okay, here's the problem.

We already know about

the Heathrow
and Canary Wharf plots.

He knows that.
It's in his goddamn notebook.

We asked about plots
in the U.S., not London.

- He's fucking with you again.
- To be honest,

I've never met a resistor
like this guy.

He's a super resistor.

He lied to you to make you stop.

He just tells us shit
he knows we already have.

That's all he does.

Then that's what we're learning.

That's what the waterboard
is giving us.

We now know he's lying.

I thought it was meant
to give us the truth.

And... the truth is he's lying.

Headquarters says we go again.

The chief of interrogations

ordered the rectal rehydration
of KSM,

not for health reasons,

but as a way of showing total
control over the detainee.

Even though
rectal rehydration was never

an approved technique.

Total control isn't
chaining the guy to the wall,

keeping him awake for days,
and threatening his family?

You need to shove a tube
up his ass?

This right here

is the rest of your life

unless you start telling the truth.

Then they went back
to waterboarding him.

"When a medical officer
pressed on KSM's..."

- Wait. Where are you?
- Next page.

"When a medical officer
pressed on KSM's abdomen,

he expressed water
from his mouth and nose."

So, he was swallowing
all the water.

"On March 17th",

the waterboard technique
began to evolve."

Interrogators used their hands
to maintain

a pool of water
over KSM's nose and mouth.

Who are
the operatives inside the U.S.?

Issa... Issa...

Issa al-Britani.

Where is the next attack?

M-Montana.

We got something.

KSM told interrogators he sent
Abu Issa al-Britani to the U.S.

to recruit African American
Muslims in Montana

to blow up gas stations
and start forest fires.

Montana?

Muslims in Montana?

The FBI had serious doubts
as well.

Later, KSM admitted
he just told them

what they wanted to hear
to make it stop.

So, did they get anything
actionable from him at all?

Anything that saved lives?

They waterboarded him
183 times, and then concluded

KSM may never be
forthcoming or honest.

Everything they got from him

was either a lie
or something they already had.

Well, okay,
so my first question is:

If it works, why do you need
to do it 183 times?

Maybe when the report comes out,

people will finally see that.

Well, let's worry about getting
it right, getting it done.

We can worry about
changing the world later.

Sorry I'm late.

It's okay.

- Barely slept.
- Want some coffee?

Hey, can I ask you something?

You ever, uh, have dreams,

you know, about the stuff
that's in the report?

Yeah. I have one
where I'm drowning.

I can't move my arms or legs.
I can't breathe.

- That wakes me up.
- Last night I dreamt

I was trapped in
one of those confinement boxes.

They just left me there.

Daniel Jones, right?

- Do I know you?
- I just wanted to tell you to your face

that I think you
and that report are garbage.

- Excuse me...
- You weren't there,

so you don't know
what worked and what didn't

or what we were up against.

You may not realize,
but we were trying

to protect this country
from people who want to destroy

everything we believe in.

You may not realize it,

but we're trying to do
the exact same thing.

Your bullshit report will
never see the light of day.

Special Prosecutor
Durham, please.

It's Dan Jones, calling again

about the Justice Department
investigation of the CIA.

We really need to meet.

You have?

Okay, what are their findings?

Fuck!

Nothing?

No indictments at all?

No charges against
Jose Rodriguez or Gina Haspel

for destroying the tapes.

Nothing against the CIA
for torturing people.

Nothing against
Jim Pavitt and the others

for providing misinformation,
nothing at all.

DOJ says they don't have
enough admissible evidence

to convict anyone.

You go after the contractors,
and they're indemnified.

You go after
the head of Counterterrorism,

and he'd just say
he was following orders

from the CIA director.

You go after the director,
and he...

Well, he would just cite
the president.

Then the White House
would claim national security.

DOJ at least share
what they found?

No.

They won't turn anything over.

We're the only ones
still looking at this.

Dan?

Dan?

You know a CIA officer

testified before Congress
in 1978 regarding the use of

coercive physical interrogation
techniques in Latin America?

And the officer said
the techniques result

in false answers and have
proven to be ineffective.

And before Latin America,
they did it in Vietnam.

They knew it didn't work...

Dan, I need
to tell you something.

And they did it again.

Don't even listen
to their own fucking people.

I'm leaving the study.

I... I got a job offer,
and I can't turn it down.

I'm sorry, but don't you see
what this is doing to you?

To all of us?

I mean, my kids
are at home growing up,

and I'm down here reading about
how they put a power drill

against one guy's head
and-and how they pulled

another guy's arms
out of his sockets.

And I just... this is
how I'm spending my Sundays.

And my Saturdays.

This is how I spend every day.

I just... I-I-I-I can't.

Um... I'm gonna leave
after Thanksgiving.

Okay. I understand.

Okay.

Thanksgiving.

That gives us...
that gives us a couple months.

Dan, it's November.

Thanksgiving is next week.

How many pages have
we written so far? Thousands?

We don't even know
if this is ever gonna come out.

The tapes investigation
never did.

It's still classified.

The CIA knew
this shit didn't work in 1978,

and it didn't stop them
from doing it again.

Look, we've been down here
for two years, Dan,

in this basement.

Nobody's waiting for us
to come out.

Shocking photos that
apparently show U.S. troops

abusing detainees in a prison
outside Baghdad.

We have a problem.

Both myself and the president
have gone on record

saying we do not torture people.

He just made a statement
for the U.N.'s goddamn

Day in Support
of Victims of Torture.

Wh-What-what did he say?

"The United States
does not torture."

It's against our laws
and it's against our values.

"I have not authorized it,
and I will not authorize it."

I'm not sure where
that leaves either of us.

So, here's the deal.

Some new lawyer over at OLC,
Jack Goldsmith,

is saying there are issues
with the John Yoo memo.

Legal issues?

Yeah, and there's
the inspector general's report:

allegations of
war crimes and torture.

Throws the whole
program under the goddamn bus.

What's it say?

"The inspector general finds
that EITs are inconsistent"

with the public policy positions

"the United States has taken
regarding human rights,"

blah, blah, blah.

"The program, as implemented,

"diverges sharply from how the
CIA has described," blah, blah.

"There is also little evidence
that the waterboard

is effective
in gaining information."

Look, guys, Director Tenet
wants to pause the program.

You know, I retired
from the Air Force

just a couple of months
before 9/11.

22 years.

And then I wake up that morning,

and I turn on the news and...
see what's happening.

A lot of people just went back
to their coffee and cornflakes.

But Jim wanted to do something

to keep people safe.

We are going right back to the
National Security Council today

and asking to have
the program recertified,

as many techniques as possible.

We have a plan.

Thank you. Thank you.

Jones.

Yes, Senator.

On the Sunday talk shows,

former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld

and former Vice President
Dick Cheney

argued enhanced interrogation
techniques played a major role

in leading up to the raid
on bin Laden's compound.

No, that's not right.
That's not what happened.

- It was not torture.
- I'll look into it.

And, uh, I would strongly
recommend that we continue it.

At the heart of the controversy

is a process called
waterboarding.

Okay, here's what
the CIA is claiming:

They got bin Laden after using
EITs against detainees.

They say it all started in 2002
with Abu Zubaydah

and a detainee they called
"Riyadh the Facilitator,"

who tipped them off
to Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti,

who had ties to bin Laden.

That's not what happened?

The truth is the CIA
was on al-Kuwaiti's phones,

e-mails, identity, long before
they captured any detainees.

Before they even had
an EIT program.

Zubaydah told us al-Kuwaiti had
nothing to do with bin Laden.

Same with KSM
and-and the others.

But now we have former
CIA Director Michael Hayden

on the radio saying
this all came from EITs.

And former Attorney General
Mukasey is out there saying

KSM broke like a dam
after waterboarding.

Where is he saying that?

Wall Street Journal.
I found a memo.

It's from a few months back,
in March.

It's called
"The Public Roll-out."

The memo states the Agency
wanted their PR people

to connect the bin Laden raid
to intel obtained via EITs

before it even happened.

So... if the CIA got bin Laden,

then who cares what else it did?

If it saved lives, there's
no need for accountability.

Exactly. They lied to Bush
about the program.

Now they're lying
to President Obama.

This document about bin Laden
and, uh, the role of EITs,

it just isn't true.

You want me to get you
the White House?

Let's do that.

It's very clear to us

the EITs did not lead
to bin Laden.

The CIA is misrepresenting
the operation.

I'm sure you see that,
don't you?

I'm not
sure I understand, Senator.

The mission was a success;
that's the headline here.

This is a crucial moment
in our nation's history.

I want to make certain that the
Agency isn't manipulating it

to sanitize
their own past actions.

I will let
the national security advisor

know your concerns, Senator.

- Thank you.
- Thank you, Senator Feinstein.

That's it?

They don't care
the story is wrong?

Well, I don't think we can look
to the White House for support.

What the hell just happened?

The CIA just got
the president reelected.

That's what happened.

It was the
greatest manhunt of all time.

You think you know the story,

but hold on to your seats.

Zero Dark Thirty,
the riveting new film,

brings you the hunt
for Osama bin Laden

as it has never been
seen before.

This is it.
The last guy we have.

Muhammad Rahim,
captured June 2007.

We kept Rahim awake

for 138 hours straight.

Used the attention grasp,

facial hold,
dietary manipulation.

Abdominal slaps,
stress positions.

We even offered him a towel
to wear if he cooperated.

Gave us nothing.

He said that, if we hurt him,

he'd just make things up
to get us to stop.

And then he said
he was at our mercy

and we could kill him
if we wanted.

What's the point
of moving forward

without the waterboard?

It's like trying to play
baseball without the bat.

We've been going at him
for 60 days now,

not getting anywhere.

The problem is
that CTC hasn't given us

any good intel
to question him about.

We don't have any leverage.

Hold on.
You're the psychologists.

You told me you were
gonna get us intel.

Now you're saying
we need to give it to you?

I'm thinking we improve his
treatment for a week or two,

give him some hope,
and then we go back at him hard

and create
a sense of helplessness.

Or we could try recruiting him.

Tell him he can be
a CIA agent if he talks.

The FBI does that.

We're not the FBI.
We don't do that.

The way the science works is

we only get the intel after...

After what?

Why are so many of these guys
still lying to us

after you work on them?

Where's the special sauce?

You have to make this work.
It's only legal if it works.

The CIA's questioning
of Muhammad Rahim

resulted in
zero intelligence reports.

On April 21, 2008,
the Agency convened

an after-action review
of his interrogation.

Senator, I just want to point
out that this is the first time

the Agency stopped and evaluated

the effectiveness
of the program.

And they concluded that,
in the future,

CIA interrogators should use
rapport building.

They even suggested
asking other agencies,

law enforcement,
and even other countries

about effective
interrogation methods.

So...

For the past six years,
there's been a steady stream

of CIA personnel...
Directors, deputies, analysts...

Coming over here and telling me

what an amazing success
EITs have been.

Somehow not even one of them
managed to mention that part.

How many detainees have been
through the program in total?

At least 119.

The Agency admits
a quarter of them

should never have been detained.

The EIT program never worked,
not on anyone.

Today, we are gathered
to approve

the committee's study of

the CIA Detention
and Interrogation Program.

I would like to thank
Daniel Jones

and his small staff
who prepared this study.

Clerk, would you call the roll?

- Mr. Udall?
- Yay.

- Mr. Rubio?
- Nay.

- Mr. Rockefeller?
- Yay.

- Mr. Warner?
- Yay.

- Mr. Blunt?
- Nay.

- Mr. Conrad?
- Yay.

- Mr. Coats?
- Nay.

- Mr. Nelson?
- Yay.

- Mr. Risch?
- Nay.

- Ms. Mikulski?
- Yay.

- Mr. Burr?
- Nay.

- Mr. Wyden?
- Yay.

- Ms. Snowe?
- Yay.

- Mr. Chambliss?
- Nay.

Ms. Feinstein?

Yay.

The motion passes.

The report will now be sent
to the CIA for final comments.

I, John Owen Brennan,

do solemnly swear to tell
the truth, the full truth,

and nothing but the truth,
so help me God.

Thank you, Mr. Brennan.

I look forward
to hearing your testimony.

I am honored
to appear before you today

as the president's nominee
for director of the CIA.

I'd like to say from
the beginning that honesty...

Truthfulness... was a value
inculcated in me

growing up in New Jersey by
my parents, Owen and Dorothy.

Now, none of us
are perfect beings.

I am far from perfect.

But I will be honest
with this committee

and do everything possible

to meet your legitimate needs
and requirements.

Mr. Brennan,

I've long believed that our
government has an obligation

to the American people to face
its mistakes transparently,

to help the public understand
the nature of those mistakes,

and to correct them.

The enhanced interrogation
techniques were brutal,

and, perhaps most importantly,
they did not work.

Now, the CIA has
a responsibility

to correct any inaccurate
information it provided

to the previous White House,
the Department of Justice,

Congress and the public.

Do you agree that the CIA
has this responsibility?

And I'd appreciate
a yes or no answer.

Yes, Senator.

Absolutely.

Office of the chief of staff.

Mr. McDonough is
in a meeting right now.

According to the latest NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll,

the president's
approval rating is at 44%.

That's up three points since March...

Excuse me. Mr. McDonough.

- Director Brennan is here.
- Oh.

There he is.

- Congratulations, Mr. Director.
- Thank you.

Welcome. Come on in. Thank you.

Thank you
and thank President Obama.

I'll let him know.

Speaking of, uh,

he wanted me to ask you
if there's any new information

on the drone strikes
of April 29th?

We can confirm
that the Al Qaeda planner

Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi
has been killed.

Unfortunately, we also believe

that there were between five
and ten civilian casualties.

Shit.

Well, I'll let
the president know.

What about the
Intelligence Committee report?

We need to talk about that.

John, w-we gave the CIA
until February

to come up with its response;
it's now May.

I've got Senator Feinstein
all over my phone sheet.

I don't want to be the one
who has to push on this,

but the president would really
like to get this behind us.

And?

We acknowledge that

the Detention and Interrogation
Program had shortcomings

and that the Agency
made mistakes.

The most serious of those
occurred early on

and stemmed from the fact
that we were unprepared.

Now, as you know, we part ways
on some key points.

According to our review,
indications are that

interrogations of
detainees upon whom

the enhanced interrogation
techniques were used

did produce unique intelligence

that helped thwart attack plans,

capture terrorists,
and saved lives.

Excuse me, intelligence
gathered from EITs...

And that intelligence
continues to inform

our counterterrorism efforts.

It led us to bin Laden.

Now, it's one thing
to disapprove of the program.

I-I welcome that conversation,

but it's something else
altogether

to say that it was
mismanaged and ineffective.

Excuse me, Director Brennan.

The report is
based on CIA records.

CIA officers themselves
called it ineffective.

CIA officers?

Well, you didn't speak to any
CIA officers in the program,

did you, Dan?

Your lawyers would not
make them available to us

because of the Department
of Justice's criminal inquiry.

We also disagree with
the study's characterization of

how the CIA briefed Congress,
the White House and the press.

Now, we have documentation
that certainly proves that.

Excuse me, sir, what documents?

If the director is referencing

cables or e-mails
we were never shown,

then that's a violation
of our agreement.

Everything was supposed
to have been provided to us.

Do we just give
the committee access

to the entire
CIA computer system?

Is that where this goes?

Dan gets to read every e-mail,
gets to see every document?

Every relevant document
or e-mail, yes.

I have always supported
the intelligence community.

I broke with my own party
to support the drone program,

but what this report
makes very clear

is a real need for oversight
and accountability.

You asked for our response,
and we gave it to you.

We looked in the mirror.

Now, uh, we made mistakes.

There were abuses, and those
abuses have been addressed.

But I-I vehemently disagree
with the narrative

that you're trying
to string together here.

It lacks context.

It does not paint
an accurate picture

of the work that was done.

Let's go.

Senator, John Brennan's
name is in that report.

He was Director Tenet's
chief of staff

and then
deputy executive director

when the program started.

- He grew up at the Agency.
- He claims to have

- spoken out against the EIT program...
- Where?

I just spent five years
looking at their e-mails.

I never found anything
to suggest that's true.

Well, we knew
this wasn't going to be easy.

They have their own narrative,
and they're gonna stick to it.

Maybe we could come up
with some middle ground,

- find some common language.
- I thought our job

was to provide oversight
and accountability,

not middle ground.

I have a question for you.

Do you work for me
or for the report?

And I'd encourage you to think
about that before answering.

Dan!

Dan Jones.

There he is.

Look at you, chief investigator

of the largest study
the Senate's ever conducted.

My God. How you doing?

It's good to see you
in the fresh air.

- Yeah.
- It's so funny.

I was just thinking
the other night,

do you remember that time
you came and saw me,

right after
you got out of school?

You said go get
intel experience,

wait till the Dems
got the Senate back.

Working for the
Senate Intelligence Committee

for Dianne Feinstein.

You told me once you wanted
to make a difference.

I hope you still
get that chance.

- What does that mean?
- What does that mean?

It means, Dan, get out of the
senator's head about the CIA.

You're not doing yourself
any favors.

Have you read the report?

It's 7,000 pages, Dan.

The Bible tells the history
of mankind in less than that.

Look, buddy,

we're gonna get the CIA
to sit down with you,

tell you
their side of the story.

It would help
if you would listen.

The study seems
to most seriously diverge

from the facts by asking
the reader to believe

the CIA withheld information

from the executive branch
and Congress.

We'd like to see that
removed from the report.

After the photos of
Abu Ghraib came out in 2004,

Deputy Director McLaughlin
appeared before Congress,

in front of you, and said
the CIA is not authorized

to do anything like what
you've seen in those photos.

But what they were doing
was even worse.

Then in 2005,
Senator Rockefeller

called for a review
of the program,

and the deputy chief
of Counterterrorism

got nervous
where that might lead.

So he sent a message
to senior leadership

discussing the need
to manage the situation.

He said, "We either get out
and sell, or we get hammered."

Congress reads it,
cuts our authorities,

messes up our budget.

We need to make sure

"the impression of
what we do is positive."

This is the deputy chief
of Counterterrorism.

That all stays in.

We fundamentally disagree
with the assertion

that the program was
poorly managed and executed

and that unqualified officers
imposed brutal conditions,

used unapproved techniques, and
were rarely held accountable.

What about Mitchell and Jessen?

Mitchell's PhD thesis
was on diet and exercise

for controlling hypertension.

Jessen's dissertation
was on family therapy,

something called
family sculpting,

where you make clay figures
of your family members.

- No. How much were they paid?
- They had no experience

in real-world interrogations.

No science
to back up their claims.

They were allowed to assess

the effectiveness
of their own program

without providing
any scientific evidence.

How much in total

did the U.S. taxpayers
give them for their work?

Over $80 million.

The Agency also disagrees that

the Detention and Interrogation
Program did not produce

unique intelligence
that disrupted plots

and saved lives.

For instance,
the identity of José Padilla,

the "dirty bomber."

If we hadn't stopped Padilla,

this entire area
would be radioactive today.

José Padilla!

Padilla found the instructions
for his dirty bomb online,

in-in an article entitled
"Making and owning an H-bomb

is the kind of challenge
real Americans seek."

It says,
"Fill two buckets with uranium

and swing them above your head
as fast as possible."

It was a joke.

As far as we can tell,

everything they attribute
to EITs they already had,

from other sources,
from foreign governments,

from other methods.

They claim they saved lives,
but what they really did

was make it impossible
to prosecute

a mass murderer like KSM,
because if what we did to him

ever came out in a court
of law, the case is over.

The guy planned 9/11,
and instead of going to jail

for the rest of his life,
the CIA turned him into

a recruiting tool
for a war we're still fighting.

Stop meeting with them.

This is a remarkable document
you've created.

Truly.

It will provide
an enduring history,

whether it comes out or not.

What does that mean, "w-whether
it comes out or not"?

What does she mean?

What does that mean?

We've been working on this
thing for nearly five years.

Yes, and it is still
our word against theirs.

She's gonna need more than that.

This is Jones.

Hey, Dan, this is Evan Tanner.

Um, I hear rumors the report
might not be coming out now.

A lot of pushback
from the Agency.

- They're calling it "flawed."
- Who told you that?

Dan, I'm the
national security reporter

for The New York Times.

Do you have any thoughts?

It's not
my place to talk about rumors.

No, I didn't think you would.

I was wondering
if you might want to comment.

Uh, it can be off the record.

I just think we can
help each other here.

You know I can't do that.

And here's what we know
about Caroline Krass:

20 years
in the executive branch,

including the
Office of Legal Counsel

where she worked with John Yoo.

Guys, this
confirmation's a done deal.

We're not gonna stop it.

But it is a public hearing,
and it just seems like

there's an opportunity
to say something.

Wh-What are you
looking for, Senator?

I don't know, something
to move the study forward,

to break us
out of this stalemate.

Any ideas?

Senator, there is a document.

You ever sleep, bro?

I used to.

Got in the way of work.

Anything in that bag contain
the real names of CIA officers,

assets or partners,
or any information

that would be in violation
of the agreement between

the Central Intelligence Agency
and the United States Senate?

- Have a good night, Jay.
- You, too, Dan.

The committee
will come to order.

Today, we are gathered
for the confirmation hearing

of Caroline Krass to be
general counsel of the CIA.

Welcome, Ms. Krass.

I'm honored to be here
before the committee,

and I'd like to take this
moment to acknowledge my family

and thank them
for their support.

Thank you.

Uh, before we begin,
I would like to remind members

not to discuss classified topics

or ask questions which require
a classified answer.

With that said,
I turn to Senator Udall.

Ms. Krass,
nice to see you again.

We had a chance
to sit down last week

and discuss the Senate's study

on the Detention
and Interrogation Program.

You told me you found the study
to be hard reading.

Also, last week,
a number of articles appeared

discussing
the one-year anniversary

of the vote to approve
the committee's study.

And in one of those articles,

the CIA claimed to have found
significant errors.

Now, I got to tell you, I don't
believe that is accurate.

In fact,
I'm more confident than ever

in the factual accuracy
of the committee's study.

I'm more confident than ever.

It appears that the CIA
performed their own study

of the EIT program, initiated
by former Director Panetta.

And the findings

in that review
are entirely consistent

with our committee's report,
but amazingly conflicts with

the CIA's official response
to that report.

So, why is a review
the CIA conducted internally,

and never revealed to Congress,
so different from

the CIA's formal response
to the committee's report?

Do you have an answer for that?

Um, not at this time.

If I wanted the public to know
about the Panetta review,

I would have told them myself.

We hear that the Republicans

are gonna censure Udall
for that performance.

But the review proves our point.

They found
the same things we did.

The Agency didn't know
how or where to hold people,

didn't know
how to interrogate people,

and, more importantly,
the CIA did give it to us.

I don't know
if it was an accident

or it was a whistle-blower.

Well, if it was
a whistle-blower,

you may have just exposed them.

Not to mention yourself.

We got something here.

The director
has asked me here today

in my capacity
as Agency legal counsel.

What we have to discuss
has serious implications.

All right.

We have proof that the staff

of the Senate
Intelligence Committee

illegally gained access
to the CIA's computer network

and obtained
classified documents.

What kind of proof?

We found the document
in question

on Daniel Jones's computer.

We did not provide it to him
or to the committee.

If he didn't hack us,
how did it get there?

We feel that Jones and his team
need to be disciplined.

Immediate dismissal is in order,

at a minimum, I would think.

John, are you saying that you
broke into the computer system

of the United States Senate?

We never gave you clearance
on that document.

It was classified, yet
you chose to make it public.

We've made our investigation
and our findings

known to the White House.

You're fucking kidding me.

They're saying I broke into

the most top secret
computer system in the world?

- Brennan and Eastman came over...
- Eastman?

Eastman's name is in the report
over a thousand times.

- That's not a conflict?
- Dan.

They filed a criminal referral
against you.

They want you gone.

H-How did the Agency
come to the conclusion

that I'm a hacker?

H-How do they even know
what's on my computer?

They say
they conducted a search.

Of the United States Senate?

The whole reason
this committee was established

in the first place
was to stop the CIA

from spying on U.S. citizens.

The senator is talking
to Harry Reid about

- that very thing...
- Did they go into that room?

That room is off-limits. Did
they go into that fucking room?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I do know that the Republicans
are gonna run with this.

They're gonna use it
to discredit the report.

They're gonna
use it to discredit you.

Dan, they're accusing you
of breaking the law.

You're gonna need a lawyer.

There's a saying at the Agency:

"Admit nothing,

deny everything,
make counteraccusations."

That's what they're doing.

The CIA is
investigating you for...

They're the ones who
should be investigated, not me.

Mr. Jones?
Mr. Clifford will see you now.

Our computer system

isn't even connected
to the CIA mainframe.

So did I just go over to Langley

and break in on a weekend?

Seems unlikely.

So what evidence do they have?

A document.

A document?
What kind of a document?

I can't tell you that.

Because, what, it's classified?

I was tasked
to lead an investigation

into a CIA program
they started after 9/11,

what they called
enhanced interrogation.

And I assume your work
is critical of the Agency?

You know, Dan, a lot of people
in this country

felt the CIA was
justified in doing

whatever they had to do
to keep us safe.

I have friends
who lost people that day.

And a lot of people watch 24
on Thursday nights

and hear Jack Bauer say,

"I don't want to bypass
the Constitution,

but these are
extraordinary circumstances,"

just before, you know,
he s-sticks a knife in them

and makes them give up a plot.

It-it doesn't work that way.

Well, as Winston Churchill said,

"History is written
by the victors."

Churchill didn't really
say that; Hermann Goring did.

And what he said was,
"We will go down in history"

either as the world's
greatest statesmen

"or its worst villains."

So your report is
gonna determine that:

statesmen or villains?

How long have you been
working on this project, Dan?

Five years.

Five years,
and it could all go away,

just vanish in the face
of these allegations.

I can certainly imagine

an ambitious young man
like yourself spends years

with his head buried
in some terrible spectacle,

gets frustrated
with the process,

sees an opportunity
to get the truth out faster,

maybe crosses a line.

I'm assuming this is
the most important thing

- you've ever been a part of.
- I didn't do it.

Or I can see
an equally ambitious senator

encouraging you to do something.

Now would be
a good time to tell me.

That did not happen.

What I did, I did on my own.
I acted alone.

- So you did steal the document?
- I did not steal it.

- You needed it to...
- I relocated it.

I put it in a safe.

If they had a way
of destroying tapes,

- then surely they could get...
- Everyone has their own words.

The language is built
to choose sides.

Now, why did you relocate it?

Documents had a way of
disappearing off the server.

For instance, in 2010,
over 800 documents

just vanished
without any explanation.

So you had computer issues
all along.

Who else knew
what was on the computers?

Well, the CIA hired an outside
firm to vet the documents:

And CACI was also involved.

- Who are they?
- Contractors.

But Jim Pavitt
is on their board.

Former deputy director
of operations for the CIA,

Jim Pavitt, during the program,
Jim Pavitt.

And is he named in the report?

Can't tell me.

So they can't destroy
the document.

Then they can go after
THE NEXT BEST THING: you.

Make you a zealot.

Anything you touch is tainted.

I could see the Agency saying
that this is a violation

of the Espionage Act, the...
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,

uh, who knows what else.

And if they file
a charge against me,

how long could I go away for?

I don't know.
20 years, maybe more.

I did not hack into
the CIA computer system.

I mean, my com... my computer
skills stop at Microsoft Word.

They probably know that.

How much does
a Senate staffer make?

At my level?
About-about a hundred grand.

Any retirement, savings,
family money?

No.

So, we should discuss
my retainer.

- How much is that?
- $30,000 to start.

And if it goes to trial,
add a zero.

Nothing could make them happier

than knowing you're
sitting here talking to me.

That's what they want, Dan.

Make you bleed money
all over my floor.

Do you want my expert opinion,
for free?

You don't really have
a legal problem.

You have a sunlight problem.

I'm sure you know people
who can help you solve it.

Daniel Jones.

I didn't think
you'd ever return my calls.

Does your boss know
you're talking to

a guy with a byline
and a tape recorder?

There's something going on
I think you should look into.

It involves the Agency.

Okay. Is it that report
you've been working on,

the one that
never quite comes out?

Computers. It has to do with
the hacking of computers.

All right, whose?

The United States Senate.

Someone hacked into the Senate?

No shit? Okay.

You have any idea if it was
foreign or domestic?

Uh, all right, yes, you...

Sorry, you said
it was the Agency.

So what-what does the CIA

have to do with
U.S. Senate computers?

Evan, you're the
national security reporter

for The New York Times.

You can figure it out.
All right?

Hmm.

Morning, Senator.

You wanted to see me?

You know anything about this?

"Computer Searches at Center
of Dispute on CIA Detentions."

You have any idea
how that ended up

- in The New York Times?
- Yeah, I saw that.

It looks accurate.

Senator McCain is already
calling the CIA a rogue agency.

What are your thoughts on

someone like
Edward Snowden, Dan?

W-Well, Senator, I know
how you feel about leaks.

I think he's a traitor,
plain and simple.

It's my job to provide oversight

with the tools of governance,

not lights and cameras
and headlines.

Do you want me to resign?

No.

But I think I might need you
to write me a speech.

Senator Feinstein claimed today

on the Senate floor
that the CIA hacked

the Senate Intelligence
Committee's computers

to thwart an investigation
into past practices.

Can you respond to that?

Well, first,
we in no way, shape or form

tried to thwart
the release of the report.

Uh, we want that behind us.

As far as this allegation
that the CIA

somehow hacked into
the Senate computer system,

nothing could be
further from the truth.

We just wouldn't do that.

It's beyond the scope of reason.

Thank you.

I understand
your position, Senator,

and I am aware of
Director Brennan's comments.

Did you hear what Lindsey
Graham said this morning,

about the Agency
breaking into our computers?

"The legislative branch
should declare war on the CIA.

Heads should roll,
people should go to jail."

Is that what you want?
Send people to jail?

We do have jails for a reason.

The Justice Department
investigated the CIA,

and they decided
not to prosecute.

It's their call, not ours.

Now, when this administration
took office,

we faced
the very real possibility

of economic collapse.

Do we spend our political
capital on going around

trying to find people to blame,
or do we solve the problem?

Maybe the way
to solve the problem

is to hold people accountable.

Do you ever wonder
why history repeats itself?

Well, I think maybe it's because

we don't always listen
the first time.

Senator, the people at the
Agency... they have families.

There are children
who might lose a parent.

Years ago, some radical group
put a bomb in the flower box

outside of my daughter's
bedroom window, right out here.

Had it been any warmer out,
it would have exploded.

And then there was the time

that I found Harvey Milk
shot to death in his office.

I-I think I'm aware of
the risks of public service.

President Obama
ended the torture program

three days after taking office.

The EITs, what the CIA did...
That is not our mess.

No, it's not,

but that's not the question
we're asking, is it?

Who is going to clean it up?

So let's do that.

Right after Director Brennan
apologizes to me and my staff.

The inspector general is here.

Go ahead in.

In regards to the CIA
search of Senate computers,

we've looked into the matter

and have recommended
that the Department of Justice

begin a criminal investigation.

Good.

So have we.

Dan Jones,
lead Senate investigator.

Not the Senate staff.

The CIA.

Us?

Are-are you accusing me or
my staff of breaking the law?

My understanding is
that five CIA employees

entered a room
that was off-limits.

On whose orders?

Senator Feinstein
is right to call this

a violation of
the separation of powers.

The CIA cannot spy
on the U.S. Congress.

As inspector general,
I'm gonna have to launch

a full investigation
into the Agency's actions.

Am I going to jail?

No, they're
dropping the charges.

You're going back to work.

Take the most important
findings, finish the summary...

No more than 400 pages.

I'm going to ask the committee
to vote to release it.

So, you saw they voted.

11 to three.

They want to release
an executive summary.

That thing goes out,
it puts my people in danger,

who are out there
in a dangerous world today,

trying to do their jobs.

Pulls the rug
out from under them.

Anything that you feel
puts your people in harm's way

stays classified.

If-if the Senate puts out

a small pile of pages
and the press goes nuts,

then everybody's gonna want
to see a bigger pile of pages.

You keep saying the president
wants to turn the page.

Well, then turn the page.

Close the damn book.

Senator Feinstein
has asked the White House

to head up final comments
and redactions.

She wants us
right in the middle of it.

And?

And I think that's exactly
where you want us.

You'll have the pen.

Leadership specified

that we should redact
anything that could result in

legal exposure
for officers in the field,

past or present.

Basically, if there's
any questions, black it out.

You see this?

What the...

fuck is this?

Good afternoon. Where's Marcy?

Conference room.

Early the next week.

Wednesday.

Yeah, that'll work.

And you get me the agenda.
Thank you.

Imagine you pick up a book,

and "blank" turns water
into wine on page 237,

and on page 71
"blank" heals a leper,

and on page 295
"blank" rises from the dead.

How do you know the blanks
are all the same person?

I thought that the CIA
agreed to using pseudonyms.

They did, but now even
the fake names are gone.

And the dates.

The entire story is gone.

I hope you took
your strong pills today.

Isn't it enough
to know what actually happened?

Do we need to know the names
of the people involved?

But the actual names
aren't in the report.

Someone could figure out
who our people are

based on their pseudonyms.

You know, I found
a photo of my husband

on the Internet
linking him to me.

Secrecy is very hard
to maintain.

I believe you introduced
your husband publicly

at your confirmation hearing.

It was on C-SPAN.

Some of these people...

They are out there
in the world, right now.

Yes, they are.

There's an officer
from Alec Station

mentioned 41 times in 500 pages.

In 1998, her team
missed the bombing

of the U.S. embassy
in Kenya and Tanzania.

1999, they missed the bombing

of the Marriott Hotel
in Islamabad.

In 2000, she was made aware
of two Al Qaeda operatives

who arrived in Los Angeles.

FBI officers, working within
the bin Laden unit,

requested permission
to investigate.

That's not how
we want to play it.

The CIA knew
they were on American soil

and didn't do anything.

Al-Mihdhar then left the States
to play a key role

in the bombing of the USS Cole,

before returning to hijack
Flight 77 with al-Hazmi

and crash into the Pentagon.

And you want to
protect this person's identity.

We'd also like to redact

the pseudonyms
of the contractors.

Dr. Mitchell was already quoted
by name in The New Yorker.

He was handing out brochures
at professional conferences

telling people
he worked for the CIA.

If we are protecting
the identities of CIA staff,

we need to protect
our contractors as well.

Mitchell and Jessen were given
a contract by the Agency

for a program that didn't work.

The CIA also agreed
to a five million dollar

indemnification clause
for their company that covered,

among other expenses,
criminal prosecution.

You know, I kept
the rag we used on KSM.

You should eBay that bad boy
when this is all over.

Make a mint.

An internal CIA memo concluded

that Mitchell and Jessen "have
both shown blatant disregard"

for the ethics shared by almost
all of their colleagues."

The pseudonyms for
the contractors need to stay.

Guys, we've been
at this for months.

What about the
locations of the black sites?

The country names?

We made commitments
to those countries

to maintain their secrecy.

No country names.

Not open to negotiating
these points.

We need to consider
the morale of the CIA here.

Now, we-we publish this report,

- there's a very good chance we could lose them.
- Lose them?

What does that mean?

What about the morale
of all the people at the Agency

who spoke out
against the program?

What about them?

People who sent cables back
from black sites

saying they wanted
to be transferred

because they were disgusted by
what was being done.

All right, uh, look.

We have... Dan more than anyone...

Have worked to uncover
the truth about this

when no one else would.

We will not allow this
to be covered up

by the executive branch.

President Obama
called it torture.

Bush and Cheney
wouldn't do that.

He signed an executive order
getting rid of it.

Now, just imagine, God forbid,

there's another
terrorist attack on our watch.

There won't be another Democrat

in the White House for 20 years.

I'd also like
to talk about the redactions

concerning KSM.

Cory Gardner,
the Republican challenger,

will be the next
United States senator

from the state of Colorado,

defeating the Democratic
incumbent, Mark Udall.

A major, major win
for the Republicans.

Chris Frates is standing by
in Colorado.

This is huge
for, uh, Colorado, Wolf.

This is the first time
a Republican has won

the Senate race state-wide
in Colorado since 2002.

Big night for Colorado,

and a big night for control
of the United States Senate.

She's expecting you.

So, I just got a call

from Secretary of State Kerry.

He thinks that,
with the release of the report,

that the coalition against ISIL
could collapse.

Isn't that a bit convenient?

- He calls you just before...
- Dan.

Wh-Where did Kerry get
his intel on this? The CIA?

- Is it credible?
- Embassies could be attacked.

Hostages could be killed.

It's just another stall tactic.

He suggested giving the report
to the president,

so that it could be released
later, when hostilities cease.

You lose control of the
committee in a week, Senator.

Yes, I am aware of what happens

when the Republicans
are in the majority, Dan.

Look, I want to get this report
out as much as anyone,

but I have known him
a long time.

I tend to believe him.

Nobody else is gonna
tell this story.

- Dan, the senator has a luncheon.
- If we stop now,

aren't we a part
of the cover-up?

Strong pills, Senator?

I think you should go home
and get some rest.

You look tired.

Marcy, if I could
have five minutes.

Of course.

Did you ever meet a guy
called Greg Craig?

Just in pa... White House
counsel when Obama took office?

- Just in passing.
- Right.

So, right after he got elected,
the president asked Craig

to come up with a plan
to deal with

the aftermath
of the torture program.

So, he got Secretary of Defense
Gates, Janet Napolitano,

Hillary Clinton...
Serious people... in a room,

and he asked for
their recommendation.

- And?
- A-And the consensus

was that the president
should appoint

an independent
bipartisan commission

into interrogations
and detainee treatment,

like a deep dive into
what worked and what didn't

and... who was responsible.

You know, like what they did
after 9/11,

and like what you've been
trying to do.

So why didn't they do that?

Well, evidently,
the president listened closely

to the recommendation.

He then thought about it,
and then he said no.

He'd spent an entire campaign
saying he was post-partisan,

so going after
the Bush administration

flew in the face of all that.

And right then, everyone in
that room changed their minds.

No independent commission.

Everyone except Craig,

because he thought
it was too important.

You couldn't just
torture people,

lie about it,
and then hide it from history.

A few months later,
Craig was gone,

and this mess
wound up with the Senate.

And you.

Well, the president must have
known that, by doing that,

he was making it
next to impossible.

Uh, he came from the Senate.

Dan, they sent you off
to build a boat,

but they had no intention
of sailing it.

They probably didn't think
you'd get as far as you did.

Let me ask you a question.

If the CIA knew
that torture didn't work,

why did they continue to do it?

After 9/11,
everyone was scared...

scared it might happen again,

and the CIA would be blamed
if it did.

Or maybe they were ashamed.

You know, how come
the most sophisticated

intelligence organization
on Earth

couldn't keep
its own people safe?

But fear and shame don't make
for better policy decisions,

and the fact that
the people who we captured

didn't look like us or
believe the same things we do

made it that much easier
to do the things we did.

So once the CIA program started,

they had to keep
telling people it worked,

even if it wasn't true.

Their own position was that

if it didn't work,
it was illegal.

So they misrepresented
the results.

If we had your report,
we would print it tomorrow.

All of it.

The senator said
she would release

- a summary of the report.
- Really?

Over the objections of the CIA
and the White House?

You really think
that's gonna happen?

If I gave it to you,
what would happen?

Some people will think
you're a hero,

and some will probably think
you're a traitor.

Look at Edward Snowden.

No. If it's gonna come out,

it's gonna come out
the right way.

What if it doesn't?

Then I didn't do my job.

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

So, with the Affordable Care Act

behind us, the president
would like to begin

a serious discussion
about immigration reform.

Now, obviously
we've had some setbacks

in both the House
and the Senate,

uh, so strategy has become
paramount... unity as well.

So, we would like to, uh,
really start talking about...

Excuse me, Mr. McDonough.

I would like to discuss
the report on the CIA

and the White House's position.

That's not the topic
of this particular caucus.

Uh, the president
would like to discuss...

Our country
did things the Nazis did,

things that made us
condemn other regimes.

And the position
of this administration

is to suppress this information,

to keep the people
who did these things safe?

I can assure you that is not

the position of
this administration, Senator.

You worked with John Brennan

at the
National Security Council.

Now, I understand that Brennan
gave this president

his first security briefing
when he took office.

And now CIA Director Brennan

is working closely with the
president on the drone program.

You know, it's funny.

Every time I go over to the CIA,

they claim I'm doing
the Senate's bidding,

and every time I come here,

you claim I'm doing
the CIA's bidding.

I only have a few days left
in my term here,

and if there isn't a plan to
release the report before I go,

I'm prepared to read it
on the floor of the Senate.

And either the White House

or the Republicans
will have to stop me.

What would you have us do?

Now, we go after
Bush and Cheney on this,

what's to prevent
the Republicans

from coming back at us and
trying to repeal health care?

Uh, we go after the CIA,
uh, maybe they say,

"Okay, well, immigration reform
is off the table."

Maybe it's gun control.

Now, democracy is messy...
but let's just think

how many countries
there are in the world

where a report like this
could even get done.

I would like us to be more than

the country that did the report.

I'd like us to be the country
that made it public.

And that is what I intend
to see happen.

I yield the floor

to the senior senator
from California.

Over the past six years,

a small team of investigators
pored over more than

6.3 million pages of CIA records

to complete this report.

It shows that
the CIA's actions a decade ago

are a stain on our values
and on our history.

The release of
this 500-page summary

cannot remove that stain,

but it can and does say
to our people and the world

that America is big enough
to admit when it's wrong

and confident enough
to learn from its mistakes.

Releasing this report is
an important step toward

restoring our values
and showing the world

that we are, in fact,
a just and lawful society.

There are those who will
seize upon the report and say,

"See what the Americans did?"

And they will try to use it

to justify evil actions
or to incite more violence.

We cannot prevent that.

But history will judge us

by our commitment to
a just society governed by law

and the willingness
to face an ugly truth

and say "never again."

Thank you.

I now yield the floor
to the senator from Arizona.

What might come as a surprise

is how little these practices
did to aid our efforts to bring

9/11 culprits to justice
and to find and prevent

terrorist attacks
today and tomorrow.

That could be a real surprise,

since it contradicts
the many assurances

provided by
intelligence officials,

on the record and in private,

that enhanced interrogation
techniques were indispensable

in the war against terrorism.

I think it's an insult to
the many intelligence officers

who have acquired
good intelligence

without hurting
or degrading prisoners

to assert we can't win this war
without such methods.

Yes, we can, and we will.

But in the end,

torture's failure to serve
its intended purpose

isn't the main reason
to oppose its use.

This question isn't about
our enemies; it's about us.

It's about who we were, who we
are, and who we aspire to be.

It's about how we represent
ourselves to the world.

Our enemies act
without conscience.

We must not.

Senator Dianne Feinstein today

exposed the CIA's now extinct

enhanced interrogation
techniques.

The thing that strikes me about

what the Senate
was doing today...

Dianne Feinstein,
Jay Rockefeller...

Is they were doing
everything they can

to make sure
this doesn't happen again.

Because by going public
like this...

Dan.

You did well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

"We're gonna be on you
if you try to do this."

♪ If pain was a color
to paint on you ♪

♪ Your heart would be
the color blue ♪

♪ Be a gradient from there
until your body met your hair ♪

♪ Which remained a silver ♪

♪ You are the one
they call Jesus Christ ♪

♪ Who didn't know
no rock and roll ♪

♪ Just a mission and a gun
to paint rainbows in Vietnam ♪

♪ And a heart
that always told you ♪

♪ There's a madness in us all ♪

♪ There's a madness in us all ♪

♪ So who wrote the rules?
Who wrote the rules? ♪

♪ Who wrote the rules? ♪

♪ They said every one of you
will never try to lend a hand ♪

♪ When the policemen
don't understand ♪

♪ Boys, all you boys,
think it's so American ♪

♪ Girls, all you girls,
yeah, you're so American ♪

♪ He may not be
born of this land ♪

♪ But he was born
of this world ♪

♪ He was born
of all the mothers ♪

♪ And the colors
of our brothers ♪

♪ And the love
that was started ♪

♪ You are the one
they call Jesus Christ ♪

♪ Who may not know
no rock and roll ♪

♪ And there may not be
a Heaven ♪

♪ Or a place
of which to send you ♪

♪ But you know in the end ♪

♪ There's madness in us all ♪

♪ There's a madness in us all ♪

♪ There's a madness in us all ♪

♪ There's a madness in us all ♪

♪ So who wrote the rules?
Who wrote the rules? ♪

♪ Who wrote the rules? ♪

♪ They said every one of you
will never try to lend a hand ♪

♪ When the policemen
don't understand ♪

♪ Boys, all you boys,
think it's so American ♪

♪ Girls, all you girls,
yeah, you're so American ♪

♪ There's two eyes
for every one of us ♪

♪ But somebody got there first
and took them all ♪

♪ There's two eyes
for every one of us ♪

♪ But somebody got there first
and took them all ♪

♪ Man, oh, man,
you think it's so American ♪

♪ Man, oh, man,
yeah, you're so American ♪

♪ Man, oh, man,
you think it's so American ♪

♪ Man, oh, man,
yeah, you're so American ♪

♪ There's two eyes
for every one of us ♪

♪ But somebody got there first
and took them all ♪

♪ There's two eyes
for every one of us ♪

♪ But somebody got there first
and took them all. ♪