Director of the CIA John Brennan gave an unprecedented press conference complete with questions, which was "countered" by the departing chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne FeinsteinThe case for protecting America's intelligence agency whistleblowers Senate confirms Trump's first lower-court nominee Feinstein: Comey memos 'going to be turned over' MORE (D-Calif.) on Twitter.

The released report on CIA torture of her Senate Intelligence Committee by fellow Democrats was rejected by committee Republicans. It must be made clear that the "report" was not a committee report; it was entirely a Democratic report prepared by Democrats.

ADVERTISEMENT
The committee staff, with Feinstein's oversight, chose not to interview anyone at the CIA who participated in the now-banned policy of "enhanced interrogation." Any claim made by this report must be viewed as partisan baloney.

Feinstein, notwithstanding her senior senator status, falls far short of justifying the release of the report. If the report's conclusions are correct, why are no charges being filed by American history's most political Department of Justice? Why didn’t the same Obama-dominated Department of Justice file any charges against any CIA officers in 2012, after investigating the CIA and the alleged torture for three years?

Then again, why no public debate about the use of the word "torture" to begin with? Were any of these fanatical terrorists entitled to Geneva Conventions protections? Did they meet bare requirements of fighting in uniform, fighting for a government, fighting in organized units?

It should be noted that Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt held secret tribunals for captured German spies and executed them. Did the first Republican Senate after those secret executions investigate Roosevelt and his administration for violating the Geneva Conventions?

Were any of what the committee called "tortures" really tortures? Were any of these activities approved by the government before they were implemented?

If all these things happened, what right did a bunch of Senate worker bees have to attempt passing judgment on officers who were told they and their activities were legal when they asked?

Back to Feinstein. She was famous for sponsoring a law banning "assault rifles" just because they looked like assault rifles. It was obvious then she simply didn't have any idea what an assault rifle was.

We must remind everyone that the senior senator from California voted for George W. Bush using force against Iraq in 2003 after she personally reviewed intelligence. When Iraq turned into a stressful war, she bailed. The same was true of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and others.

We must also note that Feinstein (and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.]) was briefed by top CIA officials, including most of the time by the director of the CIA's Clandestine Service, Jose Rodriguez. He briefed Feinstein and others specifically about these activities that she now criticizes.

Feinstein never uttered a complaint or objection to the activities of which she was briefed 40 — forty — times by Rodriguez and others.

Joining Feinstein in criticizing decade-old CIA activities, almost all of which were approved and monitored by lawyers and doctors, are some of the nations she has helped immensely with this suspect report: Russia, China and Iran.

Has she rejected their support of her report? Russia shoots civilian airliners out of the sky, Iranian mullahs slaughter their own dissidents and China battles freedom-seeking Hong Kong students. Those nations benefit — propaganda-wise — from the Feinstein report.

Other countries will also weigh in and those countries that partnered with, for example, what began as President Clinton's "rendition" policy that later locked up terrorists in other countries ranging from Egypt to Poland and Romania, will certainly hesitate to work with the U.S. in the future.

Lastly, the purely partisan Democratic report of purely partisan Democrat Feinstein states flatly that enhanced interrogation did not work and that it did not contribute "at all" to the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Jose Rodriguez says it did. Current CIA director, Obama-appointee John Brennan says it did. Clinton-appointed CIA Director George Tenet says the program produced valuable information. Porter Goss ran the agency when it started the program. He was followed by Gen. Michael Hayden and later by Obama-appointee Leon Panetta, who was director when bin Laden was shot and killed.

Every single one of these CIA directors declare that information gleaned from terrorists who were interrogated using the now-Feinstein-exposed enhanced interrogation gave up valuable information, including information that was part of the intelligence matrix that eventually delivered bin Laden.

On balance, Feinstein's report simply does not pass the smell test. Why didn't her staff interview anyone from the CIA, including directors and deputy directors or the program's boss, Rodriguez? Why does she deny being briefed on the program when CIA officers — mostly Rodriguez — personally briefed her up to 40 separate times on enhanced interrogation?

Will she now issue a report on the heinous activities of Cuban brothers Fidel and Raúl Castro? Will she itemize their imprisonment, torture and mass executions of thousands of liberty-hungry Cubans over the years that her committee knows it can prove?

Maybe she'll tweet out something after talking to Fidel Castro.

Contreras formerly wrote for the New American News Service of The New York Times.