On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to release a long-awaited report detailing the Central Intelligence Agency’s post-9/11 interrogation techniques. Also, the University of California system has maintained autonomy for 166 years, but that might be about to change. Then, President Obama will give his first TV interview since the Ferguson grand jury decision tonight on BET networks across the country.
Should the Senate Intelligence Committee release its CIA interrogation report?
On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to release a long-awaited report detailing the Central Intelligence Agency’s post-9/11 interrogation techniques. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been fighting to get the report out to the public since April. Political resistance against its release has been fierce. Critics from both sides of the aisle fear that the report might spur violence on American personnel overseas. On Friday, Secretary of State Jerry Kerry called Feinstein on behalf of the White House, asking her a postponement.
"I think this is a terrible idea," Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. "Foreign partners are telling us this will cause violence and deaths. Our own intelligence community has assessed that this will cause violence and deaths."
Others, including former CIA director Michael Hayden, chafe at the conclusions drawn by the report.
"To say that we relentlessly over an expanded period of time lied to everyone about a program that wasn't doing any good, that beggars the imagination," Hayden said on CBS's “Face The Nation.”
The report finds that the CIA overused harsh interrogation techniques and that they failed to obtain useful information.
Guest:
Steven Kleinman, former Air Force Reserve Colonel and veteran military interrogator who has spent his career in human intelligence. He was a senior interrogator in Panama, the first Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom
Jeffrey Addicott, Lt. Colonel (U.S. Army, ret.); Professor of Law at St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio, where he is the director of the Center for Terrorism Law; Addicott's a 20 year JAG officer and was senior legal counsel to the Green Berets
Autonomous no more: Proposed bill would take decision-making control away from University of California system
The University of California system has maintained autonomy for 166 years, but that might be about to change.
A new bill introduced by a bipartisan pair of state senators would take control of UC away from the university. Democrat Ricardo Lara of Los Angeles and Republican Anthony Cannella of Ceres introduced the bill, partially in response to tuition hikes the UC Board of Regents voted to approve last month. While it would not list any specific powers that lawmakers would have over UC, it does give elected officials the final say over any policy approved by the governor-appointed regents, who are currently the highest authority. Senator Lara favors a system more like what California State has, where its 23 campuses are subject to control by legislators when it comes to finances and other key decisions, even though it is still run by a Board of Trustees.
A similar bill failed to meet the two-thirds threshold in 2009. That bill was proposed by then-Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco, who was upset over the UC regents’ decision to approve six figure salaries and free housing for new chancellors at UC San Francisco and UC Davis.
The bill would require two-thirds approval in both the state Senate and the Assembly but does not require a signature from Governor Jerry Brown.
Do you think the UC system should be stripped of its autonomy? What do you think of the bill introduced by Sen. Lara and Sen. Cannella? How should power be delegated within the UC system?
Guests:
Sen. Ricardo Lara, Democratic California State Senator from Bell Gardens (L.A. County), introduced the bill with Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres)
Sen. Anthony Cannella, Republican California State Senator from Ceres (Stanislaus County), introduced
Eloy Ortiz Oakley, superintendent president of Long Beach Community College District and member of the UC Board of Regents
Rolling Stone retracts University of Virginia rape story
The Rolling Stone on Friday said it is no longer standing behind a story it published in its November issue that detailed an alleged gang rape of a freshman by a group of men at a University of Virginia fraternity party. The story, held as an example of the institutional indifference rape victims often feel on US college campuses, created quite a stir. In response to the allegations, the University of Virginia suspended all Greek activity last month and promised a thorough investigation.
But questions about the accuracy of the attack depicted in the story soon came to the fore. Slate.com wondered why the piece’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, never reached out to the seven alleged perpetrators for a comment. Then the Washington Post found that no current or former members of the fraternity involved in the alleged crime match the description of the man described in the article, who was identified as Drew.
On Friday, Rolling Stone's managing editor Will Dana issued a statement saying that “new information” the magazine obtained point to “discrepancies” in the alleged victim Jackie’s story.
“Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility,” the statement posted on the Rolling Stone website reads.
How would the retraction impact the conversation on campus assault the nation has been having? The incident points partially to the challenges faced by reporters and editors covering hot-button issues, what lessons can we draw from this?
Guest:
Jane Kirtley, professor media ethics and law at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota
Glass ceiling hits plateau for California business women
The gains of California's women business leaders has flat-lined for a straight decade, according to the latest annual study on the subject from UC Davis. Researcher Amanda Kimball examined the 400 most successful companies in California, which includes global powerhouses such as Wells Fargo, Yahoo! and Mattel. She found women hold just one in nine of the executive and board positions and earn less than their male counterparts - about 74 percent of men's earnings.
Some firms do stress gender diversity at the top. The 25 companies with the greatest gender diversity are also the highest earning, with greater annual revenue and net income. Still, correlation does not prove causality, so which came first? As for ethnicity, 90.6 percent of women directors are Caucasian, 4 percent Asian, 3.4 percent African American and 2 percent Latina.
During what years did women make the most gains in business leadership? What were the drivers then? What has changed?
Guests:
Amanda Kimball, Author of UC Davis Study of California Women Business Leaders
Elizabeth “Liz” Fetter, Five-time CEO in the Bay Area; Fetter has led software, telecom and technology businesses ranging in size from early startup to $5 billion in revenue.
After Ferguson, Garner, what should be President Obama's legacy on racial tensions?
President Obama will give his first TV interview since the Ferguson grand jury decided to not indict Officer Darren Wilson. The interview will air tonight on Black Entertainment Television (BET) networks across the country. President Obama has been criticized from multiple sides of the political spectrum for his leadership, or perceived lack thereof, on national stories surrounding racial issues, from Trayvon Martin’s killing to the most recent grand jury findings in Eric Garner’s death. Those on the left have criticized the President for taking too long to address what has happened in the past few weeks as well as for not stepping up and taking a hard enough stance on these issues. Criticism from the right has focused on how his comments may have inflamed racial tensions.
The President cannot appease all sides, particularly as he wears many hats. Some say that he should stand above the fray as the leader of the free world, and in support they cite his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention at which he stated, “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” In contrast, as the first mixed race American to hold the office of President of the United States, many believe that he has a moral obligation to protect a disadvantaged minority group of whom no other President has been a member. As the President actively shapes his legacy during the last two years of his tenure, the words he says and the actions he takes next are likely to form context for the future of the nation.
Should the President take a stance? What is his role in the conversation surrounding race relations in the United States? How will what he does next affect his legacy?
Guests:
Nia Malika Henderson, reporter, Washington Post
Joe Hicks, vice president, Community Advocates, Inc., a civil rights and human rights organization in Los Angeles
Jody Armour, Roy P. Crocker Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law