New York Times:  Published: March 2, 2005

       ASHINGTON, March 1 - The Republican 
 chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is 
 opposing a request by the panel's top Democrat to 
 investigate possible misconduct by the C.I.A. in the 
 treatment of terrorism suspects, Congressional 
 officials said Tuesday. 

 The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, is 
 insisting that any review be conducted only as part of 
 the committee's standard oversight role, not a 
 broader inquiry, an aide to Mr. Roberts said. 

 By contrast, the proposal by the Democratic vice 
 chairman, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West 
 Virginia, outlined by his staff for the first time on 
 Tuesday, calls for "an investigation into all matters 
 that have any tendency to reveal the full facts about 
 the detention, interrogation and rendition authority 
 and practices" used by government agencies for 
 intelligence purposes.

 Mr. Rockefeller said in a recent interview that he 
 believed that the committee should begin an inquiry 
 even before the Central Intelligence Agency's 
 inspector general completes at least a half-dozen 
 reviews now under way. 

 The C.I.A. has said it will provide its reports to the 
 committee, but in Congressional testimony last month, 
 Porter J. Goss, the intelligence chief, said he did not 
 know when the reviews would be completed.

 Among other things, Mr. Rockefeller is asking the 
 committee to conduct an inquiry into "all presidential 
 and other authorities for detention, interrogation and 
 rendition for intelligence purposes" since the Sept. 11 
 attacks. The word rendition refers to the transfer of 
 suspects to another country's custody, an 
 extrajudicial practice that the C.I.A. has used widely 
 since the attacks.

 Mr. Rockefeller also wants the panel to review "the 
 full facts" concerning the detention, interrogation and 
 rendition practices by American government 
 agencies, said his spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi. In 
 addition, a one-page draft proposal that Mr. 
 Rockefeller gave to Mr. Roberts last month calls for 
 a review of "the full facts" of what American agencies 
 know about the detention and interrogation practices 
 of the governments to which detainees are sent. Mr. 
 Roberts said in an interview last month that he and his 
 staff were reviewing a proposal by Mr. Rockefeller. 
 The Republican senator said at the time that he was 
 not sure that a formal investigation was warranted, 
 but he suggested that the two sides could agree on a 
 review, saying, "'I don't anticipate any difference of 
 opinion regarding the subject."

 But on Tuesday, an aide to Mr. Roberts said the 
 senator did not believe that a formal inquiry was 
 warranted. The subject of interrogation and detention 
 "will continue to be a focus of oversight for us," said 
 the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity 
 because of sensitivity about the internal discussions 
 among the committee's senior members.

 Within the C.I.A., there has been growing concern 
 over the possibility that career officers could be 
 prosecuted or otherwise punished for their conduct 
 during interrogations and detentions of terrorism 
 suspects since the Sept. 11 attacks. Government 
 officials say that the episodes being reviewed by the 
 agency's inspector general date from 2002, and that 
 at least three involve the deaths of prisoners in Iraq 
 and Afghanistan.

 It is not clear whether the episodes under review 
 include those involving an estimated three dozen 
 senior leaders of Al Qaeda being held by the C.I.A. 
 in secret prisons around the world, about which 
 virtually all details have remained secret.

 To date, only one C.I.A. employee, a contract 
 worker from North Carolina, has been charged with 
 a crime in connection with the treatment of prisoners, 
 stemming from a death in Afghanistan in June 2003. 
 But the officials have confirmed that the agency had 
 asked the Justice Department to review at least one 
 other case, from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 
 November 2003, to determine if a C.I.A. officer and 
 interpreter should face prosecution.