(The memo also signaled, according to a source familiar with the issue, that the agency would cooperate with the review--a major step away from the previous eight years.)

Most notably, however, it's unclear how much, if any, of the review will be made public: the committee will make that decision at the appropriate time, according to a source.

Hence, some mixed feelings among those who want a public investigation with criminal ramifications.

"At long last, it's extremely good that the Intelligence Committee is going to take a long and hard look at the interrogation policies and follow the chain of command as to who made which decisions and who approved which decisions," Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren told me in a phone interview. His group was one of over 20 to call on Attorney General Eric Holder in February to launch a criminal investigation of the Bush administration.

But Warren says he's "very concerned" that the information gathered by the committee should be made public.

"The only reason why this harsh interrogation program, this abusive interrogation program, has been able to go on for so long is that it's been shielded from public review, it's been shielded from congressional oversight, and it's been shielded in the courts," said Warren, whose group represents many detainees. "If we've learned any lesson in the last eight yeas, it's that what's happening to our clients should be made public, and that the people who were involved in these activities...should be held accountable."

So while Feinstein's committee is taking that long, hard look at the CIA, it's unlikely that the investigation will satisfy those on the left and in the civil liberties community calling for open proceedings and criminal ramifications to prove, more forcefully, the axiom "no one is above the law."

The Democratic Congress--and the Intelligence Committee, to be sure--have caught criticism for not being more assertive in exercising oversight of the Bush administration. Today's announcement may start to alleviate those concerns, especially as Feinstein has already taken a more assertive role in reviewing the Bush administration than her predecessor on the committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), but it all depends on how much faith groups like Warren's have in Congress's dedication to charging hard after secrets.

Whether or not the Senate Intelligence Committee is the place for punitive, public review is another matter--and certainly the committee almost never discloses the information it gets, as a policy. But those who have criticized Congress in the past, while happy that Feinstein is instigating this intensive oversight, likely won't get much quieter as a result.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.