Copyright is a restriction on public access on this document that is meant to be released without restrictions. This is a powerful argument we shouldn't exclude. Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to everyone.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there a discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the website? You cannot really blame me as the terms and conditions of the websites makes no mention of it.The website should echo the copyright of the report, not override it. This is an issue that can be fixed.
Are classified attachments also under the same license? They should be but is this explicitly stated anywhere? How about interviews recorded by the BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)? Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including pdfs).