CIA Report

[Duque de Bragança]

Not exactly, the Battle of Algiers was a military success, but a PR disaster.

Sure. But it's a little disingenuous to limit torture to the Battle of Algiers, it was a weapon used by French forces throughout the Algerian campaign and was routine for the security forces in Algeria. Arguably it helped the Battle of Algiers' military success but that also has to be balanced against the numerous other military and security failures where it didn't help, and possibly balance that up against it's negative security implications.

In addition to that you have the PR costs and the social costs. I'd also add that I remember reading that there's very significant psychiatric costs in the veterans who become torturers for us.

After the Battle of Algiers, the French military was on the offensive with the Challes plan, until de Gaulle changed his mind on Algeria so there were not numerous other military and security failures.
Before yes, but it was not on a systematic scale and kind of improvised during the early, troubled times. There's also the fact that it was used by the FLN and it seemed to have worked well for them vs rival nationalist groups and neutrals.
Of course, torture was only one aspect in the counter-insurgency there, intoxication was very, if not more successful with the Bleuite http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleuite. Note that the Bleuite was an aftermath of the Battle of Algiers.
No question for the veterans who became torturers, though the sickest bunch seemed to be the one who wasn't repentant about, à la Aussaresses.
The even worse contractors so favoured nowadays in the US wars of late, is another even more unpleasant development.

[Sheilbh]

So you guys are inclined to take the Senate report at face value?

I've no doubt when the dust settles there will be a slightly different picture. It does seem to confirm all the drip-by-drip stories that we've had over the past 15 years of what went on especially in 2002-05.

The CIA were apparently briefing the Justice Department and the Senate that they were getting high-value, otherwise unobtainable information from these techniques. That doesn't seem to be the case - especially in a couple of examples in the report where the torture began before the interrogation - to soften them up. There are specific examples that the CIA gave to Bush of plots that were thwarted that on the documents quoted in this report weren't actually based on intelligence from torture.

The Senate report finds the Senate didn't do anything wrong? Shocking.

I think it's actually fairly damning. The Economist quotes a professor of government who explained the range of powers the Senate Intelligence Committee has such as subpoenaing documents, visiting special sites etc. They didn't do any of that. As he said it suggests a 'hindsight, not an oversight committee' which is problematic. Maybe if they'd been quick enough they could have seen some of the hundreds of hours of interrogations the CIA filmed before those tapes were destroyed.

Especially because I believe there's legitimate reasons for strong intelligence services which, in my view, in a democracy requires some democratic oversight.

This NYT Timeline's good:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/timeline-of-cias-secret-interrogation-program.html

[The Minsky Moment]

The CIA misled Congress and kept former President George W. Bush in the dark as it conducted interrogations of terror suspects that were far more brutal and less effective than publicly portrayed, according to a report by Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee.

So you guys are inclined to take the Senate report at face value?

Here is the relevant excerpt from the CIA press release that derspiess linked to above

We also disagree with the Study's characterization of how CIA briefed the program to the Congress, various entities within the Executive Branch, and the public. While we made mistakes, the record does not support the Study's inference that the Agency systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences on the effectiveness of the program

Translating from bureaucrats to English using some lawyer-fu, I note:
1) Brennan defends the briefings with respect to the "effectiveness" of the program.  He is silent on the charge that the briefings did not accurately disclose the severity of the methods.  Silence of course is not affirmative proof, but it is telling and certain reasonable inferences could be drawn.
2) Even as to effectiveness, the defense of the briefings is only partial; it is not a denial that the briefings might have been incomplete or even misleading, just that there weren't "systematically and intentionally" so

Case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  But until I hear more, I wouldn't dismiss the Senate version, even if it is conveniently self-serving.

[KRonn]

Does anybody doubt at this point that Cheney is basically a pathological liar?  This guy doesn't just obfuscate- at this point, we should be able to have him lie down and use his nose as a space elevator.

It would be nice to see him get charged, but that would never happen.

As much as I disagree with what was done with the interrogations and torture and might agree on charges being brought, wouldn't that also open up Obama to charges at some point for the drone strikes he's been authorizing? That's been a quiet but kind of hot topic for some who think it kills too indiscriminately.

Many Congress members signed off on most of the enhanced interrogation methods, received frequent briefings, etc. And the US had signed an international agreement on non use of torture under the Reagan admin so if these people thought torture was being used then how can they justify it, then release still another report on it and think they're smearing someone else but they're clean?

[CountDeMoney]

Ashcroft was a bad egg but comparatively speaking was ambivalent on this issue.  The real bad guys were centered the VP office, including Cheney himself, and his repulsive advisor (later chief of staff) David Addington. Cheney also colonized John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos, who although technically Ashcroft's subordinate, appears not to have enjoyed Ashcroft's confidence (he refused to recommend Yoo for promotion).  Another key player was the ubiquitous Alberto Gonzales, whose fingerprints were all over virtually every fiasco and disgraceful act of the Bush presidency.  And of course Rumsfeld.

Cheney and Rumsfeld, veterans of the Nixon White House.  Leopards never change their spots.

[Martinus]

Ashcroft was a bad egg but comparatively speaking was ambivalent on this issue.  The real bad guys were centered the VP office, including Cheney himself, and his repulsive advisor (later chief of staff) David Addington. Cheney also colonized John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos, who although technically Ashcroft's subordinate, appears not to have enjoyed Ashcroft's confidence (he refused to recommend Yoo for promotion).  Another key player was the ubiquitous Alberto Gonzales, whose fingerprints were all over virtually every fiasco and disgraceful act of the Bush presidency.  And of course Rumsfeld.

Cheney and Rumsfeld, veterans of the Nixon White House.  Leopards never change their spots.

I believe the proper expression is "Leopards never change their shorts."

[CountDeMoney]

As much as I disagree with what was done with the interrogations and torture and might agree on charges being brought, wouldn't that also open up Obama to charges at some point for the drone strikes he's been authorizing? That's been a quiet but kind of hot topic for some who think it kills too indiscriminately.

You know, I wouldn't think so, as drone strikes could be crafted as operating under battlefield conditions, as opposed to prisoner/detainee issues.  But I'm sure it will flair up one of these days.

Many Congress members signed off on most of the enhanced interrogation methods, received frequent briefings, etc. And the US had signed an international agreement on non use of torture under the Reagan admin so if these people thought torture was being used then how can they justify it, then release still another report on it and think they're smearing someone else but they're clean?

Easy how they can justify it.  And "enhanced interrogation techniques" were internally vetted by the administration's lawyers;  whether or not it was the correct legal interpretation (see Minsky's post above re: Al Gonzales), that grants it an air of legitimacy, which carries a lot more weight that pie-in-the-sky Euroweenie "international agreements", especially when it comes to national security and smoking evildoers out of their holes.

[KRonn]

Yep, I tend to think the same about drone strikes but we do tend to hear complaints and issues over it. I just hope that doesn't also come back to bite our arses as well.

The Bush administration's lawyers were a tough group. They gave cover to this but now we're going after the CIA members. Seems we should be going after the lawyers who authorized it more so than those who did the work thinking it was legal and sanctioned by Congress. This is a mess if they go after people now, as I think was tried earlier in the Obama admin. I can understand wanting to but IMO those who sanctioned it are the major players, if anyone is to be brought up on charges.

[Capetan Mihali]

It seems to me that the US hurt itself for basically nothing.

No, the US hurt a bunch of other people for basically nothing.

[Capetan Mihali]

Not exactly, the Battle of Algiers was a military success, but a PR disaster.

Sure. But it's a little disingenuous to limit torture to the Battle of Algiers, it was a weapon used by French forces throughout the Algerian campaign and was routine for the security forces in Algeria. Arguably it helped the Battle of Algiers' military success but that also has to be balanced against the numerous other military and security failures where it didn't help, and possibly balance that up against it's negative security implications.

In addition to that you have the PR costs and the social costs. I'd also add that I remember reading that there's very significant psychiatric costs in the veterans who become torturers for us.

I was going to include an OAS reference in my half-serious post about torture and morale.  I don't think you'd get that kind of extreme solidarity on the part of the French military without the pervasive experience of torture (i.e. of having tortured).

[The Minsky Moment]

The Bush administration's lawyers were a tough group. They gave cover to this but now we're going after the CIA members. Seems we should be going after the lawyers who authorized it more so than those who did the work thinking it was legal and sanctioned by Congress.

I agree.  The CIA officers should have used better judgment and basic human decency.  They can be faulted for that.  But CIA did specifically request a legal opinion and the opinions they got back were horribly wrong.  That is root of the evil. 

During the latter half of the Bush administration there was an internal probe into Yao and his boss (Jay Bybee) and the original draft recommended sanctions in the form of referrals to state bar disciplinary committees.  That draft was quashed internally and ultimately the inquiry was inherited by the Obama administration, with Holder preferring to punt on it rather than risk a partisan squabble.

[Admiral Yi]

During the latter half of the Bush administration there was an internal probe into Yao and his boss (Jay Bybee) and the original draft recommended sanctions in the form of referrals to state bar disciplinary committees.

For having the wrong opinion? 

Re incomplete briefings: even if we take as given that members of Congress weren't given the full picture, I don't see how that lets them off the hook.  The fact remains they were aware of the use of EIT.  Well actually we all were, come to think of it.

[The Minsky Moment]

During the latter half of the Bush administration there was an internal probe into Yao and his boss (Jay Bybee) and the original draft recommended sanctions in the form of referrals to state bar disciplinary committees.

For having the wrong opinion? 

We aren't talking about "opinions" in the sense that you or I express our points of view.  These were instructions and guides to action about matters that were literally a question of life or death.  It involved the responsible officials of the legal arm of the US government telling operatives in the field that they need not obey the law.

Actions have consequences.  If the CEO of Acme muses to himself about how nice it would be to monopolize trade, it is mere "opinion".  But if he expresses that opinion to the CEO of competitor Schmacme, it is something more.  It is, in fact, criminal.

[Malthus]

The CIA misled Congress and kept former President George W. Bush in the dark as it conducted interrogations of terror suspects that were far more brutal and less effective than publicly portrayed, according to a report by Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee.

So you guys are inclined to take the Senate report at face value?

Here's what the CIA has to say on the point:

We also disagree with the Study's characterization of how CIA briefed the program to the Congress, various entities within the Executive Branch, and the public. While we made mistakes, the record does not support the Study's inference that the Agency systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences on the effectiveness of the program. Moreover, the process undertaken by the Committee when investigating the program provided an incomplete and selective picture of what occurred. As noted in the Minority views and in a number of additional views of Members, no interviews were conducted of any CIA officers involved in the program, which would have provided Members with valuable context and perspective surrounding these events.

This is very carefully worded.

He isn't saying that the CIA did not mislead. He is saying that "the record does not support the ... inference ... that the Agency systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences on the effectiveness of the program".

Three things to say about that:

(1) "The record does not support the inference" is not the same as "it did not happen". More of the ilk that "in our opinion, you haven't proved it".

(2) "systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences" - should it turn out that they mislead intentionally, but not systematically? Or systematically, but not intentionally? Or not all of the audiences - say, just Cobgress and the Public, but not the Executive? Well, it would still be a true statement ... 

(3) The statement is that they didn't mislead (subject to the caveats above) concerning the effectiveness of the program. What about its alleged brutality?

[DGuller]

During the latter half of the Bush administration there was an internal probe into Yao and his boss (Jay Bybee) and the original draft recommended sanctions in the form of referrals to state bar disciplinary committees.

For having the wrong opinion? 

For lawyers, their opinion is a work product, upon which other people must rely.  Having your work product be defective seems like a good reason for professional organization to sanction you.  Sometimes I'm really amazed and dismayed by some of your  questions.