CIA Report

[Malthus]

WTF does "just waterboarding" mean anyway?  Since when did waterboarding become "just waterboarding"?

Apparently it used to be torture - when the Japanese did it to US soldiers ... the US had them tried for war crimes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

[11B4V]

"Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we'd baptize terrorists."- Palin

[Malthus]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I don't get it. Obviously, it would be preferable to have prosecutions - but if they won't do that, seems to me, having the maytter made public is better than not.

[garbon]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I don't get it. Obviously, it would be preferable to have prosecutions - but if they won't do that, seems to me, having the maytter made public is better than not.

Right?

[11B4V]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I don't get it. Obviously, it would be preferable to have prosecutions - but if they won't do that, seems to me, having the maytter made public is better than not.

The AP dont give a shit.

[Martinus]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I don't get it. Obviously, it would be preferable to have prosecutions - but if they won't do that, seems to me, having the maytter made public is better than not.

I don't know. What purpose does it serve if no real consequences are to follow? That some politicos and pundits stage out a morality play about how "we always do the right thing in the end"? Then the cost of releasing such a report is much greater than the benefit. We are not in kindergarten. We are adults.

The US government is acting like a cheating husband who is hit by remorse, confesses and then expects to be praised for being so honest and transparent.

[crazy canuck]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I see, so if a criminal prosecution is not possible because of say immunity from prosecution no one should ever know that something like this happened?  Now that is an interesting view.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know. What purpose does it serve if no real consequences are to follow? We are not in kindergarten. We are adults.

The government is accountable to the people.  That means the people get to know what is being done in their name and with their resources.

[11B4V]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I don't get it. Obviously, it would be preferable to have prosecutions - but if they won't do that, seems to me, having the maytter made public is better than not.

I don't know. What purpose does it serve if no real consequences are to follow? That some politicos and pundits stage out a morality play about how "we always do the right thing in the end"? Then the cost of releasing such a report is much greater than the benefit. We are not in kindergarten. We are adults.

The US government is acting like a cheating husband who is hit by remorse, confesses and then expects to be praised for being so honest and transparent.

essentially yes.

[Martinus]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

I gotta say I agree. I don't buy the whole "naming and shaming" and "learning from mistakes" bullshit. Not when someone is alleging war crimes.

I see, so if a criminal prosecution is not possible because of say immunity from prosecution no one should ever know that something like this happened?  Now that is an interesting view.

It's not like the reveal happens from an agency that is unable to prosecute. It is done by the US government. Who can prosecute but chooses not to. If you allege someone committed crimes as horrible as that, and yet choose not to prosecute, it means you are either morally bankrupt or lying.

[Razgovory]

So when are they prosecuting.

Is that gonna happen?

I've been told elsewhere that it is unlikely to happen for political reasons... what do you all think? Will it be shock and disgust and eventually it'll go away? Or will there be actual repercussions for the responsible parties?

What's the point of releasing the report if no prosecutions are going to follow? I am asking seriously - this is not a rhetorical question.

If there is a crime, there must be a punishment. Otherwise it is just snuff film voyeurism and claptrap about how "we overcome our inner darkness", "do the right thing in the end" and similar bullshit.

Political BS

Like those people going on about Benghazi then?

[Admiral Yi]

How much in the report is new information?  We already knew about waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, sleep deprivation, loud music, stress positions, etc.

[Malthus]

I don't know. What purpose does it serve if no real consequences are to follow? We are not in kindergarten. We are adults.

The US government is acting like a cheating husband who is hit by remorse, confesses and then expects to be praised for being so honest and transparent.

Not having prosecutions and not having consequences are two different things. The "consequences" are presumably political. 11B4V may well be correct that Americans "don't give a shit", but then again, he may be wrong: they at least have the right to know what the fuck their government is doing so they can decide, right?

Say the opposite happened - the matter was kept strictly secret, but everyone who participated - presumably, a bunch of anonymous spooks and some bureaucrats and politicos - were prosecuted and punished (in strictest secrecy, natch.) Would those "consequences" be so much greater?

[11B4V]

When Putin heard of this he prbably said, "WTF are they doing  , silly self righteous Americans."

[Martinus]

How much in the report is new information?  We already knew about waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, sleep deprivation, loud music, stress positions, etc.

Deaths, hypothermia, being made to stand on broken limbs, anal "feeding" - these are new, at least to me.

Also, the high rate of people who turned out to be innocent in the end.