CIA Report

[Martinus]

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?

I think it would be better both in terms of justice and national security.

[Jacob]

The possibility of partisanship raises in turn the possibility that the characterizations are not objective, but rather slanted to drive a particular narrative.

To me the Feinstein report has two objectives: to say that the CIA (and by extension their bosses in the White House) are really, really bad, and that Congress is good.  This separation rests on the claim about not being fully informed.

I don't think this works.  For this to work the level of EIT Congress was informed about would need to be morally acceptable, and tip over to morally unacceptable right at the point that Congress was no longer informed.  We were OK with waterboarding high value targets, but not with no pants on a concrete floor.

I'm okay with shit spilling out and hitting congress. I'm perfectly fine with that happening, and I'm sure the report can be criticized on the ways it tries to mitigate that. But the central issue is still that the torture happened, that it happened on that scale, and that it was wrong; and ideally that there are consequences for that. If some of that ends up on Congress, that's fine as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think sticking it to Congress is the first order of business given they're the ones who are raising the issue in a significant way.

[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?

I think it would be better both in terms of justice and national security.

I disagree - in a democracy, accountability is ultimately based on the public's knowledge of what its government is doing.

[Jacob]

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

Who gives a fuck what Putin thinks?

[Jacob]

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.

And that the claims of "actionable information" were, in fact, fabrications.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The possibility of partisanship raises in turn the possibility that the characterizations are not objective, but rather slanted to drive a particular narrative.

To me the Feinstein report has two objectives: to say that the CIA (and by extension their bosses in the White House) are really, really bad, and that Congress is good.  This separation rests on the claim about not being fully informed.

I don't think this works.  For this to work the level of EIT Congress was informed about would need to be morally acceptable, and tip over to morally unacceptable right at the point that Congress was no longer informed.  We were OK with waterboarding high value targets, but not with no pants on a concrete floor.

I'm okay with shit spilling out and hitting congress. I'm perfectly fine with that happening, and I'm sure the report can be criticized on the ways it tries to mitigate that. But the central issue is still that the torture happened, that it happened on that scale, and that it was wrong; and ideally that there are consequences for that. If some of that ends up on Congress, that's fine as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think sticking it to Congress is the first order of business given they're the ones who are raising the issue in a significant way.

I think the first order of business is ensuring the "ends justify the means" attitude being displayed by Cheney and other former administration officials gets purged and unequivocally demonstrated to be unacceptable.  That attitude facilitated this program, and if allowed to fester could facilitate worse in the future.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm okay with shit spilling out and hitting congress. I'm perfectly fine with that happening, and I'm sure the report can be criticized on the ways it tries to mitigate that. But the central issue is still that the torture happened, that it happened on that scale, and that it was wrong; and ideally that there are consequences for that. If some of that ends up on Congress, that's fine as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think sticking it to Congress is the first order of business given they're the ones who are raising the issue in a significant way.

This raises an interesting question, and if anyone knows the answer I'd be happy to hear it.

The two intelligence committees had oversight at the time this was taking place.  Assuming they objected morally, or thought it was illegal, what could they have done about it?  Defund it?  Prosecute?  Refer it to the DoJ?

Because unless their hands were tied by the covert (in theory) nature of the program, in which case oversight of covert ops doesn't work, those committee members and the leadership of the two bodies were complicit.

[Jacob]

This raises an interesting question, and if anyone knows the answer I'd be happy to hear it.

The two intelligence committees had oversight at the time this was taking place.  Assuming they objected morally, or thought it was illegal, what could they have done about it?  Defund it?  Prosecute?  Refer it to the DoJ?

Because unless their hands were tied by the covert (in theory) nature of the program, in which case oversight of covert ops doesn't work, those committee members and the leadership of the two bodies were complicit.

Yeah, that is interesting, and I'd like to hear the answer to this as well.

I suppose they could have introduced legislation to change the practices, since that would override an executive order. It's probably politically inexpedient, of course. But I don't know...

As an aside to that, I believe they're alleging that they were kept in the dark about the nature of some of this - and the results - by the agencies and/or the executive and that that malfeance makes them not (or at least less) complicit. I don't know how solid that is, however.

[11B4V]

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

Who gives a fuck what Putin thinks?

exactly

[11B4V]

I'm okay with shit spilling out and hitting congress. I'm perfectly fine with that happening, and I'm sure the report can be criticized on the ways it tries to mitigate that. But the central issue is still that the torture happened, that it happened on that scale, and that it was wrong; and ideally that there are consequences for that. If some of that ends up on Congress, that's fine as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think sticking it to Congress is the first order of business given they're the ones who are raising the issue in a significant way.

This raises an interesting question, and if anyone knows the answer I'd be happy to hear it.

The two intelligence committees had oversight at the time this was taking place.  Assuming they objected morally, or thought it was illegal, what could they have done about it?  Defund it?  Prosecute?  Refer it to the DoJ?

Because unless their hands were tied by the covert (in theory) nature of the program, in which case oversight of covert ops doesn't work, those committee members and the leadership of the two bodies were complicit.

Yip.

They will most in likely enact legislation banning what they already banned. Returning to the Interrogation methods in Human Intelligence Collector Operations, which is basically where we are at the present time.

One big complete circle and the AP wont give nor gave a shit.

[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.

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.

Are you really suggesting that the only legitimate method of informing the public of government misdeeds is through a criminal court process.  I suppose if one lived in a dictatorial country that would probably be true but in most democracies it is generally held to be good practice to inform the electorate directly and not through the vagaries of a legal process.

[grumbler]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

Are those really the only possibilities?   Either prosecute crimes, or hide the fact that they occurred?  I personally can think of several plausible alternatives to (1) pretending that crimes didn't happened and (2) prosecuting those crimes, but I'd like to hear your confirmation of your apparent argument before we go forward.

I'd also like to hear Jacob confirm that the only alternative to prosecution or "political consequences" is that the American people accept torture as "the new normal."  That seems a pretty extreme argument, if that is, indeed, his argument.

[grumbler]

I think the first order of business is ensuring the "ends justify the means" attitude being displayed by Cheney and other former administration officials gets purged and unequivocally demonstrated to be unacceptable.  That attitude facilitated this program, and if allowed to fester could facilitate worse in the future.

Agreed, and the mere publication of the report helps with that process, even if no prosecutions result.  At least, now, the perps will know that they will be outed in the end, even if they don't, for political reasons, spend time in the pokey.

[CountDeMoney]

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

The Mexican Federales used to do it on everybody from cartel members to American kids fucking up over the border, but with cans of soda.  Ever get that nasty carbonated sinus burn from a Coke (or Pepsi, if you prefer) when you accidentally hiccup?  Imagine an entire can or 5 poured in there.  Enjoy.

[11B4V]

Was EIT legal at the time?

No

Then prosecute or they should STFU.

Are those really the only possibilities?   Either prosecute crimes, or hide the fact that they occurred?  I personally can think of several plausible alternatives to (1) pretending that crimes didn't happened and (2) prosecuting those crimes, but I'd like to hear your confirmation of your apparent argument before we go forward.

I'd also like to hear Jacob confirm that the only alternative to prosecution or "political consequences" is that the American people accept torture as "the new normal."  That seems a pretty extreme argument, if that is, indeed, his argument.

So, you are saying the US government is OK not to prosecute, despite all not being known. i.e complicity of congress, Bush executive branch, CIA, contractors, etc. There is no denying that it (torture) did occur by the current definition. Who all has shitty pants in this? You just going to give them a pass??? I think that option (prosecution) should be left open and on the table.


I dont think that is what Jacob is saying. You're leaping.