CIA Report

[The Minsky Moment]

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

I'm sure he did.  But we don't and shouldn't measure what to do based on WWVD.  Quite the opposite, I would say the Putin's views on a matter should be a contrary indicator to the proper course of conduct.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

These are the people that actively and knowingly manufactured an artificial invasion and war on false pretenses, costing 4,500 US serviceman deaths, the deaths of over 150,000 Iraqi civilians, obscene billions of US dollars, and committing the biggest mistake in US foreign policy history by destabilizing the most geopolitically fragile regions on the planet. 
If they're not going to be held accountable for that, you think they're going to be sweating what they did over 150 evildoers?

[Jacob]

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.

It seems to me that that is the logical outcome of accepting 11B4V's analysis. Basically I'm equating "nothing happens and no one gives a shit, and then the next thing comes along and everybody forgets about it" with "accepting torture as the new normal." If we accept that there are only three possible outcomes - prosecution (which seems unlikely), political consequences (which seems more likely than prosecution by some margin), or "no one gives a shit" (which of the three seems most likely), then yeah that's what it is.

But you don't accept 11B4V's argument, I don't think, and I'm not sure I do either... but that conclusion does seem to follow from what he says. It seems to me that if you say "nothing's going to happen, ultimately it doesn't matter, I don't care, and people making a big deal of it are doing so for reasons of self interest and are no better or no worse than the people who implemented this" then yeah, it sounds to me that you're accepting that torture is the new normal. And it does kind of sound to me like that's what 11B4V is saying, so that's what I'm trying to get at in my conversation with him.

I don't actually have an argument about what's going to happen at this point. What I think can be summed up as follows:

1. That this happened is abhorrent. I don't like to apply the label evil to many things, but I think this is.

2. That this has come to light, and in the way it has, is in my view a testament to the strength of the American system in particular, and the Western system in general.

3. I hope there is going to be some sort of justice that follows from this, ideally one that's more about due process than karmic justice as it were. I honestly don't know enough about the American system to speculate on what shape that could take, or to advance or counter cynical opinions about who is doing what and why.

The bottom line is that I think this is a big deal and that I have no idea how it will play out. I am actually very curious to hear what you think the possible range of outcomes are.

[Jacob]

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.

If you're saying prosecution should be left on the table, and that it's your preferred outcome then I misread your argument. Apologies.

[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.

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.

I am curious as to why you quoted my post before your response, since your post seems to have nothing to do with mine.  I am not saying any of the words that you are putting in my mouth; in fact, I have called for prosecutions both in this thread and in every related thread we have had.  These are war crimes; no statute of limitations.

I question, however, the ideas that, absent prosecutions, these crimes should not be made public, or that, absent prosecution, they are explicitly condoned by whatever posters here are calling "the American Public" or "the US government."

As for what Jacob is saying, I am asking him (not you) for clarification of my interpretation of his post.  Surely that is allowed without you needing to get all huffy about it?

[grumbler]

These are the people that actively and knowingly manufactured an artificial invasion and war on false pretenses, costing 4,500 US serviceman deaths, the deaths of over 150,000 Iraqi civilians, obscene billions of US dollars, and committing the biggest mistake in US foreign policy history by destabilizing the most geopolitically fragile regions on the planet. 
If they're not going to be held accountable for that, you think they're going to be sweating what they did over 150 evildoers?

Some will, some won't.  I still think the report is valuable and should have been published.

[grumbler]

It seems to me that that is the logical outcome of accepting 11B4V's analysis. Basically I'm equating "nothing happens and no one gives a shit, and then the next thing comes along and everybody forgets about it" with "accepting torture as the new normal." If we accept that there are only three possible outcomes - prosecution (which seems unlikely), political consequences (which seems more likely than prosecution by some margin), or "no one gives a shit" (which of the three seems most likely), then yeah that's what it is.

What about "people give a shit, but there are no prosecutions or drastic political consequences"?  I don't understand the "nobody gives a shit" alternative given the furor over this report already; surely, if no one gave a shit, there would be no controversy at all?

But you don't accept 11B4V's argument, I don't think, and I'm not sure I do either... but that conclusion does seem to follow from what he says. It seems to me that if you say "nothing's going to happen, ultimately it doesn't matter, I don't care, and people making a big deal of it are doing so for reasons of self interest and are no better or no worse than the people who implemented this" then yeah, it sounds to me that you're accepting that torture is the new normal. And it does kind of sound to me like that's what 11B4V is saying, so that's what I'm trying to get at in my conversation with him.

I think 11B4V's argument about the "AP" is vapid and cynical.  The string of positions you have here is just one of an almost infinite number of strings of possibilities (not that I disagree that that string seems to me to be B4's position), and hence of little to no interest to me.

I don't actually have an argument about what's going to happen at this point. What I think can be summed up as follows:

1. That this happened is abhorrent. I don't like to apply the label evil to many things, but I think this is.

2. That this has come to light, and in the way it has, is in my view a testament to the strength of the American system in particular, and the Western system in general.

3. I hope there is going to be some sort of justice that follows from this, ideally one that's more about due process than karmic justice as it were. I honestly don't know enough about the American system to speculate on what shape that could take, or to advance or counter cynical opinions about who is doing what and why.

The bottom line is that I think this is a big deal and that I have no idea how it will play out. I am actually very curious to hear what you think the possible range of outcomes are.

Fair enough.  I happen to agree with all of those statements.  I think, though, that there are meaningful consequences short of prosecution or major political fallout.  For one, no one can any longer pretend that Congressional oversight of the intelligence community has been meaningful or in accordance with their constitutional responsibilities.  Either the CIA has lied to Congress, or Congress has lied to the American people.  Now that that is in the open, Congress is going to be forced to reconsider how they handle the whole "trust us, we're the CIA' sorts of testimony.

[Berkut]

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.

It's politics. Duh.

[Berkut]

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.

But I thought we found out from this report that interrogation doesn't work. I think we should stop doing any kind of coercive attempts to get information, because Congress has shown that it is a complete waste of time.

[Martinus]

I get what you guys are saying and I suppose saying that it would have been better if the report was not published was probably wrong - but I also think you are overestimating its consequences if noone is prosecuted:

- those personally politically liable (like Bush and Cheney) are pretty much already out of politics - so it does not really hurt them;
- both Republican and Democrat administrations are implicated in human rights abuses (with Obama doing drone strikes instead of torture) - so people will continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats like they did before;
- I don't buy the argument that it will affect behaviour of secret services. How? Did they not know beforehand that doing this horrible shit is wrong? If they didn't, then no amount of public handwringing and condemnation will help as these people are sociopaths (or at least doing evil Zimbardo-experiment style). So nothing will change. In fact, when in future someone has qualms or is afraid of consequences, his more cynical bosses will just point to this case as a proof that the worst that can happen is someone publishing a report after a decade - with your name conveniently redacted out - and noone will ever be prosecuted.

So if noone is prosecuted for this, this report will not change anything, in my opinion. It's just empty air and an excuse for Americans to acknowledge that they did "make things right", and feel good about themselves despite the horrible crimes they committed. Sorry.

[Sheilbh]

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.

How does the report make Congress look good? They had extensive investigatory powers that weren't used at all. As the Economist says this looks like a Committee exercising hindsight not oversight.

Even if we believe them that they were misled I think it just raises the concern that they were, perhaps, wilfully blind.

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?

Presumably they could pass some form of legislation? Or they could launch an investigation with the threat of it being read into the record? In the UK Parliamentary Privilege would cover the Official Secrets Act so they could reveal it, I know the US has a similar provision, I'm not sure if it would cover this?

[CountDeMoney]

implicated in human rights abuses (with Obama doing drone strikes instead of torture) -

[Sheilbh]

Interesting given the worry about the reaction in the Middle East. That was always overblown because I've never really thought Islamist extremists needed much of an excuse to kill people, and things may still kick off once they've done some organising. But generally it seems incredibly muted. I imagine it's because, especially since Abu Ghraib, they expect the US to behave like this and none of the regimes who are either implicated or just as bad really want to draw attention to it.

[crazy canuck]

I get what you guys are saying and I suppose saying that it would have been better if the report was not published was probably wrong - but I also think you are overestimating its consequences if noone is prosecuted:

To the contrary I think people are overestimating the consequences of a criminal prosecution:

-years of procedural and jurisdictional wrangling;
-a lot of evidence being subject to sealing orders because they relate to national security;
-plea bargains
- etc

In short a process that is not as illuminating as the report which was just released.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

Drone strikes are largely no different than targeted surgical strikes that have been carried out under Presidential whim essentially as long as we've had a modern air force capable of doing such a thing, and never successfully legally challenged to my knowledge. The only difference with drones is it allows us to do those without putting skin in the game, which means we are willing to do them more often. People believe this makes them fundamentally different, but that just smacks of people being bitchy because we've found a way to have our cake and eat it too.