QuoteImpending CIA Interrogation Report Creates Fear of Violence
Dec 7, 2014, 7:36 PM ET
By ABC News
U.S. embassies around the world are bracing for a potentially explosive report about to be released that details what the CIA did to terror suspects in the days after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and the fear is that its release could threaten American lives.
The report, due to be released Tuesday by the Senate, is described as shocking in its very graphic descriptions of secret interrogations, including some details that have never been heard before.
All U.S. facilities around the world are being urged to review security and brace for the reaction, with concern particularly high in areas where there are hot spots, in the Middle East and North Africa.
The CIA and the Bush administration have already faced heavy criticism for post 9/11 interrogation techniques at so-called "black sites" across the world.
The use of waterboarding stopped many years ago, but, according to those who have seen this report, ugly new details about those procedures will be revealed, where prisoners were sexually demeaned, and CIA interrogators were urged to continue, even after concluding that no more information could be gleaned. (:blink:)
The Muslim world has erupted many times before when the U.S. and the West have been accused of religious and cultural slights. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said that if this report is released, groups like ISIS will take full advantage.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said in an interview with ABC News chief global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz that the report would provide ISIS and other terror organizations a public relations bonanza.
"They don't have to be accurate or right. They just have to believe it's true and they will take advantage of that," Rogers said. "We know that ISIL propaganda operations will -- this is the motherload for them."
Rogers said that there is credible warning that release of the report will endanger Americans around the world.
"You have foreign leaders saying this report in its current form will incite violence," he said. "You have liaison partners in the intelligence community saying this will incite violence. This will in fact incite violence and it's likely to cost someone their life."
He said he thinks the release of the report should at least be delayed.
"I am hoping that there is a change of heart between now and Tuesday to at least suspend the report," he said.
Obama administration officials have said they favor making the report public, but on Friday Secretary of State John Kerry asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to consider the timing of the release.
ABC News' Dean Schabner contributed to this report.
QuoteThe Muslim world has erupted many times before when the U.S. and the West have been accused of religious and cultural slights.
Like they say, moon worshipers in glass houses shouldn't be throwing rocks to stone rape victims. Or something.
I can appreciate the commitment to transparency as befitting the shining city on a hill, but what the CIA did behind closed doors isn't really anybody's business but that of the American people. Anyway, it's not like anybody's going to be held responsible or go to jail.
America stood by its torture, it's not like they tried to hide it. They were proud of it and eager to talk about it.
The rest of the world's hypocrisy on the matter is noted.
CIA report: [spoiler]Censored for national security reasons.[/spoiler]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
, but what the CIA did behind closed doors isn't really anybody's business but that of the American people.
Agreed but it is the business of the American people.
Too bad there is no way to make that information available to the US public without also making available globally.
I hope Yi and Derspeiss have forwarded their defense recommendations to all our diplomatic staff.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2014, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
, but what the CIA did behind closed doors isn't really anybody's business but that of the American people.
Agreed but it is the business of the American people.
Too bad there is no way to make that information available to the US public without also making available globally.
Let's not, and say we did.
There is one more aspect you guys may be not aware of - every time these revelations resurface, those politicians in Poland who were implicated in the "CIA prisons" scandal are being badly hurt, politically speaking.
I don't mind that as I think it was a disgrace that our government was involved - but I imagine the end result will be that only non-democratic, authoritarian regimes that do not have to care for the public opinion, will want to cooperate with you on stuff like that in future.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2014, 03:38:57 PM
but I imagine the end result will be that only non-democratic, authoritarian regimes that do not have to care for the public opinion, will want to cooperate with you on stuff like that in future.
Which is why I started the First Annual "Bring Hosni Home for The Holidays" Fundraiser, dedicated to rehoming and providing needed enrichment activities for today's aging yet active former dictators who provided invaluable services to American foreign policy when we needed them most.
Better picture of Rufus, by the way. Last one looked like you had him on "Tumble Dry - Medium" for 40 minutes.
Well, in this one he was younger and fresh out of bath. I need to bathe him again. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
but what the CIA did behind closed doors isn't really anybody's business but that of the American people.
The idea that torturing foreigners is something that is exclusively the business of the American people shows how you don't understand what this did to the perception of America in the world.
Were panties and menstrual blood involved with these techniques? Or did they demean them by having a girl laugh at their small peepees?
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 04:05:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
but what the CIA did behind closed doors isn't really anybody's business but that of the American people.
The idea that torturing foreigners is something that is exclusively the business of the American people shows how you don't understand what this did to the perception of America in the world.
I know precisely what it did to the perception of America in the world: it took it to 11. We've been doing this shit since the 50's, pal. You can hate us only so much more.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2014, 04:09:49 PM
Were panties and menstrual blood involved with these techniques? Or did they demean them by having a girl laugh at their small peepees?
You'll have to wait until the report comes out to get your vicarious torturer rocks off :(
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2014, 04:09:49 PM
Were panties and menstrual blood involved with these techniques? Or did they demean them by having a girl laugh at their small peepees?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2Fheadline_photos%2Firaqi_torture%2Fcuffed2.jpg&hash=c4374114d9db1648505ec897d1623456e582e894)
I don't think the KGB ever used such vile and cruel mechanics. They pretty much just beat you until you died. Much more humane.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
I don't think the KGB ever used such vile and cruel mechanics. They pretty much just beat you until you died. Much more humane.
Is your argument really "someone else did worse"? :huh: Why the KGB and not the NKVD then?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:11:28 PM
I know precisely what it did to the perception of America in the world: it took it to 11. We've been doing this shit since the 50's, pal. You can hate us only so much more.
If that was true, your embassies around the world wouldn't have to brace for the reception of this latest report.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:11:28 PM
I know precisely what it did to the perception of America in the world: it took it to 11. We've been doing this shit since the 50's, pal. You can hate us only so much more.
If that was true, your embassies around the world wouldn't have to brace for the reception of this latest report.
They'd have to brace for announcing the finalist for America's Got Talent, for fuck's sake. They're US embassies: every dirt farmer's favorite target for imaginary Zionist conspiracies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
I don't think the KGB ever used such vile and cruel mechanics. They pretty much just beat you until you died. Much more humane.
Stasi liked to pull your head back and hold it in position, puncture your sinus with a needle, and let the blood drip down into your stomach until it was completely full.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2014, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
I don't think the KGB ever used such vile and cruel mechanics. They pretty much just beat you until you died. Much more humane.
Stasi liked to pull your head back and hold it in position, puncture your sinus with a needle, and let the blood drip down into your stomach until it was completely full.
Germans: Quality is Job #1
By all means, continue to deceive yourself then. If you want to belittle this, there is no reason to talk about it.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 04:30:12 PM
By all means, continue to deceive yourself then. If you want to belittle this, there is no reason to talk about it.
Holier-than-thou sanctimonious preachiness from European balls of light? We've been reading from that script for years. Has the same ending. Very predictable.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
We've been reading from that script for years. Has the same ending.
Yes the details are made public and the rules are changed.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 04:40:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:36:55 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 04:30:12 PM
By all means, continue to deceive yourself then. If you want to belittle this, there is no reason to talk about it.
Holier-than-thou sanctimonious preachiness from European balls of light? We've been reading from that script for years. Has the same ending. Very predictable.
American assclowns not admitting that their government policy was wrong but instead jerking off to torture techniques? We've been reading from that script for years. Has the same ending. Very predictable.
See, like Frunk, you can't just
do grumbler. It's an art.
And what the CIA does on behalf of the American people makes it responsible to the American people, not to you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 04:43:36 PM
See, like Frunk, you can't just do grumbler. It's an art.
I wouldn't want to, which is why I figured it is time to leave this thread and deleted my post after coming to that conclusion. Not fast enough obviously.
QuoteAnd what the CIA does on behalf of the American people makes it responsible to the American people, not to you.
Of course. But the American government conducts foreign policy with the rest of the world and what the CIA does has an effect on that. Pretending that it is just a domestic issue is like the infantile notion that shutting your eyes means the rest of the world can't see you anymore. The concern voiced in the article is not that the American people will be upset by this new report, but that foreigners will be upset. So clearly the writer of the article and the various politicians quoted therein acknowledge that it is not just American business. Which was my whole point.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 05:04:25 PM
Of course. But the American government conducts foreign policy with the rest of the world and what the CIA does has an effect on that. Pretending that it is just a domestic issue is like the infantile notion that shutting your eyes means the rest of the world can't see you anymore. The concern voiced in the article is not that the American people will be upset by this new report, but that foreigners will be upset. So clearly the writer of the article and the various politicians quoted therein acknowledge that it is not just American business. Which was my whole point.
I wonder what impact this report will have on the rest of the Five Eyes.
So wearing panties as a mask is torture? I thought the torture part was the tickling and teasing while handcuffed to the bed. :ph34r:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2014, 05:08:24 PM
I wonder what impact this report will have on the rest of the Five Eyes.
I doubt we'll see many burning New Zealand flags in the streets of the Arab world. :P
Is this even related to Five Eyes? My impression is that various European governments (e.g. Poland as quoted above, allegedly some German units in Afghanistan - our intelligence service are sadly not as forthcoming as the CIA with public information :() helped with this, but I haven't heard about Canada, New Zealand or Australia having a role in this.
Quote from: Zanza on December 08, 2014, 05:13:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2014, 05:08:24 PM
I wonder what impact this report will have on the rest of the Five Eyes.
I doubt we'll see many burning New Zealand flags in the streets of the Arab world. :P
Is this even related to Five Eyes? My impression is that various European governments (e.g. Poland as quoted above, allegedly some German units in Afghanistan - our intelligence service are sadly not as forthcoming as the CIA with public information :() helped with this, but I haven't heard about Canada, New Zealand or Australia having a role in this.
You are taking a bit of a narrow view here. First, I am not so dismissive of the risk of a backlash. We are very closely tied to the US and we have already had our own terrorism here. Second, aside from the potential backlash what I was most interested in is the negative impact such a report might have on continued cooperation amongst the Five Eyes from the point of view of the rest of the five not the other way around.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/09/the-most-gruesome-moments-in-the-cia-torture-report.html
QuoteThe CIA relied on two outside contractors who were psychologists with experience at the Air Force's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school to help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program. Neither had experience as an interrogator, nor any specialized knowledge of al-Qaeda, counterterrorism or relevant linguistic expertise, the committee found. In 2005, these two psychologists formed a company, and following this the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the interrogation program to them. The company was paid more than $80 million by the CIA.
The real problem?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2014, 11:22:25 AM
QuoteThe CIA relied on two outside contractors who were psychologists with experience at the Air Force's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school to help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program. Neither had experience as an interrogator, nor any specialized knowledge of al-Qaeda, counterterrorism or relevant linguistic expertise, the committee found. In 2005, these two psychologists formed a company, and following this the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the interrogation program to them. The company was paid more than $80 million by the CIA.
The real problem?
Darth Cheney's buddies in the private sector needed the cash, man. It's tough out there.
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 08, 2014, 05:12:17 PM
So wearing panties as a mask is torture? I thought the torture part was the tickling and teasing while handcuffed to the bed. :ph34r:
I'm worried about unforeseen consequences - by expanding the definition of torture, we may unwittingly cause BDSM porn to be banned.
So it seems it's out.
TL;DR
QuoteCIA's brutal and ineffective use of torture revealed in landmark report
Report released by Senate after four-year, $40m investigation concludes CIA repeatedly lied about brutal techniques in years after 9/11
The CIA's post-9/11 embrace of torture was brutal and ineffective – and the agency repeatedly lied about its usefulness, a milestone report by the Senate intelligence committee released on Tuesday concludes.
After examining 20 case studies, the report found that torture "regularly resulted in fabricated information," said committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, in a statement summarizing the findings.
"During the brutal interrogations the CIA was often unaware the information was fabricated."
The torture that the CIA carried out was even more extreme than what it portrayed to congressional overseers and the George W Bush administration, the committee found. It went beyond techniques already made public through a decade of leaks and lawsuits, which had revealed that agency interrogators subjected detainees to quasi-drowning, staged mock executions, and revved power drills near their heads.
The committee's findings, which the CIA largely rejects, are the result of a four-year, $40m investigation that plunged relations between the spy agency and the Senate committee charged with overseeing it to a historic low.
The investigation that led to the report, and the question of how much of the document would be released and when, has pitted chairwoman Feinstein and her committee allies against the CIA and its White House backers. For 10 months, with the blessing of President Barack Obama, the agency has fought to conceal vast amounts of the report from the public, with an entreaty to Feinstein from secretary of state John Kerry occurring as recently as Friday.
CIA director John Brennan, an Obama confidante, conceded in a Tuesday statement that the program "had shortcomings and that the agency made mistakes" owing from what he described as unpreparedness for a massive interrogation and detentions program.
But Brennan took issue with several of the committee's findings.
"Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qaida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day," Brennan said.
"EITs", or "enhanced interrogation techniques", is the agency's preferred euphemism for torture.
Obama banned CIA torture upon taking office, but the continuing lack of legal consequences for agency torturers has led human rights campaigners to view the Senate report as their last hope for official recognition and accountability for torture.
Though the committee released hundreds of pages of declassified excerpts from the report on Tuesday, the majority of the 6,000-plus page classified version remains secret, disappointing human rights groups that have long pushed for broader transparency. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat who lost his seat in November, has flirted with reading the whole report into the Senate record, one of the only tactics to compel additional disclosures remaining.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2014, 11:22:25 AM
QuoteThe CIA relied on two outside contractors who were psychologists with experience at the Air Force's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school to help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program. Neither had experience as an interrogator, nor any specialized knowledge of al-Qaeda, counterterrorism or relevant linguistic expertise, the committee found. In 2005, these two psychologists formed a company, and following this the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the interrogation program to them. The company was paid more than $80 million by the CIA.
The real problem?
That sounds like a pretty big problem.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:44:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2014, 11:22:25 AM
QuoteThe CIA relied on two outside contractors who were psychologists with experience at the Air Force's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school to help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program. Neither had experience as an interrogator, nor any specialized knowledge of al-Qaeda, counterterrorism or relevant linguistic expertise, the committee found. In 2005, these two psychologists formed a company, and following this the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the interrogation program to them. The company was paid more than $80 million by the CIA.
The real problem?
That sounds like a pretty big problem.
How big? As big as the torture problem? Half as big?
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:44:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2014, 11:22:25 AM
QuoteThe CIA relied on two outside contractors who were psychologists with experience at the Air Force's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school to help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program. Neither had experience as an interrogator, nor any specialized knowledge of al-Qaeda, counterterrorism or relevant linguistic expertise, the committee found. In 2005, these two psychologists formed a company, and following this the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the interrogation program to them. The company was paid more than $80 million by the CIA.
The real problem?
That sounds like a pretty big problem.
80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 11:53:29 AM80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
I was thinking more of the hire-people-with-no-experience-in-interrogation to do interrogation part. I kind of wonder if they had any grounding in ethics or management of interrogators either.
Enhanced interrogation techniques is my new favourite spook euphemism.
RACISS
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 11:53:29 AM80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
I was thinking more of the hire-people-with-no-experience-in-interrogation to do interrogation part. I kind of wonder if they had any grounding in ethics or management of interrogators either.
:yes:
Add in the profit motive so that the more they torture the more they get paid and its not difficult to predict this kind of result.
Quote from: Brazen on December 09, 2014, 11:58:47 AM
Enhanced interrogation techniques is my new favourite spook euphemism.
You think "EIT" will work its way into the Personals lexicon, like "SWF", "BBW" and "GS/WS"?
I think it's a Roth/Human Stain reference.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 11:53:29 AM80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
I was thinking more of the hire-people-with-no-experience-in-interrogation to do interrogation part. I kind of wonder if they had any grounding in ethics or management of interrogators either.
You want a fresh torture graduate with many years of experience who will work for free as an "internship". How unusual. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 12:24:15 PM
You want a fresh torture graduate with many years of experience who will work for free as an "internship". How unusual. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure hiring torture enthusiasts is going to lead to a good outcome either.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 12:24:15 PM
You want a fresh torture graduate with many years of experience who will work for free as an "internship". How unusual. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure hiring torture enthusiasts is going to lead to a good outcome either.
I don't think hiring foreigners would be a great idea.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 11:53:29 AM80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
I was thinking more of the hire-people-with-no-experience-in-interrogation to do interrogation part.
I get it, and that is the tip of the iceberg. All sort of money gets thrown at unqualified private contractors.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 11:53:29 AM80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
I was thinking more of the hire-people-with-no-experience-in-interrogation to do interrogation part. I kind of wonder if they had any grounding in ethics or management of interrogators either.
I haven't been able to find the reference you used to determine that these two guys actually did interrogations. Can you point me to your source. Obviously, hiring guys who don't have experience in interrogation to actually do interrogations is a bigger problem than hiring two guys without experience in interrogation to "help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program."
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 12:43:14 PM
Obviously, hiring guys who don't have experience in interrogation to actually do interrogations is a bigger problem than hiring two guys without experience in interrogation to "help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program."
That is not so obvious to me. People who lack experience can be trained. But in most areas of endeavor that require some kind of professional methodology, the people who develop run and assess are typically more experienced, and for good reason.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 12:46:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 12:43:14 PM
Obviously, hiring guys who don't have experience in interrogation to actually do interrogations is a bigger problem than hiring two guys without experience in interrogation to "help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program."
That is not so obvious to me. People who lack experience can be trained. But in most areas of endeavor that require some kind of professional methodology, the people who develop run and assess are typically more experienced, and for good reason.
Interrogation strikes me as an occupational avenue one could easily learn OTJ, if one were so inclined and possessed a natural disposition towards it. Nay, a gift, if you will. :unsure: :ph34r:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 12:46:16 PM
That is not so obvious to me. People who lack experience can be trained. But in most areas of endeavor that require some kind of professional methodology, the people who develop run and assess are typically more experienced, and for good reason.
Yeah, I'm of the school of thought that holds that the people designing, implementing, and monitoring programs should have some knowledge of, and ideally experience in, the kind of things the programs are about.
F.ex. if someone's going to design and monitor a financial regulatory regimen, I'd prefer it if they have some experience with financial regulations. Same goes for game design, submarine commanding, Italian cooking, and pretty much anything else. Perhaps it's overly technocratic of me, but I prefer leaders to have specific relevant experience in their fields.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 12:43:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 11:57:33 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 11:53:29 AM80 mil contract? Tip of the iceberg.
I was thinking more of the hire-people-with-no-experience-in-interrogation to do interrogation part. I kind of wonder if they had any grounding in ethics or management of interrogators either.
Obviously, hiring guys who don't have experience in interrogation to actually do interrogations is a bigger problem than hiring two guys without experience in interrogation to "help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program."
If the guys who "develop, run and assess" the program have no experience in how interrogations are supposed to be developed, run or assessed then how are they supposed to hire, manage and assess whether the people under their employ are doing their jobs properly?
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2014, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2014, 12:19:26 PM
RACISS
:huh:
Are you okay?
:rolleyes:
I'll take that as a yes :lol:
But seriously, I have no idea to whom that post was addressed or what it was referring to, so it did seem a little Tourette-ish.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 01:13:58 PM
I'll take that as a yes :lol:
But seriously, I have no idea to whom that post was addressed or what it was referring to, so it did seem a little Tourette-ish.
She said 'spook'.
IT'S A JOKE, HOWDY
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2014, 01:16:16 PM
She said 'spook'.
:lol: Totally missed it :blush:
QuoteIT'S A JOKE, HOWDY
Got it.
:hug:
QuoteRectal rehydration and broken limbs: the grisliest findings in the CIA torture report
Parts of the CIA interrogation programme were known, but the catalogue of abuse is nightmarish, especially knowing much more will never be revealed
The full horror of the CIA interrogation and detention programmes launched in the wake of the September 11 terror attack was laid bare in the long-awaited Senate report released on Tuesday.
While parts of the programme had been known – and much more will never be revealed – the catalogue of abuse is nightmarish and reads like something invented by the Marquis de Sade or Hieronymous Bosch.
Detainees were forced to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads.
Prisoners were subjected to "rectal feeding" without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with "excessive force". The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and "symptomatic rectal prolapse".
The report mentions mock executions, Russian roulette. US agents threatened to slit the throat of a detainee's mother, sexually abuse another and threatened prisoners' children. One prisoner died of hypothermia brought on in part by being forced to sit on a bare concrete floor without pants.
The Dungeon
The CIA began the establishment of a specialised detention centre, codenamed DETENTION SITE COBALT, in April 2002. Although its location is not identified in the report it has been widely identified as being in Afghanistan. Conditions at the site were described in the report as poor "and were especially bleak early in the program".
The CIA chief of interrogations described COBALT as "a dungeon". There were 20 cells, with blacked-out windows. Detainees were "kept in complete darkness and constantly shackled in isolated cells with loud music and only a bucket to use for human waste". It was cold, something the report says likely contributed to the death of a detainee.
Prisoners were walked around naked or were shackled with their hands above their heads for extended periods of time. About five CIA officers would engage in what is described as a "rough takedown". A detainee would be shouted at, have his clothes cut off, be secured with tape, hooded and dragged up and down a long corridor while being slapped and punched.
A CIA photograph shows a waterboard at the site, surrounded by buckets and a bottle of an unknown pink solution and a watering can resting on the beams of the waterboard. The CIA failed to provide a detailed explanation of the items in the photograph.
At COBALT, the CIA interrogated in 2002 Gul Rahman, described as a suspected Islamic extremist. He was subjected to "48 hours of sleep deprivation, auditory overload, total darkness, isolation, a cold shower and rough treatment".
CIA headquarters suggested "enhanced measures" might be needed to get him to comply. A CIA officer at COBALT ordered Rahman be "shackled to the wall of his cell in a position that required the detainee to rest on the bare concrete floor".
He was only wearing a sweatshirt as a CIA officer has ordered his clothes to be removed earlier after judging him to be uncooperative during an interrogation.
The next day, guards found Rahman dead. An internal CIA review and autopsy assessed he likely died from hypothermia – "in part from having been forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants". An initial CIA review and cable sent to CIA headquarters after his death included a number of misstatements and omissions.
Shackled to the wall
The CIA in the first half of 2003 interrogated four detainees described as having "medical complications in their lower extremities": two had a broken foot, one had a sprained ankle and one a prosthetic leg.
CIA officers shackled each of them in a standing position for sleep deprivation for extended periods until medical staff assessed they could no longer maintain that position.
"The two detainees that each had a broken foot were also subjected to walling, stress positions and cramped confinement, despite the note in their interrogation plans that these specific enhanced interrogation techniques were not requested because of the medical condition of the detainees," the report says.
'Rectal feeding'
CIA operatives subjected at least five detainees to what they called "rectal rehydration and feeding".
One CIA cable released in the report reveals that detainee Majid Khan was administered by enema his "'lunch tray' consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins was 'pureed and rectally infused'". One CIA officer's email was in the report quoted as saying "we used the largest Ewal [sic] tube we had".
Rectal feeding is of limited application in actually keeping a person alive or administering nutrients, since the colon and rectum cannot absorb much besides salt, glucose and a few minerals and vitamins. The CIA administered rectal rehydration to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "without a determination of medical need" and justified "rectal fluid resuscitation" of Abu Zubaydah because he "partially refus[ed] liquids". Al-Nashiri was given an enema after a brief hunger strike.
Risks of rectal feeding and rehydration include damage to the rectum and colon, triggering bowels to empty, food rotting inside the recipient's digestive tract, and an inflamed or prolapsed rectum from carless insertion of the feeding tube. The report found that CIA leadership was notified that rectal exams may have been conducted with "Excessive force", and that one of the detainees, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, suffered from an anal fissure, chronic hemorrhoids and symptomatic rectal prolapse.
The CIA's chief of interrogations characterized rectal rehydration as a method of "total control" over detainees, and an unnamed person said the procedure helped to "clear a person's head".
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finteractive.guim.co.uk%2Fembed%2F2014%2F12%2F2014-12-cia-global-network%2Fcia-global-network.svg&hash=fb8d05e28a91de35f17c74ac9e8fbab9e8ee9790)
This is sickening. It makes me physically ill. If you think this is funny, or minor and involves "panties on the head" you are completely, morally bankrupt. I am really ashamed my country took part in this, even without knowing fully the extent of this.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2014, 04:56:21 PM
This is sickening. It makes me physically ill. If you think this is funny, or minor and involves "panties on the head" you are completely, morally bankrupt. I am really ashamed my country took part in this, even without knowing fully the extent of this.
Lighten up, Francis.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
--George Orwell, smug Englishman and noted commie pinko type
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:03:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2014, 04:56:21 PM
This is sickening. It makes me physically ill. If you think this is funny, or minor and involves "panties on the head" you are completely, morally bankrupt. I am really ashamed my country took part in this, even without knowing fully the extent of this.
Lighten up, Francis.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
--George Orwell, smug Englishman and noted commie pinko type
I think you are confusing him with someone else. He actually ratted out on them to the secret police.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:03:23 PM
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
--George Orwell, smug Englishman and noted commie pinko type
I'm pretty sure he was talking about soldiers, not torturers.
We already knew that America uses systematic torture. What's the meat in the report?
By the way, respect for the French. They may be arrogant and insufferable, but they took no part in this crime.
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 05:10:15 PM
We already knew that America uses systematic torture. What's the meat in the report?
That they hired amateurs to do it?
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2014, 05:10:29 PM
By the way, respect for the French. They may be arrogant and insufferable, but they took no part in this crime.
Because they're not on the map? So isn't America.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 05:10:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 05:10:15 PM
We already knew that America uses systematic torture. What's the meat in the report?
That they hired amateurs to do it?
You're a weirdo.
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 05:10:15 PM
We already knew that America uses systematic torture. What's the meat in the report?
Various idiots (here and elsewhere) were dismissing the torture as just "panties on the head", and means of psychological intimidation. The report shows that the torture was physical and brutal, resulting in death of detainees. I think this is quite a big difference.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2014, 05:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 05:10:15 PM
We already knew that America uses systematic torture. What's the meat in the report?
Various idiots (here and elsewhere) were dismissing the torture as just "panties on the head", and means of psychological intimidation. The report shows that the torture was physical and brutal, resulting in death of detainees. I think this is quite a big difference.
A big difference to idiots. Gotcha.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 05:06:48 PM
I'm pretty sure he was talking about soldiers, not torturers.
The bad guys pretty much rewrote the rules on game day. Don't hate the player.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2Fsection%2Flearning%2Fgeneral%2Fonthisday%2Fbig%2F0911_big.gif&hash=4383bfa895b44d7d3cc38b84255abaaed84b8988)
I like Poland more now.
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
I like Poland more now.
But Marti brought up a valid point earlier: you know this stuff's going to make the US look ZOMG EVEN WORSER globally, but it also hangs our friends out to dry. We can take this heat, but nations full of Martis and Jacobs may not be able to.
Wit' us or agin' us.
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2014, 05:19:20 PM
Wit' us or agin' us.
No, no, no...plausible deniability, people! [/broadwaychoreographer]
If everyone's dirty, then nobody's dirty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 05:06:48 PM
I'm pretty sure he was talking about soldiers, not torturers.
The bad guys pretty much rewrote the rules on game day. Don't hate the player.
Get over it already.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2014, 05:22:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 05:06:48 PM
I'm pretty sure he was talking about soldiers, not torturers.
The bad guys pretty much rewrote the rules on game day. Don't hate the player.
Get over it already.
Playa's gotta play.
One thing to keep in mind is that this is the stuff that America tells us about, indeed bragged about. Obviously I assume that the stuff they do behind closed doors is a lot nastier.
I have no idea why the US doesn't put an end to this. Quite aside from being grotesquely evil, is there even any allegation that it has actually proved useful?
Seems there are lots of negatives - the damage to reputation, discouraging friends and encouraging enemies, etc. - but have there been any "plusses" in the cost-benefit analysis?
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2014, 05:25:38 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that this is the stuff that America tells us about, indeed bragged about. Obviously I assume that the stuff they do behind closed doors is a lot nastier.
Not just panties on the head, but Lena Dunham's panties.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2014, 05:28:42 PM
Seems there are lots of negatives - the damage to reputation, discouraging friends and encouraging enemies, etc. - but have there been any "plusses" in the cost-benefit analysis?
We'll probably find out in about 20 years.
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2014, 05:28:42 PM
I have no idea why the US doesn't put an end to this. Quite aside from being grotesquely evil, is there even any allegation that it has actually proved useful?
It was put to an end. All that is contained in this report occurred between 2002 and 2008, when it was finally kaboshed by President Obama on January 22, 2009.
Now see, what people aren't getting is that this is the part of the American Story where we examine ourselves, bringing that which was hidden to light by our democratically elected representatives, and correct the course. We did it after the Japanese internments with the Ringle Report, the boundaries overstepped during the Red Scare and the COINTELPRO reports with the Church Committee, and now this. It's what we do. Can't say that about a whole lot of governments.
QuoteSeems there are lots of negatives - the damage to reputation, discouraging friends and encouraging enemies, etc. - but have there been any "plusses" in the cost-benefit analysis?
Khalid Shaykh Mohammad got rectal hydration. I say that's a win for Democracy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:39:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2014, 05:28:42 PM
I have no idea why the US doesn't put an end to this. Quite aside from being grotesquely evil, is there even any allegation that it has actually proved useful?
It was put to an end. All that is contained in this report occurred between 2002 and 2008, when it was finally kaboshed by President Obama on January 22, 2009.
Now see, what people aren't getting is that this is the part of the American Story where we examine ourselves, bringing that which was hidden to light by our democratically elected representatives, and correct the course. We did it after the Japanese internments with the Ringle Report, the boundaries overstepped during the Red Scare and the COINTELPRO reports with the Church Committee, and now this. It's what we do. Can't say that about a whole lot of governments.
QuoteSeems there are lots of negatives - the damage to reputation, discouraging friends and encouraging enemies, etc. - but have there been any "plusses" in the cost-benefit analysis?
Khalid Shaykh Mohammad got rectal hydration. I say that's a win for Democracy.
I think the point is that it shouldn't have started in the first place.
To be honest, I don't find the trolling of Europeans here amusing in the least. This was a pretty disgusting and disturbing report.
Quote from: PJL on December 09, 2014, 05:42:23 PM
I think the point is that it shouldn't have started in the first place.
Then let's keep trying to unring those bells.
Quote from: PJL on December 09, 2014, 05:42:23 PM
I think the point is that it shouldn't have started in the first place.
This is presumably a different point than Malthus was trying to raise when he asked why it hasn't stopped.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:49:50 PM
Quote from: PJL on December 09, 2014, 05:42:23 PM
I think the point is that it shouldn't have started in the first place.
Then let's keep trying to unring those bells.
Yeah, it's water under the... never mind.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2014, 05:44:20 PM
To be honest, I don't find the trolling of Europeans here amusing in the least. This was a pretty disgusting and disturbing report.
If CdM and Spicy were Chinese they'd get $0.50 per post. If they were Russian, they'd be drawing a straight up salary, but since they're patriotic Americans they're doing it for free.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 06:06:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2014, 05:44:20 PM
To be honest, I don't find the trolling of Europeans here amusing in the least. This was a pretty disgusting and disturbing report.
If CdM and Spicy were Chinese they'd get $0.50 per post. If they were Russian, they'd be drawing a straight up salary, but since they're patriotic Americans they're doing it for free.
$0.5 in RMB, right?
Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2014, 06:07:00 PM$0.5 in RMB, right?
Yeah, I think so, but it seems the RMB and dollar are roughly equal in terms of local purchasing power.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:39:46 PM
Now see, what people aren't getting is that this is the part of the American Story where we examine ourselves, bringing that which was hidden to light by our democratically elected representatives, and correct the course. We did it after the Japanese internments with the Ringle Report, the boundaries overstepped during the Red Scare and the COINTELPRO reports with the Church Committee, and now this. It's what we do. Can't say that about a whole lot of governments.
Yes.
Now the objection is why not just not do the bad stuff in first place. But power corrupts. We still haven't figured out the durable solution to that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:39:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 09, 2014, 05:28:42 PM
I have no idea why the US doesn't put an end to this. Quite aside from being grotesquely evil, is there even any allegation that it has actually proved useful?
It was put to an end. All that is contained in this report occurred between 2002 and 2008, when it was finally kaboshed by President Obama on January 22, 2009.
Well, that's good to know.
QuoteNow see, what people aren't getting is that this is the part of the American Story where we examine ourselves, bringing that which was hidden to light by our democratically elected representatives, and correct the course. We did it after the Japanese internments with the Ringle Report, the boundaries overstepped during the Red Scare and the COINTELPRO reports with the Church Committee, and now this. It's what we do. Can't say that about a whole lot of governments.
As far as I know, most Western democracies did not torture people in the first place - at least, recently.
Exporting Celine Dion doesn't count, you guys took her in willingly. :P
QuoteKhalid Shaykh Mohammad got rectal hydration. I say that's a win for Democracy.
Well, aside from that 'win'.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:14:35 PM
Yes.
Now the objection is why not just not do the bad stuff in first place. But power corrupts. We still haven't figured out the durable solution to that.
Indeed. The bleating about "publishing this info puts people at risk" is especially amusing. If the bad shit hadn't been deliberately, and illegally, done, then there wouldn't be a report. This should be one of those "never again" moments, and instead the villains are blaming the cops, and they appear to be getting away with it... or would be, except McCain keeps refusing to side with the criminals, and so exposes the hypocrisy of those who are. Stay the course, John.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2014, 05:44:20 PM
To be honest, I don't find the trolling of Europeans here amusing in the least. This was a pretty disgusting and disturbing report.
Same here. :(
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 06:56:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:14:35 PM
Yes.
Now the objection is why not just not do the bad stuff in first place. But power corrupts. We still haven't figured out the durable solution to that.
Indeed. The bleating about "publishing this info puts people at risk" is especially amusing. If the bad shit hadn't been deliberately, and illegally, done, then there wouldn't be a report. This should be one of those "never again" moments, and instead the villains are blaming the cops, and they appear to be getting away with it... or would be, except McCain keeps refusing to side with the criminals, and so exposes the hypocrisy of those who are. Stay the course, John.
QuoteDick Cheney Was Lying About Torture
The Senate report confirms it doesn't work. As those of us on the inside knew.
By MARK FALLON
POLITICO
December 08, 2014
It's official: torture doesn't work. Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not in fact "produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden," as former Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in 2011. Those are among the central findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation and detention after 9/11.
The report's executive summary is expected to be released Tuesday. After reviewing thousands of the CIA's own documents, the committee has concluded that torture was ineffective as an intelligence-gathering technique. Torture produced little information of value, and what little it did produce could've been gained through humane, legal methods that uphold American ideals.
I had long since come to that conclusion myself. As special agent in charge of the criminal investigation task force with investigators and intelligence personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I was privy to the information provided by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I was aware of no valuable information that came from waterboarding. And the Senate Intelligence Committee—which had access to all CIA documents related to the "enhanced interrogation" program—has concluded that abusive techniques didn't help the hunt for Bin Laden. Cheney's claim that the frequent waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "produced phenomenal results for us" is simply false.
The self-defeating stupidity of torture might come as news to Americans who've heard again and again from Cheney and other political leaders that torture "worked." Professional interrogators, however, couldn't be less surprised. We know that legal, rapport-building interrogation techniques are the best way to obtain intelligence, and that torture tends to solicit unreliable information that sets back investigations.
Yes, torture makes people talk—but what they say is often untrue. Seeking to stop the pain, people subjected to torture tend to say what they believe their interrogators want to hear.
The report is essential because it makes clear the legal, moral, and strategic costs of torture. President Obama and congressional leaders should use this opportunity to push for legislation that solidifies the ban on torture and cruel treatment. While current law prohibits these acts, US officials employed strained legal arguments to authorize abuse.
A law could take various forms: a codification of the president's 2009 executive order banning torture, for example, or an expansion of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act so that key protections in it would apply to the CIA as well as the military. However it's designed, a new law would help the country stay true to its ideals during times of crisis and guard against a return to the "dark side."
And dark it was. Terms like "waterboarding" and "enhanced interrogation" obscure the brutal, sometimes bloody, reality. It was about the delivery of pain. The U.S. government authorized previously taboo techniques, which—along with a take-the-gloves-off message coming from the top—led to even greater horrors. You can draw a line from the "enhanced interrogation" to the barbarism of Abu Ghraib.
The ostensible purpose of torture was to save lives, but it has had the exact opposite effect. Torture was a PR bonanza for enemies of the United States. It enabled—and, in fact, is still enabling—al Qaeda and its allies to attract more fighters, more sympathizers, and more money.
Some have argued against releasing the report because they predict that it will spark anti-American anger around the world. Such a possibility, however, is an argument not against the kind of transparency and Congressional oversight inherent to a well-functioning democracy; it's an argument against torture. Indeed, by employing such an argument, people are implicitly acknowledging that torture saps the country's credibility and threatens its national security.
Over the coming days, you'll be hearing numerous torture defenders claim it kept Americans safe. Don't believe them. Many of us charged with the mission of getting information out of terrorists didn't resort to using torture. Like many Americans, we didn't want our government to use torture, and we hope it never does again.
Mark Fallon served as an interrogator for more than 30 years, including as a Naval Criminal Investigative Service special agent and within the Department of Homeland Security, as the assistant director for training of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
This was outrageous from the moment they announced it 10+ years ago. Torture has a proven track record of failure in information gathering and oh my God this brilliant national security tactic has forced us to increase security. Brilliant.
We really go out of our way to make sure any country that cooperates with us and helps us with our policy goals regrets it. It is just mind bogglingly short sighted and idiotic.
Not to mention this was one of those things we were supposed to never do.
I just hoped so much after the Cold War was over we could stop committing horrible atrocities across the globe, but it looks like that is what this country is all about now.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 06:56:51 PM
Indeed. The bleating about "publishing this info puts people at risk" is especially amusing. If the bad shit hadn't been deliberately, and illegally, done, then there wouldn't be a report. This should be one of those "never again" moments, and instead the villains are blaming the cops, and they appear to be getting away with it... or would be, except McCain keeps refusing to side with the criminals, and so exposes the hypocrisy of those who are. Stay the course, John.
Good to hear the McCain is still with the good guys on this.
Nice to see the incoming chair of the Intelligence Committee is calling the committee's report as nothing more than a political ploy to embarrass Bush. Because painting portraits of your feet in the bathtub isn't embarrassing enough.
QuoteTorture report divides Republicans
By Burgess Everett
POLITICO
Updated 12/9/14 7:44 PM EST
Six years after President Barack Obama took office, Republicans still find themselves haunted – and now divided — by George W. Bush's legacy on terrorism.
A 600-page summary of Bush-era interrogation practices became the latest blast from the past to rattle the GOP, the work of Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats' deep dive into the Central Intelligence Agency's practices against enemy combatants during Bush's tenure, including waterboarding and other techniques some members of both parties on Tuesday called torture.
But while Senate Democrats were united in defending the release of vivid details of CIA interrogations, Republicans were divided on multiple fronts, a reflection of the party's evolving thinking on terrorist interrogations in the post-Bush era.
Incoming Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) contended that "The only motive here could be to embarrass George W. Bush" and the current top Republican on the panel, retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), said it's "pretty clear" the report's main purpose is to attack Bush.
Yet Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said the government should be more transparent and have a moral stance against torture. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), himself a victim of torture while a prisoner of war, supported the report's release and criticized the CIA's practices as having "damaged our security interests."
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), usually in step with McCain on national security issues, criticized the report's release as timed to Democrats' losing control of the Senate, rather than taking into account the global atmosphere. "The only thing I disagreed with: Don't release it now because the world is on fire. I supported the investigation and I support making it public. I just think given the state of the world this is a bad time to do it," Graham said.
Republicans on the committee released their own report Tuesday disputing several of the Democrats' findings. Republican leaders, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), spent Tuesday afternoon lambasting Democrats for putting out the intelligence investigation, arguing its only utility is to infuriate terrorists. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said stridently that he's "very supportive of enhanced interrogation."
But other Republicans were more hesitant. Maine Sen. Susan Collins criticized the process behind the report's development and release — namely the fact that no interviews of CIA officials were conducted — but came to the conclusion that "torture is wrong and fundamentally contrary to American values."
McCain praised Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for a "thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose ... but actually damaged our security interests."
"The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless," McCain said.
Graham agreed with McCain that the practices used by the CIA "were counterproductive" but found an opening to criticize the Obama administration's policies on prosecuting terrorists that were absent from McCain's floor remarks, which focused almost solely on the efficacy of torture.
"We have now gone from one extreme to the other. We've gone from waterboarding to reading Miranda Rights and providing taxpayer-funded lawyers to foreign terror suspects within days of capture," Graham said in a statement. "The policies the Obama administration has employed treats terrorists as common criminals, not enemy combatants."
If there was one area where Republicans mostly stood together, it was on the politics of releasing the report.
"There is no reason whatsoever for this report to ever be published," Chambliss said. "This is purely a partisan tactic. And a political one."
Rather than offering a forceful defense of placing combatants in "stress positions," Republicans instead attacked Democrats for dredging up Bush administration techniques during a political low-point for their party — at a cost of possibly endangering Americans serving overseas, either in combat roles or at embassies.
Burr said there was little new in the report besides exposing "our international partners" who helped with U.S. intelligence agencies abroad. GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois warned that "we may actually lose Americans now because of this report," while Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he was "at a loss" as to how the report could possibly enhance U.S. security, as it attacks Bush to serve as a political "distraction."
"It's already out there on the street, and for whatever reason Democrats felt like they needed to get it out there yet again," said retiring Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, a former Bush secretary of Agriculture. "I worry about the cost. And I would side in favor of protecting Americans who are serving or people in other parts of the country that are working at our embassies."
The partisan conflict, brewing for so many months, escalated quickly Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't resist tweaking Republicans for dropping out of the documents' production process, taking the floor ahead of a marathon Feinstein speech to praise the "work done by Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. We're here today ... because of their efforts."
Democrats intimately involved with the report spent months engaged in a fierce back-and-forth with the CIA and the White House over how much of the report to redact, arguing that the CIA essentially wanted to make the report unreadable. Democrats said that Republicans are missing the point of the report by arguing it only dredged up aspects of Bush's presidency, instead claiming that their findings will serve as a beacon for the future.
"Although President Obama ended the program by signing the Executive Order in 2009, any future president could reverse that order," said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), an Intelligence Committee member and outspoken civil libertarian.
Even with their divisions, few other Republican senators joined Inhofe in his conclusion of backing techniques meticulously documented in the report, like 183 waterboarding sessions of Abu Zubaydah, a man largely believed to be behind the Sept. 11 attacks. And Republicans who have very different foreign policy views than the Bush administration trod carefully on the subject.
As he strolled to his Senate office, Paul declined to characterize the report as an attack on Bush like so many of his colleagues. Instead the Kentucky senator, who's attempting to chart a less interventionist course for the GOP as he mulls a presidential run, expressed mixed feelings on the report's release and what it says about the United States — a sharp break from his Kentucky colleague McConnell, who blasted Democrats' work as "ideologically motivated."
"It's important that people take a stand and representatives take a stand on whether they believe torture should be allowed. I think we should not have torture," Paul said. "Transparency is mostly good for government. The only thing I would question is whether or not the actual details, the gruesomeness of the details, will be beneficial or inflammatory."
Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2014, 08:04:06 PM
it looks like that is what this country is all about now.
I think that is really an overreach to say that's what we are all about.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 08:19:37 PM
Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.
I'm not even sure why we should care if Bush is being attacked or not.
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 08:19:37 PM
Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.
Oh, don't worry: there will be even more hot Benghazigate action on its way. :yeah: The latest committee meets tomorrow.
QuoteWith other Benghazi investigations completed, final probe ramping up
November 24
Washington Post
Republicans who remain convinced that there was an Obama administration coverup surrounding the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, are pinning their hopes on one last congressional probe to produce proof of a scandal.
Others in the GOP, however, are urging that the party drop the Benghazi conspiracy theories and move on.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi will produce what Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday will be "the definitive report" on the attack that killed four Americans on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and he reappointed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) , a former federal prosecutor known for his patterned blazers and impressive oratorical skills, to lead the panel.
"Two years later, the American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night — and why," Boehner said in a statement.
The heightened interest in the select committee comes in the wake of a House Intelligence Committee report, released last week, that rejected long-running conspiracy theories that the U.S. military was prevented from rescuing Americans targeted in the attack.
Gowdy's committee will hold a public hearing next month — only its second since being established in May — with other hearings planned for next year, including several behind closed doors in order to review classified information, according to aides who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Democrats complain that the committee is a waste of both time and money, since it has developed no clear purpose or specific plan.
Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's foreign policy — say that the Gowdy panel can produce significant results because it enjoys a broader mandate than the oversight committees that have produced reports so far. In those cases. the committees investigated specific actions by the CIA, Pentagon or State Department.
"I hope a joint committee looking at all three agencies together, rather than stove-piping, can get through this," Graham said over the weekend on CNN. The South Carolina Republican was especially critical of the House Intelligence Committee report.
While the report did fault the CIA and other agencies for incorrectly assessing what caused the attacks and the White House for a "flawed" public response, it mostly debunked the assertions that the casualties were caused by delayed military response.
Graham called the intelligence panel's report "absolute garbage." Speaking Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," he said the report "puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the intelligence community."
"When the Department of Defense committees looked at [the attacks], the Department of Defense was held blameless. At the end of the day, everybody is pointing fingers to everybody else," he said.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said Rubio was not pleased with the House Intelligence report.
"Regardless of the report's conclusions, many unanswered questions still remain, such as why no one at the State Department has been held accountable for the failure to heed the intelligence warnings of the deteriorating security situation in Libya, which is outrageous," spokeswoman Brooke Sammon said in an e-mail.
Spokesmen for other potential GOP presidential candidates, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), didn't respond to requests for comment.
At least some Republicans, including Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), believe it's time for the GOP to drop the issue altogether.
"I've always thought the biggest problem with Benghazi is how it was cast by the administration and the remarks that Susan Rice just really threw in the face of what we knew was going on," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But with regard to the other things that were addressed by this report, well, yes, I thought for a long time that we ought to move beyond that."
Gowdy said in a statement that the intelligence panel's report will assist his "comprehensive investigation" that is designed to produce the "final, definitive accounting of the attack on behalf of Congress."
Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), another former federal prosecutor and a member of the select committee, said that the intelligence panel's work "is one of many tools" that will be used "to put together a cohesive and comprehensive picture of the attack on our consulate."
"The American public deserves all of the facts regarding this tragic attack, and we are employing a deliberative and thorough process to find them," Brooks said.
Democrats on the committee have complained that Boehner is devoting at least $3.3 million in taxpayer funding to bankroll a committee without any clear goals.
"We don't have a timetable yet, and we don't have a scope of investigation yet," Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Benghazi committee, said Monday in an interview. "It's not because [Gowdy] is unwilling to work with us, it's that we haven't come to a conclusion about where it's headed."
Schiff defended the intelligence panel for working over two years on a report that was unanimously approved by all the members.
"The only real objection we're hearing is that it contradicts a myth. And for some, no amount of factual documentation is going to change their Fox-driven conclusion," he said, referring to the Fox News Channel, which has aggressively covered the attack, its aftermath and subsequent investigations.
Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2014, 08:21:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2014, 08:19:37 PM
Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.
I'm not even sure why we should care if Bush is being attacked or not.
I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense. I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2014, 08:33:35 PM
I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense. I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.
House and Senate leadership of both parties, as well as chairmen and ranking minority members of the two intelligence committees, got briefed by the CIA on what they were doing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2014, 08:47:06 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2014, 08:33:35 PM
I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense. I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.
House and Senate leadership of both parties, as well as chairmen and ranking minority members of the two intelligence committees, got briefed by the CIA on what they were doing.
Did they get the full briefing, or the PG-13 version that many politicians were getting?
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2014, 09:01:09 PM
Did they get the full briefing, or the PG-13 version that many politicians were getting?
I wasn't aware of any PG13 version. I thought the people I mentioned were the only ones briefed at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2014, 08:47:06 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2014, 08:33:35 PM
I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense. I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.
House and Senate leadership of both parties, as well as chairmen and ranking minority members of the two intelligence committees, got briefed by the CIA on what they were doing.
Apparently, they got the "enhanced truth" and not the truth, if the Senate report is to be believed.
Frankly, I am not surprised that no one has resigned (from the Senate or the CIA) over this, but there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity or war crimes, so we can still hope to see some criminal charges at some point down the road. It would be delicious if there were some Senate and House leaders of both parties sent to prison if, indeed, they, as the "they knew about it all along" theory has it, knew, because that means that they were part of a conspiracy to hide the crimes.
What a bunch of bullshit
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.single.html
QuoteBut Obama has acted rightly by refusing to authorize prosecutions. He acted rightly because prosecutions would have failed to secure convictions; and he acted rightly as a matter of principle. Criminal punishment of a partisan opponent who engages in illegal behavior for policy rather than personal reasons can pose a risk to democracy.
Slate.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 09:17:44 PM
Apparently, they got the "enhanced truth" and not the truth, if the Senate report is to be believed.
Frankly, I am not surprised that no one has resigned (from the Senate or the CIA) over this, but there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity or war crimes, so we can still hope to see some criminal charges at some point down the road. It would be delicious if there were some Senate and House leaders of both parties sent to prison if, indeed, they, as the "they knew about it all along" theory has it, knew, because that means that they were part of a conspiracy to hide the crimes.
Wouldn't the first people to face charges be those in the executive that signed off on these tactics? The article mentions John Ashcroft for example. He was presumably in a position to actually influence policy unlike maybe some congress members that were just briefed or some CIA operatives that "just followed orders".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2014, 10:42:05 PM
What a bunch of bullshit
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.single.html
QuoteBut Obama has acted rightly by refusing to authorize prosecutions. He acted rightly because prosecutions would have failed to secure convictions; and he acted rightly as a matter of principle. Criminal punishment of a partisan opponent who engages in illegal behavior for policy rather than personal reasons can pose a risk to democracy.
I don't know enough about the seperation of powers between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive in the US: Is there a way for a court or congress to order the executive to open prosecution of these crimes?
I know our executive also has a bit of discretion what to prosecute, especially when it comes to matters of national security. However, the victim of a crime has the possibility to ask a court to order the prosecution to take up his case though under certain circumstances even if the executive doesn't want that.
In Poland at least the position of Attorney General is independent from the government. He/she is appointed by the President (who in Poland holds a much more ceremonial position than in Presidential systems but is elected in direct elections, so is independent from the Parliament) from two candidates proposed by the self-governance bodies of judges and prosecutors; and is appointed for a fixed term of 6 years (with limited means of being recalled before the end of his/her term) and cannot be reappointed for another term.
This is only a recent development (until 2010 the Minister of Justice was also, automatically, the Attorney General).
Edit: Which is also why Polish prosecutors have been investigating the allegiations of CIA prisons for a while now, but complained they used to be frustrated by Polish and American authorities. They now said the US Senate Report is very helpful and may result in charges being brought against Polish officials who were involved.
Incidentally, those involved (the President, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of Defense at the time) are all post-communist "social-democrats" which makes it doubly ironic.
My problem is with Senator John McCain. Let me see if understand his logic:
I have been blown up and shot at by Islamic terrorists multiple times, and because I'm still alive, it means explosions and gunshots don't work, but I know how bad they are, so I cannot use them against the enemies of the United States.
Dude is a doughbag.
Quote from: Siege on December 10, 2014, 07:39:34 AM
My problem is with Senator John McCain. Let me see if understand his logic:
I have been blown up and shot at by Islamic terrorists multiple times, and because I'm still alive, it means explosions and gunshots don't work, but I know how bad they are, so I cannot use them against the enemies of the United States.
Dude is a doughbag.
I don't think you understand the language well enough to understand him. Don't sweat it; it's over your head by a mile. And the term is "dough
boy" and doesn't refer to former aviators anyway. You probably want to retire "doughbag" from your vocabulary.
The big question is, does it work or not?
As a proud practicioner of Tactical Questioning, different from enhanced interrogation techniques, I effing guaranty you it does work, however you have to be trained to separate valuable tactical information from resistance misinformation.
You're an international war criminal and an agent for a foreign country. Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
I like Poland more now.
But Marti brought up a valid point earlier: you know this stuff's going to make the US look ZOMG EVEN WORSER globally, but it also hangs our friends out to dry. We can take this heat, but nations full of Martis and Jacobs may not be able to.
It does hang out other nations, which makes intel cooperation much harder now even though the torture procedures are no longer used, as defined by new US laws a while back. This has been known for a while and the laws were put in place by Congress to address these issues. This report seems to me to do little good except to re-inflame things that were already known and addressed. Dems and Repubs Congressmembers on certain intel committees knew about this stuff, most of it, and were being briefed. One claim is that they weren't briefed on everything which may be true. But for some they try to say they weren't in briefings or whatever, or try to dis-associate themselves, is disingenuous at best.
These torture techniques and rendition to other nations with more lax laws are no longer done. I can understand why it happened in the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginning of the anti-terror war, but IMO it went too far when I read some of this stuff, and I felt that way long before this report came out. Not the panties and such which are ridiculous to claim as torture, but some of the other stuff which were much worse.
Quote from: Siege on December 10, 2014, 07:45:26 AM
The big question is, does it work or not?
As a proud practicioner of Tactical Questioning, different from enhanced interrogation techniques, I effing guaranty you it does work, however you have to be trained to separate valuable tactical information from resistance misinformation.
I think, as in the article Sheilbh bolded, torturing people even after you've decided they have no useful information is a technique that definitely works. Maybe not for national security purposes, but certainly for building morale among the torturers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2014, 09:02:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2014, 09:01:09 PM
Did they get the full briefing, or the PG-13 version that many politicians were getting?
I wasn't aware of any PG13 version. I thought the people I mentioned were the only ones briefed at all.
One of the findings is that CIA was not telling the whole truth to the politicians overseeing it. At least some of them.
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2014, 08:57:34 AM
One of the findings is that CIA was not telling the whole truth to the politicians overseeing it. At least some of them.
Do you have a link? I was unaware of this, as I said.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2014, 08:00:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2014, 06:56:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2014, 06:14:35 PM
Yes.
Now the objection is why not just not do the bad stuff in first place. But power corrupts. We still haven't figured out the durable solution to that.
Indeed. The bleating about "publishing this info puts people at risk" is especially amusing. If the bad shit hadn't been deliberately, and illegally, done, then there wouldn't be a report. This should be one of those "never again" moments, and instead the villains are blaming the cops, and they appear to be getting away with it... or would be, except McCain keeps refusing to side with the criminals, and so exposes the hypocrisy of those who are. Stay the course, John.
QuoteDick Cheney Was Lying About Torture
The Senate report confirms it doesn't work. As those of us on the inside knew.
By MARK FALLON
POLITICO
December 08, 2014
It's official: torture doesn't work. Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not in fact "produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden," as former Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in 2011. Those are among the central findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation and detention after 9/11.
The report's executive summary is expected to be released Tuesday. After reviewing thousands of the CIA's own documents, the committee has concluded that torture was ineffective as an intelligence-gathering technique. Torture produced little information of value, and what little it did produce could've been gained through humane, legal methods that uphold American ideals.
I had long since come to that conclusion myself. As special agent in charge of the criminal investigation task force with investigators and intelligence personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I was privy to the information provided by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I was aware of no valuable information that came from waterboarding. And the Senate Intelligence Committee—which had access to all CIA documents related to the "enhanced interrogation" program—has concluded that abusive techniques didn't help the hunt for Bin Laden. Cheney's claim that the frequent waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "produced phenomenal results for us" is simply false.
The self-defeating stupidity of torture might come as news to Americans who've heard again and again from Cheney and other political leaders that torture "worked." Professional interrogators, however, couldn't be less surprised. We know that legal, rapport-building interrogation techniques are the best way to obtain intelligence, and that torture tends to solicit unreliable information that sets back investigations.
Yes, torture makes people talk—but what they say is often untrue. Seeking to stop the pain, people subjected to torture tend to say what they believe their interrogators want to hear.
The report is essential because it makes clear the legal, moral, and strategic costs of torture. President Obama and congressional leaders should use this opportunity to push for legislation that solidifies the ban on torture and cruel treatment. While current law prohibits these acts, US officials employed strained legal arguments to authorize abuse.
A law could take various forms: a codification of the president's 2009 executive order banning torture, for example, or an expansion of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act so that key protections in it would apply to the CIA as well as the military. However it's designed, a new law would help the country stay true to its ideals during times of crisis and guard against a return to the "dark side."
And dark it was. Terms like "waterboarding" and "enhanced interrogation" obscure the brutal, sometimes bloody, reality. It was about the delivery of pain. The U.S. government authorized previously taboo techniques, which—along with a take-the-gloves-off message coming from the top—led to even greater horrors. You can draw a line from the "enhanced interrogation" to the barbarism of Abu Ghraib.
The ostensible purpose of torture was to save lives, but it has had the exact opposite effect. Torture was a PR bonanza for enemies of the United States. It enabled—and, in fact, is still enabling—al Qaeda and its allies to attract more fighters, more sympathizers, and more money.
Some have argued against releasing the report because they predict that it will spark anti-American anger around the world. Such a possibility, however, is an argument not against the kind of transparency and Congressional oversight inherent to a well-functioning democracy; it's an argument against torture. Indeed, by employing such an argument, people are implicitly acknowledging that torture saps the country's credibility and threatens its national security.
Over the coming days, you'll be hearing numerous torture defenders claim it kept Americans safe. Don't believe them. Many of us charged with the mission of getting information out of terrorists didn't resort to using torture. Like many Americans, we didn't want our government to use torture, and we hope it never does again.
Mark Fallon served as an interrogator for more than 30 years, including as a Naval Criminal Investigative Service special agent and within the Department of Homeland Security, as the assistant director for training of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
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.
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2014, 08:57:34 AM
One of the findings is that CIA was not telling the whole truth to the politicians overseeing it. At least some of them.
That the EIT program happened at all is a tragedy, but something about this smells really fishy- Justice investigated, not once, but
twice before coming to the conclusion that nobody could be prosecuted for these. So you can falsify reports to Congress without repercussion? Or is this one of those cases where the statute of limitations is way too short?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 09:38:55 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 07:53:58 AM
You're an international war criminal and an agent for a foreign country. Go fuck yourself.
Harsh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 08:59:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2014, 08:57:34 AM
One of the findings is that CIA was not telling the whole truth to the politicians overseeing it. At least some of them.
Do you have a link? I was unaware of this, as I said.
QuoteCIA Misled Bush, Congress on Interrogation Tactics, Report Finds
By Chris Strohm Dec 9, 2014 6:17 PM GMT 162 Comments Email Print
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.
The harsh interrogations weren't effective and didn't produce key information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, contrary to claims by program supporters. Policy makers deceived by the CIA included Bush, who based a 2008 speech on inaccurate information that interrogations helped thwart terrorist plots, according to a summary of the 6,000-page report released today in Washington.
"History will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by laws and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say, 'never again,'" said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and the panel's chairman. In a statement, she said CIA treatment of some detainees amounted to torture.
At least 26 detainees didn't meet the standards for being held, according to the report. In the fall of 2002, a detainee died of hypothermia while shackled to a concrete floor. Another detainee was held for 17 days in the dark without anybody knowing he was there.
One detainee was left handcuffed by his wrists to an overhead bar for 22 hours over two consecutive days, the report said. At least five CIA detainees were subjected to what the report called "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without medical necessity.
$40 Million
The final report, which cost $40 million and took six years to complete, is the most comprehensive assessment of the CIA's so-called black site detention facilities and "enhanced interrogation techniques" on at least 119 terrorism suspects following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The report's release has renewed debate about the Central Intelligence Agency's tactics and prompted warnings of possible reprisals against Americans or U.S. facilities abroad. President Barack Obama ordered a stop to the program when he took office in 2009 and supported the report's release.
Obama said today that the contents of the report show that the enhanced interrogation techniques are counterproductive to larger national security goals.
"The report documents a troubling program," Obama said in a written statement. "It reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests."
'Thwart Attacks'
CIA Director John Brennan said today the program had "shortcomings" and that the agency made mistakes in the rush to gather intelligence after Sept. 11. But he disputed that interrogations didn't produce useful information or that the agency intentionally misled Congress or the White House.
The CIA's efforts "helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives," Brennan said in a statement. He said the report lacked "valuable context" because committee staff didn't interview the CIA officers involved.
Contrary to claims by the agency, the brutal methods didn't lead U.S. officials to the identity of bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, a finding that helped uncover the al-Qaeda leader's location, according to the report.
The interrogation of terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded at least 83 times, was more brutal than previously known. At one point, he was put in a 1 1/2 meter box and was knocked unconscious during a waterboarding session during which water and bubbles poured from his mouth, according to the summary. Other detainees with broken legs and feet were inappropriately forced to sit in stress positions.
20 Cases
The committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of interrogation cases that the CIA claimed produced valuable information. None of the cases showed that information was obtained that saved lives or that couldn't have been gleaned from other means, according to the findings.
Instead, the panel found that the CIA used interrogation techniques that differed significantly from those authorized by the Department of Justice and described to U.S. policy makers and lawmakers, according to the summary.
CIA and Justice Department officials discussed ways to get around the criminal prohibition on torture, the report said. According to a CIA cable, Justice officials said the law would not apply because of the absence of any specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Misleading and inaccurate information was provided to Bush that interrogations helped thwart terrorist plots, such as flying passenger planes into the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles and an airport and buildings in London, the report said. Bush used that information for a 2008 speech.
Bush, Cheney
"The statement reflected inaccurate information provided by the CIA to the president and other policymakers in CIA briefings," the report states.
Bush and the full Senate intelligence committee weren't briefed on the techniques until 2006. Some members, including Feinstein and Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, raised objections. However, the CIA then turned around and informed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in a classified setting that no senators had objected.
The panel learned that former Vice President Dick Cheney was in meetings where the tactics were discussed.
Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee released the findings over the objections of current and former U.S. officials including Bush and warnings that Americans would face retaliation overseas.
Diplomatic Lapses
"I don't believe that any other nation would go to the lengths the United States does to bare its soul, admit mistakes when they are made and learn from those mistakes," Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said in a message to intelligence community workers. "Certainly, no one can imagine such an effort by any of the adversaries we face today."
The CIA blocked State Department leaders from access to information "crucial to foreign policy decision-making and diplomatic activities," the report said. Two secretaries of state weren't told about the locations of CIA detention facilities, despite the diplomatic implications.
"In two countries, U.S. ambassadors were informed of plans to establish a CIA detention site in the countries where they were serving after the CIA had already entered into agreements with the countries to host the detention sites," it said.
Secretary of State John Kerry supports releasing the findings, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters yesterday. Kerry discussed the implications of the release in a phone call with Feinstein and said it was up to her to decide when to do so, Psaki said.
Rubio, Risch
Republicans and former Bush administration officials who ran the program condemned the report in advance as a biased attempt to rewrite history. They say the interrogations produced significant intelligence that helped capture terrorists and protect the country.
"There's no reason to have released this report except for the pure partisan joy of embarrassing the Bush administration," Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida told reporters today.
Rubio and Jim Risch of Idaho, both members of the committee, criticized the report yesterday as "one-sided" and faulted Democrats on the panel for releasing it.
Releasing the findings will give terrorists fresh ammunition to escalate their violence and put the lives of additional U.S. officials and allies at risk, said Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House intelligence committee.
'Torture's Wrong'
"All they've got to do is find something they think indicates something and they'll use it for their propaganda machine," Rogers said yesterday at a meeting of Bloomberg Government reporters and editors. "Why are we going to risk the lives of some diplomat, for what?"
Senate Democrats fired back against such warnings.
"The implications of this report are profound –- not only is torture wrong, but it doesn't work," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, said on the Senate floor today. "The only way our country can put this episode in the past is to come to terms with what happened and commit to ensuring it will never happen again."
The eight Democratic members of the intelligence committee, as well as Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, an ex officio member as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote Clapper to "memorialize" what they said is his support for releasing the report in a Dec. 6 phone call with them, according to a U.S. official who's read the letter.
Potential Damage
"There will never be an 'elegant' time to release this study, as it describes in stark detail the detention and interrogation actions of the CIA," the letter said, according to the U.S. official. "As such, you believe it is better to release the report now so that the intelligence community can begin to move past this chapter of its history."
Some Democrats and human-rights activists have hailed the report for finally exposing flaws and possible crimes in the CIA's rendition, detention and interrogation program, which largely operated from 2002 to 2005.
White House officials this morning briefed former intelligence and counterterrorism officials who are prepared to defend the report's release on television and elsewhere.
U.S. officials are bracing for international blowback that could fuel riots and retaliation in countries hostile to the U.S. The Defense Department warned U.S. commands overseas on Dec. 5 to take appropriate force protection measures in anticipation of the findings release, and the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies have directed overseas posts and personnel to review and in some cases bolster their security.
The report appears to be "way off-base," Bush said in an interview Dec. 7 on CNN's "State of the Union."
"We're fortunate to have men and women who work hard at the CIA serving on our behalf," Bush said. "These are patriots. And whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base." Others who are part of the campaign include Bush's former CIA directors George Tenet and Michael Hayden.
To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Strohm in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Walcott at [email protected]; Jon Morgan at [email protected] Elizabeth Wasserman, Michael Shepard
Edit: Incidentally as has been the case throughout, McCain comes out of this very well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 09:54:57 AM
Incidentally as has been the case throughout, McCain comes out of this very well.
Losing the presidential election has done wonders for this guy- since losing, he's gone back to choosing his positions based on what he perceives to be the moral high ground rather than the party platform. Occasionally, he drops an oddball head-scratcher, but overall, he seems to realize he's in a good position to not have to worry too much about playing politics anymore. If Arizona had a few more like him, it might not be the national embarrassment that it currently is.
He's been right on torture throughout, I mean the law on detainee treatment was very important. It's an issue he's been entirely consistent on, as in that article when he expressed opposition in 2006 when briefed.
I would pay good money to hear what he privately thinks of Sarah Palin. I don't think it is a very high opinion, though. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2014, 10:20:07 AM
I would pay good money to hear what he privately thinks of Sarah Palin. I don't think it is a very high opinion, though. :P
'Palin? That fu-
Censored for content.'
It seems to me that the US hurt itself for basically nothing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:23:54 AM
'Palin? That fu-Censored for content.'
I just don't understand it. How did somebody
that vapid make it through
so many rounds of elections before being exposed for the shallow idiot she is?
She's got all the grasp of nuance of a half-brick in a sock. Her ability to empathize with other cultures doesn't extend outside of her backyard, let alone outside of our borders, and I've never seen anyone with such an uncanny ability to offend as many people as possible in as few sentences as possible.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 10, 2014, 10:24:49 AM
It seems to me that the US hurt itself for basically nothing.
That's normally the way with torture as the French experience shows more than any other.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:23:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2014, 10:20:07 AM
I would pay good money to hear what he privately thinks of Sarah Palin. I don't think it is a very high opinion, though. :P
'Palin? That fu-Censored for content.'
Actually, I think he genuinely liked her, and while he'll never come out and say it, his campaign failed him in their assessment of her. But Johnny Hero doesn't abandon his mates, so he stuck with her.
Probably has a low opinion of her current incarnation, though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:26:15 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 10, 2014, 10:24:49 AM
It seems to me that the US hurt itself for basically nothing.
That's normally the way with torture as the French experience shows more than any other.
Not exactly, the Battle of Algiers was a military success, but a PR disaster.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 10:28:53 AM
Actually, I think he genuinely liked her, and while he'll never come out and say it, his campaign failed him in their assessment of her. But Johnny Hero doesn't abandon his mates, so he stuck with her.
Probably has a low opinion of her current incarnation, though.
Let's see- he's made a career out of at least appearing to stand on principle. She's... well, she's the complete antithesis to that.
No, I don't imagine he views her newish "voice of the masses" commentator persona very favorably.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 10:28:53 AM
Actually, I think he genuinely liked her, and while he'll never come out and say it, his campaign failed him in their assessment of her. But Johnny Hero doesn't abandon his mates, so he stuck with her.
I agree. The thing is that his campaign fucked up the assessment but he's also an impulsive guy, so he was willing to make the decision on relatively limited information and having (I think) only met her once. Neither of those are that ideal in a Presidential candidate.
I wish he'd done what he wanted to (apparently) and gone for Lieberman.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:32:48 AM
I agree. The thing is that his campaign fucked up the assessment but he's also an impulsive guy, so he was willing to make the decision on relatively limited information and having (I think) only met her once. Neither of those are that ideal in a Presidential candidate.
I wish he'd done what he wanted to (apparently) and gone for Lieberman.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Much water has been passed under that bridge.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 10, 2014, 10:31:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 10, 2014, 10:24:49 AM
It seems to me that the US hurt itself for basically nothing.
That's what the report claims. The CIA Director apparently disagrees.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2014-press-releases-statements/statement-from-director-brennan-on-ssci-study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html
QuoteYet, despite common ground with some of the findings of the Committee's Study, we part ways with the Committee on some key points. Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qa'ida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 10:32:16 AM
Let's see- he's made a career out of at least appearing to stand on principle. She's... well, she's the complete antithesis to that.
Really? She's a flip-flopper with no principles to stand on, a politically neutral cipher? That wasn't my impression.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 09:54:57 AM
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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:43:55 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 10:32:16 AM
Let's see- he's made a career out of at least appearing to stand on principle. She's... well, she's the complete antithesis to that.
Really? She's a flip-flopper with no principles to stand on, a politically neutral cipher? That wasn't my impression.
I can see calling her an opportunist, but not a flip-flopper.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 09:54:57 AM
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?
Yeah, I cannot imagine why anyone would do that.
The Senate report finds the Senate didn't do anything wrong? Shocking.
Quote from: Zanza on December 10, 2014, 02:55:58 AM
Wouldn't the first people to face charges be those in the executive that signed off on these tactics? The article mentions John Ashcroft for example. He was presumably in a position to actually influence policy unlike maybe some congress members that were just briefed or some CIA operatives that "just followed orders".
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 10:25:57 AM
I just don't understand it. How did somebody that vapid make it through so many rounds of elections before being exposed for the shallow idiot she is?
That is the problem with partisan primaries. When all the pre-rounds consist of a radicalized base you get shitbirds like Palin, Bachmann, Dean, and Kucinich having a realistic chance at national office.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 10, 2014, 10:31:05 AM
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 (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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 11:01:02 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 09:54:57 AM
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
QuoteWe 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 09:38:55 AM
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 11:12:05 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 11:12:05 AM
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."
Quote from: KRonn on December 10, 2014, 11:25:58 AM
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.
QuoteMany 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.
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.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 10, 2014, 10:24:49 AM
It seems to me that the US hurt itself for basically nothing.
No, the US hurt a bunch of other people for basically nothing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 10, 2014, 10:31:05 AM
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).
Quote from: KRonn on December 10, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 01:21:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 09:54:57 AM
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:
QuoteWe 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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 01:21:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
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? :huh:
:huh: 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 :huh: questions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
with Holder preferring to punt on it rather than risk a partisan squabble.
Or even more importantly, setting a precedent. The one thing executives will do, even above partisanship, is go to great lengths to ensure the viability of executive action in the future.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
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.
Your analogy doesn't quite fit Joan. Yoon (I think it's Yoon not Yao) didn't conspire to break a law. He offered an opinion as to whether or not a certain course of action was legal. How can that be grounds for disbarment? Can lawyers be disbarred for expressing judgements that a court later disagrees with? Actually, I don't think a US court has yet to rule whether EIT is illegal or not. Can lawyers be disbarred for offering opinions that coincide with public opinion?
What's particularly puzzling about this story is that it was the Bush administration that was pushing for disbarment. First they accept the arguments in his memo as the legal basis for EIT, then later on decide that it was unethical in some way. Did he make up cites? Fabricate case law?
Quote from: DGuller on December 10, 2014, 01:32:35 PM
Sometimes I'm really amazed and dismayed by some of your :huh: questions.
This is about the hundredth time I've heard this record. Just about every time you end up admitting it's a reasonable comment or question, or just slink away. Then a couple weeks later you do the exact same thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 10, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
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.
Your analogy doesn't quite fit Joan. Yoon (I think it's Yoon not Yao) didn't conspire to break a law. He offered an opinion as to whether or not a certain course of action was legal. How can that be grounds for disbarment? Can lawyers be disbarred for expressing judgements that a court later disagrees with? Actually, I don't think a US court has yet to rule whether EIT is illegal or not. Can lawyers be disbarred for offering opinions that coincide with public opinion?
What's particularly puzzling about this story is that it was the Bush administration that was pushing for disbarment. First they accept the arguments in his memo as the legal basis for EIT, then later on decide that it was unethical in some way. Did he make up cites? Fabricate case law?
This gets into the area of when a lawyer moves from merely giving legal advice to a decision making or operational role. Once a lawyer moves over that line they are no longer simply "offering an opinion".
But even if a lawyer does stay within the realm of just giving advice it is possible to give that advice in a manner that would also attract a sanction. I don't know enough about what occurred here to know whether that happened.
Shouldn't we be happy that people get disbarred and leave it at that? Baby steps towards a lawyer-free future.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 01:51:01 PM
Your analogy doesn't quite fit Joan. Yoon (I think it's Yoon not Yao) didn't conspire to break a law. He offered an opinion as to whether or not a certain course of action was legal.
I disagree. The CIA asked for a written opinion so they could advise their agents in the field what to do. And they got back an opinion that among other crazy things, stated that given the "circumstances," "self-defense" may justify interrogation methods that violate the federal torture statute. Which was doubly incredible because the rest of the memo (wrongly) sets forth the argument that conduct isn't "torture" unless it results in "extreme acts" that result in "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.". That is the memo was telling the CIA that circumstances could warrant causing severe bodily injury or death to detainees.
Now I suppose one could argue that the opinion that the CIA need not obey the law was not really what it might appear to be - an incitement or conspiracy to break federal law - because it was accompanied by a good faith constitutional argument about Presidential power. But that depends on accepting there really was a good faith argument, which is a questionable proposition. To get an idea how far Bybee-Yoo was out there, when Bybee resigned, and Ashcroft blocked Yoo, Cheney and Gonzales were unable to find ANYONE to take the OLC job that was prepared to back the memos, even though there were plenty of lawyers with impeccable conservative credentials. It wasn't a right-left difference of opinion. It was a difference between the rational and the indefensible.
In any event, a criminal charge was never at issue. The question was whether professional sanctions would be on the table. Which brings us to:
QuoteHow can that be grounds for disbarment?
If the question is: can a lawyer be subject to professional sanction for giving a client really really bad advice, the answer is yes.
QuoteWhat's particularly puzzling about this story is that it was the Bush administration that was pushing for disbarment. First they accept the arguments in his memo as the legal basis for EIT, then later on decide that it was unethical in some way.
The "Bush administration" didn't accept the arguments. Your formulation assumes -- kind of ironically given Yoo's own support for extreme versions of the unitary executive theory - that the Bush White House and cabinet had a single coherent view on this. They didn't. This was a classic example of a core of powerful policy entrepreneurs within the exec branch trying to push through a particular policy despite broader resistance. It succeeded for a while, but ultimately failed and was repudiated.
I thought this was a good article, by a former General Counsel of the Navy during the Bush administration.
This article, and similar responses from other Americans (including in this thread) along with the publication of the report itself paradoxically gives me greater faith in American institutions and the American character.
It is probably too much to hope that serious charges are laid, but the fact that these acts are brought to light nonetheless shows that American ideals and institutions are still worth something.
Quote from: Alberto Mora, former General Counsel of the NavyToday, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the executive summary of its findings of its comprehensive, five-year investigation into CIA interrogation practices. By doing so, the committee rendered a considerable service to our country, and deserves our thanks. Particular credit goes to the Chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who steered the process with grit, steady and effective leadership, and a clear vision of the national interest.
So we now know more – if not yet quite all – about the program of official brutality that was cynically and deceptively sold as "enhanced interrogation." We now know that the only "enhanced" aspect of the program was the quantum of its cruelty; we know that the cruelty was applied at much higher levels of intensity than previously admitted; and we know that the degree of torment deliberately inflicted crossed the threshold of torture under any reasonable definition of the term.
Related: Senate report: 'Brutal' CIA program was kept from public
Here are a few examples: Each of the 183 times we subjected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to waterboarding, we tortured. When we forced Mohammed al-Qahtani to endure beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, abnormally low body temperatures, and numerous other abusive techniques for 49 days of up to 20 hours-per-day interrogation sessions, we tortured. When we shipped Maher Arar – an innocent Canadian – to Syria for interrogation and he was beaten with shredded cables and held in a three-foot by six-foot "grave" for ten months, we tortured. When the CIA kidnapped Khaled El-Masri – an innocent German – from a hotel in Macedonia and flew him to Afghanistan for four months of brutal interrogations, we tortured. And when we rendered the Libyan dissident Sami al-Saadi (along with his wife and four children) to Gaddafi's Libya, where our proxies tortured him, it is we who bear the responsibility.
This fact – that we purposefully committed torture – is the only salient fact that Americans will need to know in order to confidently reach a permanent judgment about this misguided chapter in our recent history. That judgment will rest on the understanding that the American project, our very purpose as a nation from our birth until today, is to promote human dignity. And it will rest on the recognition that we as a nation are sworn to the protection of those inalienable rights that define and shield human dignity, among which is the non-derogable right to be free from cruelty.
"When we tortured these victims, both those innocent and those culpable of acts of terrorism, we violated our laws and committed crimes, we betrayed our values and heritage, and we disfigured our national character."
If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qahtani, Arar, El-Masri, and al-Saadi did not have the right to be free from cruelty it is only because no one has the right to be free from cruelty. But we do have that right – and they did, too. When we tortured these victims, both those innocent and those culpable of acts of terrorism, we violated our laws and committed crimes, we betrayed our values and heritage, and we disfigured our national character. The issue of torture, to paraphrase Sen. John McCain, is more about who we are than what they did. Seen this way, if we wish to become again the nation we would wish to be, then we need to look into the mirror which the Senate Intelligence Committee provides us and resolve never to go that way again.
The issue now is whether, having once invited torture into our home, we will continue to make room for torture in our future. Some insist we should. These individuals, many of whom were among the chief architects, authorizers, or implementers of the torture program, can be heard to say that "it wasn't torture", that the torture "worked", and that it kept us "safe." Or, it is claimed, because "patriots" administered the torture, it must be applauded – as if the degree of the torturers' patriotism could be of the slightest relevancy.
All of these claims are bogus. As the Navy General Counsel in the Bush administration when the torture policies were first adopted, I as well as the near-totality of military lawyers in the Pentagon recognized that the now-discredited legal memos authorizing the "enhanced interrogation techniques" licensed torture, a conclusion that is now shared not only by President Obama and the European Court of Human Rights, but by close to the totality of legal academics and experts in the United States and Europe.
And the torture policies neither worked nor made us safer – to the contrary. Our nation's strategic defensive national interest is to protect both our people and our values equally and simultaneously. Throughout our history, brave men and women have taken risks and at times incurred casualties in order to protect our heritage and way of life. Our use of torture damaged the nation by disregarding this second strategic interest and by damaging our values. And, in addition, our use of torture blunted our moral authority; damaged foreign political support for our effort against terrorism; alienated our closest allies; created rifts in the alliance structure assembled to fight the war; impaired military, intelligence, and law enforcement cooperation; obstructed tactical operations in the battlefield; gave aid and comfort to the enemy in that it enabled them to more effectively recruit combatants and muster political support; and, for this reason, appears to have been a significant cause of U.S. combat deaths.
Time and distance from the horror of 9/11 may help us better understand why we tortured: we were angry and afraid. But this understanding should not soften our ultimate judgment on our use of torture as a weapon of war: it was inexcusable and greatly damaged our nation.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2014, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2014, 10:23:54 AM
'Palin? That fu-Censored for content.'
I just don't understand it. How did somebody that vapid make it through so many rounds of elections before being exposed for the shallow idiot she is?
She's got all the grasp of nuance of a half-brick in a sock. Her ability to empathize with other cultures doesn't extend outside of her backyard, let alone outside of our borders, and I've never seen anyone with such an uncanny ability to offend as many people as possible in as few sentences as possible.
Before a national campaign handlers can do wonders protecting somebody's image. I mean look at Rick Perry.
Most politicians aren't polished presidential material. It's surprising she got to the level she did, but Alaska does have a low population. There's probably not a lot of scrutiny up there.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2014, 12:03:23 AM
There's probably not a lot of scrutiny up there.
I guess katmai ate most of it. :(
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
I thought this was a good article, by a former General Counsel of the Navy during the Bush administration.
This article, and similar responses from other Americans (including in this thread) along with the publication of the report itself paradoxically gives me greater faith in American institutions and the American character.
It is probably too much to hope that serious charges are laid, but the fact that these acts are brought to light nonetheless shows that American ideals and institutions are still worth something.
I'm not budging on KSM, though. That sinister fuck deserved each and every 183 bucket sessions. And his TV dinners.
:bleeding:
Quote'Learned helplessness': The chilling psychological concept behind the CIA's interrogation methods
By Terrence McCoy
Washington Post
Of all the harrowing accounts and chilling examples in the U.S. Senate report on CIA interrogation practices, among the most striking was that of Abu Zubaydah. One of the first detainees in the war on terror, he was also one of the most vital. Lying in a bed in Thailand, he told FBI interrogators all about Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the mastermind of the Sept. 11th attacks.
But then the CIA showed up. Its team was accompanied by a psychologist. And he wanted to conduct a test that would get "Zubaydah to reveal everything by severing his sense of personality and scaring him almost to death," reported Vanity Fair in 2007 in a groundbreaking story. So interrogators built a coffin and stuffed him inside it, the Senate report said, for 300 hours. He was waterboarded 83 times in 17 days. He was absolutely broken by the procedures — but not one significant plot was foiled as a result of his confessions.
Despite the failure of the interrogation methods, the psychological concept guiding them — called "learned helplessness" — lived on. With the guidance of two psychologists on contract to the CIA for $1,800 per day, the technique of stripping someone of their will would be applied to numerous additional prisoners in the coming years. Media reports have named the two psychologists: Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who in all earned $81 million in payment. They derived their approach from a well-known 1967 research paper by University of Pennsylvania psychologists.
The concept: "exposing organisms to aversive events which they cannot control," according to a later paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology co-authored by Martin E. Seligman, who studied what happens when someone loses control over their life. One definition of the result: "an apathetic attitude stemming from the conviction that one's actions do not have the power to affect one's situation." But it's also more than that. Learned helplessness occurs when a subject is so broken he will not even attempt escape if the opportunity presents itself.
The original tests were designed for dogs as part of a search for treatment of depression in humans. Seligman subjected two groups of dogs to electric shocks. One had an escape: If they moved to one area, they could stop the shocks. The other had none, and soon realized that they no matter what they did, their torment would continue. The result "seemed related to the concept of learned 'helplessness' or 'hopelessness,'" the paper said.
Decades later, the psychologist Mitchell became enamored with the idea. And in 2001, he approached Seligman at a small gathering at Seligman's house, the New York Times reported. Mitchell was so effusive in his praise of "learned helplessness" that Seligman recalled it years later. He even told his wife of the strange encounter that night. But Seligman was unaware of the uses to which it would be put.
When he later learned through media accounts how it was employed– for enhanced interrogation–he issued a statement: "I am grieved and horrified that good science, which has helped so many people overcome depression, may have been used for such bad purposes."
That may have been because he knew what the principle could do to a distressed person, as mentioned in later accounts of the treatment. In people, it "disrupts normal development and learning and leads to emotional disturbances, especially depression."
This is exactly what appeared to happen to Abu Zabaydah. With the backing of the CIA, he was stripped and exposed to loud rock music. Then, after weeks of psychological interrogation, the Senate report said Zabaydah became "compliant."
"When the interrogator 'raised his eyebrow,' without instructions, Abu Zabaydah 'slowly walked on his own to the water table and sat down,'" one account said. "... When the interrogator snapped his fingers twice, Abu Zabaydah would lie flat on the waterboard."
He had been trained. Like one of Seligman's dogs.
Now, reached for comment by Bloomberg News, Mitchell would not confirm or deny his role. But he took issue with the report's description of the treatment. The psychologist said the Senate report "cherry picks things" and others are taken out of context: "It looks like what they did was get some facts wrong. It is easy looking back in hindsight and say you could have done it better."
It's unclear from his comment whether he was referring to the efficacy of "learned helplessness" in exposing secrets — or the decision to use it at all. He declined to elaborate.
Wow...
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2014, 01:06:08 PM
Wow...
A stunningly, incredibly, massively stupid Wow of Biblical fucking proportions at that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2014, 01:06:08 PM
Wow...
A stunningly, incredibly, massively stupid Wow of Biblical fucking proportions at that.
Yeah, I was pretty much speechless.
It all leads to a single conclusion: that the people involved in this at the CIA, despite the sheer amount of resources available at its disposal--from the broadest possible range of subject matter experts across all disciplines, to access to several generations' worth of military and law enforcement personnel trained and experienced in interview, interrogation, counter-intelligence and SERE--weren't the slightest bit interested in intelligence-gathering at all.
That's like out of the final scenes of 1984.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 02:00:59 PM
That's like out of the final scenes of 1984.
I won't say such horrific misuse of science can't happen elsewhere, but I will say that only in America would the would-be Dr. Mengeles earn $81 million in consulting fees for that. ;)
I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this. :hmm:
What's the counter argument out there right now, beyond Cheney's "load of crap" and a bit of "it's taken out of context" and "trying to make Bush look bad"? Is there are coherent counter narrative being formed?
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 02:19:09 PM
What's the counter argument out there right now, beyond Cheney's "load of crap"
Which counter argument is that? He was quoted on NPR this morning as saying what was described was not torture and that he would do it again "in a heartbeat".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 01:29:58 PM
It all leads to a single conclusion: that the people involved in this at the CIA, despite the sheer amount of resources available at its disposal--from the broadest possible range of subject matter experts across all disciplines, to access to several generations' worth of military and law enforcement personnel trained and experienced in interview, interrogation, counter-intelligence and SERE--weren't the slightest bit interested in intelligence-gathering at all.
Shit, that is a decades-old problem. Look at all the stories about poly operators who are more interested in getting their rocks off by making full-scope poly candidates squirm than they are about actually finding anything of significance.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 02:19:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this. :hmm:
What's the counter argument out there right now, beyond Cheney's "load of crap" and a bit of "it's taken out of context" and "trying to make Bush look bad"? Is there are coherent counter narrative being formed?
Apparently not much. Seems the strategy is not to talk about it and keep their heads down. A good strategy in my mind would be to argue that the Democrats knew about this when it was happening but went along like everyone else. Don't know if it's true, but factual accuracy isn't strictly necessary.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 02:19:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this. :hmm:
What's the counter argument out there right now, beyond Cheney's "load of crap" and a bit of "it's taken out of context" and "trying to make Bush look bad"? Is there are coherent counter narrative being formed?
One counter I've heard is that the report didn't ask any CIA officials involved but I think that's not exactly right. There isn't any CIA testimony in the report but I think the CIA was given time to make its case for the report prior to release.
I'm as much pissed at our Congress members who allowed this stuff. This is a travesty. Maybe they didn't know everything but their claims that seem to be as innocent babes being misled is far too shady and disingenuous for me. Many of them were terrified after 9/11 then having anthrax mailed to their offices, so they were probably ready to ask the intel agencies to do anything and sign off on it. If there are charges to be brought against CIA members, or war crimes as the UN is hinting at, I wonder if some of our pols, Dem and Repub, would be in the mix as well.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 02:19:09 PM
What's the counter argument out there right now, beyond Cheney's "load of crap"
Which counter argument is that? He was quoted on NPR this morning as saying what was described was not torture and that he would do it again "in a heartbeat".
Of course, this is the man that lied straight to his own good buddy Dick Armey's face about the Iraqis and their weapons program, just to get him to change his mind about supporting the war.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2014, 02:24:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 01:29:58 PM
It all leads to a single conclusion: that the people involved in this at the CIA, despite the sheer amount of resources available at its disposal--from the broadest possible range of subject matter experts across all disciplines, to access to several generations' worth of military and law enforcement personnel trained and experienced in interview, interrogation, counter-intelligence and SERE--weren't the slightest bit interested in intelligence-gathering at all.
Shit, that is a decades-old problem.
Yeah, but when the Kennedys did it, it was with more panache and class. A simpler, more elegant time.
QuoteLook at all the stories about poly operators who are more interested in getting their rocks off by making full-scope poly candidates squirm than they are about actually finding anything of significance.
Which is why I will never apply for a job that requires one, ever again; it's bad enough to take one, but once I started working with polygraphers, I became convinced that entire process is useless and its practitioners are full of shit.
That, and I would fail. :lol: :unsure: :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 02:04:57 PM
I won't say such horrific misuse of science can't happen elsewhere, but I will say that only in America would the would-be Dr. Mengeles earn $81 million in consulting fees for that. ;)
No shit. Christ, I'd have taken a base salary, and would just need one copy of the Manhattan area Yellow Pages.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2014, 02:24:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 01:29:58 PM
It all leads to a single conclusion: that the people involved in this at the CIA, despite the sheer amount of resources available at its disposal--from the broadest possible range of subject matter experts across all disciplines, to access to several generations' worth of military and law enforcement personnel trained and experienced in interview, interrogation, counter-intelligence and SERE--weren't the slightest bit interested in intelligence-gathering at all.
Shit, that is a decades-old problem.
Yeah, but when the Kennedys did it, it was with more panache and class. A simpler, more elegant time.
QuoteLook at all the stories about poly operators who are more interested in getting their rocks off by making full-scope poly candidates squirm than they are about actually finding anything of significance.
Which is why I will never apply for a job that requires one, ever again; it's bad enough to take one, but once I started working with polygraphers, I became convinced that entire process is useless and its practitioners are full of shit.
That, and I would fail. :lol: :unsure: :ph34r:
What about packing up your hot wheel tracks and applying to the CIA? Seems that, at least, is a road to riches. :D
"Our new enhanced interogation techniques are considerably more humane ... "
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 02:44:43 PM
What about packing up your hot wheel tracks and applying to the CIA? Seems that, at least, is a road to riches. :D
"Our new enhanced interogation techniques are considerably more humane ... "
"He's been in there too long. And why is the water running?"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 01:04:47 PM
:bleeding:
Quote'Learned helplessness': The chilling psychological concept behind the CIA's interrogation methods
By Terrence McCoy
Washington Post
Of all the harrowing accounts and chilling examples in the U.S. Senate report on CIA interrogation practices, among the most striking was that of Abu Zubaydah. One of the first detainees in the war on terror, he was also one of the most vital. Lying in a bed in Thailand, he told FBI interrogators all about Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the mastermind of the Sept. 11th attacks.
But then the CIA showed up. Its team was accompanied by a psychologist. And he wanted to conduct a test that would get "Zubaydah to reveal everything by severing his sense of personality and scaring him almost to death," reported Vanity Fair in 2007 in a groundbreaking story. So interrogators built a coffin and stuffed him inside it, the Senate report said, for 300 hours. He was waterboarded 83 times in 17 days. He was absolutely broken by the procedures — but not one significant plot was foiled as a result of his confessions.
Despite the failure of the interrogation methods, the psychological concept guiding them — called "learned helplessness" — lived on. With the guidance of two psychologists on contract to the CIA for $1,800 per day, the technique of stripping someone of their will would be applied to numerous additional prisoners in the coming years. Media reports have named the two psychologists: Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who in all earned $81 million in payment. They derived their approach from a well-known 1967 research paper by University of Pennsylvania psychologists.
The concept: "exposing organisms to aversive events which they cannot control," according to a later paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology co-authored by Martin E. Seligman, who studied what happens when someone loses control over their life. One definition of the result: "an apathetic attitude stemming from the conviction that one's actions do not have the power to affect one's situation." But it's also more than that. Learned helplessness occurs when a subject is so broken he will not even attempt escape if the opportunity presents itself.
The original tests were designed for dogs as part of a search for treatment of depression in humans. Seligman subjected two groups of dogs to electric shocks. One had an escape: If they moved to one area, they could stop the shocks. The other had none, and soon realized that they no matter what they did, their torment would continue. The result "seemed related to the concept of learned 'helplessness' or 'hopelessness,'" the paper said.
Decades later, the psychologist Mitchell became enamored with the idea. And in 2001, he approached Seligman at a small gathering at Seligman's house, the New York Times reported. Mitchell was so effusive in his praise of "learned helplessness" that Seligman recalled it years later. He even told his wife of the strange encounter that night. But Seligman was unaware of the uses to which it would be put.
When he later learned through media accounts how it was employed– for enhanced interrogation–he issued a statement: "I am grieved and horrified that good science, which has helped so many people overcome depression, may have been used for such bad purposes."
That may have been because he knew what the principle could do to a distressed person, as mentioned in later accounts of the treatment. In people, it "disrupts normal development and learning and leads to emotional disturbances, especially depression."
This is exactly what appeared to happen to Abu Zabaydah. With the backing of the CIA, he was stripped and exposed to loud rock music. Then, after weeks of psychological interrogation, the Senate report said Zabaydah became "compliant."
"When the interrogator 'raised his eyebrow,' without instructions, Abu Zabaydah 'slowly walked on his own to the water table and sat down,'" one account said. "... When the interrogator snapped his fingers twice, Abu Zabaydah would lie flat on the waterboard."
He had been trained. Like one of Seligman's dogs.
Now, reached for comment by Bloomberg News, Mitchell would not confirm or deny his role. But he took issue with the report's description of the treatment. The psychologist said the Senate report "cherry picks things" and others are taken out of context: "It looks like what they did was get some facts wrong. It is easy looking back in hindsight and say you could have done it better."
It's unclear from his comment whether he was referring to the efficacy of "learned helplessness" in exposing secrets — or the decision to use it at all. He declined to elaborate.
Huh. I had suspected you could break a man like that. I had read some of the psychology literature. I guess you really can. I figured it would take a while though and only a monster would do something like that. I wouldn't imagine it being useful for quick interrogation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
"He's been in there too long. And why is the water running?"
"Seedy, quit wasting water in there!"
"Mom, I'm practicing for my job interview in Langley next week!"
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2014, 02:49:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
"He's been in there too long. And why is the water running?"
"Seedy, quit wasting water in there!"
"Mom, I'm practicing for my job interview in Langley next week!"
"You don't need your mother's copy of Vogue for that, goddammit."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
Which is why I will never apply for a job that requires one, ever again; it's bad enough to take one, but once I started working with polygraphers, I became convinced that entire process is useless and its practitioners are full of shit.
That, and I would fail. :lol: :unsure: :ph34r:
My FBI polygraph was a hoot. The dude seriously thought I was lying about past drug use and being contacted by a foreign intelligence organization.
So when are they prosecuting.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2014, 03:04:00 PM
My FBI polygraph was a hoot. The dude seriously thought I was lying about past drug use and being contacted by a foreign intelligence organization.
LOL, FBI is a totally different set of noodleheads. I have a buddy that passed 3 agency polys including the Maryland State Police and Fairfax County PD, and yet it was his poly for the FBI that the polygrapher insisted he was lying about his previous drug use. Now this is the guy that wouldn't drink beer with us in college until he was 21, mind you. Famous But Incompetent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 03:09:46 PM
LOL, FBI is a totally different set of noodleheads. I have a buddy that passed 3 agency polys including the Maryland State Police and Fairfax County PD, and yet it was his poly for the FBI that the polygrapher insisted he was lying about his previous drug use. Now this is the guy that wouldn't drink beer with us in college until he was 21, mind you. Famous But Incompetent.
I never dabbled in any illegal drug. Never even took one hit off of a joint. That's what made mine so funny. That plus trying to imagine a scenario where I'd have been contacted by some foreign spy agency.
i flat out told the dude I had lived a very boring life by most standards and he didn't believe me.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2014, 03:48:16 PM
I never dabbled in any illegal drug. Never even took one hit off of a joint. That's what made mine so funny. That plus trying to imagine a scenario where I'd have been contacted by some foreign spy agency.
i flat out told the dude I had lived a very boring life by most standards and he didn't believe me.
The thing is, there's a couple schools of thought when it comes to polygraph administration, one of which is adversarial--to challenge everything, and that you're lying until you prove you aren't. The FBI follows the adversarial method, unfortunately.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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?
If they are not going to prosecute, then it's political BS. This will pass with no more than a blip on the public's radar. More important things.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:09:21 PMIf they are not going to prosecute, then it's political BS. This will pass with no more than a blip on the public's radar. More important things.
What's your take on this? Who should prosecute and how would they go about it?
And I'm curious what your reaction is to the contents of the report.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:09:21 PMIf they are not going to prosecute, then it's political BS. This will pass with no more than a blip on the public's radar. More important things.
What's your take on this? Who should prosecute and how would they go about it?
And I'm curious what your reaction is to the contents of the report.
I guess, for me, we start here.
Was EIT legal at the time?
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
I guess, for me, we start here.
Was EIT legal at the time?
My (very simplistic) understanding is that it was declared legal at the time, but that declaration was wrong - that that declaration was either illegal itself, based on lies, or otherwise faulty. The issue with prosecuting this is that the responsible parties are high up enough that it would be an inherently political process; furthermore, I *think* the appropriate bodies for prosecution would be the Senate and/ Congress (i.e. some kind of hearings need to be convened), which is unlikely at the moment.
... that's my impression, but I'm very far from an expert on this, so I'd welcome any corrections/ elaborations from anyone who knows this better.
Is your concern here primarily about legality and prosecution? Do you have any thoughts on the morality of it?
Personally I would like to see prosecutions and legal sanctions enacted, but (based on my limited understanding) that is unlikely. Nonetheless, I'm quite concerned with the moral part of it as well, and it concerns me to see the US having engaged in this level of... well, I think depravity is a fairly accurate description.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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.
The point, I would imagine, is to publicly shame the government into not doing it in the future for fear of such publication.
Which is probably more important that prosecuting the psychos who carried it out.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:41:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
I guess, for me, we start here.
Was EIT legal at the time?
My (very simplistic) understanding is that it was declared legal at the time, but that declaration was wrong - that that declaration was either illegal itself, based on lies, or otherwise faulty. The issue with prosecuting this is that the responsible parties are high up enough that it would be an inherently political process; furthermore, I *think* the appropriate bodies for prosecution would be the Senate and/ Congress (i.e. some kind of hearings need to be convened), which is unlikely at the moment.
... that's my impression, but I'm very far from an expert on this, so I'd welcome any corrections/ elaborations from anyone who knows this better.
Is your concern here primarily about legality and prosecution? Do you have any thoughts on the morality of it?
Personally I would like to see prosecutions and legal sanctions enacted, but (based on my limited understanding) that is unlikely. Nonetheless, I'm quite concerned with the moral part of it as well, and it concerns me to see the US having engaged in this level of... well, I think depravity is a fairly accurate description.
Not disagreeing with your statement. If they don't prosecute, it's nothing but bullshit political games started by Feinstein. Do you really think the vast majority of the American public gives a shit at this point? IMO, no. It's not on their radar.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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.
To learn from past mistakes. And this is a big lesson to learn.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2014, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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.
To learn from past mistakes. And this is a big lesson to learn.
The US Government doesn't learn from it's past mistakes. Silly canuk.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:45:57 PMNot disagreeing with your statement. If they don't prosecute, it's nothing but bullshit political games started by Feinstein. Do you really think the vast majority of the American public gives a shit at this point? IMO, no. It's not on their radar.
Yeah, there's definitely a political dimension to this, but I'm not sure that should make it off limits.
For one, personally, I think this is serious enough that it should be addressed and if the only way that's gonna happen is to put it into the political arena (and it seems it is), then I think it's legitimate. If the American public ultimately decides that they don't give a fuck, then they don't and there you have the new American normal - depraved and pointless torture is okay on some occasions.
Alternately, this political play could lead to some sort of political action - maybe McCain gets enough Republicans on board and something can happen across party lines - that results in responsible parties actually seeing legal sanction. I don't know how likely it is, but the possibility is there which makes it worthwhile even from a looking-for-prosecutions-perspective. Ultimately, in my view, this situation is big enough that the proper arena for handling it is the political arena; is this kind of torture acceptable for the US? That's a political question. It's one I'd hoped was beyond the pale to ask, with the answer being a resounding NO, but that seems less certain now.
So basically, I agree with you that it is political, but I disagree that it is bullshit. I think this shit is important.
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2014, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:41:47 PM
Political BS
Well, yeah. It is a partisan report.
Yeah maybe it is a partisan report, but I don't know how much that really changes things. I mean, does the fact that it may be a partisan report mean that innocents weren't tortured or that guilty people weren't subjected to depraved torture for no useful purposes? Or does the partisan nature of the report mean that those actions were justified?
Because there is plenty of room to make those arguments in response to the report - that the torture either didn't happen (which seems doubtful) or that it was justified (though it'll be pretty hard to convince me personally).
So what changes about this if we accept that the report is partisan?
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.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 05:01:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:45:57 PMNot disagreeing with your statement. If they don't prosecute, it's nothing but bullshit political games started by Feinstein. Do you really think the vast majority of the American public gives a shit at this point? IMO, no. It's not on their radar.
Yeah, there's definitely a political dimension to this, but I'm not sure that should make it off limits.
For one, personally, I think this is serious enough that it should be addressed and if the only way that's gonna happen is to put it into the political arena (and it seems it is), then I think it's legitimate. If the American public ultimately decides that they don't give a fuck, then they don't and there you have the new American normal - depraved and pointless torture is okay on some occasions.
Alternately, this political play could lead to some sort of political action - maybe McCain gets enough Republicans on board and something can happen across party lines - that results in responsible parties actually seeing legal sanction. I don't know how likely it is, but the possibility is there which makes it worthwhile even from a looking-for-prosecutions-perspective. Ultimately, in my view, this situation is big enough that the proper arena for handling it is the political arena; is this kind of torture acceptable for the US? That's a political question. It's one I'd hoped was beyond the pale to ask, with the answer being a resounding NO, but that seems less certain now.
So basically, I agree with you that it is political, but I disagree that it is bullshit. I think this shit is important.
In the end Jacob there will be other committees formed (grand political drama). Each side will him haw and the finger pointing will be epic. It will yield the fruits of millions of more dollars spent and that we were naughty. Euro countries will will feign aghastness as a facade. China, Russian, and Iran et al will point their finger and say, "see you got shitty draws too."
The general AP will not give a shit, because it's not what they give a shit about. They don't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks. It was just waterboarding, not electrical shock or pulling finger nails.
WTF does "just waterboarding" mean anyway? Since when did waterboarding become "just waterboarding"?
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2014, 05:28:08 PM
WTF does "just waterboarding" mean anyway? Since when did waterboarding become "just waterboarding"?
Rest of the world is just jealous at our athletic abilities and extreme sports.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F000340847%2Fpolls_wake_boarder_home_1658_191459_poll_xlarge.jpeg&hash=deec79128cfe8b39558382543a6ddfb7276a3412)
Water boarding would make an interesting game show.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 05:19:34 PM
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.
Agreed. There is no way to make Congress smell nice from this. They may not have known every detail but they knew enough to know better.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
We should totally get a grand jury on that, stat!
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2014, 05:28:08 PM
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
Quote"Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we'd baptize terrorists."- Palin
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
:lol: essentially yes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2014, 05:35:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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?
How much in the report is new information? We already knew about waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, sleep deprivation, loud music, stress positions, etc.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
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?
When Putin heard of this he prbably said, "WTF are they doing :lol: :lol: :lol:, silly self righteous Americans."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 05:41:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:42:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 05:19:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:42:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:35:42 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:42:52 PM
When Putin heard of this he prbably said, "WTF are they doing :lol: :lol: :lol:, silly self righteous Americans."
Who gives a fuck what Putin thinks?
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 05:41:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 05:47:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 05:19:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 05:47:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 06:04:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:42:52 PM
When Putin heard of this he prbably said, "WTF are they doing :lol: :lol: :lol:, silly self righteous Americans."
Who gives a fuck what Putin thinks?
exactly
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 06:04:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 05:47:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2014, 05:35:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2014, 05:54:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2014, 05:31:49 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2014, 07:03:57 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:42:52 PM
When Putin heard of this he prbably said, "WTF are they doing :lol: :lol: :lol:, 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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2014, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2014, 05:54:09 PM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2014, 07:03:57 PMI'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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 07:13:11 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 07:13:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2014, 07:03:57 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 04:30:39 PM
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 07:37:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
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?
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 11, 2014, 06:28:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 06:04:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 05:47:57 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2014, 05:19:34 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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?
Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2014, 01:46:47 AM
implicated in human rights abuses (with Obama doing drone strikes instead of torture) -
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F1507.gif&hash=c204e505f8d9df897cbcdabf57fae2d6c3db8be8)
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2014, 01:46:47 AM
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.
Quote from: KRonn on December 10, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
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.
I never understood the opposition to drone strikes. Presumably it would be better if we sent mail bombs. Truth is, I want these people dead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2014, 01:51:01 PMWhat's particularly puzzling about this story is that it was the Bush administration that was pushing for disbarment. First they accept the arguments in his memo as the legal basis for EIT, then later on decide that it was unethical in some way. Did he make up cites? Fabricate case law?
Read up more on Dick Cheney and his power within the Bush White House. Generally all other cabinet-level officials in the Bush Administration loathed Cheney, because he was essentially more powerful than them and no one expects that going into an administration--the most recent Al Gore model for example didn't fit that mold at all. A lot of these legal opinions came either direct from Cheney or people loyal to Cheney in the Justice Department. Cheney actually is known several times to have circumvented the entire cabinet with issues like this and gone straight to Bush, and due to his working relationship with Bush he was the only person who had that sort of access. Cabinet members or high level officials didn't get access to Bush unless Cheney knew about it, and Cheney could be in the room for any of those meetings. The converse was not true. A lot of people under the Ashcroft Justice Department didn't like this policy as it was being crafted, but they were essentially powerless compared to the Vice President.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 10:19:15 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 10, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
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.
The real opposition, once you strip out the hysterical, pacifist and anti-imperialist stuff, is actually over the targeting criteria for signature strikes and the issue of imminent threat for a lot of the specifically targeted strikes.
Always target the middle car. The lead and follow cars are the security details.
I actually think this report is foolish political theater conducted by Feinstein and it serves no valid or good purpose.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has full oversight authority over activities like this, including authority to subpoena administration officials. If it chose not to exercise that authority at the time, it shouldn't be doing it today. My reasoning is pretty simple, we already knew torture was happening. This has been known since the Bush Administration. Very few new specifics have come out through this report, certainly nothing that changes the "nature of what we knew." More examples of things we already knew were happening isn't really new in terms of how you should respond to it. The Bush Administration put a stop to this stuff and said it wouldn't do it again, Holder investigated and it was reiterated by the Obama Administration in his first term that this happened, was bad, and wouldn't happen again. It was also made known definitively that no one would be prosecuted for it, end of story.
All this report has done is cause even more strained relations with European/NATO allies, I'm sure in the late 2000s when all of this stuff came out for the first time this was big news in Europe, but Europe had already digested and moved on. Now this is front page news there again, and in a way that embarrasses and harms some of those said allies to no good end.
I do not buy that the Bush Administration was meaningfully deceived on what was going on. Any administration that did stuff like this was going to bake in plausible deniability, but they knew (if not specifically) what their orders and advice to the CIA would turn into. It's very similar to a King telling someone "take care of this, and don't bother me with the details." Saying that means you know what the details are but want moral separation from them (a false moral separation) by not being briefed on every slice of skin.
Practically speaking, I really want to see our intelligence agencies to cease programs that appear to provide no meaningful intelligence and no tactical or strategic advantages whatsoever and also then end up being political time bombs. It's very similar to the NSA Internet metadata collection program, which has resulted in mountains of worthless data (as in never been used productively) and tons of ill will that actually in that case has spilled over to hurting the international business operations of our large tech companies.
Morally speaking I have no real problem with torture, I certainly wouldn't torture anyone as I view it as personally immoral, but I believe States are and must be amoral and expect them to always be.
I don't believe this generates any increased practical risk of terrorism directed at the United States. We didn't torture anyone during the Clinton Administration or the first year of the Bush Administration and a bunch of Islamic terrorists flew planes into buildings and killed 3,000 Americans, terrorism that even after a period of torture and outright war with the Muslim world stands out as the most devastating terrorist attack in American history. If that can happen long before invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, world wide assassinations of Islamic terrorist leaders and et cetera I don't buy that these actions increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2014, 10:22:06 AM
I never understood the opposition to drone strikes. Presumably it would be better if we sent mail bombs. Truth is, I want these people dead.
Good man.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
Morally speaking I have no real problem with torture, I certainly wouldn't torture anyone as I view it as personally immoral, but I believe States are and must be amoral and expect them to always be.
Yes, that is one of the problems. It seems people who had decision making authority thought the same thing.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 12, 2014, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2014, 10:22:06 AM
I never understood the opposition to drone strikes. Presumably it would be better if we sent mail bombs. Truth is, I want these people dead.
Good man.
Mail bombs are good.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2014, 11:09:18 AMYes, that is one of the problems. It seems people who had decision making authority thought the same thing.
Come at me bro.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2014, 11:09:18 AMYes, that is one of the problems. It seems people who had decision making authority thought the same thing.
Come at me bro.
Naw, you have already done enough to yourself. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2014, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
Morally speaking I have no real problem with torture, I certainly wouldn't torture anyone as I view it as personally immoral, but I believe States are and must be amoral and expect them to always be.
Yes, that is one of the problems. It seems people who had decision making authority thought the same thing.
Not really. Otto speaks as though "states" were more than legal fictions. Of course "states" are immoral, but "states" don't torture people. Only people torture people, and when they do so, the appropriate legal authorities should punish them. The people who directed and carried out torture didn't think that the torture was going to be carried out by some impersonal and amoral state; they knew exactly which individuals were going to torture exactly which victims.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2014, 11:51:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2014, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
Morally speaking I have no real problem with torture, I certainly wouldn't torture anyone as I view it as personally immoral, but I believe States are and must be amoral and expect them to always be.
Yes, that is one of the problems. It seems people who had decision making authority thought the same thing.
Not really. Otto speaks as though "states" were more than legal fictions. Of course "states" are immoral, but "states" don't torture people. Only people torture people, and when they do so, the appropriate legal authorities should punish them. The people who directed and carried out torture didn't think that the torture was going to be carried out by some impersonal and amoral state; they knew exactly which individuals were going to torture exactly which victims.
Fair point
Yeah, I share a lot of Otto's basic objections to the report - I think it is about 94% political theater of the worst kind.
But the idea that you can cloak the actions of the "state" behind some "amoral" fiction is ridiculous. People act on the behest of the state, which in turn is acting at the behest of and in the interests of the citizens it represents. It is not just "amoral" to claim that the state can be "amoral", it is downright, IMO, evil. And I mean that in a very practical manner, much more so than I mean it in a theoretical manner. It is that kind of thinking, that the actions of people on the behest of the state cannot be wrong that leads to the most horrific of human behaviors.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2014, 12:12:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2014, 11:51:51 AMNot really. Otto speaks as though "states" were more than legal fictions. Of course "states" are immoral, but "states" don't torture people. Only people torture people, and when they do so, the appropriate legal authorities should punish them. The people who directed and carried out torture didn't think that the torture was going to be carried out by some impersonal and amoral state; they knew exactly which individuals were going to torture exactly which victims.
Fair point
I never thought I'd see the day...
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 12:15:47 PMI think it is about 94% political theater of the worst kind
What is it that makes it so bad? That there will be few concrete results in terms of prosecution etc? That the people involved are in bringing this forward are in you opinion likely to be motivated by political concerns?
To me, there's a fundamental clash of values here, and significant wrongdoing that otherwise seemed destined to be left untouched. Bringing it into the political limelight is exactly what the political process is supposed to do (or one of the things it's supposed to do). It may be political theatre, but IMO it's of a vital kind.
Is torture in the name of the American people okay or not okay?
Whether it's "partisan" or not, the fact of the matter is that the CIA was lying to political leadership, whether it was an Administration that didn't care or a Senate committee with its head in the sand.
And contrary to Martinus's opinion that the whole place is full of sociopaths, there were several examples of CIA personnel looking to its own leadership for guidance--including the crew in Thailand, that found it to be so reprehensible they tried to get out.
"Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant." -- some universally renowned American statesman of the Victorian era, probably a Supreme Court justice and maybe the same one who came up with the "laboratory of democracy" line about the states.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2014, 11:51:51 AMNot really. Otto speaks as though "states" were more than legal fictions. Of course "states" are immoral, but "states" don't torture people. Only people torture people, and when they do so, the appropriate legal authorities should punish them. The people who directed and carried out torture didn't think that the torture was going to be carried out by some impersonal and amoral state; they knew exactly which individuals were going to torture exactly which victims.
I'm not sure "legal fiction" makes much sense, they're a "legal construct", but fiction implies an ephemeral nature that I think doesn't apply to entities that possess as much force monopoly and real world power as your typical State.
I don't know that they knew "exactly which individuals", unless you're talking about a lower rung of management. I doubt Bush/Cheney knew which contractor or which agent was pouring the water, only that it was going to be done, but I also think they "knew" in a way that avoids direct linkages through any typical chain of command.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 12:15:47 PM
Yeah, I share a lot of Otto's basic objections to the report - I think it is about 94% political theater of the worst kind.
But the idea that you can cloak the actions of the "state" behind some "amoral" fiction is ridiculous. People act on the behest of the state, which in turn is acting at the behest of and in the interests of the citizens it represents. It is not just "amoral" to claim that the state can be "amoral", it is downright, IMO, evil. And I mean that in a very practical manner, much more so than I mean it in a theoretical manner. It is that kind of thinking, that the actions of people on the behest of the state cannot be wrong that leads to the most horrific of human behaviors.
Let's make it clear--I'm fine with prosecuting people who do illegal things. Torture is illegal. I'm just saying they won't be prosecuted, and we've known that since 2009. We've also known all the "material information" we need to know about this to have already come to a moral judgment of these individuals as well (thus why I say the report may have filled in some blanks but didn't show us anything that changed the fundamental understanding of what happened), which is why I say this report is ill advised.
I'm also not defending the immorality of States, just commenting on it. I don't believe States will ever be moral actors for lots of reasons. But I'm not a Statist per se, I advocate for strong government because I think any conglomeration of humans is little more than a barbarian horde and need to be controlled and ordered, but I view the state as a necessary evil. Where I split with libertarians is I feel once you've signed on for all the benefits you get from said necessary evil, I think you need to go all the way and make the State robust/strong, not indolent and weak.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2014, 12:26:18 PMWhat is it that makes it so bad? That there will be few concrete results in terms of prosecution etc? That the people involved are in bringing this forward are in you opinion likely to be motivated by political concerns?
If I may--it's because we already essentially knew all of this. All that releasing this report does is stir up more problems with our allies because it puts it back in the press. It's very similar to the NSA metadata collection in that regard. We already knew we waterboarded people. We already knew that we used "stress positions" and loud music and sleep deprivation. Are there a few new details that came out? Sure. But those other things were torture and we have known since 2008 for a
fact that we had tortured people. Bush put an end to the program initially because word was getting out. Holder investigated it in 2009. Movies have actually been made based on CIA types who have leaked information and film makers ran with it. This report isn't telling us something
materially new.
Even the concept of CIA black sites and secret prisons in NATO ally territory has also been known for a long time. This Senate report thus digs up something we already knew, had already decided we would not act on, and in a way that hurts our relationship with close allies.
QuoteTo me, there's a fundamental clash of values here, and significant wrongdoing that otherwise seemed destined to be left untouched. Bringing it into the political limelight is exactly what the political process is supposed to do (or one of the things it's supposed to do). It may be political theatre, but IMO it's of a vital kind.
I'd agree if this was the first we heard about this, but this had all already been called wrong, deemed illegal, and been in the limelight and press before--and our Attorney General made it known
no one would ever be punished for it. Dredging it up again is just troublemaking.
QuoteIs torture in the name of the American people okay or not okay?
Legally it's been established it's not okay, and the program was cancelled
the first time outcry started over it. It was then later reviewed by a new Administration, which caused it to be in the press again. This is arguably the third time we've gone to the well on this one.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 12:15:47 PMI think it is about 94% political theater of the worst kind
What is it that makes it so bad? That there will be few concrete results in terms of prosecution etc? That the people involved are in bringing this forward are in you opinion likely to be motivated by political concerns?
To me, there's a fundamental clash of values here, and significant wrongdoing that otherwise seemed destined to be left untouched. Bringing it into the political limelight is exactly what the political process is supposed to do (or one of the things it's supposed to do). It may be political theatre, but IMO it's of a vital kind.
Is torture in the name of the American people okay or not okay?
It is bad because it serves no purpose - there isn't anything here that wasn't already known, and it is clear that the intent is not to illuminate but rather to exaggerate, and it has worked very well.
The report has no nuance to it, no attempt at balance, no effort to even really understand what ACTUALLY happened and why. It is just there to make the targets look as bad as possible. It isn't objective or balanced.
I mean, not only did the US torture people, they apparently did it for no reason at all, because none of it worked, and everyone knew it didn't work, and yet they did it anyway. Apparently because they are all EVIL.
That is just to stupid it doesn't pass even a basic sniff test.
Of course torture is not ok, but we knew that a month ago, didn't we?
My objection to bullshit like this is that is subsittute political theater for actual reform, or even attempting to understand why people do the things they do, and why they make the mistakes they make. It isn't emotionally satisfying enough to say that people made bad decisions for good reasons, or that enhanced interrogation is effective sometimes, and deciding where to draw the line between what works and what our conscience allows is hard, so we just go with the "Hey, all these people are like Hitler! We don't need to understand anything, they were EVIL!".
The reality is, as always, much more nuanced than that, and what bothers me is that the reality is much more dangerous than this simplistic idea that apparently the US engaged in torture because a bunch of sadists all decided it would be fun. Because what that really means is that it lets us disconnect from the perpetrators - WE are not grotesquely evil people, so in 20 years when someone is trying to make hard choices again, will they even look at this if this narrative sticks? It won't be the same thing at all - these hypothetical future people won't be sadists looking to get their jollies off, they will be consciencious human beings put in hard spots and asked to make difficult decisions about ethics, morality, and the law. And if this kind of idiotic narrative takes root, they would (and should) simply dismiss anything learned, because what does the actions of a bunch of sadists and psychopaths have to do with THEM?
Of course, it has everything to do with them, because these actions and decisions taken in the decades after 9/11 were not made by crazy assholes who are evil people who like to torture for its own sake. They are people in tough situations being asked to make tough decisions and they made some really, really bad ones. But exaggerating it, demonizing them, painting the entire thing as this black and white good vs evil where evil won, just makes the entire thing largely meaningless, except as a means to make everyone justly outraged at the evil of Americans and their allies.
IMO, the entire thing is at the same time not nearly as bad as the reporting and reports like this make it out to be (in that it was not by any means some crazy psycopath assholes getting their rocks off torturing people for no discernible reason) and actually much more concerning (in that the road to hell truly is paved with the best of intentions, and the people who made terrible errors here did so almost certainly for what they thought at the time were the best of reasons), and that is a lot more dangerous than the crazy asshole psychopath narrative being embraced.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 01:21:42 PM
Of course, it has everything to do with them, because these actions and decisions taken in the decades after 9/11 were not made by crazy assholes who are evil people who like to torture for its own sake. They are people in tough situations being asked to make tough decisions and they made some really, really bad ones.
"tough situations" might be some kind of excuse for the line CIA guys who got "carried away". Maybe. But it doesn't excuse the DC desk jockeys who authorized them to act and gave them the legal cover. Those guys didn't have tough decisions to make. All he had to do was their job - uphold the constitution and carry out the law of the United States. Whether what they did is "evil" or not I don't care - leave that to the theologians. But what they did is fully deserving of all the opprobrium that has been heaped on them and more.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 01:21:42 PM
It is bad because it serves no purpose - there isn't anything here that wasn't already known, and it is clear that the intent is not to illuminate but rather to exaggerate, and it has worked very well.
The report has no nuance to it, no attempt at balance, no effort to even really understand what ACTUALLY happened and why. It is just there to make the targets look as bad as possible. It isn't objective or balanced.
I mean, not only did the US torture people, they apparently did it for no reason at all, because none of it worked, and everyone knew it didn't work, and yet they did it anyway. Apparently because they are all EVIL.
That is just to stupid it doesn't pass even a basic sniff test.
It is interesting that you respond to the report using exactly the kind of reasoning you criticize in the report! :lol:
QuoteMy objection to bullshit like this is that is subsittute political theater for actual reform, or even attempting to understand why people do the things they do, and why they make the mistakes they make. It isn't emotionally satisfying enough to say that people made bad decisions for good reasons, or that enhanced interrogation is effective sometimes, and deciding where to draw the line between what works and what our conscience allows is hard, so we just go with the "Hey, all these people are like Hitler! We don't need to understand anything, they were EVIL!".
The report doesn't say that anyone was like Hitler, and doesn't use the word evil (let alone EVIL!).
Quote(skipped a bunch of strawman arguments).
The report has problems, of course. Among them is the fact that the republicans on the committee refused to participate in its preparation, and so it ended up being a pretty-much-Democrat-only report. I can live with that. While I think that we "knew" in the past that torture had been carried out, because individuals reported it, I am not aware of any official document from a US government agency or actor that laid out the details like this report does. We "knew" Nixon was guilty of a criminal conspiracy to cover up Watergate long before he resigned, but he didn't resign until that knowledge became official. That's the difference here, too: we knew, but now we officially know.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 01:21:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2014, 12:15:47 PMI think it is about 94% political theater of the worst kind
What is it that makes it so bad? That there will be few concrete results in terms of prosecution etc? That the people involved are in bringing this forward are in you opinion likely to be motivated by political concerns?
To me, there's a fundamental clash of values here, and significant wrongdoing that otherwise seemed destined to be left untouched. Bringing it into the political limelight is exactly what the political process is supposed to do (or one of the things it's supposed to do). It may be political theatre, but IMO it's of a vital kind.
Is torture in the name of the American people okay or not okay?
It is bad because it serves no purpose - there isn't anything here that wasn't already known, and it is clear that the intent is not to illuminate but rather to exaggerate, and it has worked very well.
The report has no nuance to it, no attempt at balance, no effort to even really understand what ACTUALLY happened and why. It is just there to make the targets look as bad as possible. It isn't objective or balanced.
I mean, not only did the US torture people, they apparently did it for no reason at all, because none of it worked, and everyone knew it didn't work, and yet they did it anyway. Apparently because they are all EVIL.
That is just to stupid it doesn't pass even a basic sniff test.
Of course torture is not ok, but we knew that a month ago, didn't we?
My objection to bullshit like this is that is subsittute political theater for actual reform, or even attempting to understand why people do the things they do, and why they make the mistakes they make. It isn't emotionally satisfying enough to say that people made bad decisions for good reasons, or that enhanced interrogation is effective sometimes, and deciding where to draw the line between what works and what our conscience allows is hard, so we just go with the "Hey, all these people are like Hitler! We don't need to understand anything, they were EVIL!".
The reality is, as always, much more nuanced than that, and what bothers me is that the reality is much more dangerous than this simplistic idea that apparently the US engaged in torture because a bunch of sadists all decided it would be fun. Because what that really means is that it lets us disconnect from the perpetrators - WE are not grotesquely evil people, so in 20 years when someone is trying to make hard choices again, will they even look at this if this narrative sticks? It won't be the same thing at all - these hypothetical future people won't be sadists looking to get their jollies off, they will be consciencious human beings put in hard spots and asked to make difficult decisions about ethics, morality, and the law. And if this kind of idiotic narrative takes root, they would (and should) simply dismiss anything learned, because what does the actions of a bunch of sadists and psychopaths have to do with THEM?
Of course, it has everything to do with them, because these actions and decisions taken in the decades after 9/11 were not made by crazy assholes who are evil people who like to torture for its own sake. They are people in tough situations being asked to make tough decisions and they made some really, really bad ones. But exaggerating it, demonizing them, painting the entire thing as this black and white good vs evil where evil won, just makes the entire thing largely meaningless, except as a means to make everyone justly outraged at the evil of Americans and their allies.
IMO, the entire thing is at the same time not nearly as bad as the reporting and reports like this make it out to be (in that it was not by any means some crazy psycopath assholes getting their rocks off torturing people for no discernible reason) and actually much more concerning (in that the road to hell truly is paved with the best of intentions, and the people who made terrible errors here did so almost certainly for what they thought at the time were the best of reasons), and that is a lot more dangerous than the crazy asshole psychopath narrative being embraced.
I don't agree with the argument from incredulity here. There are lots of reasons for organizations to become so dysfunctional they do stuff that is morally wrong that is not even, in a balance of interests sort of way, for their own benefit - there are numerous examples. In fact, it may even be typical of organizations that are reacting to a perceived shocking outrage with fear and paranoia. The 20th century was rife with this stuff - from the Nazis (much of what they did made no sense from a purely self-interested POV - they gained exactly nothing from the Holocaust) through Communists (Stalin's purges nearly destroyed the Red Army) through Americans (McCarthyism did America much harm and no good).
They gained a reduction in Jews.
They gained immortality.
If a man were measured solely by the sheer brassiness of his balls, Dick Cheney would be the winner.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2014, 02:50:12 PM
If a man were measured solely by the sheer brassiness of his balls, Dick Cheney would be the winner.
No kidding. The man is a throwback to a different era. Let's hear it for Wyoming grads.
Meanwhile, the Balls of Light will either be 1) disappointed or 2) not surprised:
QuotePoll: Almost half say torture sometimes needed
By Lucy McCalmont
Politico
12/15/14 8:34 AM EST
Nearly seven in 10 Americans consider waterboarding torture, but nearly half also believe that such tactics are sometimes necessary in interrogation, according to a new poll.
Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said the tactic is torture, according to a CBS poll released Monday on the heels of the controversial Senate report detailing the CIA interrogation program that took place under the Bush administration from 2002 until it ended in 2009.
Despite criticism of some of the tactics described in the report, 49 percent said such tactics are sometimes justified — a number that has increased in recent years, the outlet said — and 57 percent said they believe it leads to information to prevent terrorist attacks.
Thirty-seven percent said such tactics are never justified.
The CBS News poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 11-14 and surveyed 1,003 adults nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Quote
Skinny Puppy demands $666,000 in royalties from U.S. government for using their music in Guantanamo torture
Skinny Puppy @ Best Buy Theatre, 12/2/2014 (more by Greg Cristman)
Canadian industrial band Skinny Puppy have invoiced the U.S. government $666,000 in royalties after learning their music was used as a torture device at Guantánamo Bay:
Cevin Key, the band's keyboardist, says the band at first planned to design an album cover based on an invoice for the U.S. government, rather than sending a physical invoice. But after learning that the government had allegedly used their music without permission, Key says the band was told it could bring a suit against the Department of Defense.
"We sent them an invoice for our musical services considering they had gone ahead and used our music without our knowledge and used it as an actual weapon against somebody," Key told CTV's Kevin Newman Live.
And Key said band members were "offended" to learn that their music was played in the notorious prison to "inflict damage" on detainees.
"I wouldn't want to be subjected to any overly loud music for six to 12 hours at a time without a break," he said.
Key says a former Guantanamo Bay guard and fan of the band contacted the musicians to let them know their music was being used at the detention centre. - [CTV]
Other music reportedly used in Guantánamo Bay as torture include works by Metallica, Rage Against The Machine, Queen, Eminem and, apparently, David Gray. Skinny Puppy were just in NYC on tour with fellow Canadian industrialists Front Line Assembly.
Surprised the list does not include Shitgoat.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 01:46:11 PM
They gained a reduction in Jews.
And yet no report on Holocaust gives Nazis the credit for that. Berkut would be disappointed at such glaring lack of objectivity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2014, 02:50:12 PM
If a man were measured solely by the sheer brassiness of his balls, Dick Cheney would be the winner.
No shit.
Cheney on Meet the Press:
Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."
That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.
You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.
If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.
Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.
This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.
I would think that Cheney is widely-travelled enough that he harbours no real belief in American exceptionalism. That's just a slogan for use in hard economic times when 'land of opportunity' would alienate everyone. It enables them to answer the question 'Why is America the greatest country in the world, rather than just the strongest?', and thus avoid dealing with any of the very real problems that afflict the United States.
I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:35:43 AM
I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.
Every country has their national ideals, their myths, their concepts that inform what it means to BE American. They aren't necessarily strictly "true" in a analytic sense, but that doesn't mean they are not important.
In reference to this topic, I think McCain is 110% right in exactly how he expresses what it means to be an American, or what we want to think we stand for, and how torture just completely destroys that. The fact that America isn't *really* truly exceptional isn't really the point...
But the thing is they weren't talking about this in the sense of myths and ideals. They were talking in a factual, here-and-now sense. Essentially, Napolitano was arguing that American laws should be made less restrictive and less illiberal - and Stewart countered by saying that the US has already the free-est laws in the world so there is no other country you could compare to, in order to see what it is like to have a free-er society.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:42:48 AM
But the thing is they weren't talking about this in the sense of myths and ideals. They were talking in a factual, here-and-now sense. Essentially, Napolitano was arguing that American laws should be made less restrictive and less illiberal - and Stewart countered by saying that the US has already the free-est laws in the world so there is no other country you could compare to, in order to see what it is like to have a free-er society.
Hmmm. I don't know what the context is - is Stewart right though? Are there other Western countries with "freer" laws in general than the US?
I don't really know the answer - hell, I don't even really know what the question is, or how you would measure it.
Were they talking about economic regulation? Social regulation?
I don't think Americans have to worry about not being exceptional when it comes to torture. Sorry, Enhanced Torture Techniques.
As for free, America is freer in some ways and not in others. America has much stronger freedom of speech than Sweden, but it also has estate tax etc etc etc.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:35:43 AM
I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.
It is a vital concept in the functioning of our country. If we ever stopped believing this then I am not sure what would be the point of our country. It would be like Poland deciding to stop being Polish.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 09:10:36 AM
Cheney on Meet the Press:
Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."
That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.
You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.
If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.
Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.
This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.
Quite, In this Cheney = Hitler. For real.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 09:10:36 AM
No shit.
Cheney on Meet the Press:
Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."
That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.
You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.
If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.
Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.
This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.
It's cute when a guy doesn't go through his bright eyed emo college kid phase until middle age. Daily Kos style.
Washington Post's Factchecker gives Uncle Dick's "claim that the U.S. did not prosecute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding" on Sunday's "Meet the Press" three Pinnochios.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/16/cheneys-claim-that-the-u-s-did-not-prosecute-japanese-soldiers-for-waterboarding/?hpid=z6
And they tossed in some art while they were at it.
Da Nang, '68.
Not pictured: Dick Cheney (five deferments)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-apps%2Fimrs.php%3Fsrc%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwaterboarding.org%2Ffiles%2Fwaterboarding%2Fimages%2F1968.01.21%2520vietnam.jpg%26amp%3Bw%3D1484&hash=f5f0d2892af57545f182125ad3cbe69a3a714234)
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:42:48 AM
But the thing is they weren't talking about this in the sense of myths and ideals. They were talking in a factual, here-and-now sense. Essentially, Napolitano was arguing that American laws should be made less restrictive and less illiberal - and Stewart countered by saying that the US has already the free-est laws in the world so there is no other country you could compare to, in order to see what it is like to have a free-er society.
Hmmm. I don't know what the context is - is Stewart right though? Are there other Western countries with "freer" laws in general than the US?
I don't really know the answer - hell, I don't even really know what the question is, or how you would measure it.
Were they talking about economic regulation? Social regulation?
They were talking about stuff like drone strikes and invigilation. My point is, I guess, that in stuff like that Western countries are probably at the forefront of freedom, with regulations being quite complex and varying to a degree in their different aspects (I would assume for example Scandiweenia would be free-er when it comes to powers of the police; while the US would be free-er in some other aspects etc.)
What I found perplexing is Stewart's insistence (and Napolitano's unreserved agreement) that the US is freeest, period. Even if it is true, I would imagine anyone would reserve their position by saying "we are one of the freeest nations in the world" or something along these lines.
Meh, we didn't prosecute very many of the Japanese, in proportion to the massive number that were war criminals. Plus as described the Japanese water torture really wasn't waterboarding, different things:
QuoteThe judgment of the IMTFE included a description of the type of torture known as "the water treatment," in which "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness,"
One thing that The Economist noted is that while the torture was bad and stuff, America is legit one of the few countries that so regularly and so thoroughly airs its dirty laundry in public. There are a lot of liberal democracies that white wash their ethical failings.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:06:33 AMThey were talking about stuff like drone strikes and invigilation. My point is, I guess, that in stuff like that Western countries are probably at the forefront of freedom, with regulations being quite complex and varying to a degree in their different aspects (I would assume for example Scandiweenia would be free-er when it comes to powers of the police; while the US would be free-er in some other aspects etc.)
What I found perplexing is Stewart's insistence (and Napolitano's unreserved agreement) that the US is freeest, period. Even if it is true, I would imagine anyone would reserve their position by saying "we are one of the freeest nations in the world" or something along these lines.
While often taken seriously, Jon Stewart at heart is a comedian who is just politically knowledge enough to be dangerous. I doubt he actually has any comprehensive knowledge of typical laws in other OECD countries, for example. He's just repeating some platitude he heard somewhere.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:08:57 AM
One thing that The Economist noted is that while the torture was bad and stuff, America is legit one of the few countries that so regularly and so thoroughly airs its dirty laundry in public. There are a lot of liberal democracies that white wash their ethical failings.
So it's ok as long as we tell people about it? Exposing it doesn't make it better unless it prevents it from happening again. Cheney's position is quite the opposite of contrite.
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2014, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:35:43 AM
I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.
It is a vital concept in the functioning of our country. If we ever stopped believing this then I am not sure what would be the point of our country. It would be like Poland deciding to stop being Polish.
I guess - it is probably like Polish people believing we are "the Christ of Nations" and the nation "most victimised by others" in the history of humanity. Never mind it is dysfunctional bullshit.
Quote from: frunk on December 16, 2014, 11:12:00 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:08:57 AM
One thing that The Economist noted is that while the torture was bad and stuff, America is legit one of the few countries that so regularly and so thoroughly airs its dirty laundry in public. There are a lot of liberal democracies that white wash their ethical failings.
So it's ok as long as we tell people about it? Exposing it doesn't make it better unless it prevents it from happening again. Cheney's position is quite the opposite of contrite.
That is my point I made earlier - and one where I dare say I made a good analogy - i.e. being like a cheating husband who confesses to having a mistress and then expects accolades for being so honest about it.
Quote from: frunk on December 16, 2014, 11:12:00 AMSo it's ok as long as we tell people about it?
Did I say that mofo?
QuoteExposing it doesn't make it better unless it prevents it from happening again.
Which is kinda what happened already, in 2007. By 2008 Bush had largely stopped the activity and Obama ended the entire program fairly early in his Presidency. So when John Kiriakouc revealed this stuff in 2007 (and thus leaking classified information), something he did 30 months in prison for, I would say he was making it better. We've not wavered at any point in the Obama Administration about whether we were going back to these techniques.
QuoteCheney's position is quite the opposite of contrite.
Cheney is a private citizen, his position doesn't actually matter.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: frunk on December 16, 2014, 11:12:00 AMSo it's ok as long as we tell people about it?
Did I say that mofo?
You quoted the Economist as if it meant something. Exposing dirty laundry is useful if it brings about change, otherwise it's just bragging.
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2014, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:35:43 AM
I have to say - the notion of American exceptionalism is one that I find pretty baffling. I've seen Jon Stewart (a leftie) interview Andrew Napolitano on the Daily Show lately and they both, without any reservation, any "ahem" or any wink to the audience, discussed personal liberties while acknowledging the axiom that America is the "most free country in the world". That was startling. This may be true for America in some areas, quite obviously untrue in others - but I don't think any European would make a blanket statement of such nature about their own country even if it was, mostly, true.
It is a vital concept in the functioning of our country. If we ever stopped believing this then I am not sure what would be the point of our country. It would be like Poland deciding to stop being Polish.
Exceptionalism is helpful where it inspires people to live up to it as an ideal.
Exceptionalism is harmful where it inspires complacency because the country is already the "most free".
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:12:46 AM
I guess - it is probably like Polish people believing we are "the Christ of Nations" and the nation "most victimised by others" in the history of humanity. Never mind it is dysfunctional bullshit.
Except it is not dysfunctional. It is why this report exists and people like Berkut and I, amongst others, are demanding we be better. It is why this country is still worth something.
Well ok it is a little dysfunctional.
Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2014, 11:52:51 AM
Exceptionalism is helpful where it inspires people to live up to it as an ideal.
Exceptionalism is harmful where it inspires complacency because the country is already the "most free".
Well ok that is true. I guess it is hard to find a cultural value without a bit of a double edge to it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:20:51 AM
Cheney is a private citizen, his position doesn't actually matter.
He is an important former political leader and I presume still a person of influence in the Republican Party. His positions influence others.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:02:21 AM
It's cute when a guy doesn't go through his bright eyed emo college kid phase until middle age. Daily Kos style.
Progress depends on the unreasonable man does it not Otto?
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2014, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:20:51 AM
Cheney is a private citizen, his position doesn't actually matter.
He is an important former political leader and I presume still a person of influence in the Republican Party. His positions influence others.
Well... that, and it could be argued that he's a war criminal, being responsible for instituting torture as an official American policy. As such, his reaction is both interesting and relevant and his attempts at equivocating are illuminating.
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 12:14:49 PM
Well... that, and it could be argued that he's a war criminal, being responsible for instituting torture as an official American policy. As such, his reaction is both interesting and relevant and his attempts at equivocating are illuminating.
And doing anything about it would be "partisan". Meh. I hate our two political parties so much.
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 12:14:49 PM
Well... that, and it could be argued that he's a war criminal, being responsible for instituting torture as an official American policy. As such, his reaction is both interesting and relevant and his attempts at equivocating are illuminating.
Interestingly some have opined that the reason Cheney was quick to link Bush to direct knowledge/approval of it was because it insulates Cheney. The Vice President essentially has two constitutional functions (1. having a heart beat when the sitting President stops having one, and 2. breaking ties in the Senate), as long as Bush is portrayed as having full knowledge of the program there is really no scenario where anyone could go after Cheney without going after Bush and the theory is they are less willing to go after a former President.
Quote from: frunk on December 16, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
You quoted the Economist as if it meant something. Exposing dirty laundry is useful if it brings about change, otherwise it's just bragging.
Okay, and to repeat: we stopped this in 2009. Change has already happened. Of course we had already discussed this issue publicly in 2008, which is why I believe the Senate report was ill advised political theater.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:16:33 PM
Interestingly some have opined that the reason Cheney was quick to link Bush to direct knowledge/approval of it was because it insulates Cheney. The Vice President essentially has two constitutional functions (1. having a heart beat when the sitting President stops having one, and 2. breaking ties in the Senate), as long as Bush is portrayed as having full knowledge of the program there is really no scenario where anyone could go after Cheney without going after Bush and the theory is they are less willing to go after a former President.
Yeah, that makes sense.
The popular narrative that Cheney was basically Bush's handler is neither here nor there legally, I expect.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: frunk on December 16, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
You quoted the Economist as if it meant something. Exposing dirty laundry is useful if it brings about change, otherwise it's just bragging.
Okay, and to repeat: we stopped this in 2009.
:D
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2014, 12:09:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:12:46 AM
I guess - it is probably like Polish people believing we are "the Christ of Nations" and the nation "most victimised by others" in the history of humanity. Never mind it is dysfunctional bullshit.
Except it is not dysfunctional. It is why this report exists and people like Berkut and I, amongst others, are demanding we be better. It is why this country is still worth something.
Well ok it is a little dysfunctional.
It is, or can be, as Malthus pointed out. Our own "Christ of nations" can also be imagined to be functional - for example we had this idea at one point of Poland becoming a "mentor" for other nations coming out of oppressive regimes peacefully and reaching reconciliation internally and whatnot. That would be cool. Sadly, that got drowned by incriminations. :P
Trust people to fuck up every ideal.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 09:10:36 AM
No shit.
Cheney on Meet the Press:
Asked to define torture after reiterating that they did not engage in torture - ""an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."
That is so completely fucked up on so very many level it isn't even funny. It is fucking terrifying.
You know, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is something exceptional about America, that our national myth of exceptionalism has some basis in reality, then this argument, that what we did was ok because of what happened on 9/11, is basically saying that the terrorists who executed that attack succeeded 100% in their goals.
If there is something special about America, then what terrorists want to accomplish is force the US to stop being exceptional, to force the US to be just another unexceptional nation without particular values or idealism that differentiate it in any way. And throwing out those values because of a terrorist attack would in fact be precisely the point of that attack.
Do people like Cheney simply not see that? It seems kind of obvious to me. And people like Cheney are the ones who seem most enamored with the idea of American exceptional-ism, and yet so quick to be ready to abandon it as needed to serve even the most short term of goals. I don't doubt that Cheney really does believe the bullshit he is shoveling, which is why I find men like him so frightening. He really does believe he is right, and is not even capable of considering the idea that he could be, or could have been, wrong.
This is how evil is done. Not by evil men, but by men who really believe that they are serving a greater good.
Honestly, I see this more as a form of misdirection.
"How do you define torture?"
"Think of 9-11!"
Cheney's statements are meant to appeal to "tough guy" voters. People who like strong displays of bravado. People who believe that torture is fine since the people being tortured are already terrorists, people who want to throw out all the illegal immigrants simple as that, people who believe that the penalty to any crime is to either execute a person or put them in a tiny cell and throw away the key. Essentially people who confuse action movies for real life and are proudly, aggressively, and belligerently ignorant. Remember Strix? It's people like that. We have some of those people here now, but I'm not going to shame them. You know who they are.
Me! Me!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 03:09:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2014, 03:04:00 PM
My FBI polygraph was a hoot. The dude seriously thought I was lying about past drug use and being contacted by a foreign intelligence organization.
LOL, FBI is a totally different set of noodleheads. I have a buddy that passed 3 agency polys including the Maryland State Police and Fairfax County PD, and yet it was his poly for the FBI that the polygrapher insisted he was lying about his previous drug use. Now this is the guy that wouldn't drink beer with us in college until he was 21, mind you. Famous But Incompetent.
I've always done well with polygraphs.
I don't think they really work.
Your masters in Beijing have trained you well.
Seedy's avatar and text: :lmfao:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: frunk on December 16, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
You quoted the Economist as if it meant something. Exposing dirty laundry is useful if it brings about change, otherwise it's just bragging.
Okay, and to repeat: we stopped this in 2009. Change has already happened. Of course we had already discussed this issue publicly in 2008, which is why I believe the Senate report was ill advised political theater.
I'm coming around to agree with this, even while I'm really angry that some of the nasty stuff was done in the first place and I cringe at some of the techniques. Laws were put in place to end this stuff years ago. So after this report we have people under threat, Americans and others, told to leave their homes. This report seems like self flagellation. We knew this stuff before, so what is the purpose of rehashing this again? Then some complaints I'm hearing is that those putting out the report didn't speak to the CIA, nor to others who worked on this. Our politicians are being deceitful since they signed off on what was done. AG Holder apparently looked into this before and determined that there would be no charges since the procedures were legal and rarely done.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2014, 08:38:24 PM
Seedy's avatar and text: :lmfao:
Sometimes I'm just feeling Sam Neill.
Quote from: Siege on December 16, 2014, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 03:09:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2014, 03:04:00 PM
My FBI polygraph was a hoot. The dude seriously thought I was lying about past drug use and being contacted by a foreign intelligence organization.
LOL, FBI is a totally different set of noodleheads. I have a buddy that passed 3 agency polys including the Maryland State Police and Fairfax County PD, and yet it was his poly for the FBI that the polygrapher insisted he was lying about his previous drug use. Now this is the guy that wouldn't drink beer with us in college until he was 21, mind you. Famous But Incompetent.
I've always done well with polygraphs.
I don't think they really work.
There is a minimal threshold for neural activity required in those.