CIA Report

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[Jacob]

That's like out of the final scenes of 1984.

[Malthus]

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.   

[Razgovory]

I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this.

[Jacob]

I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this.

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?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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".

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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.

[Razgovory]

I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this.

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.

[KRonn]

I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in Breitbart on this.

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.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

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.

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.   

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[Malthus]

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.

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.

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.   

What about packing up your hot wheel tracks and applying to the CIA? Seems that, at least, is a road to riches. 

"Our new enhanced interogation techniques are considerably more humane ... "

[CountDeMoney]

What about packing up your hot wheel tracks and applying to the CIA? Seems that, at least, is a road to riches. 

"Our new enhanced interogation techniques are considerably more humane ... "

"He's been in there too long.  And why is the water running?"

[Razgovory]

'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.