Details of the CIA torture program

[MavsSuperFan]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/09/the-most-gruesome-moments-in-the-cia-torture-report.html

[QUOTE]The CIA

[Akrazotile]

At least five detainees were subjected to “rectal feeding” or “rectal hydration,” without any documented medical need.




Sounds like torture for the guy who had to feed em :yaohappy:

[kNIOKAS]

This is horrible and gut-wrenching. Things like that should not happen :(

[highwhey]

And no accountability again.

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

atleast they didn't behead them with a dull blade.

[Nanners]

truly horrifying

[Lakers Legend#32]

Bush/Cheney, the administration that keeps giving and giving.

[longhornfan1234]

Zero fvcks given. Those camel jockeys would show no remorse to my daughter and I if they caught us walking through their desert.

[Shade8780]

Murrica!

[~primetime~]

Sorry haven't gotten a chance to read up on this much on yet, but if the "detainees" are all those associated with Al Queda - ISIS - etc then it is really hard for me to give a shit about this.

One person died...okay, who was he?...who these people are means everything to me.




Also...who cares about 'THREATS'?...so we threatened to kill their mothers/children//etc? means nothing IMO unless we actually DID harm their families.

[LJJ]

Sorry haven't gotten a chance to read up on this much on yet, but if the "detainees" are all those associated with Al Queda - ISIS - etc then it is really hard for me to give a shit about this.

I kind of feel the same way about this. What's been done to these guys is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the torture and damage they've caused to countless of innocent victims.

[dkmwise]

Sleep deprivation, constant loud noise, standing for hours on end..........Sounds like parenting for the first 6 months with a new baby

[KevinNYC]

Zero fvcks given. Those camel jockeys would show no remorse to my daughter and I if they caught us walking through their desert.
You're a racist asshole.

[Andrew Wiggins]

You're a racist asshole.

he's racist for not being sympathetic towards terrorists who brutally kill thousands of people? :lol

[KevinNYC]

Sorry haven't gotten a chance to read up on this much on yet, but if the "detainees" are all those associated with Al Queda - ISIS - etc then it is really hard for me to give a shit about this.
One person died...okay, who was he?...who these people are means everything to me.
Also...who cares about 'THREATS'?...so we threatened to kill their mothers/children//etc? means nothing IMO unless we actually DID harm their families.Well, the CIA determined that something like 20% of the detainees should never have been detained at all.

Let me guess, you've never been captured by foreign authorities who threatened to kill your family or use a power drill on you?

The point is NOT were this bad guys.
The point is Who we are. This has been an American Value since before Independence Day. George Washington said this in 1775

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
-- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

[KevinNYC]

he's racist for not being sympathetic towards terrorists who brutally kill thousands of people? :lol
No, he's racist for his racism.

[KevinNYC]

details

The most shocking detail to me was the contractors who devised the program and no expertise at all with interrogation or counter-terrorism and they were paid $80 million

[sweggeh]

Why are people calling these victims terrorists? I don't doubt some of them were but they were there as suspects. There were plenty of guys who were ultimately found innocent who faced horrors like this. Sickening.

[~primetime~]

Well, the CIA determined that something like 20% of the detainees should never have been detained at all.

Let me guess, you've never been captured by foreign authorities who threatened to kill your family or use a power drill on you?

The point is NOT were this bad guys.
The point is Who we are. This has been an American Value since before Independence Day. George Washington said this in 1775

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
-- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
It's just hard for me personally to care if the detainees were in fact 'bad guys'. If these were innocents then that is different FOR ME. 20% were innocent? Okay that is a shame.

I mean we are probably bombing ISIS right now, killing them, but I am supposed to be up in arms over water boarding them?

[DCL]

I don't know the back story, but can someone explain why is this report coming out?

i dont know how releasing this report serves any good for anyone other than terrorist recruitment

[sweggeh]

It's just hard for me personally to care if the detainees were in fact 'bad guys'. If these were innocents then that is different FOR ME. 20% were innocent? Okay that is a shame.

I mean we are probably bombing ISIS right now, killing them, but I am supposed to be up in arms over water boarding them?

Its better to die straight away than be tortured to be honest. :confusedshrug:

[dkmwise]

Its better to die straight away than be tortured to be honest. :confusedshrug:

I would much rather be water boarded and sleep deprived than die. Maybe I'm just weird like that

[~primetime~]

Its better to die straight away than be tortured to be honest. :confusedshrug:
you would take death over this stuff?

smh

[KevinNYC]

I don't know the back story, but can someone explain why is this report coming out?

i dont know how releasing this report serves any good for anyone other than terrorist recruitment
Congress has oversight over the CIA. Senate has been working on it for 5 years. First draft was complete in December 2012. The Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to declassify the summary of the report 11-3 back in May. The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee wanted the report released before the new Congress when Republicans would have majority in the Senate.

Most of the details in the report are already in the public. Some of it is new, but waterboarding has been known, for what, nearly 10 years?* Jane Mayer wrote a book about this 5 years ago.

*Bush commented on this in 2005. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700521.html) So the debate had already been going on before that.

[joe]

I dont understand how people defend stuff like this. Torture is just wrong, it doesnt matter if the person harmed others. It also doesnt matter if torture led to us finding Bin Laden or anyone else. You cant claim to be in a battle against uncivilized terrorists, and then become uncivilized yourself. That doesnt make any sense.

There is intelligence and there is primal instinct. Both sides are within every human. Giving into torture is giving in to your savageness and stupidity. And fear. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent person being sleep deprived for 100 hours. Its not right, period.

[HitandRun Reggie]

I dont understand how people defend stuff like this. Torture is just wrong, it doesnt matter if the person harmed others. It also doesnt matter if torture led to us finding Bin Laden or anyone else. You cant claim to be in a battle against uncivilized terrorists, and then become uncivilized yourself. That doesnt make any sense.

There is intelligence and there is primal instinct. Both sides are within every human. Giving into torture is giving in to your savageness and stupidity. And fear. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent person being sleep deprived for 100 hours. Its not right, period.

http://media.tumblr.com/fade41d50300cca5c80c58dd44f34e87/tumblr_inline_mtzz92heiB1rbrja2.gif

[~primetime~]

I dont understand how people defend stuff like this. Torture is just wrong, it doesnt matter if the person harmed others. It also doesnt matter if torture led to us finding Bin Laden or anyone else. You cant claim to be in a battle against uncivilized terrorists, and then become uncivilized yourself. That doesnt make any sense.

There is intelligence and there is primal instinct. Both sides are within every human. Giving into torture is giving in to your savageness and stupidity. And fear. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent person being sleep deprived for 100 hours. Its not right, period.
I would be for it IF it equated to lives saved. If 911 could have been prevented by torturing someone then torture the guy. But it looks like they have declared that the techniques they used were ineffective, caused majority of them to lie which resulted in wild goose chases. So that being the case I hope they have abandon this stuff already.

[sweggeh]

I would much rather be water boarded and sleep deprived than die. Maybe I'm just weird like that

No, I meant I would rather die straight away, than be tortured and then die, like some of these guys were.

[~primetime~]

No, I meant I would rather die straight away, than be tortured and then die, like some of these guys were.
It looks like just one guy died from hypothermia...

[Nanners]

I dont understand how people defend stuff like this. Torture is just wrong, it doesnt matter if the person harmed others. It also doesnt matter if torture led to us finding Bin Laden or anyone else. You cant claim to be in a battle against uncivilized terrorists, and then become uncivilized yourself. That doesnt make any sense.

There is intelligence and there is primal instinct. Both sides are within every human. Giving into torture is giving in to your savageness and stupidity. And fear. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent person being sleep deprived for 100 hours. Its not right, period.

agree 100%. great post.

its disturbing that many people are defending this because they think these people deserved to be tortured.

[DCL]

Congress has oversight over the CIA. Senate has been working on it for 5 years. First draft was complete in December 2012. The Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to declassify the summary of the report 11-3 back in May. The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee wanted the report released before the new Congress when Republicans would have majority in the Senate.

Most of the details in the report are already in the public. Some of it is new, but waterboarding has been known, for what, nearly 10 years?* Jane Mayer wrote a book about this 5 years ago.

*Bush commented on this in 2005. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700521.html) So the debate had already been going on before that.

The debate was going on for a decade, and the public knew many things, but there wasn't a full-blown confession like this. The goverment is actually finally coming straight and admitting how they tortured instead of denying everything like bush in that article you posted.

[KevinNYC]

I would be for it IF it equated to lives saved. If 911 could have been prevented by torturing someone then torture the guy. But it looks like they have declared that the techniques they used were ineffective, caused majority of them to lie which resulted in wild goose chases. So that being the case I hope they have abandon this stuff already.
They did abandon this stuff.

Congress passed a law in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act)

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) is an Act of the United States Congress that was passed on 30 December 2005. Offered as an amendment to a supplemental defense spending bill, it contains provisions relating to treatment of persons in custody of the Department of Defense, and administration of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including:[1]
Prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of any prisoner of the U.S. Government, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bush signed it, but added a signing statement to it. Congress later passed a law that explicitly outlawed waterboarding and other techniques and Bush vetoed in 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030800304.html)

Obama on his first week in office signed an executive order (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/) that re-esstablished the US Law prohibited torture and the Geneva Convention would be the baseline for interrogations and treatment of prisoners. Torture of prisoners is illegal under US law and continued to be so even during the Bush years, they just got around this by getting a couple of lawyers at the Department of Justice to secretly declare that several torture techniques were not torture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos) The Obama executive order specifically called out this legal shfitiness


From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

[KevinNYC]

The debate was going on for a decade, and the public knew many things, but there wasn't a full-blown confession like this. The goverment is actually finally coming straight and admitting how they tortured instead of denying everything like bush in that article you posted.

Before the debate went public, it was going on within the Bush Adminstration. Many folks at the CIA objected to this. The FBI wanted nothing to do with this and have been arguing the CIA techniques were amateur hour. The first DOJ official to revoke the legal excuses for terror was was very well established in the conservative movement (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?_r=0) and he was friends with the guy who wrote the radical memos in the first place. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?_r=0)


Although he refused to discuss his resignation at the time, he had led a small group of administration lawyers in a behind-the-scenes revolt against what he considered the constitutional excesses of the legal policies embraced by his White House superiors in the war on terror. During his first weeks on the job, Goldsmith had discovered that the Office of Legal Counsel had written two legal opinions — both drafted by Goldsmith’s friend Yoo, who served as a deputy in the office — about the authority of the executive branch to conduct coercive interrogations. Goldsmith considered these opinions, now known as the “torture memos,” to be tendentious, overly broad and legally flawed, and he fought to change them.

The new CIA reports how this program had to be hidden from Colin Powell and it also details a campaign to deceive Congress.

[dkmwise]

I dont understand how people defend stuff like this. Torture is just wrong, it doesnt matter if the person harmed others. It also doesnt matter if torture led to us finding Bin Laden or anyone else. You cant claim to be in a battle against uncivilized terrorists, and then become uncivilized yourself. That doesnt make any sense.

There is intelligence and there is primal instinct. Both sides are within every human. Giving into torture is giving in to your savageness and stupidity. And fear. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent person being sleep deprived for 100 hours. Its not right, period.

I think a lot of the debate around this issue comes more from defining torture, than if we should torture. I think if the article referenced cutting off people fingers one at a time then attitudes would be different. I think some practices mentioned could borderline be considered torture but things like sleep deprivation, bright lights and loud music, I don't consider that torture at all.

Lets also consider that the country is pretty evenly split on if what Adrian Peterson did to his 4 year old son was wrong at all or normal parenting. Lets apply what he did to an innocent 4 year old on these terrorists. Peterson didn't even get in trouble for whipping his son to the point he had to go to the hospital, and if the CIA had done that to these confirmed terrorists it would probably be one of the worst things in this whole article.

[navy]

Torture is the same as the death penalty to me. You have to be sure.

[KevinNYC]

I think a lot of the debate around this issue comes more from defining torture, than if we should torture. I think if the article referenced cutting off people fingers one at a time then attitudes would be different. I think some practices mentioned could borderline be considered torture but things like sleep deprivation, bright lights and loud music, I don't consider that torture at all.
I hope that this is because you don't understand how torturers use sleep deprivation. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10811800) You can induce psychosis in people if you deny them sleep.


Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister from 1977-83, was tortured by the KGB as a young man. In his book, White Nights: The Story of a Prisoner in Russia, he wrote of losing the will to resist when deprived of sleep.

"In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.

"I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them.

"He did not promise them their liberty; he did not promise them food to sate themselves. He promised them - if they signed - uninterrupted sleep! And, having signed, there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days."

[KevinNYC]

What torture does to the "good guys"

An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801680.html)
By Eric Fair
A man with no face stares at me from the corner of a room. He pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It is a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realize the screams are mine.

That dream, along with a host of other nightmares, has plagued me since my return from Iraq in the summer of 2004. Though the man in this particular nightmare has no face, I know who he is. I assisted in his interrogation at a detention facility in Fallujah. I was one of two civilian interrogators assigned to the division interrogation facility (DIF) of the 82nd Airborne Division. The man, whose name I've long since forgotten, was a suspected associate of Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, the Baath Party leader in Anbar province who had been captured two months earlier.

The lead interrogator at the DIF had given me specific instructions: I was to deprive the detainee of sleep during my 12-hour shift by opening his cell every hour, forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes. Three years later the tables have turned. It is rare that I sleep through the night without a visit from this man. His memory harasses me as I once harassed him.

[joe]

I would be for it IF it equated to lives saved. If 911 could have been prevented by torturing someone then torture the guy. But it looks like they have declared that the techniques they used were ineffective, caused majority of them to lie which resulted in wild goose chases. So that being the case I hope they have abandon this stuff already.

If you could tell me, with a 100% chance, that torturing a confirmed terrorist will undoubtedly save thousands of lives, that is definitely worth considering. But that is never going to happen.

For one, we cant even know if the prisoners are guilty or not. For two, we cannot rely on what they say while being tortured.

But the biggest anti-torture reason is- we cannot give other human beings the power to torture. If we allow them to torture, in such a lawless fashion, there is no justice for innocent people. Its behind closed doors, its done in a perverted fashion, and other, fallible human beings do not deserve to make such a powerful decision. They are not deserving to have such power over potentially innocent people. No human does.


I think a lot of the debate around this issue comes more from defining torture, than if we should torture. I think if the article referenced cutting off people fingers one at a time then attitudes would be different. I think some practices mentioned could borderline be considered torture but things like sleep deprivation, bright lights and loud music, I don't consider that torture at all.

Lets also consider that the country is pretty evenly split on if what Adrian Peterson did to his 4 year old son was wrong at all or normal parenting. Lets apply what he did to an innocent 4 year old on these terrorists. Peterson didn't even get in trouble for whipping his son to the point he had to go to the hospital, and if the CIA had done that to these confirmed terrorists it would probably be one of the worst things in this whole article.

How is sleep deprivation not torture? How would you feel to be chained up, naked, in a cold room, while music blared and you were forced to stay awake for days on end? That isnt torture?

The Adrian Peterson thing, is somewhat misleading. I am against with AP did, but there is a difference between a parent and a government. The reason child abuse is such a difficult topic is because we find it hard to tell parents how to raise their kids. However, the way a government governs is not something that should be so hush-hush.

[dkmwise]

How is sleep deprivation not torture? How would you feel to be chained up, naked, in a cold room, while music blared and you were forced to stay awake for days on end? That isnt torture?

The Adrian Peterson thing, is somewhat misleading. I am against with AP did, but there is a difference between a parent and a government. The reason child abuse is such a difficult topic is because we find it hard to tell parents how to raise their kids. However, the way a government governs is not something that should be so hush-hush.

Are you seriously telling me that you are more ok with a parent using x amount of violence on their 4 year old innocent defenseless child than a trained interrogator using the same level of violence on a confirmed terrorist in the quest to save hundreds or thousands of American lives?????

And there are many things that may put someone in discomfort that aren't torture. I'm not saying any of the techniques are pleasant, but that is kind of the point.

What methods would you take to try and get information from these people, I mean, assuming the goal is to try and stop future terrorist attacks?

[dkmwise]

But the biggest anti-torture reason is- we cannot give other human beings the power to torture. If we allow them to torture, in such a lawless fashion, there is no justice for innocent people. Its behind closed doors, its done in a perverted fashion, and other, fallible human beings do not deserve to make such a powerful decision. They are not deserving to have such power over potentially innocent people. No human does.

.

I do agree it is a tough situation when it comes to who regulates this. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And of coarse, when judging methods you have to go by the assumption that these are not innocent people and the people this is being used on are involved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that is really a whole other discussion.

[MavsSuperFan]

Sleep deprivation, constant loud noise, standing for hours on end..........Sounds like parenting for the first 6 months with a new baby
Well there is the issue of the rectal hydration.

From what i understand they pump water into the anuses of guys at super high pressures.

Supposedly it cased rectal prolapses in some cases. (I had to google what that was to be sure, yes it is exactly what you are thinking)



I dont understand how people defend stuff like this. Torture is just wrong, it doesnt matter if the person harmed others. It also doesnt matter if torture led to us finding Bin Laden or anyone else. You cant claim to be in a battle against uncivilized terrorists, and then become uncivilized yourself. That doesnt make any sense.

There is intelligence and there is primal instinct. Both sides are within every human. Giving into torture is giving in to your savageness and stupidity. And fear. Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent person being sleep deprived for 100 hours. Its not right, period.
:applause: :applause:

99% agreed. I am ok with torture for child molesters.

[dkmwise]

Well there is the issue of the rectal hydration.

From what i understand they pump water into the anuses of guys at super high pressures.

Supposedly it cased rectal prolapses in some cases. (I had to google what that was to be sure, yes it is exactly what you are thinking)
.

I did see that mentioned in the recent report however don't know much about it but will take your word for what it is. I would probably put that more in the ballpark of torture and hearing that does make me uncomfortable.

[BigBoss]

http://www.dotallyrad.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/merica-patriot-s-women-s-tank_design.png

[KevinNYC]

than a trained interrogator

One of the original sins of the CIA program was they did not use trained interrogators.

An intelligence insider put up an interesting post today. (http://20committee.com/2014/12/10/cia-torture-an-insiders-view/) He was against the release of the report and feels it was written without context and from a prosecutorial point of view. But he also felt the CIA intelligence program was amateur hour.


From what I saw, their operation was a shitshow — a characterization top IC officials agreed with, off-record. They knew it was all going wrong, but they wanted to prevent terrorism. They listened to, and rejected, my counsel, which was to get serious and professionalize their approach, without delay. Specifically, they needed to adopt something like the Israeli model.

How Israeli intelligence, specifically their domestic security service, SHABAK, approaches interrogation, is much misunderstood. While SHABAK can employ what outsiders would term torture on occasion, those conditions are tightly controlled by legal authorities: this prevents abuses and, critically, allows interrogators to know they will not face prosecution or banishment, years later, for doing what they were told was legal.

But what makes SHABAK interrogators effective is not the threat of physical pressure, rather their professional competence. The most junior Israeli interrogators have completed a rigorous three-year program in psychology and Arabic before they meet their first subject. When I told U.S. senior officers this was the way to go, they gasped and explained this was impossible. Meaning, this was not how the IC likes to do business. (They particularly objected to my mantra: “Interrogation through a translator isn’t interrogation.”) Instead, Americans opted for an ad hoc, somewhat fly-by-night interrogation program, lacking in expertise or language skills, and botched the job — to the surprise only of those who have never seen U.S. intelligence in action.

It’s fair to point out that SHABAK has a far simpler problem set, focusing mainly on Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, while U.S. spies have global responsibilities and targets; it’s likewise fair to note that our IC has personnel and resources that Israeli spooks can only dream of. Failure here was a choice, perhaps a preordained one.

Let there be no misunderstanding. While CIA officials are now insisting, contra the SSCI report, that the special interrogation program was a success, having prevented terrorism — and there is no doubt their claims are largely correct, in a technical sense — from any big picture view, it was a disaster, having delivered minimal gains at vast and enduring political cost.

Knowing the CIA and the IC, I’m not sure any other outcome was likely here. The salient fact is that, on 9/11, CIA lacked interrogators. That was a messy line of work the Agency had happily run away from after Vietnam, so in 2001 there were no serving officers who had a clue what to do. Indeed, coercive interrogation went deeply against the culture of CIA case officers, for whom getting friendly, if (hopefully) not too friendly, with sources is a requirement. As a result, CIA fobbed this nasty mission off on Agency security types lacking understanding of operations (in an eerie replay of the botched Nosenko affair of the 1960’s), much less of Arabs, and dumped the rest of the mess on a motley crew of contractors who never had any business falling into this most sensitive line of work. Whether you think CIA use of torture was right or wrong, there can be no debate, based on what the public now knows, that this program was badly mismanaged and doomed to failure from day one. As is so often the case, noble IC intentions collided with the wall of incompetence and wishful thinking, and eventually ample CYA.

There's a lot more interesting stuff in that post to chew on. His position is torture sometimes works, but we should never do it.

[deja vu]

So what are we supposed to do to terrorists? Give them 5-star hotel accommodation? :lol

They gave us shit. Let's give them shit too.

[IamRAMBO24]

I kind of feel the same way about this. What's been done to these guys is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the torture and damage they've caused to countless of innocent victims.

I don't believe these people were actual terrorists, hence the interrogation.

[joe]

Are you seriously telling me that you are more ok with a parent using x amount of violence on their 4 year old innocent defenseless child than a trained interrogator using the same level of violence on a confirmed terrorist in the quest to save hundreds or thousands of American lives?????

And there are many things that may put someone in discomfort that aren't torture. I'm not saying any of the techniques are pleasant, but that is kind of the point.

What methods would you take to try and get information from these people, I mean, assuming the goal is to try and stop future terrorist attacks?

I would rather us be out of their countries and not involved with them. If they commit a crime, put them in prison. No torture.

I am not okay with legally/"extra legally" allowed torture. I wouldn't hit a kid if I had one, and I think what AP did should be a crime. Assault is assault. Kids are people too.

[KevinNYC]

I don't believe these people were actual terrorists, hence the interrogation.
???

[dunksby]

He who sacrifices freedom/humanity/morals/codes for security...

[Joshumitsu]

Call me a cynic but....

I get the feeling this was less about the Senate trying to preserve America's ideals and more about getting revenge for being spied upon by the CIA. Senators not messing around with their political power here and I think they're trying to smear the CIA while the timing is hot.

[KevinNYC]

Call me a cynic but....

I get the feeling this was less about the Senate trying to preserve America's ideals and more about getting revenge for being spied upon by the CIA. Senators not messing around with their political power here and I think they're trying to smear the CIA while the timing is hot.

Yes, but that spying only occurred because they were producing this report.

[Akrazotile]

If you could tell me, with a 100% chance, that torturing a confirmed terrorist will undoubtedly save thousands of lives, that is definitely worth considering. But that is never going to happen.

For one, we cant even know if the prisoners are guilty or not. For two, we cannot rely on what they say while being tortured.

But the biggest anti-torture reason is- we cannot give other human beings the power to torture. If we allow them to torture, in such a lawless fashion, there is no justice for innocent people. Its behind closed doors, its done in a perverted fashion, and other, fallible human beings do not deserve to make such a powerful decision. They are not deserving to have such power over potentially innocent people. No human does.



How is sleep deprivation not torture? How would you feel to be chained up, naked, in a cold room, while music blared and you were forced to stay awake for days on end? That isnt torture?

The Adrian Peterson thing, is somewhat misleading. I am against with AP did, but there is a difference between a parent and a government. The reason child abuse is such a difficult topic is because we find it hard to tell parents how to raise their kids. However, the way a government governs is not something that should be so hush-hush.


:biggums:

[MavsSuperFan]

CIA Director: Useful info came from EITs

Obama's CIA director claims that Useful information came from persons subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCNCyXCMAFE&list=UUupvZG-5ko_eiXAupbDfxWw


"architect" of CIA torture program defends it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZxqdOQ4Lc4&index=2&list=UUupvZG-5ko_eiXAupbDfxWw

Paraphrasing him: the torturers were the bad cops and the interrogators that did not torture and got the info were the good cops.

Obama administration still Supports current CIA director John Brennan who served in the CIA during the Bush administration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_7W8a497Kw&list=UUupvZG-5ko_eiXAupbDfxWw&index=5

Despite international criticism there will be no america prosecution, and because of america's military might, no prosecution.

-Poland is seems pissed that its participation was revealed
-Iran, China and russia take advantage and disingenuously pretend to care about human rights
- Obama administration points out america is the only country that would admits its faults so publicly.

[iamgine]

Torture is a perfectly legitimate technique.

Of course, there is also a need to maintain a PC front whereby we say we don't do torture but that's just formalities. And of course, sometimes innocent people get mixed in but that's just the nature of the business.

The people doing torture has to be smart though. Sometimes people just give into emotions too easily and that's when they have a dead prisoner. Sometimes the torturer doesn't know when the prisoner is lying. The torturer has to be a keen observer of human behavior. Not some military meathead.

Reward is also an important part of successful long term torture program. They have to be shown that cooperation pays. If their lead is correct, then protect their family and put them in a nice prison. Maybe even release them after some years.

[dunksby]

Torture is a perfectly legitimate technique.

Of course, there is also a need to maintain a PC front whereby we say we don't do torture but that's just formalities. And of course, sometimes innocent people get mixed in but that's just the nature of the business.

The people doing torture has to be smart though. Sometimes people just give into emotions too easily and that's when they have a dead prisoner. Sometimes the torturer doesn't know when the prisoner is lying. The torturer has to be a keen observer of human behavior. Not some military meathead.

Reward is also an important part of successful long term torture program. They have to be shown that cooperation pays. If their lead is correct, then protect their family and put them in a nice prison. Maybe even release them after some years.
Talking like you know the in and outs of torture, STFU dude :oldlol:

[iamgine]

Talking like you know the in and outs of torture, STFU dude :oldlol:
No one in here knows the in and outs of torture. It's pretty much common sense. Torture is not a hard topic to understand. Just like you don't need to know the in and outs of a basketball team to know how it should be run.

[dunksby]

No one in here knows the in and outs of torture. It's pretty much common sense. Torture is not a hard topic to understand. Just like you don't need to know the in and outs of a basketball team to know how it should be run.
You are a wonderful entity man, you must be an executive manager for a huge company.

[iamgine]

You are a wonderful entity man, you must be an executive manager for a huge company.
I actually am. :lol Medium sized tho, not huge.

[KevinNYC]

Torture is a perfectly legitimate technique.

The people doing torture has to be smart though. Sometimes people just give into emotions too easily and that's when they have a dead prisoner. Sometimes the torturer doesn't know when the prisoner is lying. The torturer has to be a keen observer of human behavior. Not some military meathead.

Reward is also an important part of successful long term torture program. They have to be shown that cooperation pays. If their lead is correct, then protect their family and put them in a nice prison. Maybe even release them after some years.You have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.

The military actually has interrogators (unlike the CIA on 9/11.) They are effective and they abhor torture. They follow this manual which expressly prohibits torture and mentions the Geneva Convention dozens of times (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf). This manual which prohibits torture is shows techniques that have an actual proven history of being effective unlike the reversed-engine torture techniques the CIA called "enhanced."

You can see an interview with an actual professional military interrogator here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2o6zgD0sSY

At 5:30 he says no professional trained interrogator has come out in support of these "enhanced" interrogation techniques

Here's the book he wrote under a pen name
http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1412264470l/4377271.jpg

Here's another
http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1312022930l/10294003.jpg

The FBI has interrogators unlike the CIA on 9/11. They are waaaaaay more effective that the CIA. The FBI all way to the top of bureau supported their interrogators and would not go along with the CIA torture. Here's a book by a FBI interrogator with an excellent record of getting intelligence from Al Qaeda terrorists.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418PXu00dFL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Here's an episode on Frontline based on him
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-interrogator/

[Dresta]

Well there is the issue of the rectal hydration.

From what i understand they pump water into the anuses of guys at super high pressures.

Supposedly it cased rectal prolapses in some cases. (I had to google what that was to be sure, yes it is exactly what you are thinking)



:applause: :applause:

99% agreed. I am ok with torture for child molesters.
:facepalm

If you're ok with that then there's really no reason to have any problem with this. I prefer the state executing these kind of powers abroad than at home, and you're foolish to think otherwise.

Obama's been dronestriking people from the Oval Office and yet it's only torture that gets everyone's feather's ruffled for some reason (a 'kill list' wasn't it?). How do you think they get their information? Giving out candy?

Pity i don't trust the state with this kind of power and they've never shown themselves deserving of it, as I think this thread shows clearly that there is something cathartic about torture, same as the death penalty. They do perform public functions of sort. But i don't understand how anyone can consider one wrong and the other justifiable, as they are pretty much the same thing in different forms.

The CIA should have been torn down a long time ago (sometimes you just need to start again - people complaining about this trivial shit when Kissinger is still walking around like some honoured statesman). I don't know why anyone is acting surprised, as all should have had an inkling as to what was going on. This 'transparency' is therefore self-destructive and pointless - it gives the US no added moral clout, in fact the opposite: exposes it to ridicule and arrogant condemnation from people that are far worse. America has become weak and frail and riddled with contradictions, and other nations can smell it.

Doing the 'right thing' (not that such a thing even exists) for the sake of doing the right thing in foreign affairs, is again, stupid. Because every other country will be looking to protect their own interests, and you can be sure of that. It's about time people remove themselves from the idealistic illusion that countries can ever be disinterested when it comes to foreign affairs.

[KevinNYC]

One the key experiments if torture works is the finding of Osama Bin Laden. When Bin Laden went into hiding after the invasion of Afghanistan he could use email or the phone, so he communicated by sending a courier to other Al Qaeda leaders. So the thinking was find the courier, find Bin Laden. This turned out to be true, the courier and his family with lived Bin Laden's family in Abottabad. One of the people who knew who this courier just happened to be the guy we tortured the most, Khallid Sheik Mohammed. He was waterboarded 187 times. How did he deal with keeping this secret? He gave the CIA something, but not everything. He told them he was a member of Al Qaeda, but claimed he was a low level guy and Bin Laden's closest associate.

I think 4 other Al Qaeda members who were tortured did the same thing.

So it's not that torture won't get people to talk. The reason is ineffective is when they talk they will tell you want you expect, tell you want you want to hear. You end up with misinformation.

The CIA techniques were reverse engineered from Chinese Communist torture techniques (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) that were no intended to get truthful intelligence. The torture techniques were designed to produce false conventions and propaganda, not intelligence.

And they worked. North Korea got "confessions" from US pilots that they were dropping germ contaminated grasshoppers all over North Korea.

[dunksby]

I actually am. :lol Medium sized tho, not huge.
:applause: :pimp:

[Dresta]

One the key experiments if torture works is the finding of Osama Bin Laden. When Bin Laden went into hiding after the invasion of Afghanistan he could use email or the phone, so he communicated by sending a courier to other Al Qaeda leaders. So the thinking was find the courier, find Bin Laden. This turned out to be true, the courier and his family with lived Bin Laden's family in Abottabad. One of the people who knew who this courier just happened to be the guy we tortured the most, Khallid Sheik Mohammed. He was waterboarded 187 times. How did he deal with keeping this secret? He gave the CIA something, but not everything. He told them he was a member of Al Qaeda, but claimed he was a low level guy and Bin Laden's closest associate.

I think 4 other Al Qaeda members who were tortured did the same thing.

So it's not that torture won't get people to talk. The reason is ineffective is when they talk they will tell you want you expect, tell you want you want to hear. You end up with misinformation.

The CIA techniques were reverse engineered from Chinese Communist torture techniques (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) that were no intended to get truthful intelligence. The torture techniques were designed to produce false conventions and propaganda, not intelligence.

And they worked. North Korea got "confessions" from US pilots that they were dropping germ contaminated grasshoppers all over North Korea.
That doesn't show that torture doesn't work, only that the prisoners weren't scared enough not to give misleading answers (i.e. the torture wasn't brutal enough, which is largely true - it was still straddling the line between torture and pseudo-torture). Obviously half-arseing the thing in some desperate search for a mode of 'ethical' torture is going to be ineffective. Either that or the interrogators weren't very good at what they were doing.

So you're telling me if someone had your family on the chopping block you would give false intelligence (even though when false intelligence is discovered, one would be killed)? And I assure you that torture can reach more barbaric and grotesque levels than that. Making the argument that torture is wrong is fine, but take this inane bullshit about it being incapable of getting results elsewhere. It can refuted by many historical examples, but of course you wouldn't know that, you believe more or less everything you're told by the government and approved media outlets, so obviously this would surprise you.

[Godzuki]

i don't have a problem with torture as much as a lot of others if something serious is on the line to get info about. i find it very hard to believe a interrogator can get just as much info being nice than being cruel.

my main issue with this are Cheney and whoever lying about it to the public of which they should be indicted, and a agency seemingly being above anyone AND the President in the highest position not knowing everything about it. Even if it came from Cheney, the CIA should HAVE to make the President aware or face indictments also.

Bush Jr was such a idiot, its unbelievable how little awareness he had, and how much Cheney and Rumsfeld were controlling.

[KevinNYC]

my main issue with this are Cheney and whoever lying about it to the public of which they should be indicted, and a agency seemingly being above anyone AND the President in the highest position not knowing everything about it. Even if it came from Cheney, the CIA should HAVE to make the President aware or face indictments also.
The "enhanced interrogation" program is not a case of the CIA going rogue. It's more a case of plausible deniability.

The CIA were basically directed by the President to "take the gloves off." So in 2002 when they captured someone and actually had someone to interrogate, they went back the Office of Legal Council and said what does it mean legally to "take the gloves off?" The found someone in the OLC to write a document that said the US could torture even though it's illegal under US laws and treaties. The document's legal reasoning was terrible and went as far to claim a "president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture." This reasoning was sent Alberto Gonzales who was Bush's lawyer so Bush knew early and if he wanted more details or a second legal opinion he could have asked.

When a new head of the OLC came in and found out about this legal reasoning, he found it "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned." So he withdrew it and issued a new opinion.

[Godzuki]

The "enhanced interrogation" program is not a case of the CIA going rogue. It's more a case of plausible deniability.

The CIA were basically directed by the President to "take the gloves off." So in 2002 when they captured someone and actually had someone to interrogate, they went back the Office of Legal Council and said what does it mean legally to "take the gloves off?" The found someone in the OLC to write a document that said the US could torture even though it's illegal under US laws and treaties. The document's legal reasoning was terrible and went as far to claim a "president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture." This reasoning was sent Alberto Gonzales who was Bush's lawyer so Bush knew early and if he wanted more details or a second legal opinion he could have asked.

When a new head of the OLC came in and found out about this legal reasoning, he found it "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned." So he withdrew it and issued a new opinion.


i read that W Bush was completely unaware of it...

and even if those are the underworkings of it all, someone had to have been pushing for that agenda, whether it was the head of the CIA or cheney/rumsfeld, or even Bush.

i mean its the same thing they did with the Attorney General controversy. they can find puppets anywhere to approve their shit.

[KevinNYC]

i find it very hard to believe a interrogator can get just as much info being nice than being cruel.It might be counter-intuitive, but practice and now research (http://online.fliphtml5.com/xaga/cwpt/) back up the rapport building form of interrogation. Also, it's not about being nice, it's about outsmarting the guy

You can read about the Myth vs Reality of interrogations from this military interrogator* here: (http://www.thirdway.org/report/national-security-interrogations-myth-v-reality)

While heavy-handed methods may have some measure of appeal as entertainment, evidence-based research in interrogation strongly suggests that the stress of coercive interrogations is more likely to cloud memory than to clarify it. Similarly, coercion is likely to also generate false information and obfuscation as the detainee struggles to meet the demands of his interrogator. On the other hand, if an interrogator focuses on building a useful degree of accord with the detainee, the questioner has a much better chance of collecting useable data.


* Again military interrogators are much more effective and professional than the contractors the CIA used.

[KevinNYC]

i read that W Bush was completely unaware of it...

and even if those are the underworkings of it all, someone had to have been pushing for that agenda, whether it was the head of the CIA or cheney/rumsfeld, or even Bush.

i mean its the same thing they did with the Attorney General controversy. they can find puppets anywhere to approve their shit.

The report says that Bush apparently didn't get all the details of what was happening until years later, but that was basically a conscious choice of him and his staff. Cheney just contradicted that (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bush-knew-about-cia-torture-says-cheney/ar-BBgEbYn). Someone said, it wouldn't look good for Cheney in a courtroom if he was the top official with knowledge. It would look much better for him if Bush knew.

[shlver]

It was a mistake releasing the report. I see no benefit and a huge potential for harm as propaganda. Secrecy should have been maintained and handled internally by the president, congress, and judiciary.

The release was a massive oversight motivated by partisan politics.

[KevinNYC]

It was a mistake releasing the report. I see no benefit and a huge potential for harm as propaganda. Secrecy should have been maintained and handled internally by the president, congress, and judiciary.

The release was a massive oversight motivated by partisan politics.

Oversight?? Is that a slip?

By judiciary, do you mean prosecutions?

Given that the report alleges massive deception, and if the facts of report are correct, that deception is ongoing and goes at least as high as the vice president himself, how would this handling it internally have worked?

Given that most of this has been known for going on 10 years, doesn't that lessen the propaganda impact? The Abu Gharib scandal came out in 2003. Given that the fact that the US tortured has been known for years what looks better for the US, acknowledging wrongdoing or keeping it quiet?

The recruitment value that torture provides for our enemies is yet another argument against it.

Also Republican voted to release the report too. It was wasn't a strict partyline vote

[Godzuki]

It might be counter-intuitive, but practice and now research (http://online.fliphtml5.com/xaga/cwpt/) back up the rapport building form of interrogation. Also, it's not about being nice, it's about outsmarting the guy

You can read about the Myth vs Reality of interrogations from this military interrogator* here: (http://www.thirdway.org/report/national-security-interrogations-myth-v-reality)



* Again military interrogators are much more effective and professional than the contractors the CIA used.


i'm just not buying it or the research. its just not realistic to me to think every interrogator is so clever and smart to outsmart every criminal into confessing and giving info. i'd love for them to try and get something out of me by just talking and outsmarting me lol...i mean shit, if they can i'd think they had jedi training :bowdown:

but once they start waterboarding me, sleep depriving me, starving me, etc. i'd crack real quick :pimp:

[KevinNYC]

i'm just not buying it or the research. its just not realistic to me to think every interrogator is so clever and smart to outsmart every criminal into confessing and giving info. i'd love for them to try and get something out of me by just talking and outsmarting me lol...i mean shit, if they can i'd think they had jedi training :bowdown:

but once they start waterboarding me, sleep depriving me, starving me, etc. i'd crack real quick :pimp:And you'll say shit that isn't true to get it to stop. That's not good intelligence. I bet Abu Zubaida claimed he was the number 3 guy in Al Qaeda like the CIA believed he was. He wasn't. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061503045.html?hpid=moreheadlines) In fact, the FBI knew he wasn't. He was a terrorist, but not a member of Al Qaeda (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/12/interrogated-terrorist-cia-senate-report)

This error is, in many ways, a microcosm for everything that went wrong. When the agency’s contractors arrived at that black site, they said that as Abu Zubaydah was giving us information, he wasn’t fully cooperating because he wasn’t admitting to being the number three in al-Qaida.

We knew Abu Zubaydah’s background well: We had been investigating terrorist attacks in which he was involved in Jordan and terrorists who had come through his training camp. The reality is that Abu Zubaydah was an independent operator with close ties to al-Qaida, but he was never a member. He had actually tried to join earlier on in his career, but al-Qaida deemed him unstable; later, when they wanted him to join, Abu Zubaydah refused.

We pointed this out at the time, but the “enhanced” interrogators refused to listen. A few years ago, very quietly, the US government changed its claims about Abu Zubaydah, reflecting the reality that he was never a member.

Check out that Myth vs Reality link above. Read what he says about cooperation vs compliance. What you're talking about is compliance. It doesn't lead to good intelligence.

[AllenIverson3]

he's racist for not being sympathetic towards terrorists who brutally kill thousands of people? :lol
You got proof?? You probably still think Al Qaeda was behind 9.11... You probably think Bin Laden created it too... smh

and besides, who the **** gave US permission to go to another country, capture people and torture them? smh.... :facepalm

You know why there's so much chaos and fighting in the world? because of your beloved country.

[shlver]

Oversight?? Is that a slip?
Maybe not the best word, but I mean it in the sense that they failed to see the potential harm in releasing the report. Can you give me a good reason why the report had to be released?

By judiciary, do you mean prosecutions?
No, the legality of interrogation techniques.
There won't be any prosecutions. The EIT's authorized by the executive department/CIA administration are tame compared to torture used throughout history. And the use of unauthorized torture techniques was carried out by depraved and incompetent and if i remember the report correctly, unqualified individuals that have already been disciplined.


Given that the report alleges massive deception, and if the facts of report are correct, that deception is ongoing and goes at least as high as the vice president himself, how would this handling it internally have worked?

Given that most of this has been known for going on 10 years, doesn't that lessen the propaganda impact? The Abu Gharib scandal came out in 2003. Given that the fact that the US tortured has been known for years what looks better for the US, acknowledging wrongdoing or keeping it quiet?

The recruitment value that torture provides for our enemies is yet another argument against it.
The senate just gave extremists a book of how interrogators tortured their brothers in Allah in detail. For what? So the US can take the moral high ground of acknowledging its past wrongdoings? :rolleyes:

Isn't the executive order on lawful interrogation signed in 2009 by Obama enough as US policy on torture? I think that was acknowledgement enough. Again. WHY did this report have to be released?

[MightyWhitey]

I hope that this is because you don't understand how torturers use sleep deprivation. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10811800) You can induce psychosis in people if you deny them sleep.
My lord Kevin maybe we should offer them tea and cupcakes and keys to the prison doors so they can leave whenever they wish too :rolleyes: so torture is used to extract information to protect you, me and millions of Americans every day. Have we forgotten that we aren't fighting babies in a stroller but men with a clear and concise conviction that we are their sworn enemies. Men who behead journalists and aid workers as well as stone women to death for showing off a few eyelashes under their ninja garb. What did you honestly expect? That we ask them nicely and cross our fingers that they will cooperate? This is why people like Kevin have thousands of posts on ish and has mom and dad paying his cell phone bill. His priorities are all f&@ked up whether in politics, his ish life, or his sad real life. Stop blaming America and republicans for the worlds ills and get your life together hippy. No one holds you down more than yourself!

[AllenIverson3]

My lord Kevin maybe we should offer them tea and cupcakes and keys to the prison doors so they can leave whenever they wish too :rolleyes: so torture is used to extract information to protect you, me and millions of Americans every day. Have we forgotten that we aren't fighting babies in a stroller but men with a clear and concise conviction that we are their sworn enemies. Men who behead journalists and aid workers as well as stone women to death for showing off a few eyelashes under their ninja garb. What did you honestly expect? That we ask them nicely and cross our fingers that they will cooperate? This is why people like Kevin have thousands of posts on ish and has mom and dad paying his cell phone bill. His priorities are all f&@ked up whether in politics, his ish life, or his sad real life. Stop blaming America and republicans for the worlds ills and get your life together hippy. No one holds you down more than yourself!
its amazing how stupid people are and you're one of them....

[shlver]

This is a discussion that is best compartmentalized and I know that my beginning posts were only focused on the consequences of the release.

As for the topic of torture and its use, it is apparent that there are very rare and particular cases where individuals in power would consider it acceptable or necessary. I would also like to have a president who would have the balls to be able to violate US policy of no torture, if necessary.

As for its effectiveness, CIA reports show that they got no actionable intelligence of imminent threat to US soil, but they did get information; actionable as well as fabricated. Which leads me to agree that intelligence extracted through torture is unreliable, but the end goal was to be reasonably sure that the terrorists were not withholding information of imminent threats on US soil.

I believe torture is morally reprehensible, but terrorists killed nearly 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11/2001. I would understand the decision to authorize the use of the EIT's on high level terrorist operatives and if I was president, I would also have given authorization because torture IS effective at ensuring someone is not withholding information.

EDIT: Which leads to the discussion of the definition of torture and the legality of interrogation techniques.

Like I said in an earlier post, Obama already signed an executive order on lawful interrogation. Why have this discussion in the open where the information can empower our enemies?

[MightyWhitey]

its amazing how stupid people are and you're one of them....
Your username speaks volumes about your IQ and how you like to carry yourself you lazy wimp. Get a job and prove to your family that flipping burgers isn't the end but a new beginning!

[KevinNYC]

Maybe not the best word, but I mean it in the sense that they failed to see the potential harm in releasing the report. Can you give me a good reason why the report had to be released?

No, the legality of interrogation techniques.
There won't be any prosecutions. The EIT's authorized by the executive department/CIA administration are tame compared to torture used throughout history. And the use of unauthorized torture techniques was carried out by depraved and incompetent and if i remember the report correctly, unqualified individuals that have already been disciplined.


The senate just gave extremists a book of how interrogators tortured their brothers in Allah in detail. For what? So the US can take the moral high ground of acknowledging its past wrongdoings? :rolleyes:

Isn't the executive order on lawful interrogation signed in 2009 by Obama enough as US policy on torture? I think that was acknowledgement enough. Again. WHY did this report have to be released?
Perhaps the word you were looking for is overreach.

I don't think we would be able to get beyond this as a nation if we didn't have a public discussion on this.

I think a good reason for the report's release is to find out how much the CIA has been lying about this. Since the report was based on original CIA documents we can end the He said/She said aspect of the debate. We can know say definitely that Cheney is lying when, like he did this week, say the program was effective. This program was not effective. Useful intelligence was gleaned BEFORE enhanced techniques were used.

Here's the findings given in the Senate Intelligence's Committee's Report. Do you find any value in a public discussion of these? Only the summary is being declassified. Several thousand pages are not.

#1: The CIA’s use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

#2: The CIA’s justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.

#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.

#4: The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.

#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

#6: The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

#7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

#8: The CIA’s operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

#9; The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General.

#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques.

#11: The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.

#12: The CIA’s management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program’s duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.

#13: Two contract psychologists devised the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.

#14: CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA’s claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.

#16: The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.

#17: The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures.

#18: The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

#19; The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.

#20; The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States’ standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

[KevinNYC]

My lord Kevin maybe we should offer them tea and cupcakes blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah This is why people like Kevin have thousands of posts on ish and has mom and dad paying his cell phone bill.
Love your projections about my life, but the truth is I run a team of 15 folks on two continents working on 4 projects serving 2.6 million users.

I linked to many anti-torture interrogators in this thread who were were far more effective and getting real intelligence and keeping the US safe. I'm sure you would rather stay in the comfort of your fantasy cocoon though.

[Dresta]

Kevin you are truly deluded if you think torture is ineffective because you've linked to a couple books by people who work as non-violent interrogators and say otherwise. Have a family Kev? Think you'd withhold information if i was torturing them in front of you? Stop being disingenuous. Torture has a long history of proven effectiveness, and the supposed failure of a few pretty soft torture methods doesn't nullify the rest of history dumbass.

Nor does this report say shit - it is vague and worthless, filled with subjective value judgements gleaned from intel you have not seen, and really don't know much about (again, you're completely reliant on politicians for information). There is something too neat about that report; its 'findings' too convenient to be thought reliable.

If you think a report like this is devoid of political motivation then you are also a fool. This shows nothing except for the supreme hypocrisy of the US Senate: trying to act all honourable and righteous while scum like Kissinger (who did far worse, in far more places) are still walking around like national heroes. That cynical bitch Clinton only just praised the man recently (no doubt she will be your next hero after Obama). These revelations mean nothing, and have **** all to do with transparency.

edit: now he's bragging about his life: how typical.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Liberals are ruining this country.

[joe]

Kevin you are truly deluded if you think torture is ineffective because you've linked to a couple books by people who work as non-violent interrogators and say otherwise. Have a family Kev? Think you'd withhold information if i was torturing them in front of you? Stop being disingenuous. Torture has a long history of proven effectiveness, and the supposed failure of a few pretty soft torture methods doesn't nullify the rest of history dumbass.

Nor does this report say shit - it is vague and worthless, filled with subjective value judgements gleaned from intel you have not seen, and really don't know much about (again, you're completely reliant on politicians for information). There is something too neat about that report; its 'findings' too convenient to be thought reliable.

If you think a report like this is devoid of political motivation then you are also a fool. This shows nothing except for the supreme hypocrisy of the US Senate: trying to act all honourable and righteous while scum like Kissinger (who did far worse, in far more places) are still walking around like national heroes. That cynical bitch Clinton only just praised the man recently (no doubt she will be your next hero after Obama). These revelations mean nothing, and have **** all to do with transparency.

edit: now he's bragging about his life: how typical.

Are you pro-torture then? That would surprise me.

[RidonKs]

but I mean it in the sense that they failed to see the potential harm in releasing the report. Can you give me a good reason why the report had to be released?
the burden is not on the public to explain why they should know. the burden is on the government to explain why the public shouldn't know. that burden has not been met, and very rarely is. instead we hear vague phrases like "it will embolden our enemy" or "they'll know our plans".

you need to demonstrate that revealing this report actually threatens the security of the country.

[Dresta]

Are you pro-torture then? That would surprise me.
No, just pointing out that only a fool would argue against it on the grounds of efficacy. You either argue against it on the principle that no one can be trusted with such power over another individual (especially legalised and arbitrary power), or you have already lost the argument.

The state is already pro-torture in its preventing assisted suicide and attempting to prosecute those who attempt to alleviate the suffering of their loved ones. Honestly, i don't see much of a difference, and at least this is directed against likely enemies rather than medical unfortunates. This behaviour is of course inevitable when the ignorant start to visualise the state as an instrument of human salvation rather than an instrument of power and tyranny, which is what it's always been, and is why individuals have always sought to limit its arbitrariness by general principles and modes of conduct that restrict power (most of which have been pushed aside).

KevNYC has an overweening faith in the power of the state, and so his posturing in this thread simply makes him an ignorant hypocrite. He wants powerful and unaccountable elites, but then he thinks they should make the correct and moral decisions (as Obama of course always does), which basically means follow the tenets of his arbitrarily chosen morality.

[brantonli]

Maybe not the best word, but I mean it in the sense that they failed to see the potential harm in releasing the report. Can you give me a good reason why the report had to be released?



I think Americans sometimes take their principles and freedom for granted. It's almost an impossibility for a government to admit they are wrong. As the USA, the world's superpower, you've got to be able to man up and admit your mistakes, as a nation. That's what sets you apart from other, less moral superpowers like China.

Does it give your enemies ammunition is the press? Sure. But now dissidents can turn around and say 'Chinese government, where's your torture report? Or do you officially not torture anybody at all?'

Of course there are material downsides to releasing this report, but I think you underestimate the fact that for most international, thinking people, this probably help rehabilitate the US's reputation, in that they can admit they did this, not the torture bit obviously.

If you had just left it, festering there, it becomes a constant sore that others can forever bring up as your blemish.

[kNIOKAS]

I think Americans sometimes take their principles and freedom for granted. It's almost an impossibility for a government to admit they are wrong. As the USA, the world's superpower, you've got to be able to man up and admit your mistakes, as a nation. That's what sets you apart from other, less moral superpowers like China.

Does it give your enemies ammunition is the press? Sure. But now dissidents can turn around and say 'Chinese government, where's your torture report? Or do you officially not torture anybody at all?'

Of course there are material downsides to releasing this report, but I think you underestimate the fact that for most international, thinking people, this probably help rehabilitate the US's reputation, in that they can admit they did this, not the torture bit obviously.

If you had just left it, festering there, it becomes a constant sore that others can forever bring up as your blemish.
Admitting it does not stop it in any way or form. Saying "yeah I did it" does not take the responsibility away or rehabilitate the US reputation. Torturing does not help anybody's reputation.

[HitandRun Reggie]

On CNN Chris Cuomo just got destroyed by Philip Mudd, former CIA intelligence analyst. Unfortunately there is only one video on YouTube right with crappy camera work and the poster yapping the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7F69MnZhs4

Mudd is right, everyone after 9/11 wanted the terrorists stopped by any means necessary. If a person wasn't an adult during 9/11, they should keep their yap shut, the whole populace was demanding the CIA destroy Al-Queda and didn't care how.

[kNIOKAS]

On CNN Chris Cuomo just got destroyed by Philip Mudd, former CIA intelligence analyst. Unfortunately there is only one video on YouTube right with crappy camera work and the poster yapping the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7F69MnZhs4

Mudd is right, everyone after 9/11 wanted the terrorists stopped by any means necessary. If a person wasn't an adult during 9/11, they should keep their yap shut, the whole populace was demanding the CIA destroy Al-Queda and didn't care how.
So since the frenzied masses were chanting for somebody's head to get on the pitchfork, the Central Intelligence Agency was supposed to cater to their demands with no hesitation or regard to the actual purpose and the interest it is supposed to serve?
I don't think so.

[Godzuki]

On CNN Chris Cuomo just got destroyed by Philip Mudd, former CIA intelligence analyst. Unfortunately there is only one video on YouTube right with crappy camera work and the poster yapping the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7F69MnZhs4

Mudd is right, everyone after 9/11 wanted the terrorists stopped by any means necessary. If a person wasn't an adult during 9/11, they should keep their yap shut, the whole populace was demanding the CIA destroy Al-Queda and didn't care how.


more like most Republicans. they were very 'patriotic' about the attack. lots of rednecks were screaming blow them up and stuff like that. left weren't so much against going after them more than lets do it rationally....hence war in Iraq after Bush surprised everyone with that attack shortly after getting the vote that he could play the war card.

contrary to right wing revisionist hindsight, Republicans were and are very quick to attack and react emotionally....then again far left are pooosies :confusedshrug:

[Dresta]

So since the frenzied masses were chanting for somebody's head to get on the pitchfork, the Central Intelligence Agency was supposed to cater to their demands with no hesitation or regard to the actual purpose and the interest it is supposed to serve?
I don't think so.
Since when didn't democratic governments cater to the wants of the 'frenzied masses?'

It's only one of the principle failings of democracy.

[shlver]

I think Americans sometimes take their principles and freedom for granted. It's almost an impossibility for a government to admit they are wrong. As the USA, the world's superpower, you've got to be able to man up and admit your mistakes, as a nation. That's what sets you apart from other, less moral superpowers like China.

Does it give your enemies ammunition is the press? Sure. But now dissidents can turn around and say 'Chinese government, where's your torture report? Or do you officially not torture anybody at all?'

Of course there are material downsides to releasing this report, but I think you underestimate the fact that for most international, thinking people, this probably help rehabilitate the US's reputation, in that they can admit they did this, not the torture bit obviously.

If you had just left it, festering there, it becomes a constant sore that others can forever bring up as your blemish.
No we don't have to "man up." I don't even see how the authorization was a mistake. In the wake of 9/11 and terrorist tactics actively leading us to believe there was an imminent threat on US soil, authorization of these rather tame torture techniques on TERRORISTS is completely justified imo.
Obama's executive order was acknowledgement enough on CIA secret prisons, deplorable interrogation techniques, etc.

What you have now is a one sided summary report cherry picked from 6 million documents by senate democrats. So have the senate democrats explained why they kept 99% of the documents classified? Why didn't the committee interview Mitchell(Mitchell reported himself what he did) or any of the CIA operatives? Why aren't we demanding all of them be declassified for the sake of transparency? Ask yourself these questions, and tell me if this is an issue that should be discussed out in the open and if it was done correctly.

[shlver]

the burden is not on the public to explain why they should know. the burden is on the government to explain why the public shouldn't know. that burden has not been met, and very rarely is. instead we hear vague phrases like "it will embolden our enemy" or "they'll know our plans".

you need to demonstrate that revealing this report actually threatens the security of the country.
It does and I've already said it many times. It's a propaganda gift to extremists.

[shlver]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll/1514/
Interesting poll. Despite heavy liberal media hammering of the issue, there is still a majority thinking it was justified.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/polls/Torture2-big.jpg

[shlver]

Interview with James Mitchell
http://therightscoop.com/must-watch-james-mitchell-torches-senate-dems-over-report-on-enhanced-interrogations/

[joe]

It does and I've already said it many times. It's a propaganda gift to extremists.

America does a lot of things that are propaganda gifts to extremists. Such as, occupying foreign nations and killing people. Not to mention torture itself, especially of innocent people.

And by the way, it didnt take this report for people to know that torture was going on. If the terrorists do need propaganda gifts, they have had this one for a while.

Yeah, maybe some terrorists are just crazy and simply want to kill Americans. Perhaps no matter what the USA does, those people will exist. But it cannot be argued that we incite more hatred towards us by our actions overseas.

Pull out of the Middle East. Stop torturing people. How much terrorism do you think will really exist on US soil if those two things occur?

The initial plan for the USA was to stay out of foreign affairs. I dont see a good reason why that should be any different right now. There is no threat as large as Nazi Germany.

[shlver]

America does a lot of things that are propaganda gifts to extremists. Such as, occupying foreign nations and killing people. Not to mention torture itself, especially of innocent people.

And by the way, it didnt take this report for people to know that torture was going on. If the terrorists do need propaganda gifts, they have had this one for a while.

Yeah, maybe some terrorists are just crazy and simply want to kill Americans. Perhaps no matter what the USA does, those people will exist. But it cannot be argued that we incite more hatred towards us by our actions overseas.

Pull out of the Middle East. Stop torturing people. How much terrorism do you think will really exist on US soil if those two things occur?

The initial plan for the USA was to stay out of foreign affairs. I dont see a good reason why that should be any different right now. There is no threat as large as Nazi Germany.
I completely agree with you. You and I have very similar views on foreign policy in the middle east. The fact that the most likely source of anti american/western sentiment is historical military occupation(starting from the creation of Israel) does not diminish the fact that the release of these reports only strengthens anti american sentiment. Now the majority of the muslim world goes meh, because WORSE torture has been carried out in their own countries; but the report WILL be used by extremists to recruit crazies.

[kNIOKAS]

I completely agree with you. You and I have very similar views on foreign policy in the middle east. The fact that the most likely source of anti american/western sentiment is historical military occupation(starting from the creation of Israel) does not diminish the fact that the release of these reports only strengthens anti american sentiment. Now the majority of the muslim world goes meh, because WORSE torture has been carried out in their own countries; but the report WILL be used by extremists to recruit crazies.
One torture being "worse" then other torture does not make torture fine. You should be occupied with US actions and not the reports on it.

[shlver]

One torture being "worse" then other torture does not make torture fine. You should be occupied with US actions and not the reports on it.
I never said torture was fine and I already said I feel US actions were justified. Reading comprehension is key.

[kNIOKAS]

I never said torture was fine and I already said I feel US actions were justified. Reading comprehension is key.
So you said you never said torture was fine but US doing torture were justified. This is hard to comprehend no matter how one reads it.

[shlver]

So you said you never said torture was fine but US doing torture were justified. This is hard to comprehend no matter how one reads it.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I've already explained myself in multiple posts.

[AintNoSunshine]

Whatever means necessary to protect you fukks