View Full Version : CIA Torture report
Gardenarian
12-9-14, 12:58pm
The Senate appears to have overlooked that torture is unconstitutional.
It seems that no one is to be answerable to these crimes.
From HuffPo: President Barack Obama said, "The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests."
"That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again," Obama added.
Troubling? Some understatement!
He's not going to be president for long. The people responsible for torture should be brought to justice, including everyone in the administration who was aware of what was happening.
This is shameful.
Technically the President has the ultimate responsibility, but at least from what I've read, the CIA hid much from the Senate and White House. If it does go back to Congress or the President, it apparently happened during the Bush administration.
When revealing the truth is considered a bad thing, there's a problem.
Teacher Terry
12-9-14, 2:06pm
It was authorized by Bush. I saw an interview where he admits it.
It was authorized by Bush. I saw an interview where he admits it.He admitted torture? I think he probably admitted the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, which some define as "torture".
It may be instructive to know what an enhanced interrogation technique entails. From the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/09/list-of-approved-enhanced-interrogation-techniques/):
Here are some of the specific techniques formerly approved for use by the CIA interrogators.
“Attention grasp” – Grabbing a detainee forcibly by the collar.
Cramped confinement – Place the detainee in a dark, tight space for hours at a time.
Cramped confinement “with an insect” - Developed for Abu Zubaydah, a militant commander allegedly allied with Osama bin Laden. CIA officers learned Mr. Zubaydah was afraid of insects, so they sought permission to place him in a box with a harmless bug such as a caterpillar, while telling him it was a stinging insect. People familiar with the matter say this technique was approved but not used.
Facial hold – Holding the detainee’s head immobile during questioning.
Facial slap or “Insult Slap” – Slapping a detainee in the face “with fingers slightly spread.” “The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain” but “to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation,” Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee wrote.
Sleep deprivation – A detainee is forced to go without sleep for more than 48 hours. “You have orally informed us that you would not deprive Zubaydah of sleep for more than 11 days at a time and that you have previously kept him awake for 72 hours,” Mr. Bybee wrote.
Stress positions – Requiring the detainee to stay in uncomfortable positions to induce muscle fatigue.
“Walling” – Pushing a detainee “quick and forcefully” against a flexible wall. “The false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise… the individual,” Mr. Bybee wrote for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2002.
Wall standing – “Used to induce muscle fatigue.” The detainee is forced to stand about four feet from a wall, leaning so that his arms resting against the wall carry some of his weight. “The individual is not permitted to move or reposition his hands or feet,” Mr. Bybee wrote.
Waterboarding – A detainee lying on a gurney has a cloth placed over his face. Water is poured on the cloth, simulating the experience of drowning.
Waterboarding was used against three detainees, according to people familiar with the matter. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole, was subjected to it twice, according to government documents; alleged Sept. 11 plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to it 183 times; Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times.
Teacher Terry
12-9-14, 2:20pm
I don't care how you phrase it waterboarding is torture-simulated drowning-that sounds like fun!
I don't care how you phrase it waterboarding is torture-simulated drowning-that sounds like fun!
Oh I'm sure it's not at all fun. I doubt any of the tens of thousands of our military personnel who endured it during training remember it fondly.
ApatheticNoMore
12-9-14, 3:10pm
The Senate appears to have overlooked that torture is unconstitutional.
Torture OUGHT to be unconstitutional. It is EXPLICITLY unconstitutional in the constitutions of many countries, torture is specifically outlawed. However "cruel and unusual" punishment you would think would obvioulsy cover it. I would prefer an explicit ban on torture as such, but you would think that would cover it.
Technically the President has the ultimate responsibility, but at least from what I've read, the CIA hid much from the Senate and White House. If it does go back to Congress or the President, it apparently happened during the Bush administration.
the particular torture in the report maybe. Torture of course obviously continues under Obama. Force feeding for instance is generally considered torture and it is well known that this is present practice.
Oh I'm sure it's not at all fun. I doubt any of the tens of thousands of our military personnel who endured it during training remember it fondly.
perhaps they should see if they have a legal case. I think joining the military signs away some rights though. Prisoners of war are a very different situation than voluntarily joining one's own military, and the treatment of prisoners taken in war also violates various international legal agreements as well.
Prisoners of war are a very different situation than voluntarily joining one's own military, and the treatment of prisoners taken in war also violates various international legal agreements as well.
That's true, the Geneva Convention is very clear about the treatment of prisoners fighting under their country's flag, in uniform, but has nothing to do with prisoners not meeting those very specific criteria.
perhaps they should see if they have a legal case.I doubt they'd get very far even if you could find one willing to sue. The true value of legal action in this sort of thing is political, as a means to make an opponent look bad in someone else's eyes. Most military members accept fear and discomfort as a way of life.
I have a good friend who for years was in an Israeli secret-squirrel outfit, tracking down Very Very Unpleasant People and dealing with them. His expert opinion is that for the most part "real" torture was useless for his purposes - it produced very unreliable results. Softer "torture" - psychological manipulation, games-playing, uncomfortable/stressful environments - did produce results.
As to waterboarding - it *is* quite unpleasant, but some people do seem to do it for kicks, judging from seminar schedules I've seen from the Center for Sex Positive Culture in Seattle. But the parties involved are risk-aware and consenting. Chacun à son goût.
Gardenarian
12-9-14, 4:49pm
It's not just waterboarding.
"The study reveals several gruesome instances of torture by mid-level CIA officers who participated in the program, including threats of sexual violence using a broomstick and the use of "rectal hydration" in instances of harsh interrogations that lasted for days or weeks on end. And, contrary to the agency's prior insistence that only three detainees were subject to waterboarding, the Senate report suggests it was likely used on more detainees."
More from HuffPo here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/senate-cia-report_n_6270138.html).
And what they are debating is whether these "techniques" were effective (they were not.) Disgusting.
the use of "rectal hydration"
Sounds like the celebrity juice cleanse.
And what they are debating is whether these "techniques" were effective (they were not.)
All joking aside, the conclusions in the majority report are highly political. That's not to say that the contrary conclusions in the other official reports and the opinions of the CIA directors aren't, but take it all with a grain of salt. I'm sure the timing is no coincidence either.
See http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
It's not just waterboarding..
.I read somewhere they even deprive them of sensory stimulation by unplugging the TV's so they can't watch cartoons on Saturday Morning! By gum, I sure wish I could get three hots and a cot in The Caribbean, all year around. It would sure beat being in a Middle East War Zone, or shoveling snow in the upper Midwest. Well, wouldn't it? Besides that, what do you think those camel jockeys would do to you, to make you talk?
Sounds like the celebrity juice cleanse.
All joking aside, the conclusions in the majority report are highly political. That's not to say that the contrary conclusions in the other official reports and the opinions of the CIA directors aren't, but take it all with a grain of salt. I'm sure the timing is no coincidence either.
See http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644Yes--the second I saw Feinstein in the photo with the news story, I figured it was B.S. She lends it zero credibility, 100% bleeding-heart Partisanship.
JaneV2.0
12-10-14, 10:41am
I've heard over and over again from people who should know that you get the best (maybe the only) intelligence when you establish rapport with your detainee. I'm with John McCain and Jesse Ventura--Ventura famously said "Give me Dick Cheney, an hour, and a waterboard, and I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate Murders."
Great Idea. I am 100% in favor--totally unopposed--to letting Jesse Ventura Waterboard Dick Cheney. Only, make it two hours.
JaneV2.0
12-10-14, 11:24am
Great Idea. I am 100% in favor--totally unopposed--to letting Jesse Ventura Waterboard Dick Cheney. Only, make it two hours.
It's an appealing idea all right. I'm completely opposed to torture of any kind, but in that instance...:devil:
What did poor Jesse Ventura ever do to deserve that?
What did poor Jesse Ventura ever do to deserve that?
He volunteered. You know what they say about that...
I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal’s characterization of the report as “a collection of partisan second guessing”, prepared by democratic Senate staffers. ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/spooks-of-the-senate-1418170941 ).
Couldn’t they at least have interviewed some of the actual participants before drawing their conclusions?
I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal’s characterization of the report as “a collection of partisan second guessing”, prepared by democratic Senate staffers. ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/spooks-of-the-senate-1418170941 ).
Couldn’t they at least have interviewed some of the actual participants before drawing their conclusions?
I think you hit the nail on the head - and I expect it was intentional. I think they intend to drown the issue in questionable reporting and political grandstanding - if that's so they needed the Senate to release the report while the Democrats still held the majority.
Yossarian
12-10-14, 9:57pm
Couldn’t they at least have interviewed some of the actual participants before drawing their conclusions?
That would be counterproductive if all the people involved disagree. The other WSJ editorial I cited is authored by a pretty notable cast, including I think the CIA director appointed by Obama.
In some ways the report ducks the real question to score cheap political points (which may backfire). But really that's the debate worth having. Where is the line? Would you subject someone to harsh interrogation if in fact it would save thousands of lives? How rough is too rough to save thousands of people? Instead we get tripe.
But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/dianne-feinsteins-travesty-113486.html#ixzz3LY9iTEWj
But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3LY9iTEWj
It would be nice if the article had gone on to actually list a few times, or even one, where torture worked at providing credible information that saved lives. Since it didn't I can only assume that the person writing it didn't have any examples to share. So, yeah, we get tripe.
I'd also suspect that the only critics of the CIA program unwilling to say that torture is wrong and we shouldn't do it are beltway insiders. I, for one, am a critic of the CIA program and have no problem stating that I think torture is wrong and that we shouldn't do it.
Yossarian
12-10-14, 11:11pm
It would be nice if the article had gone on to actually list a few times, or even one, where torture worked at providing credible information that saved lives. Since it didn't I can only assume that the person writing it didn't have any examples to share. So, yeah, we get tripe.
Something of a travesty when you get more from the op-ed page than a $50 million report.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
But really that's the debate worth having. Where is the line? Would you subject someone to harsh interrogation if in fact it would save thousands of lives?
Yes. But in today's note from deep left field and to take it full circle; couldn't we be spending our money to get a lot of smaller boats floating and thus remove the target on our backs in the eyes of many 'enemy combatants' rather than implementing policies that strengthen their resolve? I know, its an esoteric thought that would require a paradigm shift that the power brokers (and for that matter the electorate) have no stomach for. Like with everything else, let's just keep treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease. We wouldn't want the folks providing the meds to the war machine to miss a free lunch. End of rant.
JaneV2.0
12-11-14, 11:37am
My father was an infantry officer in the Pacific theater during WWII serving mostly in the jungles of New Guinea and the Phillippines. He didn't speak often of the war, but one thing he was proud of was the American treatment of prisoners. They took more than a few in the course of their service, including at least one Japanese general. In contrast, he had a lifelong disgust with the way the Japanese army treated its captives with torture (including waterboarding*), starvation, and worse. We're showing the world that we've changed over the years from an honorable nation to a brutal and dishonorable one, thanks in part to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the culture of the CIA, which has long operated outside the law.
"Enemy combatants" is merely cynical semantics; these people--evil and misguided as they may be--are human beings, and should be treated under the law.
*"Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."--John McCain
Couldn’t they at least have interviewed some of the actual participants before drawing their conclusions?
No, that might jeopardize the new narrative. The Senators producing the report quietly supported the CIA's actions until progressives forced them to become horrified by it. Now that the Democrats have lost so much public support and goodwill, as evidenced by repeated electoral losses across the country, a new narrative must be contrived in hopes of placating their base. Round one of outrageous outrage, years in the making, had to be released now while they still had the political power to do so. Not only had they run out of time to conduct a thorough investigation, the results might be counter-productive to the goal.
ApatheticNoMore
12-11-14, 1:20pm
When we say interview the actual participants, do we mean those being tortured as well? They were one half of the participants, so it would make sense for that to be at least half of it. Really is becoming a job for the Hague at that point though.
When we say interview the actual participants, do we mean those being tortured as well? They were one half of the participants, so it would make sense for that to be at least half of it. Really is becoming a job for the Hague at that point though.
Sure, let them froth and posture and threaten.
The list of prisoners at Gitmo on Wikipedia shows that at least one of them was repatriated, but then perpetrated a suicide bombing that killed six other people! Based on what I've seen, ehem--in media reports--of numerous highly idealistic and fanatical people, it makes sense that these captives are being held just so they don't cause more trouble. I just can't go with the bleeding heart notion that somehow, we've violated their rights(what rights?), and that all we need to do is release them to their homeland, and they'll be leading productive useful lives from now on. To me, it's just more partisan politics. I am not in support of either side-- we're in a quagmire that both sides opted for. But, don't turn those prisoners loose, for now. Prove to me that Feinweinstein cares a flying flip about those people, anyway; it is political grandstanding. Now you know. Thankk Mee.
When we say interview the actual participants, do we mean those being tortured as well? They were one half of the participants, so it would make sense for that to be at least half of it. Really is becoming a job for the Hague at that point though.
+1
Sure, interview everyone. But the report is derived from millions of official records including emails that were all contemporaneous.
So if the interviewee denies it, they were either lying then, or they're lying now.
. . . In contrast, he had a lifelong disgust with the way the Japanese army treated its captives with torture (including waterboarding*), starvation, and worse.
For an up-close look at this I'd recommend the book "Unbroken" true story of an American POW in WWII. Also made into a movie coming out this month.
Wanted: Compassionate Foster Care Homes For Former Gitmo Detainees, while they are integrated and assimilated into American Society, and become naturalized citizens. It's the very LEAST we can do for them, after the injustice perpetrated on them by those Republicans. Won't you please open your home and your heart for the less fortunate? Thankk Mee.
For an up-close look at this I'd recommend the book "Unbroken" true story of an American POW in WWII. Also made into a movie coming out this month.Any movie on the subject will be screwed up, I guarantee you. Does any mooovvee director ever get it right? The good ol' USA did this: shortly before the Armistice(or right after) the U.S. military hanged 6 or 8 German POW's at Leavenworth who had allegedly murdered other POW's, the motive being that the victim's were co-operating with their captors, IOW, informants. Earlier on in the War, a group of German U-Boat personnel who had landed on the east coast as would-be saboteurs, were captured, and executed as spies in the electric chair in the District of Columbia. The operatives were selected by the Germans for the mission, because these individuals had at one time lived in the US and spoke English. Except for arriving as planned, they had not as yet even begun to carry out their mission; it is thought that some of them may have intended to defect, and readily surrendered. I've also read that many German POWS held at camps in the USA actually wanted to stay, after the war. But, no--they got sent home, anyway. Even though Germans immigrants historically have made pretty good citizens and readily assimilate. How do you like that?
Teacher Terry
12-12-14, 9:23pm
Your foster home comment made me laugh out loud:D.
Blackdog Lin
12-12-14, 10:39pm
I was appalled and heartbroken for my country (was it 2 years ago? 3? 4?) when it came out about waterboarding the prisoners. And they were debating back then as to whether this was torture?!!! Hello?!!
I am more appalled and heartbroken for my country today. Admittedly I have only been exposed to Matt Taibi's (sp.) article, but still.....
More on the Torture Report. Dick Cheney, who has been out of the limelight for a few years, got some attention by holding a news conference. He stated words to the effect that if he had to do it all over again, waterboarding would still have been in the plan. What do you think of that?
I'm not sure what to think or feel.
Supposedly we consider ourselves as having the market on being humane, but at the same time do tons of things in this world that are inhumane. And it's the double edged sword of being in a country that wants everything to be transparent. How the heck are we supposed to make our country safe while showing our hand to its destroyers? I think, while some of our hopes and dreams for a more humane world might be reasonable, I think we're a very naive bunch for the most part. We've been safe and secure (relatively) for so long that we don't have a clue as to what real terrorism is (except for 9-11) that we can enjoy having unrealistic feelings towards how to achieve the greatest safety for the greatest number of people.
On the other hand......I'm sure there are people in the intelligence groups who go too far........just like people in every group.
But mostly I think we're just naive and can get all uppity about certain things out of living in what has been a really safe country (which is rapidly changing........maybe because we are too soft on bad people??)
Yes, it is contradictory to want to be THE most powerful and influential nation in the world, and at the same time, do everything in a nice way so as to be above reproach from critics, and not make even more enemies in the process. I'm not sure the USA needs to rule the world, at all costs. The Fanatics always have to have a bogeyman, some -ism to oppose, on the other side of the world. But, it's probably a bad idea. Empires finally burn out, after awhile. Cheney is one of those people I think who figures : What's good for me, Dickie, is good. I don't think he has any other philosophy to guide him. His rise to power is one that sounds interesting--if I can find a book(and I'm sure there are lots) that doesn't sugar-coat his story or isn't too extreme at Cheney-bashing, either, I might read it.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-14, 1:01pm
It may be contradictory to have an empire and not torture - although I'm not sure it wouldn't be far preferable and more humane to have one of the other contenders as empire (they might very well be more humane, but even failing that they might at least keep the torture contained sad to say, when Lydie England is doing it you know things are very far gone). As for whether anyone wants an empire, oh I don't recall tell me when was it on the ballot again?
Other things may be equally contradictory, like having a society in which the people in the highest positions of power condone torture, and some profit off it, go scott free, everyone knows it, and wanting a humane society that values human life. Like having an army that goes and occupies countries all over the world and engages in torture, it did under W of course in Iraq etc., and expecting none of that to seep into domestic law enforcement. Wanting torture without blowback, now that may be a contradiction if ever there was one. Karma police ...
Yes, it is contradictory to want to be THE most powerful and influential nation in the world...
Kind of what it all boils down to, doesn't it? Personally, I've grown weary of being #1, top dog, king $#!+. Let someone else wear the crown for a while. As I really try to sort it out there's no reason to think the world would be any worse off with someone else in charge. Americans are decent and compassionate and moral. American isn't. Maybe that's why there are so many places where people love Americans, but hate America. Everyone I know from China is also decent and compassionate and moral. Why don't we give them a shot at the title? In the end, why does it even matter?
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-14, 2:45pm
Kind of what it all boils down to, doesn't it? Personally, I've grown weary of being #1, top dog, king $#!+. Let someone else wear the crown for a while. As I really try to sort it out there's no reason to think the world would be any worse off with someone else in charge. Americans are decent and compassionate and moral. America isn't. Maybe that's why there are so many places where people love Americans, but hate America. Everyone I know from China is also decent and compassionate and moral. Why don't we give them a shot at the title? In the end, why does it even matter?
+1
Also if you want to be super real politic and cynical about it "but all empires torture", I'm not sure of that statement but I suspect that may be the case, then you have to admit punishing other countries like Japan for it after WWII was just victors enjoying their spoils (Japan too wanted to be an empire afterall).
But back to the actual present: Russia (though it's questionable whether they even want it), China, BRICs (now that would be interesting), who says they'd be any worse?
Yossarian
12-15-14, 3:20pm
why does it even matter?
While it might be geographically attenuated, I don't think morality stops at the border. If my neighbor was being threatened by an abusive ex, or my neighborhood was being terrorized by a biker gang, or young girls were being enslaved by the Islamic State, or whatever... You always have the choice to say screw it, not my problem. And you can't solve all the problems, even if you try. But that doesn't mean your neighbors, neighborhood, country or the world is the same as if you don't try at all. Maybe you should go watch a few It's a Wonderful Life reruns and WWII in Color episodes :-)
Gardenarian
12-15-14, 3:31pm
While it might be geographically attenuated, I don't think morality stops at the border. If my neighbor was being threatened by an abusive ex, or my neighborhood was being terrorized by a biker gang, or young girls were being enslaved by the Islamic State, or whatever... You always have the choice to say screw it, not my problem. And you can't solve all the problems, even if you try. But that doesn't mean your neighbors, neighborhood, country or the world is the same as if you don't try at all. Maybe you should go watch a few It's a Wonderful Life reruns and WWII in Color episodes :-)
I do agree about moral responsibility, but the U.S. is causing more problems than it is solving.
Our foreign policy - what is it? Whack-a-mole?
But back to the actual present: Russia (though it's questionable whether they even want it), China, BRICs (now that would be interesting), who says they'd be any worse?
The Georgians
The Chechens
The Ukranians
The Tibetans
The Uighurs
Pretty much anyone with an understanding of 20th century history.
ApatheticNoMore
12-16-14, 2:57pm
What about the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Vietnamese, much of Latin America, etc.. Pretty much anyone with an understanding of 20th century history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.