U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA

[Doug Huffman]

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

 

[Bystander]

"Do you want to open or save?" Open. "Do you want to open or save?" So I go look for report elsewhere: 600 pp. ±, out of 6000 pp. ±, on 6M pp. ± written by dems, damning republicans (no surprise); disputed by Bush 43 personnel and CIA; defended by media, dems, and STUPO 44.

So, it's a lot of partisan bickering with no real resolution of intelligence issues, purposes, or procedures.

What all have I omitted?

 

[WhatIsGravity]

Do you think it's good, or bad, that the US would release those CIA torture reports?

 

[Danger]

Good, for sure. Everyone else in the world has always known about Bush's deception. It's about time that his own citizens learn the truth.

 

[Czcibor]

As a citizen of a country that name is officially blackened in the report, I'm somewhat annoyed. First you do that, and later as side effect of your leaks / internal cleaning up damage image of your allies.

Anyway seems that Obama learned how much fuzz there is with all those captured terrorist and how little they tell during interrogation. So decided to apply an approach that is simpler and harder to challenge as human rights issue - drones.

 

[Bystander]

good, or bad,

Call it pretentious phony posturing, infantile stupidity, residents of glass houses throwing stones, the first mud-slinging of the 2016 election, a pre-emptive excuse for Obama's next stupid stunt, whatever you will, it's not "good" or "bad," it's pretty much business as usual.

 

[Doug Huffman]

What is not known cannot be spoken and cannot be repaired. We Americans have precisely the government that we deserve.

The author of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper addressed it well in his masterwork, The Open Society and Its Enemies, in which he made clear that the Constitution of The United States is unique among all history for binding the tyrant government. We have loosed his bindings, unleashing horrors unimagined.

 

[Bystander]

The other possibility is that it's a devilishly clever ploy to get the bad guys to crawl out from under their rocks for another round of "whack a mole." Nah --- "44" ain't that bright.

 

[lisab]

We Americans have precisely the government that we deserve.

Such cynicism.

;)

 

[Medicol]

Such cynicism.

;)

But yes I think he is right about that.

 

[Danger]

We Americans have precisely the government that we deserve.

I both agree and disagree with that. (Frankly, it's an incredibly complex subject for someone who doesn't live with it.) Your voting record is appalling. Those who are allowed to vote and choose not to are responsible for the state of affairs; those who want to and aren't allowed to (boundary redistributions, ID requirements, etc.) are not and I'm sure would rather trade places with the former.
Before anyone points it out, we don't have a much better turn-out here. At least no one was actively prevented from voting until our current administration got involved. (The robocalls were just as heinous as Bush's "dangling chads"—which I still think sounds like a venereal disease—but at least someone is going to prison for it.)

 

[Bystander]

Your voting record is appalling.

That's a much more charitable assessment than is really deserved. Lot of it is a function of ballot structure --- voters don't have to know anything about a candidate --- they just vote for "Ds" or "Rs" or, for the contrarians among us, the "Is" come election.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Marwan al-Jabbur was subjected to what was originally referred to in a cable as an "enema," but was later acknowledged to be rectal rehydration.

Pretty sure an enema is rectal rehydration.

 

[Doug Huffman]

There is not a spit of difference among the D, R, and L, they are all progressives. Progressivism being the political bowel movement to make-things-better and leave US to suffer the consequences. The two party system is good cop - bad cop writ large.

See Angelo Codevilla's essay, America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution The essay, not the book!

 

[Danger]

Pretty an enema is rectal rehydration.

I never watch "The View" because those shrieking women who insist upon talking simultaneously and each louder than the others just give me a headache. That having been said, I caught the beginning of it today because it was on while I was programming my DVR this morning. They were discussing this very topic, and Rosie O'Donnell pointed out that legally a forceable enema is rape.

 

[Pete Cortez]

I never watch "The View" because those shrieking women who insist upon talking simultaneously and each louder than the others just give me a headache. That having been said, I caught the beginning of it today because it was on while I was programming my DVR this morning. They were discussing this very topic, and Rosie O'Donnell pointed out that legally a forceable enema is rape.

Yeah, about that.

 

[Danger]

Yeah, about that.

That's not quite the same thing. To start with, the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere were not entitled to any rights at all under the innocent-sounding "Patriot Act". That's pretty much what enabled Nazi concentration camps. Secondly, in a legitimate "detain for suspicion" situation, a search for weapons or drugs is reasonable as a safety issue. Forcibly introducing a foreign substance is not. I'm pretty sure that a doctor would classify it as "an invasive procedure" (but I'll retract that if a doctor disagrees). I personally think that anyone detained and shown to be innocent should automatically have "unlawful confinement" charges (I think that you call it "false arrest" in the US) laid against the arresting parties and damages awarded, but that would financially and logistically cripple the government. I refer here to normal law-enforcement such as city police, sheriffs, and the like, not just war crimes.

 

[Czcibor]

That's not quite the same thing. To start with, the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere were not entitled to any rights at all under the innocent-sounding "Patriot Act". That's pretty much what enabled Nazi concentration camps. Secondly, in a legitimate "detain for suspicion" situation, a search for weapons or drugs is reasonable as a safety issue. Forcibly introducing a foreign substance is not. I'm pretty sure that a doctor would classify it as "an invasive procedure" (but I'll retract that if a doctor disagrees). I personally think that anyone detained and shown to be innocent should automatically have "unlawful confinement" charges (I think that you call it "false arrest" in the US) laid against the arresting parties and damages awarded, but that would financially and logistically cripple the government. I refer here to normal law-enforcement such as city police, sheriffs, and the like.

Are you talking here about vague Platonic ideas, or you mean you would like to finance that through your taxes? And provide all those people who were detained without good evidence enough money for buying proper explosives?

 

[Pete Cortez]

That's not quite the same thing.

Well, yes. Compulsory enemas and anal cavity searches are technically different violations.

To start with, the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere were not entitled to any rights at all under the innocent-sounding "Patriot Act".

First, PATRIOT Act is unrelated to enemy combatants or their disposition under military authority. Second, Bell v. Wolfish applies to persons who haven't been convicted of any crime. Third, Bell v. Wolfish clearly establishes at least one lawful cause for cavity penetration; and I raised it only to note that Americans have been cognizant of invasive procedures like these for decades without considering them rape.

That's pretty much what enabled Nazi concentration camps.

I imagine this skips over a few steps.

Secondly, in a legitimate "detain for suspicion" situation, a search for weapons or drugs is reasonable as a safety issue.

So forcible enemas for safety, but not forcible enemas for evacuating force-fed intestines. What's the consistent dividing line between a good forcible enema and a bad one?

Forcibly introducing a foreign substance is not.

Like a gloved finger? You can't penetrate the anus without introducing a foreign substance, not unless we're talking about gymnastics usually reserved for more off-color conversation.

I'm pretty sure that a doctor would classify it as "an invasive procedure" (but I'll retract that if a doctor disagrees).

No argument here, or from the Supreme Court for that matter.

I personally think that anyone detained and shown to be innocent should automatically have "unlawful confinement" charges (I think that you call it "false arrest" in the US) laid against the arresting parties and damages awarded, but that would financially and logistically cripple the government.

Well, we all have a point where accommodation is just too much.

 

[Danger]

And provide all those people who were detained without good evidence enough money for buying proper explosives?

In the context of my statement, yes. If I were walking down the street minding my own business and was suddenly jumped, pepper sprayed, and clubbed by a couple of cops and thrown into jail overnight, I'd sure as hell be looking for some explosives when I got out.
As for the funding, maybe if liability was paid for the public, they'd be a little more diligent about keeping the cops on a leash.

First, PATRIOT Act is unrelated to enemy combatants or their disposition under military authority

Maybe I got my US laws mixed up; I mean the one that says they can arbitrarily call you a terrorist and lock you up in Gitmo with no arrest, no trial, no lawyer, no phone call, no proper toilet and no contact with the outside world and torture you. Call it what you will; I don't think that it's right.
Also a huge percentage of the prisoners were not "enemy combatants".

So forcible enemas for safety, but not forcible enemas for evacuating force-fed intestines.

Where are you getting that? The force-fed part is the foreign object insertion that I meant. Force-feeding via a laryngeal tube is not illegal, although it should be, but by your own laws anything south of the belt is a sex crime. I don't know how it applies from one jurisdiction to another. (You do realize that the point of contention was force-feeding via the rectum, to overcome hunger-strikes, right?)
I do think that body scanning should be done in place of cavity searches, but that would involve a cross-over to prison hospital wards or hospital prison wards or both.

 

[Czcibor]

In the context of my statement, yes. If I were walking down the street minding my own business and was suddenly jumped, pepper sprayed, and clubbed by a couple of cops and thrown into jail overnight, I'd sure as hell be looking for some explosives when I got out.
As for the funding, maybe if liability was paid for the public, they'd be a little more diligent about keeping the cops on a leash.

I'm curious - I assume that tax payers are liable when gov is overactive. I have the following question to you - shall taxpayers be liable when gov is underactive? (I mean when some criminal activity could have been easily stopped but not much was done)

 

[Danger]

It's being done here. I thought that I had heard of cases in the US, but maybe I'm getting mixed up with some "Law & Order" episodes or something. It's called a "Wrongful Death" suit if fatal; I don't know what the charge is with no death involved. And how exactly does grabbing a perfectly innocent person off of the street help to protect anyone?

 

[nsaspook]

I'm shocked the report is so tame. In a world filled with monsters our CIA 'monster' seems a little too tame today.

 

[Danger]

I'm shocked the report is so tame. In a world filled with monsters our CIA 'monster' seems a little to tame today.

There's something that just about everyone except Yanks has always known and it should be pointed out. It should be obvious given that you do know that it's illegal by your own judicial system for the CIA to operation on US soil. Why do none of you stop to acknowledge that what they do is illegal everywhere? Do you all honestly think that they have a right to assassinate 3rd world leaders or provide weapons to rebels who oppose someone politically unfavourable to them?
(That's not directed at you, Spooky, even though I quoted you for context.)

 

[Doug Huffman]

It shouldn't be too hard to find the site set up to rebut the report as partisan. In a world filled with evils, are ours the least of the weevils?

 

[Czcibor]

[EDIT] Adressing: Danger [/EDIT]

There's something that just about everyone except Yanks has always known and it should be pointed out. It should be obvious given that you do know that it's illegal by your own judicial system for the CIA to operation on US soil. Why do none of you stop to acknowledge that what they do is illegal everywhere? Do you all honestly think that they have a right to assassinate 3rd world leaders or provide weapons to rebels who oppose someone politically unfavourable to them?
(That's not directed at you, Spooky, even though I quoted you for context.)

So you point out that the USA should effectively resign from having intelligence? Does this advice/moral postulate applies to other countries and non-state actors like organized crime and terrorist organization? Would they feel convinced? Or should it be just a unilateral disarmament?

(I'm not a Yank and it's still not obvious to me)

 

[Doug Huffman]

Czcibor, please make clear whom you are addressing. Not all content is visible.

 

[nsaspook]

It shouldn't be too hard to find the site set up to rebut the report as partisan. In a world filled with evils, are ours the least of the weevils?

It sounds like a lame excuse for the CIA but it's mainly true. On the scale of what's acceptable for covert services in the list of accountable democratic countries (like Israel ) our CIA is a paper tiger for what they as 'official' representatives of the government can do even after 9/11 except when they operated SAD as full military forces with the Northern Alliance. What happened to these guys during questioning seems pretty mild when compared to what happened on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

 

[mheslep]

...torturing innocent people...

Please name an innocent tortured in the hands of the US, Danger.

 

[Bystander]

And, could we likewise have a working definition of "torture" that's not dependent upon the UN's "psychological pain and anguish" screed?

 

[lisab]

Please name an innocent tortured in the hands of the US, Danger.

Really? That makes a difference to you? Amazing.

No, he can't name an innocent person who was tortured in the hands of the US name of all of Americans. Nor can he name a guilty one, because they didn't get trials. So much for the rule of law.

 

[edward]

The reason that we gained very little information from prisoners was because a lot of prisoners were of little value. They were turned over to the Army for bounties and to settle old scores. We then gave them a free trip to Cuba.

Most of the "enemy combatants" detained at Guantánamo were low-level insurgents, providing material support, or even hapless innocents swept up in the post-9/11 frenzy of fear. According to criminal defense lawyer Nancy Hollander, who spoke Feb. 14 at Georgetown University's Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, 85 percent of detainees were "captured" in response to U.S. leaflets dropped on Pakistan or Northern Alliance villages offering a $5,000 bounty to people who turned in their neighbors.

http://www.wrmea.org/2012-march-april/the-many-reasons-why-the-guantanamo-detention-facility-must-close.html

 

[Astronuc]

Please name an innocent tortured in the hands of the US, Danger.

Danger might not be able to name a particular innocent, but others have.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4GJO3XfjPO4C&lpg=PT274&dq=ahmed rashid, peroneal strike, dilawar&pg=PT274#v=onepage&q=ahmed rashid, peroneal strike, dilawar&f=false

Dilawar was chained by his wrists to the ceiling for four days and received at least one hundred peroneal strikes. The guards hit him repeatedly . . . . Just before his death he could neither sit nor stand. His autopsy showed that his leg muscles were "crumbling and falling apart." After he died he was declared innocent.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/014311557X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
It would seem the repeated use of a peroneal strike is a clear case of torture.

Apparently the US military sent Dilawar's body home with a death certificate citing natural cause rather than the fact he was tortured and murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/05/killing-wussification/17697/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer's control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to them.

 

[edward]

Please name an innocent tortured in the hands of the US, Danger.

The pathetic part of your question is that you are serious. Did you just presume that all detained persons were guilty? Google lists a number of them and by name. Take your pick dude.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=innocent+man+tortured+at+guantanamo&spell=1

 

[russ_watters]

[note: this post is almost entirely opinion.]
So, first, it is good to compartmentalize on a discussion like this (while acknowledging links) because the subject matter is so emotionally charged it is easy to lose sight of the topic or let an opinion on one piece influence another. So:

1. While I generally like an open government, there are certain exceptions and this is one of them. I do not see a benefit to releasing this report and I see a lot of potential for harm. This is an issue that to me should be (and I think already has been) hammered-out between the President (via the CIA), Congress and the judiciary.

2. Based on some news reports I've read (I haven't read any of the report itself yet), it appears the policy then and now is based in no small part on incompetence and politics. If secrecy had been maintained, the political aspect would have gone away and perhaps all involved could have made better decisions -- ie, with national security being the main driver. That's one of the reasons for my opinion in #1.

3. The definition issue: While the definition of "torture" may need to be hashed-out for our own internal political/legal justification, the semantics will no doubt be lost on our adversaries. Hand any prisoner a list of interrogation tactics used by the US in the 2000s and one used by, say, North Vietnam in the '60s and '70s and force them to choose one, I'm sure everyone would agree that they'd pick the US's list. But that's largely moot as per #1: having that discussion out in the open is enough to empower our enemies with propaganda.

4. Regarding torture itslef: One article i read says that not only does it produce unreliable data in most cases, but the policy was formed without consulting experts in interrogation, who could have added that input. That also informs to #2. For that reason, I think we should use torture rarely or never. Probably rarely enough that a "policy" of "no torture" is fine. But due to the *possibility* that it could work in rare/specific cases, I want a President with the guts to violate it if necessary. But policy and actions are two differen things, that's why it is in quotes. See #5:

5. Consider our MAD policy for a similar other side of the coin. Our stated policy is that all WMD use is equivalent and the US response would be a nuclear attack. Does anyone really think we'd do it? Sometimes, the outwardly stated policy exists only to send a message. So even after we decide that we don't want to torture, we still need to answer the separate question: what do we want our allies and adversaries to think our policy is? In general, I think it would be better if our adversaries feared us more than they do.

Of course, for #4 and #5, if our allies and adversaries are smart enough to know we'd violate our own policy if we thought it would help us, what value is there in making any policy public? And that again takes us back to #1.