News 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.

 

[Czcibor]

Fish in a barrel, sometimes. Honestly, fish in a barrel. Must resist temptation...

Of course. Mind you, almost none of those entities deliberately overthrow entire governments. Our own CSIS has some unsavoury history, but they don't routinely run around murdering and torturing innocent people. Part of South America might be run by drug cartels, but most of the world isn't.

I think that either I asked my question in unclear way or you dodged it quite effectively. Should the US effectively unilaterally stop using intelligence, while the other players would do not?

Do you really think it would make the world a better place?

Do you have luxury of making this discussion from a place which is safe anyway, so now you can play having morally high ground? Cool, I'm somewhat jealous. For example I have at the border Russians, who fight their hybrid war against Ukraine. Potential end of Pax Americana, would just mean that a few local powers and non state actors would fight aggressively to take the empty niche.

 

[Danger]

You could also answer the question. Just a thought.

Sorry, but I had already answered it repeatedly. I was just tired of having it brought up.

I think that either I asked my question in unclear way or you dodged it quite effectively. Should the US effectively unilaterally stop using intelligence, while the other players would do not?

Sorry, that might be a "language gap" matter. In English, "intelligence" can refer to either spy-stuff which you meant, or "intellect" to which I referred as a "pun" because that's not the first thing that comes to mind when dealing with the US government.

Do you have luxury of making this discussion from a place which is safe anyway,

That depends upon what actions are taken. We are currently on terrorist alert status after the ISIL-based murders of 2 soldiers and the attempted murder of several top politicians including our Prime Minister (if he had been present at the time.) Even worse, as is possible now with new technology widely available, we have the same threat looming that we did in the Cold War with the USSR; any ballistic missile attack on the US is likely to take a polar route, which means that most interceptions would take place right over my head with the resultant rain of chemicals, anthrax, radiation, or whatever else is in the warheads.

I have at the border Russians, who fight their hybrid war against Ukraine.

And do you know of anyone other than Russians who doesn't detest and deplore the Putin for what he's doing?

 

[Astronuc]

[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:

I agree with point 1, but how to address/prevent such activities (such as kidnapping, torture and murder) by individuals acting under the auspices of the government? Such matters are classified for a reason, so as not to damage the national reputation or inflame others to want to harm the natural interests or persons. Secrecy should not be misused to conceal illegal/illicit activities.

As for point 2, perhaps politics or incompetence of some, but it was depraved indifference or belligerence on the part of others.

On point 3, I think it should be clear the nature of torture. Clearly incarcerating a person in horrible conditions, and then restraining said person and inflicting bodily injury is quite clearly torture. However, some folks acting on behalf of the nation find such practices acceptable.

The irony of this - ISIS leader: "If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no ISIS"
http://news.yahoo.com/isis-leader-no-american-prison-191002620.html

Abu Ahmed was imprisoned in a US-run detention center in southern Iraq called Camp Bucca in 2004. That's where he met al-Baghdadi, among others who would later form ISIS. According to Ahmed, Baghdadi managed to trick the US Army into thinking he was a peacemaker, all the while building what would become ISIS right under their noses:

I'm sure Sen John McCain can inform us about torture, as could Louis Zamperini. Fortunately, both men survived their captivity and torture.

The film Unbroken tells the remarkable true story of Louis Zamperini, a former Olympian who survived 47 days at sea — and four years in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp — after his bomber goes down over the Pacific Ocean. The torture he endured at the hands of a young Japanese officer known as The Bird was brutal; it included regular canings, extreme starvation, and, at one point, being punched in the face 200 times by fellow POWs forced to take part in the beating.

Zamperini was quite a person who forgave his captors and torturers.

“I think the hardest thing in life is to forgive. Hate is self destructive. If you hate somebody, you're not hurting the person you hate, you're hurting yourself. It's a healing, actually, it's a real healing...forgiveness.”
― Louis Zamperini

 

[Borg]

There's so much to read in the thread but I don't have the time tonight. I would like to share an opinion poll that was in the Washington Post today - poll finds majority of Americans believe torture was justified. Personally, I can't say for sure except Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11 but I know people who were. I have to work on my forgiveness in his case.

 

[Evo]

There's so much to read in the thread but I don't have the time tonight. I would like to share an opinion poll that was in the Washington Post today - poll finds majority of Americans believe torture was justified. Personally, I can't say for sure except Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11 but I know people who were. I have to work on my forgiveness in his case.

Everyone I have spoken to believes that any association with terrorists should be handled as severely as possible. No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

Anyone that associates with terrorists in any form, they are the same as terrorists. It's not just guilt by association, they have chosen to be part of the terrorism.

 

[Bystander]

Everyone I have spoken to believes that any association with terrorists should be handled as severely as possible. No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

"Upset?" I'm thoroughly upset. It's nothing with which anyone should be comfortable or of which to be proud. Failures of governments and the UN to recognize the activities of terrorist "groups/organizations" as international criminal conspiracies to commit piracy, brigandage, and general "mopery" have handcuffed and hamstrung legal systems and admiralty/common/international law that have traditionally handled such problems. Ad hoc methods will be developed and applied in such a gutless global situation.

 

[nsaspook]

I don't think anybody in the Muslim world is upset about this report. As long as Islam is not insulted the powers that control mass protest just don't care about people that would be treated much harsher in their respective countries for the same acts. I'm only upset about the incompetence of the CIA letting a couple of former quacks from SERE tar the image of agents who risked their lives to capture some of these people and used effective methods of interrogation. Making detainees blithering idiots doesn't work.



I don't agree with their political/moral point of view about torture because it can be effective in extreme circumstance but a lot of what I see in this report reads like SERE gone crazy.

 

[Danger]

No one is upset at what the government has done, and this is from people around the world.

I certainly am. And as mentioned above, the reason is because of the innocent victims. That's also why I oppose capital punishment. If I personally witnessed someone doing something heinous, I'd drop the hammer on him myself, but I sure don't trust anyone else's say-so.

 

[Czcibor]

There's so much to read in the thread but I don't have the time tonight. I would like to share an opinion poll that was in the Washington Post today - poll finds majority of Americans believe torture was justified. Personally, I can't say for sure except Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11 but I know people who were. I have to work on my forgiveness in his case.

So media tell you to be outraged, while over 50% don't get the message? ;)

I think that:
-there is a small group of vocal outraged minority.
-the "immoral majority", that honestly speaking don't mind much, while is not so strong in their convictions to express that. (it would mean publicly condemning official ideology)

Anyway, I don't mind saying not believing in official ideology.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Am I reading this right? Some of you, together with a majority of Americans think it's ok to torture people as long as they are dangerous/evil enough?

 

[Bystander]

Am I reading this right?

More a matter of "If you find yourself in the position of having to do so, you have to do so."

 

[Bandersnatch]

More a matter of "If you find yourself in the position of having to do so, you have to do so."

And how do you ever find yourself in such a position?

 

[Bystander]

"How?" Living on planet earth. If you've been so fortunate as to never have found yourself in the situation, please consider the possibility that others have, and that their handling of such situations may have contributed to your good fortune.

 

[Bandersnatch]

No, I don't think so. I know of no such case where torture was the necessary course of action, and the report this thread is about supports this statement.

 

[Bystander]

... necessary course of action ...

No action is ever "necessary." People select actions to avoid/facilitate consequences/benefits.