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

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,184
1,200
"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?
 
  • #3
Do you think it's good, or bad, that the US would release those CIA torture reports?
 
  • #4
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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.
 
  • #5
284
132
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 learnt 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.
 
  • Like
Likes nitsuj and mheslep
  • #6
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,184
1,200
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.
 
  • #7
Doug Huffman
Gold Member
804
111
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.
 
  • #8
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,184
1,200
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.
 
  • #9
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
We Americans have precisely the government that we deserve.
Such cynicism.

;)
 
  • #10
223
53
Such cynicism.

;)
But yes I think he is right about that.
 
  • #11
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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.)
 
  • #12
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,184
1,200
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.
 
  • #13
87
16
The Report said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Doug Huffman
Gold Member
804
111
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!
 
  • #15
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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.
 
  • #16
87
16
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.
 
  • #17
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
284
132
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?
 
  • #19
87
16
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.
 
  • #20
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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.
 
  • #21
284
132
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)
 
  • #22
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
nsaspook
Science Advisor
937
1,346
I'm shocked the report is so tame. In a world filled with monsters our CIA 'monster' seems a little too tame today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Borg
  • #24
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
244
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.)
 
  • #25
Doug Huffman
Gold Member
804
111
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?
 

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

Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
252
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top