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

[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.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Since I wouldn't think it's a pointless semantic argument, perhaps there is a language barrier issue on my part that I'm unaware of. I thought the phrase "have to do" implies necessity of action.

In any case the majority of US public has voiced its support for torture as a means of extracting information that may end up saving lives, right in the wake of a report showing that torture has never been effective in extracting such information. So it's either that people didn't read the report, or it's not about protecting yourself but vengeance.

Personally, I would rather live among people who think that sinking to the level of barbarism of your antagonists is unacceptable regardless of circumstances. I'm more afraid of the damage to the society the acceptance for such practices brings, than by the physical damage a terrorist plot may cause.

 

[Bystander]

"have to do" implies necessity of action.

My bad: you've always got a choice, and you always have to make a choice --- choosing to do nothing (abdication of responsibility) is a choice; acting against your own interests in the favor of others is a choice; acting in your own interests is a choice; acting against your own inclinations and instincts in the interests of yourself and/or others is a choice. Sticking with a dirty job without guidance and acting ad hoc in lieu of guidance knowing full well you're going to be second guessed regardless of success or failure is a choice.

in the wake of a report

A partisan report by members of the U.S. congress.

people didn't read the report,

Or, people don't really hold congress in high enough regard to waste the time reading it. Or, we've been hearing/seeing/reading leaks for the last five years from the people putting the report together to the effect that they were never briefed (or were too busy flying about in "Broomstick One" or enjoying other perks to attend briefings). Pontius Pilate washed his hands in public. Lady Macbeth washed her hands every chance she got. These people were supposed to be on top of this from day one, and nothing's going to change that.

 

[Borg]

A further breakdown of the poll - CIA Interrogations. It seems that the more liberal and educated a person is, the less they feel it is justified.

 

[russ_watters]

A further breakdown of the poll - CIA Interrogations. It seems that the more liberal and educated a person is, the less they feel it is justified.

Since "post graduate education" falls between "high school education" and "college graduate", I'd say the relationship with education status is pretty weak.

 

[Borg]

Since "post graduate education" falls between "high school education" and "college graduate", I'd say the relationship with education status is pretty weak.

Ah. Missed that. I did see Some College Education near the top but the Post Graduate definitely weakens it.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, the political afiliation connection is very strong. But given how hard some media outlets - CNN in particular - have been hammering this issue this past week, I'm a bit surprised the overall numbers lean toward "justified".

 

[nsaspook]

In any case the majority of US public has voiced its support for torture as a means of extracting information that may end up saving lives, right in the wake of a report showing that torture has never been effective in extracting such information. So it's either that people didn't read the report, or it's not about protecting yourself but vengeance.

Support is the wrong word. Acceptance of the need to try torture as a means of extracting information that may end up saving lives seems a more accurate description IMO.
We have accepted the need to use nuclear weapons in response to some wrongs so it's not supprising that people support barbaric but sometimes effective lesser measures in response to outrages.

"torture has never been effective in extracting such information"
A badly wronged person might torture for pure vengeance but in general intelligence services do things because they have a history of working along a sliding scale from most to least effective. Most people will eventually talk, the trick is keeping them coherent at that point.

 

[Danger]

Since everyone but Bandersnatch, Borg and I apparently like it, why is it still legally a "war crime"? The Nazis at Auschwitz were executed for the same thing.

Excerpts from Explanation of Jury Decisions
Torturing of prisoners [of Auschwitz] already tormented to the extreme [by extrajudicial means], is the evidence of inhuman savagery perpetrated by those defendants who as a result of the trial were sentenced to death.

 

[Bystander]

apparently like it,

"Appearances can be deceiving." How many ways do you wish the differences to be explained?

 

[Danger]

"Appearances can be deceiving." How many ways do you wish the differences to be explained?

Hey, I'm just going by what Evo said:

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.

The overwhelming majority of people that I've heard from are sickened by it.