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

[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.

 

[Bystander]

Have you ever changed a diaper? Mucked out a stable? Cleaned a cesspool? Picked up after an auto accident? Done any of the rest of Mike Roe's "Dirty Jobs?" Everyone is "sickened." Some see the argument for the necessity. Some don't.

 

[nsaspook]

It looks like we are at that point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[lisab]

As others said, "like" is the wrong word. In addition, your comparison to the Nazis is absurdly, insultingly, DESPICABLY wrong.

The Nazi comparison is over the top, I agree.

But so is equating what we did with changing a diaper, mucking out a stable, cleaning a cesspool, picking up after an auto accident, etc. It's appalling that so many Americans are unfazed by this, IMO.

 

[Bystander]

equating what we did with changing a diaper, mucking out a stable, cleaning a cesspool

This was not "equating," it was an attempt to get another participant of the thread to recognize the inevitability of being faced with unpleasant chores in this world.

unfazed

Have you read any of the responses?

 

[russ_watters]

It's appalling that so many Americans are unfazed by this, IMO.

If by "unfazed" you mean, 'not so overcome by the emotion of a knee jerk reaction that they become incapable of rational thought', I would agree with the word choice, but I suspect that is not what you meant. Please don't mistake a strongly worded rebuttal of an off-the-rails attack as unconditional, much less enthusiastic support. I gave my full position earlier, but we can't discuss it with all the crap getting in the way (but I'd much prefer a discussion of my opinion - agree or disagree - to a discussion of Danger's!). Others haven't been giving the details of their opinions, but when they are so far away from the point they are arguing against it is tough to know exactly where they are.

 

[Evo]

Danger, your arguments are off topic and make no sense, they have been deleted, please do not continue with it.

 

[OmCheeto]

Fareed Zakaria had an interesting article on the event:

Why releasing the CIA torture report will make America stronger
...
Open systems have the great advantage of getting feedback — criticism, commentary, audits, reports.
...

 

[lisab]

Clarification on what I'm appalled at: the proportion of people in the Washington Post poll Borg posted who feel torture is justified.

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

 

[russ_watters]

Fareed Zakaria had an interesting article on the event:

Ehh... he's a great writer, which makes it look like he makes more sense than I think he does. In particular:

All these flaws [in the USSR] were a product of a closed system with no checks and balances.

Er, really? That's the key driver? Not the communism itself? I strongly disagree with that.

This debate will make the CIA better, not worse.

If by that he means "make better decisions", I certainly agree. But I wonder where the line is for him on openness vs security. Most of what the CIA does is classified and IMO, exposing all of it - while including some plusses - would be a net detriment. To remove emotion from the issue, consider the example of the B-2 (the main thing at stake was money). Development began in 1979 and $23 billion (1989 $ I think) was spent before the public's first view in 1989 - it became operational in 1993. Each bomber ended up costing over $2 Billion in 1997$, which would be about $4 Billion today and we only got half as many as originally planned because it came in so over budget. As a combat system, it is a spectacular success, but as a procurement exercise it was a disaster. I fully expect that an open procurement process (supposedly, there were some shenanigans that led to Northrop getting the project instead of Lockheed) would have made the project go "better". But that would have meant exposing the project to the world 10 years earlier and more fully than it is today, which would have damaged our national security.

So "better" isn't always better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

 

[russ_watters]

Clarification on what I'm appalled at: the proportion of people in the Washington Post poll Borg posted who feel torture is justified.

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

Due to the false equivalency fallacy many people have regarding the definition of "torture" and the extent of its use, I feel that it is important here to analyze the issue in the context of the specifics of the methods and applications. For example, just saying "I feel torture is justified" would be vaguely correct for me, but woefully oversimplified and misleading.

For example, I feel that waterboarding, while it is fair to call it torture, is in a different class from, for example, physical beating, because if done properly it doesn't cause injury. What is your opinion on that?

 

[lisab]

Due to the false equivalency fallacy people have regarding the definition of "torture" and the extent of its use, I feel that it is important here to analyze the issue in the context of the specifics of the methods and applications. For example, just saying "I feel torture is justified" would be vaguely correct for me, but woefully oversimplified and misleading.

For example, I feel that waterboarding, while it is fair to call it torture, is in a different class from, for example, physical beating, because if done properly it doesn't cause injury. What is your opinion on that?

I class them together. It's a moral/ethics/character question for me. If I wouldn't -- couldn't -- do it myself because of the "ick" factor, then I don't want anyone doing it for me.

Besides, is there any evidence showing "torture light" gives better results* than full-on branding irons and high-speed drills?

*I define 'results' as accurate, actionable information, not just animalistic satisfaction at causing pain to an evil person.

 

[nsaspook]

After 9/11 the CIA was given the task of stopping the next attack by just about any means possible. What I think is missing in this report is the role of Congress in authorizing these methods. The hypocrisy of some in denying they were briefed and did not object is pretty outlandish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...418da2-7bda-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

 

[russ_watters]

I class them together. It's a moral/ethics/character question for me. If I wouldn't -- couldn't -- do it myself because of the "ick" factor, then I don't want anyone doing it for me.

Fair enough. I don't agree - in particular, when it comes to crime and punishment, we don't punish all crimes equally -- even crimes with the same name (different degrees of murder, plus varied sentencing guidelines). I can respect a strict line in the sand/strict morality, but the application can be a little tough and I think the world isn't quite that black and white.

Besides, is there any evidence showing "torture light" gives better results* than full-on branding irons and high-speed drills?

I'm not sure but in my opinion that's a completely separate question. If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what results it gives and if something is not wrong it is not wrong regardless of what results it gives.

From a practical standpoint, though, of course, if neither work, neither should be used.

*I define 'results' as accurate, actionable information, not just animalistic satisfaction at causing pain to an evil person.

Certainly -- and while I haven't read the report yet, I haven't had the impression that we've tortured for punishment. Did you?

See - it is possible to have a calm/rational discussion while disagreeing!

 

[lisab]

Certainly -- and while I haven't read the report yet, I haven't had the impression that we've tortured for punishment. Did you?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded many, many times. At some point, the interrogators had to realize the guy isn't going to crack, but they kept on doing it. I think that's either crazy (by Einstein's definition: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"), or the interrogators were just meting out punishment.

See - it is possible to have a calm/rational discussion while disagreeing!

Indeed, and it's not only pleasant - it also keeps my blood pressure low !

 

[Bystander]

I class them together. It's a moral/ethics/character question for me.

"All black or all white?" If this is a misinterpretation, say so. If not, it's your life, your mind to make up on the subject.

If I wouldn't -- couldn't -- do it myself because of the "ick" factor, then I don't want anyone doing it for me.

Here is where the discussion keeps diverging: original question in second thread that was merged into Doug's was "good or bad?" Provokes two classes of responses, the first being personal opinions, and the second covering everything from UN human rights declarations to the Marquis de Sade.

Personal opinions are an individual's private business. Period.

The second class of responses ("good or bad?") has been approached as a question of "useful/necessary/effective" versus "not" by some of us, moral vs. immoral, constitutional vs. unconstitutional, legal (common/international/admiralty) vs. illegal, responsible vs. sociopathic ..., without clear definitions.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ehh... he's a great writer, which makes it look like he makes more sense than I think he does.
...

Zakaria is one of the few people I trust in Journalism. I first saw him on "Foreign Exchange" back in 2005. I figuratively doused my TV with gasoline in 2008, and didn't get him back on my radar until a few months ago, via the internet. Btw, Zakaria and I are polar opposites on some topics, so I'd say I'm not enamored by his linguistic gloss, but rather, by his content.

Er, really? That's the key driver? Not the communism itself? I strongly disagree with that.

This debate will make the CIA better, not worse.

If by that he means "make better decisions", I certainly agree. But I wonder where the line is for him on openness vs security. Most of what the CIA does is classified and IMO, exposing all of it - while including some plusses - would be a net detriment. To remove emotion from the issue, consider the example of the B-2 ...

I just checked, and Zakaria never used the word "communism" in his article. And I don't see the "CIA" mentioned your "B-2" wiki reference, so I don't see how your comments relate to the topic. Hence, I decline to respond.

 

[Danger]

Danger, your arguments are off topic and make no sense, they have been deleted, please do not continue with it.

Including my response to Bystander as to what sort of unsavoury situations I've been in? Has he ever retrieved someone's head from a tree following a car wreck?

 

[russ_watters]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded many, many times. At some point, the interrogators had to realize the guy isn't going to crack, but they kept on doing it. I think that's either crazy (by Einstein's definition: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"), or the interrogators were just meting out punishment.

Agreed, but given the choice between assuming someone is evil and assuming they are stubborn/thick, I'll typically go with stubborn/thick. But I know that isn't necessarily always true. For reference, I just read an article John McCain wrote soon after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton, describing his experiences. His torture was only occasionally associated with interrogation. Most of the time, they did it just because.

 

[russ_watters]

Zakaria is one of the few people I trust in Journalism. I first saw him on "Foreign Exchange" back in 2005. I figuratively doused my TV with gasoline in 2008, and didn't get him back on my radar until a few months ago, via the internet. Btw, Zakaria and I are polar opposites on some topics, so I'd say I'm not enamored by his linguistic gloss, but rather, by his content.

He's been on CNN and writing for Time for a few years. That's when I first saw him.

I just checked, and Zakaria never used the word "communism" in his article.

Yes, that's the primary flaw in the article. He wrote about the evils of the USSR without referencing the ideology of the USSR that motivated/justified the evils!

And I don't see the "CIA" mentioned your "B-2" wiki reference...

Yes, I specifically picked an example that wasn't the CIA so that we could discuss the merrits of government secrecy without the emotional knee-jerk reaction people have to the CIA. My point was that Zakaria provided no line and that's a big mistake: there are things that need to be secret, even if the secrecy causes them to not go as well as if they were open.

 

[OmCheeto]

He's been on CNN and writing for Time for a few years. That's when I first saw him.

And now, The Washington Post. It's interesting, his latest article is about the Sony-Movie-Korea incident. I totally disagree with him here. So once again, your point about him being a good writer, making him more persuasive, is false. At least where I'm involved.

Yes, that's the primary flaw in the article. He wrote about the evils of the USSR without referencing the ideology of the USSR that motivated/justified the evils!

Personally, I think France is way more communistic than the USSR was. The USSR failed for many reasons. And communism was the least of their problems, IMHO.

Yes, I specifically picked an example that wasn't the CIA so that we could discuss the merrits of government secrecy without the emotional knee-jerk reaction people have to the CIA. My point was that Zakaria provided no line and that's a big mistake: there are things that need to be secret, even if the secrecy causes them to not go as well as if they were open.

"provided no line"?
As in a fishing line?

I agree with you, that some things need to be kept secret. We were both in the Military. It's a no brainer.
But claiming that secrecy is sometimes worse than openness, and this makes it better? Ummm... Ah ha! Newspeak!

And trying to get back on topic, I share Zakaria's opinion in the matter, because:

1. The Snowden wikileaks incident actually seems to have done more good than harm, in the end.

per wikipedia:
In July 2013, the German government announced an extensive review of Germany's intelligence services.
In August 2013, the U.S. government announced an extensive review of U.S. intelligence services.
In October 2013, the British government announced an extensive review of British intelligence services.
In December 2013, the Canadian government announced an extensive review of Canada's intelligence services.
(The fact that Snowden is currently residing in Russia, strikes me as the irony of all ironies.)​

2. The Bradley Chelsea* Manning leaks seem to have enlightened people around the world, to what was really going on within their governments.

So, IMHO, the report we are currently discussing, being released, is a good thing. Even though I, and probably no one else in the world, will ever read.

Which,

Clarification on what I'm appalled at: the proportion of people in the Washington Post poll Borg posted who feel torture is justified.

makes me appalled, at the fact that 100% of respondents didn't reply with "no opinion".
Except for, perhaps the last question. I liked that one.

But that question is kind of peculiar.
Why, did The Washington Post swap the displayed order of "often" and "sometimes"?
The extremes are kind of funny.
It makes conservative republicans out to be twice as sadistic as the average American, and liberal democrats to be 50% stupider.
The correct answer was obviously: Rarelyps. Torture is, in general, bad. Except, in certain cases, in which case, I'm all; "Do it Harry!"
For those not familiar with the movie, the gentleman on the ground, pleading, is a sociopathic killer.

*Chelsea Manning? What the? We need a new "FOR THE WIN, crazy things I've learned today" thread.

 

[Astronuc]

NYT to Obama: Appoint prosecutor to investigate Cheney for torture
'These are, simply, crimes,' paper says of CIA interrogation program former vice president championed

http://news.yahoo.com/nyt-prosecute-dick-cheney-cia-torture-174154702.html

The Times' editorial board is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Cheney; David Addington, Cheney's former chief of staff; former CIA Director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the lawyers "who drafted what became known as the torture memos"; Jose Rodriguez Jr., the CIA official "who ordered the destruction of the videotapes"; psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and any CIA employees who carried it out.

 

[Borg]

From a Candorville strip this week.