Senate CIA Torture Report

[jakee 1,489]

rushmc

*********If anyone is currently attempting to defend torture, then they are on the wrong side of humanity.

Period.

Define torture

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Source: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Cool so waterboarding is not included

How do you figure that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Many here on DZ.COM have a moral dilemma. War is too important to be left to the posters on this blog..., they have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow liberal infiltration, liberal indoctrination, liberal subversion and the international liberal conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious liberties we have fought and died for.

Quote

Kaffee: Colonel Jessup, did you order the Code Red?!
Judge: You don't have to answer that question!
Jessup: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled!
Jessup: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessup: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Jessup: I did the job that—-
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?!!
Jessup: YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!

[jakee 1,489]

Channman

******And thirdly, water boarding and sleep deprivation IMO is not torture.

What is it then?

A method to encourage an individual to talk...give up the goods that can be confirmed by other operatives that in fact what the individual(s) are giving up is true. From many sources, its was very successful.

Yes, as demonstrated the CIA did claim it was successful. They were mostly lying.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

Bottom line, I don't want our enemies to have the slightest inkling, the most remote fantasy, that we will treat them with respect until they throw down their weapons and surrender. Until that happens I hope they consider us their worst nightmare from the abyss of horror. And, I hope there is enough evidence to support their fear.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[airdvr 210]

billvon

>But drones are OK?

For surveillance? Sure. To do exactly the same thing that military aircraft do? Well, if F-14's were OK then drones are OK. For torture? No.

If you can't tell the difference between drones and torture - well, we can be glad you are spending your time posting here.

I guess you can't see the moral dilemna. Not surprising. How many civilians are killed by drone strikes? And how many were killed by waterboarding and sleep deprivation?

I guess I'm surprised to how quickly you declare this report the gospel truth.

I'm not a supporter of torture but I think to dismiss it as ineffective is a bit naive. Interesting to hear what some of the others involved have to say.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,990]

> How many civilians are killed by drone strikes?

A lot. How many people were killed by manned aircraft strikes? A lot.

Now, how many people were killed by beheadings? A few. So purely by the numbers, our enemies are a lot more moral than we are. (Which should demonstrate how asinine that metric is.)

>I'm not a supporter of torture but I think to dismiss it as ineffective is a bit naive.

I'm not so naive as to believe TV shows over reports that report on actual uses of torture. "24" really isn't reality, even if it feels good.

[DanG 1]

Quote

How many civilians are killed by drone strikes? And how many were killed by waterboarding and sleep deprivation?

False dichotomy. Death of innocent civilians is not the only metric of whether an action is moral or not.

Quote

I guess I'm surprised to how quickly you declare this report the gospel truth.

I'm suprised how quickly you dismiss it out of hand.

Quote

I'm not a supporter of torture but I think to dismiss it as ineffective is a bit naive. Interesting to hear what some of the others involved have to say.

Whether or not it is effecitve is really not the root issue. It is against American values and laws. The police breaking into everyone's house and searching for weapons/drugs/removed mattress tags/whatever would be a very effective means of reducing crime. That doesn't make it right.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Bottom line, I don't want our enemies to have the slightest inkling, the most remote fantasy, that we will treat them with respect until they throw down their weapons and surrender.

The best way of achieving that end is treating them with respect if they are captured. In WWII, one of the reasons German soldiers chose to surrender to US forces is because they didn't want to be captured by the Russians.

The fact that your fellow conservatives warned that releasing this report would lead to violence against Americans is proof that your thinking is backwards. Torturing prisoners doesn't make people want to become prisoners.

- Dan G

[ryoder 1,590]

airdvr

I'm not a supporter of torture but I think to dismiss it as ineffective is a bit naive. Interesting to hear what some of the others involved have to say.

Let's hear what an FBI interrogator thinks of the effectiveness of torture:

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1ivoWW1-4U
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0iaNMRjkno

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[RonD1120 62]

I think you just agreed with me.

Throw down weapons - surrender - become a respected prisoner.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I think you just agreed with me.

Throw down weapons - surrender - become a respected prisoner.

I most emphatically did not agree with you.

You really think combatants believe that they will be treated differently depending on how they get captured? What would give them that idea? Not international law, or recent history. The only way to give our enemies that idea is if we treat all prisoners like we're supposed to.

If torturing prisoners is such a great way to get them to surrender, why would we be concerned about increased anti-US violence after the report was released? In your world, releasing this report should have led to a bunch of ISIL and AQ operatives turning themselves in.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,439]

Why to interrogators torture? Because they get answers, they are judged on getting answers, and their superiors are judged on getting answers.

The fact that most of the answers are bullshit, and will take time to check out and verify as bullshit is beside the point -- the answers by themselves make you feel as though you're accomplishing something, and checking them out makes you feel as though you're accomplishing something.

However, consider the resources that are being wasted on checking out answers that are bogus, given only because the questionee was willing to say whatever the questioner asked.

A number of years ago I read a book about the police and torture culture that was prevalent in Brazil during the 60's to the late 80's (A Ditadura Escancarada, or the cankered dictatorship). They said all the same things at the time, and later when interviewed, the vast majority of the line employees doing the interrogating said that the main reason was to get something to give to their superiors, knowing that it was largely false. How did they know it was largely false? Well, it sure wasn't those superiors doing the checking out of the data.

Torture is beneath us. The fact that others do it is appalling, and not to be emulated. Torturing is like spending millions of dollars to save thousands; the occasional piece of data that comes via torture just isn't worth it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,990]

>Throw down weapons - surrender - become a respected prisoner.

Or in our case - throw down weapons - surrender - be tortured to death.

Would you go for that deal?

[GeorgiaDon 362]

I suspect that for many people who support the use of torture, the issue of "actionable intelligence" is largely beside the point. The real point, is, I think, power and revenge. They want "our enemies" to suffer, the worse the better. These are, by and large, the same people who support the death penalty despite evidence that innocent people have been sentenced to death and even executed, and who regail us with comments about inmates being ass-fucked to death in prison. For some, torture is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

GeorgiaDon

For some, torture is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself.

Which is incredibly stupid and shortsighted.

They might as well fly an airplane into a building. It does nothing for their cause and only inflames the opposition further. It is a self-defeating concept.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,990]

>I suspect that for many people who support the use of torture, the issue of
>"actionable intelligence" is largely beside the point. The real point, is, I think, power
>and revenge. They want "our enemies" to suffer, the worse the better.

I think the best indication of this is that their argument is generally "they weren't so nice when they were beheading people - why should we be nice to them?" There's a sentiment of "we got them" ("them" being associated with other people who did bad things) "and now they're going to suffer."

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

I think the best indication of this is that their argument is generally "they weren't so nice when they were beheading people - why should we be nice to them?" There's a sentiment of "we got them" ("them" being associated with other people who did bad things) "and now they're going to suffer."

Another revealing "detail" is that apparently two of the prisoners who were subjected to "advanced interrogation" turned out to be our guys, informants who were passing real intelligence on to us before they were taken prisoner. The zeal to torture was apparently so high that it didn't actually matter if the prisoner was actually a "bad actor", it was sufficient that they had a towel on their head. Of course this also says terrible things about the disconnect between the CIA and the contractors they engaged to do the actual dirty work, so Cheney et al could wash their hands of the affair and pretend it had nothing to do with them.

Every time I see Cheney on the news, I'm reminded of the Emperor from Star Wars. I doubt there is anything, up to and including nuclear annihilation, that he would not find some way to justify in his shriveled "heart".

Don

edited to fix link

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[airdvr 210]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

I think the best indication of this is that their argument is generally "they weren't so nice when they were beheading people - why should we be nice to them?" There's a sentiment of "we got them" ("them" being associated with other people who did bad things) "and now they're going to suffer."

Another revealing "detail" is that apparently two of the prisoners who were subjected to "advanced interrogation" turned out to be our guys, informants who were passing real intelligence on to us before they were taken prisoner. The zeal to torture was apparently so high that it didn't actually matter if the prisoner was actually a "bad actor", it was sufficient that they had a towel on their head. Of course this also says terrible things about the disconnect between the CIA and the contractors they engaged to do the actual dirty work, so Cheney et al could wash their hands of the affair and pretend it had nothing to do with them.

Every time I see Cheney on the news, I'm reminded of the Emperor from Star Wars. I doubt there is anything, up to and including nuclear annihilation, that he would not find some way to justify in his shriveled "heart".

Don

You have a cite for that?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

The link in his post isn't working for some reason.

I think it's this:

http://news.yahoo.com/cia-mistakenly-tortured-own-informants-185002400.html

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[airdvr 210]

quade

***For some, torture is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself.

Which is incredibly stupid and shortsighted.

They might as well fly an airplane into a building. It does nothing for their cause and only inflames the opposition further. It is a self-defeating concept.

Hmmm...nothing? The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644?mod=trending_now_3

Quote

Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.

Once they had become compliant due to the interrogation program, both Abu Zubaydah and KSM turned out to be invaluable sources on the al Qaeda organization. We went back to them multiple times to gain insight into the group. More than one quarter of the nearly 1,700 footnotes in the highly regarded 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 and a significant share of the intelligence in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda came from detainees in the program, in particular Zubaydah and KSM.

The majority on the Senate Intelligence Committee further claims that the takedown of bin Laden was not facilitated by information from the interrogation program. They are wrong. There is no doubt that information provided by the totality of detainees in CIA custody, those who were subjected to interrogation and those who were not, was essential to bringing bin Laden to justice. The CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.

Quote

The committee also failed to make clear that the CIA was not acting alone in carrying out the interrogation program. Throughout the process, there was extensive consultation with the national security adviser, deputy national security adviser, White House counsel, and the Justice Department.

The president approved the program. The attorney general deemed it legal.

The CIA went to the attorney general for legal rulings four times—and the agency stopped the program twice to ensure that the Justice Department still saw it as consistent with U.S. policy, law and our treaty obligations. The CIA sought guidance and reaffirmation of the program from senior administration policy makers at least four times.

We relied on their policy and legal judgments. We deceived no one.

The CIA reported any allegations of abuse to the Senate-confirmed inspector general and the Justice Department. CIA senior leadership forwarded nearly 20 cases to the Justice Department, and career Justice officials decided that only one of these cases—unrelated to the formal interrogation program—merited prosecution. That person received a prison term.

The CIA briefed Congress approximately 30 times. Initially, at presidential direction the briefings were restricted to the so-called Gang of Eight of top congressional leaders—a limitation permitted under covert-action laws. The briefings were detailed and graphic and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection. The briefings held nothing back.

Congress’s view in those days was very different from today. In a briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee after the capture of KSM in 2003, committee members made clear that they wanted the CIA to be extremely aggressive in learning what KSM knew about additional plots. One senator leaned forward and forcefully asked: “Do you have all the authorities you need to do what you need to do?”

Still think it's not simply politics as usual?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[RonD1120 62]

Neither one of you seem to be able to follow me. My bad.

The CIA report had to do with capturing terrorists with info on terrorism. You two are discussing battlefield POWs.

Whatever, I've got too much going on now with my church to continue this discussion.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[ryoder 1,590]

GeorgiaDon

Another revealing "detail" is that apparently two of the prisoners who were subjected to "advanced interrogation" turned out to be our guys, informants who were passing real intelligence on to us before they were taken prisoner. The zeal to torture was apparently so high that it didn't actually matter if the prisoner was actually a "bad actor", it was sufficient that they had a towel on their head. Of course this also says terrible things about the disconnect between the CIA and the contractors they engaged to do the actual dirty work, so Cheney et al could wash their hands of the affair and pretend it had nothing to do with them.

And don't forget what happened to the guy who went undercover at Gitmo;
He was beaten so badly he was left with permanent brain damage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Baker

If that is what happened to a guy who went undercover, then we must wonder how many real detainees have received similar permanent injuries.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

ryoder

And don't forget what happened to the guy who went undercover at Gitmo;
He was beaten so badly he was left with permanent brain damage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Baker

If that is what happened to a guy who went undercover, then we must wonder how many real detainees have received similar permanent injuries.

And how many of those detainees were ever proven to have committed actions against the US?

Oh, yeah, they weren't given trials.

So, according to some on here, they must be innocent.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Stumpy 284]

wolfriverjoe

Oh, yeah, they weren't given trials.

So, according to some on here, they must be innocent.

How would you know? Unless they had, like, a trial?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Croc 0]

If we lower ourselves to the level of torture, what is it exactly we say that we are fighting for? American values?

Are we to abandon what were once noble values for the sake of revenge? How then are we different from our enemies?

The ends never justify the means. Those Americans who support torture, however sugar coated, are the real enemy who, if left unchecked, will ultimately destroy our nation.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy