1.)Since he died on "accident" this is what? Ok? Continue with the policies?Yup, a guy died (on accident) when his room got cold over night. Far from being an intended or acceptable result of an interrogation program that incident had strong repercussions inside the CIA, leading to a review that uncovered abuses in detention and interrogation procedures, and forcing the agency to change those procedures. Which is exactly what you would want to happen in that instance.
2.)"It remains uncertain whether any intelligence officers have been punished as a result of the Afghan's death, raising questions about the CIA's accountability in the case. The CIA's then-station chief in Afghanistan was promoted after Rahman's death, and the officer who ran the prison went on to other assignments, including one overseas, several former intelligence officials said. The CIA declined to discuss the Salt Pit case and denied a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the AP.... The CIA declined to discuss whether the two agency officers cited in the inspector general's report were punished... But when the case was put before Kyle D. Foggo, the CIA's third-ranking officer at the time, no formal administrative action was taken against the two men, said two former intelligence officials with knowledge of the case... "What you see across the board, there is no standard that is applied uniformly," said one former CIA officer, Charles Faddis, who recently published "Beyond Repair," a critical assessment of the agency." Salt Pit Death: Gul Rahman, CIA Prisoner, Died Of Hypothermia In Secret Afghanistan Prison
Im sure the CIA did a lot of harsh punishments form the inside. I mean promoting the CIA stations chief. I mean afterall we should trust the CIA, its not like they didnt lie to congress, Justice Department, and broke their own rules and regulations constantly.. In other words, nothing happened no one was actually punished. A slap on the wrist (maybe), and we will give out a hard worded press statement, but in reality jack **** happened.
What you just quoted doesnt say what you think it says. Go over it one more time: "Rather, the committee rejects the CIA’s contention that information came from the program that couldn’t have been obtained through other means... The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed 20 cited examples of intelligence “successes” that the CIA identified from the interrogation program and found that there was no relationship between a cited counterterrorism success and the techniques used... The CIA acknowledged that it never properly reviewed the effectiveness of these techniques"Other than the media outlet, this, I think, fairly well captures the report:
so, it doesn't count that the program actually helped stop attacks and save lives, because maybe they would have told us if we had first sent them on a 6 month all-expenses paid vacation to Tahiti. Oh, you don't think that would have worked? Well did you try it???.
--For gods sake the CIA claims that its an effective use to gather intelligence but they even acknowledge they dont even know the effectiveness!
But then again we can through study after study to also back up the conclusion that torture doesnt work. Maybe thats why the CIA didnt wanna study the effectiveness...