View Poll Results: Is the CIA patriotic and trustworthy?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    10 27.03%
  • NO

    13 35.14%
  • Patriotic, not trustworthy

    11 29.73%
  • Trustworthy, not patriotic

    0 0%
  • Torture is illegal and they're hiding everything

    6 16.22%
  • Like Cops, they protect their own

    10 27.03%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 114

Thread: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

  1. #1
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Torture is illegal!
    This is about torture, lies, deceit, treachery, our Government, supervision of Intelligence, and power "to big to prosecute."

    The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    By David Cole
    "The ...snip... And the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee is until now the only comprehensive effort to review the extensive classified CIA records about the program.
    Even before the investigation began, the CIA appears to have been aware that its interrogation practices might not withstand scrutiny. The intelligence committee’s investigation was itself sparked by a CIA agent’s destruction of ninety-two videotapes of the agency’s actual interrogations. According to accounts by former CIA officials, twelve of the tapes documented the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. One tape showed al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, apparently screaming and vomiting. In 2012, John Rizzo, who was the CIA’s acting general counsel at the time the tapes were made, told the BBC that a US intelligence official who reviewed the footage had found that “portions of the tapes, particularly those of Zubaydah being waterboarded, were extremely hard to watch.”
    But we cannot know for certain what was on the tapes, because in November, 2005, Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr., the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine service, ordered them destroyed. He did so over the stated objections of the White House Counsel and the Director of National Intelligence, and despite their obvious relevance to numerous possible criminal investigations—of the suspects interrogated and of the CIA itself.
    In 2007, when the New York Times first reported that the CIA had destroyed interrogation tapes, the Senate Intelligence Committee launched an inquiry. The CIA assured the committee that the tapes’ destruction would not hinder review of its program, because it had many cables contemporaneously describing the interrogations in detail. (These would of course be the CIA’s descriptions of what was done, not an actual record of what was done.) The intelligence committee requested access to those documents. The CIA replied, in Senator Feinstein’s words, with a classic “document dump,” giving the committee literally millions of documents, entirely unorganized and unindexed, presumably hoping to overwhelm their limited resources.
    The CIA refused to allow the Senate staff to use their own computers to review the documents, insisting that they be reviewed in a separate CIA-leased facility. According to an agreement worked out between the Committee and the CIA, the agency was to provide the committee with a
    ’stand-alone computer system’ with a ‘network drive’ ‘segregated from CIA networks’…that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA—who would ‘not be permitted to’ ‘share information from the system with other [CIA] personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.’
    It soon became clear, however, that the CIA had violated the agreement. In 2010, Feinstein explained,
    I learned that on two occasions, CIA personnel electronically removed committee access to CIA documents after providing them to the committee. This included roughly 870 documents or pages of documents that were removed in February 2010, and secondly roughly another 50 were removed in mid-May 2010.
    Feinstein took the matter to the White House, and the CIA was compelled to apologize and to reaffirm its commitment not to interfere with the investigation. But when the CIA later learned that one of the documents the committee had received was the agency’s own internal review of the cables, directed by then-director Leon Panetta, it covertly searched the committee’s files yet again.
    Why the concern over the internal review? From Feinstein’s perspective, the CIA’s real worry is that this internal review corroborates her committee’s findings about the CIA’s own abuses—and contradicts a subsequently drafted official CIA response that tries to deny or minimize CIA abuses. As Feinstein put it, “What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not their classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing.” Apparently the CIA was willing to give the Senate committee access to all evidence except the smoking gun.
    So blatant is this obstruction that the CIA’s own Inspector General referred the matter to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation of CIA staff. In what appears to be retaliation, the CIA’s acting general counsel, Robert Eatinger, in turn asked the Justice Department to investigate the Senate committee staff regarding their access to the internal review. Eatinger, Feinstein notes, was himself previously oversaw the CIA’s interrogation program, and is mentioned by name some 1,600 times in the Senate committee’s report. Evidently, however, he saw no conflict of interest in requesting a Justice Department investigation of those reviewing his own conduct.
    How this controversy ultimately gets resolved, Feinstein rightly noted, “will show whether the Intelligence Committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation’s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee.”
    But even more urgent than resolution of the inter-branch dispute, is the release of the intelligence committee’s 6,300-page report. Though the committee adopted the report in December 2012, not one word of it has yet seen the light of day. That the investigation has gone on so long, cost so much (reportedly $50 million), resulted in such an extensive report, and still not been seen by the public, reflects the gravity of what is at stake here. The nation’s highest officials coldly approved war crimes and human rights abuses—and to date, no one has been held accountable in any manner for doing so.
    As I have argued before, accountability comes in many forms; there is little likelihood that former officials will be criminally prosecuted, even after the report is issued. But an official report can itself be a form of reckoning. In both Canada and the United Kingdom, official inquiries have served exactly that purpose, after the US rendition of Canadian Maher Arar to Syria, and after the UK’s detention and coercive interrogation of suspected IRA members. A secret report, however, is no accountability at all. In an encouraging sign, President Obama on Wednesday said that he favors making the report public so that the American people can judge for themselves the CIA’s conduct. You can bet the CIA will fight tooth and nail to frustrate that pledge. We must insist that President Obama keep this promise.
    In law, we say that torture “taints” an investigation. The legal doctrine that precludes reliance on evidence obtained from torture is called the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule. But as this latest saga reflects, torture does far more than merely “taint” evidence. It corrupts all who touch it. The CIA’s desperate efforts to hide the details of what the world already knows in general outline—that it subjected human beings to brutal treatment to which no human being should ever be subjected—are only the latest evidence of the poisonous consequences of a program euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation.”

    6300 pages, $50 million, since 2005,

    Should torture be illegal?

    Should someone/s be prosecuted?

    Should we feel proud?

    Should we feel shame?

    Are we betrayed by our own Gov't?

    and the question:
    Is the CIA patriotic and trustworthy?

  2. #2
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    The current controversy between the Senate Investigation committee and the CIA is about TORTURE. All the media just talks about the CIA impeding investigations, exceeding its' authority as per document review, and other nuances of thought that don't say a thing about torture. Does that seem odd to anyone? The fact that the Mainstream Media, with its' many entrenched CIA assets as documented by the Church Committee, doesn't reveal the true and clear issue doesn't surprise me, but the apathy of the public in this matter blows my mind. Investigations impeded. tapes destroyed, computer investigations sabotaged, investigations bugged, and the list goes on. There are 6300 pages of documentation that cost $50 million to produce and documents CIA torture and the players involved. Should this be swept under a rug? Never! Does the CIA operate independent of Congressional authority? Apparently. Is the Agency rogue? It would appear to be so. The CIA works for USA CORPORATIONS overseas like Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, and John Deere, among others, in Ukraine. The CIA uses front groups like USAID, NED, Freedom House, NGOs, etc. to cover its' footprints. The CIA has its' own army now. The CIA operates the drones. Are individuals afraid to talk about this? Don't believe it? Don't want to believe it? Rebels using "sarin" gas in Syria. CIA supporting rebels in Syria. Chaos and mayhem in Libya. CIA supporting rebels in Libya. Does the recent chaos, mayhem and death leave a footprint in Ukraine? I think this Agency has most Congressmen and women by the short hairs and twists whenever the need arises. I don't see them as good guys and you'll hear the old crap that "we're not allowed to talk about our successes." How about death squads in Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, and and those leaders all trained in Georgia at the "School of the Americas." The school is still operating under a different name. In the past and perhaps even now, the CIA has sold massive amounts of drugs to self finance and self sustain operations. I'm a Capitalist and after you develop a market and shelf space, you don't drop it or toss it away like last week's pizza. Forgive me if I think the CIA might be capitalistic because it is associated with all those USA CORPORATIONS that need help with their 'banana Republics." Ukraine has 30% of the world's best soil, is relatively level, and has a favorable climate and location to be a "banana Republic," and the Agricultural CORPORATIONS are already players there. Cargill (meat), John Deere (farm equiptment), Monsanto (Chemicals, seeds), Chevron (gas for fertilizer), and others, but you get the message. Is the CIA going to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas in Ukraine? That's their job.

  3. #3
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    The USA has not been invaded. The CIA has done a good job.

  4. #4
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The USA has not been invaded. The CIA has done a good job.
    Bullcrap! They've protected us from Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Haiti, Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Right. Hot damn, but the perceived threat must be awesome. All that killing and all those drugs. Invasion and media generated hypothethical threats are made to generate business for the Military Offens Industry. Corporate welfare at its' finest.

  5. #5
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Bullcrap! They've protected us from Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Haiti, Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Right. Hot damn, but the perceived threat must be awesome. All that killing and all those drugs. Invasion and media generated hypothethical threats are made to generate business for the Military Offens Industry. Corporate welfare at its' finest.
    You certainly could relocate to another country if you think one is better. I think all in all the CIA has done a damn good job keeping Americans safe. I'm not sure where in it's policy manual its purpose is to keep other people safe. Can you quote that section?

  6. #6
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    You certainly could relocate to another country if you think one is better. I think all in all the CIA has done a damn good job keeping Americans safe. I'm not sure where in it's policy manual its purpose is to keep other people safe. Can you quote that section?
    For sure, you don't know anything about the CIA. Their job is to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas. Does that sound like John Smith? Document with links any invasion the CIA has thwarted. The CIA makes sure Rockefeller's hundred thousand acre Latin American plantations to make sure United Fruit Corp. makes good profits. Oh Yeh! That means install a management friendly New Leader in whatever Latin American plantation starts having labor problems. It must make you feel proud, eh?

  7. #7
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    For sure, you don't know anything about the CIA. Their job is to help USA CORPORATIONS overseas. Does that sound like John Smith? Document with links any invasion the CIA has thwarted. The CIA makes sure Rockefeller's hundred thousand acre Latin American plantations to make sure United Fruit Corp. makes good profits. Oh Yeh! That means install a management friendly New Leader in whatever Latin American plantation starts having labor problems. It must make you feel proud, eh?
    Ancient history. I could rage about treatment of Native Americans if that'd make you happy.

    Most people like bananas. I do. Had 1 this morning.

    Where do you think the USA's wealth came from? Raging against reality when you are the beneficiary of reality is maybe fun, put pointless.

  8. #8
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Ancient history. I could rage about treatment of Native Americans if that'd make you happy.

    Most people like bananas. I do. Had 1 this morning.

    Where do you think the USA's wealth came from? Raging against reality when you are the beneficiary of reality is maybe fun, put pointless.
    I am pleased that you realize that we, the USA, are often the scumbags making the big profits by using our CIA for USA Corporations overseas in real world skullduggery. Now, in Ukriane, we are assisting Cargill (meat), Chevron (GAS, fertilizer), John Deere ( heavy equiptment), Monsanto (chemicals, seeds), and other USA CORPORATIONS overseas to establish in some of the World's best topsoil. We have put Billionaires in charge, That would be Yats, Preubly, etc. , etc. etc. and isn't that just a hell of a coincidence that we have found "Billionaires" to lead this Nation that used to be a fledgling Democracy. Gotta make one proud to known we've booted out the Democratically elected scumbag billionaire and installed scumbag billionaires that will do business with our USA CORPORATIONS overseas. Progress or the lack thereof?

  9. #9
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Ancient history. I could rage about treatment of Native Americans if that'd make you happy.

    Most people like bananas. I do. Had 1 this morning.

    Where do you think the USA's wealth came from? Raging against reality when you are the beneficiary of reality is maybe fun, put pointless.
    I think it's proper to aspire to better. Not to mention that its a good idea to be honest.

    As to the poll, there isn't an answer I'd pick. It's an organization that there is a place for, but one that can easily go bad. Oversight is critical. And the need to a clear moral compass within the organization can't be overstated. Because they walk the line by necessity, that line needs to be clear.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #10
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: The CIA’s Poisonous Tree

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think it's proper to aspire to better. Not to mention that its a good idea to be honest.

    As to the poll, there isn't an answer I'd pick. It's an organization that there is a place for, but one that can easily go bad. Oversight is critical. And the need to a clear moral compass within the organization can't be overstated. Because they walk the line by necessity, that line needs to be clear.
    Here's another example of the problem. The issue is torture and see if torture is mentioned in the article. Censorship by omission. Talking Points that frame the issue by obfuscation.



    Reid Orders Probe of CIA Spying, Warns of 'Intelligence Community Run Amok' | The World's Greatest Deliberative Body
    "In my capacity as the leader of the U.S. Senate, the CIA’s actions cause me great concern,” Reid wrote to Holder. “The CIA has not only interfered with the lawful congressional oversight of its activities, but has also seemingly attempted to intimidate its overseers by subjecting them to criminal investigation. The developments strike at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Left unchallenged, they call into question Congress’s ability to carry out its core constitutional duties and risk the possibility of an unaccountable intelligence community run amok.”"

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •