Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
"The committee has given us ... a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation - essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks," they said. The report concluded the CIA failed to disrupt any subsequent plots despite torturing captives during the presidency of George W. Bush. But the former CIA officials said the United States never would have tracked down and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 without information acquired in the interrogation program. Their methods also led to the capture of ranking al Qaeda operatives, provided valuable information about the organization and saved thousands of lives by disrupting al Qaeda plots, including one for an attack on the U.S. West Coast that could have been similar to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Let's just take that self serving assertion. We by all accounts ceased 'enhanced interrogation' years ago, years before we killed OBL. What intelligence gathered during a waterboarding session led the spooks to his hideout in Pakistan many years after those interrogation sessions occurred and years before he was at that location?

By some accounts, the key information about a courier was obtained through normal methods. And even if the torture sessions produced some evidence that was eventually, 8 years later, useful, it's also clear that we also relied on vast amounts of information that was gathered through conventional means, and we'll never know whether or not that information from torture, or better information, could have been obtained through conventional means. Professional interrogators have repeatedly testified that torture is an inferior technique to gather actionable intelligence - not inferior morally or ethically but on a practical level. That it might produce SOME evidence isn't actually any proof that, even if we accept self serving claims by the torturers, that torture is the better method.

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

joG said:
In other words, you do not know, what you are talking about, but have strong opinions in spite of the fact. This is not quite untypical of the people that condemn so easily.

Well, what do you KNOW that I don't? What part of that is wrong?

And when is using a cattle prod during interrogation NOT-torture?

joG · Dec 10, 2014

JasperL said:
Well, what do you KNOW that I don't? What part of that is wrong?

And when is using a cattle prod during interrogation NOT-torture?

Well, I have had waterboarding done to me, know that more power makes the prod more damaging
and I have been following what torture means, has been applied and works since I was a kid. There have been a good number of studies and reports available over the years. And you do not seem to have read much.

TheDemSocialist · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Well lets move past the left wing talking points.....Altogether.

What talking points?

Not one Democrat would say anything about Intel that came thru torture if it prevented a major attack and certainly not one that involved a nuke.

Well saying not only this report states but many other said torture didnt work.. So yea..
But hey at least we admitted we torture people..

So how you looking now with all that preaching of morality.....while not giving a **** about how many lives you put in danger over a report that is old news and doesn't change any policy?

:yawn: The best you got?

""Torture and abuse cost American lives...I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq...How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans." -Matthew Alexander, leader of an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006.

Anthony60 · Dec 10, 2014

Objective Voice said:
Why do you assume that just because I suggested what may happen as a result of this information going public that I support such action? Reading comprehension...

I didn't assume anything.

1) Such information was already made public years ago. The only difference here is the details as to how helpful torture was to intelligence gather. From the looks of it, not very.

You mean from the pure left wing view of it. If you haven't read it yet, the ex-CIA Directors Op-ED today painted a completely different picture than the one by the all knowing DiFi.

2) Most nations would consider beheadings to be far worse than any act of torture (mainly because it's their people - Europeans as well as Americans - who are being beheaded).

The only nations that might get in an uproar over this are the Saudis and the UAE and their hands are so clean here either. Nonetheless, if people across the world start complaining loud enough condemning America for our torturous deeds especially if world leaders take this up to the U.N., we might see some pressure to do something about this besides publishing a torture report.

That's not happening because our interrogation methods here are a joke compared to the rest of the world. It's like the pot calling the corningware black.

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

joG said:
Well, I have had waterboarding done to me, know that more power makes the prod more damaging

I'll accept you've been waterboarded, but that's not persuasive. Many cops who use tasers are required to get tased in very controlled conditions, after being medically evaluated before and after the session, as part of their training in use of the weapon. That doesn't mean that using a taser during interrogation isn't torture. It is or would be, and any rational human, and the courts, would rightfully dismiss any information or confession obtained while being tased/tortured.

And I'm unclear on what the point of using a cattle prod (turned to a presumably "low" level!!) during interrogation might be? If it doesn't produce severe pain and fear or more to come, then it will have no effect, and if it does produce those effects, it's torture by the very definition of the word. So how can you draw a line around "painful, but not TOO painful" when talking about a cattle prod or a set of electrical prods to your testicles, just a little bit of waterboarding, etc.?

and I have been following what torture means, has been applied and works since I was a kid. There have been a good number of studies and reports available over the years. And you do not seem to have read much.

Can you cite a study (or anything else) that finds torture is superior to traditional interrogation techniques? I've read quite a few articles quoting professional interrogators who conclude that it's excellent for obtaining confessions (as any brutal dictator has known for thousands of years), but otherwise what you get is what the detainee thinks will stop the torture, and that might or might not be in the same ballpark as the truth, cannot be relied on, and is frequently bad. And that information AT LEAST AS GOOD and generally better can be obtained by skilled interrogators using traditional methods. Again, that last part is essential.

Bottom line is if we want to accept torture as a legitimate interrogation tool, then let's do it with our eyes open and admitting what we are doing and why. Then maybe we can have a proper study of which torture techniques produce the best information, and pay some Pentagon consultants fat fees to oversee the U.S. Torture Program, make sure that it's not too painful, but still gets the hardened terrorists singing like birds, etc. And maybe if it works well enough on foreign detainees, we can bring it home to use on domestic 'terrorists' and other 'high value' targets! After all, if it's not torture to waterboard someone, then why shouldn't the NYPD waterboard their detainees during questioning?

And it's just cowardly to redefine 'torture' so we don't have to admit that IS what we were doing to detainees.

MMC · Dec 10, 2014

JasperL said:
Let's just take that self serving assertion. We by all accounts ceased 'enhanced interrogation' years ago, years before we killed OBL. What intelligence gathered during a waterboarding session led the spooks to his hideout in Pakistan many years after those interrogation sessions occurred and years before he was at that location?

By some accounts, the key information about a courier was obtained through normal methods. And even if the torture sessions produced some evidence that was eventually, 8 years later, useful, it's also clear that we also relied on vast amounts of information that was gathered through conventional means, and we'll never know whether or not that information from torture, or better information, could have been obtained through conventional means. Professional interrogators have repeatedly testified that torture is an inferior technique to gather actionable intelligence - not inferior morally or ethically but on a practical level. That it might produce SOME evidence isn't actually any proof that, even if we accept self serving claims by the torturers, that torture is the better method.

Why not take that self serving assertion for the attack on the West Coast?

Here is what Susan Collins has to say. Even tho she doesn't condone the use of torture.

Sen. Collins' Views on Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogation Program

"In addition to the partisan nature of the staff investigation, the report has significant intrinsic limitations because it did not involve direct interviews of CIA officials, contract personnel, or other Executive branch personnel. John Rizzo, one of the chief architects of the program, has stated publicly that he would have been happy to be interviewed, and he said a number of his colleagues would have as well. The absence of interviews significantly eroded the bipartisan cooperation that existed when the SSCI Review began and calls into question some of the report's analysis.

"The lack of interviews violated the Committee's bipartisan Terms of Reference that were approved by an overwhelming 14-1 vote in March 2009. The Terms of Reference describe the purpose, scope, and methodology of the Review, and they include the following statement: "The Committee will use the tools of oversight necessary to complete a thorough review including, but not limited to, document reviews and requests, interviews, testimony at closed and open hearings, as appropriate, and preparation of findings and recommendations." Yet, there were no interviews, no hearings, and no recommendations. By comparison, the SASC's 2008 Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody included 70 interviews, written responses from more than 200 individuals in response to written questions, two hearings, and at least two subpoenas. "Documents never tell the full story and lack context. As the former Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate's chief investigative committee for ten years, I found that interviews were always key sources of information for every investigation our Homeland Security Committee conducted. In the 2012 HSGAC investigation into the attacks in Benghazi, for example, we discovered one of our most alarming findings in a discussion with the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, General Carter Ham. We learned that he was unaware of the presence of CIA officers in Benghazi, despite the fact that his Command had responsibility to prepare for the evacuation of U.S. government personnel.

"The bipartisan Terms of Reference also called for the production of policy recommendations, but not one is included in the Review's Findings & Conclusions or its Executive Summary. Ironically, it was the CIA, rather than the Committee, that first developed recommendations to address the mismanagement, misconduct, and flawed performance that characterized too much of the CIA's Detention & Interrogation program. I have identified several recommendations that should be implemented as soon as possible.

- See more at: Susan M. Collins (via noodls) / Sen. Collins' Views on Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogation Program

j-mac · Dec 10, 2014

LOL part of the report actually lists the use of 5 interrogators "yelling at the subject at the same time" as torture...Dear God! What is the matter with you libs?

MMC · Dec 10, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
What talking points?

Well saying not only this report states but many other said torture didnt work.. So yea..
But hey at least we admitted we torture people..

:yawn: The best you got?

""Torture and abuse cost American lives...I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq...How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans." -Matthew Alexander, leader of an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006.

Read the thread you will see plenty of them.

So that is your excuse for not giving a **** about what happens to other Americans and Allies overseas.....wherein as you aptly pointed out Abu Ghraib, wherein terrorists used the incident to recruit and attack or kidnap Americans.

That's the Best you got.....that Americans and or Allies could die for some political stunt. To say we don't Torture or have an Open Policy for Torture. When we don't have any open policy to begin with. Yeah that's telling the American people something. :roll:

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Why not take that self serving assertion for the attack on the West Coast?

So we can gloss over the OBL claim?

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

j-mac said:
LOL part of the report actually lists the use of 5 interrogators "yelling at the subject at the same time" as torture...Dear God! What is the matter with you libs?

Do you have a cite for that? A search using that quote didn't work.

Besides, we knew that at least we waterboarded some, subjected some to severe sleep deprivation, beatings, stress positions, induced hypothermia leading to some deaths, etc. If I accept that yelling at someone isn't torture, will you address the others? Obviously yelling at someone isn't torture, no matter how many did it at one time.

TheDemSocialist · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Read the thread you will see plenty of them.

If your not gonna point them out, then I guess we are moving on..

So that is your excuse for not giving a **** about what happens to other Americans and Allies overseas.....

Where did I say I dont give a **** about what happens to Americans? Can you point that out please?

wherein as you aptly pointed out Abu Ghraib, wherein terrorists used the incident to recruit and attack or kidnap Americans.

You bethca they did. If you dont want torture to be used as a recruitment tool its really quite simple, DONT TORTURE PEOPLE.

That's the Best you got.....that Americans and or Allies could die for some political stunt.

You call it a political stunt. Others including John McCain call torture a stain on our country.

To say we don't Torture or have an Open Policy for Torture. When we don't have any open policy to begin with. Yeah that's telling the American people something. :roll:

Telling them this is what happens when you get so caught up in fear that neo-cons will use it to commit crimes, and openly do something we as Americans, I thought were so whole heartedly against. We were told "we dont torture", we were told "its just enhanced interegation" then it was "ehh it was just a few bad apples its not systematic" but guess what it was systematic. Sorry, if you find that to be brought to the publics attention, now you are just gonna play the fear card to say it shouldnt be released? Guess what that does not mean "oh I love putting American's lives in danger", I'm glad the ramped up security, good they should, but this had to come to light, and it rightly should, we as an American public should know what we did, we should learn from our past.

Dittohead not! · Dec 10, 2014

j-mac said:
LOL part of the report actually lists the use of 5 interrogators "yelling at the subject at the same time" as torture...Dear God! What is the matter with you libs?

Yelling at them?

Is that what happened to Diliwar and Habibullah?

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: May 20, 2005

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
You bethca they did. If you dont want torture to be used as a recruitment tool its really quite simple, DONT TORTURE PEOPLE.

Exactly.

Furthermore, if anyone really thought we could have an 'enhanced interrogation' program, black sites, rendition, and keep that secret, they're idiots and should be prosecuted for criminal stupidity if nothing else.

bubbabgone · Dec 10, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Be more specific then.

I meant techniques that the disclosure of the kind you and Jihadists would like to see on the front page could reveal sources and methods better left out of the public eye.

I get the feeling you think learning item A in Gitmo was of no use unless it lead immediately to item Z after a plane ride.
There's a whole alphabet in between that the disclosure of the evidence you seek would jeopardize.
And those missing letters could be our people or allies.

Bottom line ... I learned earlier on you'll never be prepared to admit the program had successes.

Boo Radley · Dec 10, 2014

cpwill said:
Oh hey look - passive aggressive snidery from Boo! What an astonishment!

...... no coffeepap emoticon?

No you haven't. You denied that the data presented proved beyond all doubt that we couldn't have stopped the attacks using other methods.

That's because it wasn't directed at you - it was quoting and responding to someone else. Perhaps you should check out that "originally posted by" before you go around accusing others of being lost in the conversation?

The answer to specifically and carefully define torture so as to ensure that we maintained the ability to save lives without crossing that line is hardly evil

A) There are "no good guys in war" to the extent that "there are no good people". Warfare features lots of acts of cruelty (which isn't necessarily bad) and acts of evil, as well as acts of supreme sacrifice and goodness.
B) Torture doesn't have to be personal or sadistic - if anything, for those who actually torture, becoming personal and sadistic will probably make them less effective.
C) Interrogation such as we performed was neither personal nor sadistic, but rather professionally and deliberately crafted.

Huh. And this guy committed torture?

I was placed in stress conditions and made to expose myself for prolonged, sleep deprived periods in the military. Was I tortured? We've got guys on this forum who have been waterboarded - they'll tell you it is n't torture.

.

Yeah - and I gave you a rundown of multiple attacks stopped with the detainee reporting, and described to you how deeply our understanding of al-Qa'ida on that program, and even quoted KSM saying that we should waterboard all the detainees because it would make life easier on them... and you gave me in response the FBI guy who claimed that if only he'd gotten more time his nice-guy approach would have eventually worked, he pretty promises.

You did exactly what I said you'd do, snitch or not.

And no, I should you years ago that the people who run those programs you went through stated before congress that you did not go through what they went through. That has been clearly stated.

Boo Radley · Dec 10, 2014

L

bubbabgone said:
I meant techniques that the disclosure of the kind you and Jihadists would like to see on the front page could reveal sources and methods better left out of the public eye.

I get the feeling you think learning item A in Gitmo was of no use unless it lead immediately to item Z after a plane ride.
There's a whole alphabet in between that the disclosure of the evidence you seek would jeopardize.
And those missing letters could be our people or allies.

Bottom line ... I learned earlier on you'll never be prepared to admit the program had successes.

Give verifiable evidence and I'll believe it. You see, though I tease you guys because you can't produce even one, by cliam isn't that they never ever got anything. It is that over all it's ineffective, causing as much or more harm than good. But I would love someone to match me just to keep in interesting. Instead I get willing suspension of disbelief by true believers who will never ask question or think critically.

MMC · Dec 10, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
If your not gonna point them out, then I guess we are moving on..

Where did I say I dont give a **** about what happens to Americans? Can you point that out please?

You bethca they did. If you dont want torture to be used as a recruitment tool its really quite simple, DONT TORTURE PEOPLE.

You call it a political stunt. Others including John McCain call torture a stain on our country.

Telling them this is what happens when you get so caught up in fear that neo-cons will use it to commit crimes, and openly do something we as Americans, I thought were so whole heartedly against. We were told "we dont torture", we were told "its just enhanced interegation" then it was "ehh it was just a few bad apples its not systematic" but guess what it was systematic. Sorry, if you find that to be brought to the publics attention, now you are just gonna play the fear card to say it shouldnt be released? Guess what that does not mean "oh I love putting American's lives in danger", I'm glad the ramped up security, good they should, but this had to come to light, and it rightly should, we as an American public should know what we did, we should learn from our past.

Read what Susan Collins has to say about your report.....I doubt she is lying since she was one of the original 3 Republicans that sided with the Demos on this matter. It takes care of a lot about that report you are harping about. Even though you still haven't seen the Republican Report, Other than their Dissent to this Report.

Your the one that is implying that to get this report out is more important than those lives. When did the US say it had an Open policy to torture again?

Oh and yeah I said the Report should not be released. Especially with the Details. Due to what it will cause. That's not to say they couldn't have released a report with their alleged findings and conclusion.

Didn't even need to hold any Press conference nor take it to the floor of the Senate to get the Report out.....Correct?

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Why not take that self serving assertion for the attack on the West Coast?

BTW you'll need to be specific about the "West Coast" attack but here's one article explaining why previous assertions by torture apologists that waterboarding KSM prevented one such attack were bogus:

Why al-Qaida's plot to bomb L.A.'s Library Tower didn't warrant torture.

A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

Fact Sheet: Keeping America Safe From Attack

TheDemSocialist · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Read what Susan Collins has to say about your report.....

Again I already did, and already addressed this point.

I doubt she is lying since she was one of the original 3 Republicans that sided with the Demos on this matter.

Where did I ever accuse her of lying?

It takes care of a lot about that report you are harping about.

"Takes care"? What does that even mean?

Even though you still haven't seen the Republican Report, Other than their Dissent to this Report.

And neither have you and, you are here saying the misquoted, lied, was a partisan stunt, etc etc, but then you have no evidence to back up any of these facts... And even admitted that saying, "well we just have to wait and see".

Your the one that is implying that to get this report out is more important than those lives.

Keep on playing that fear card. Is this the new talking point you are going to use now?

When did the US say it had an Open policy to torture again?

When didnt it? Where does it say we cant? But then again I thought we didnt torture?
Remember?: Bush: We Don't Torture People Tenet Denies CIA Torture (CBS News)

Oh and yeah I said the Report should not be released. Especially with the Details. Due to what it will cause. That's not to say they couldn't have released a report with their alleged findings and conclusion.

Outrage? Good it should. This is what happens we you torture people, especially when we were told "we dont torture", "the CIA doesnt torture". When you lie to your own citizens, and the world it causes outrage.

Didn't even need to hold any Press conference

Need? No. But they did get over it.

nor take it to the floor of the Senate to get the Report out.....Correct?

No idea. But when a senate committee is set up and a investigation is set up in committee, they take their findings to the floor to inform the senate. Its pretty damn usual and standard, at parliamentary.

MMC · Dec 10, 2014

JasperL said:
BTW you'll need to be specific about the "West Coast" attack but here's one article explaining why previous assertions by torture apologists that waterboarding KSM prevented one such attack were bogus:

Why al-Qaida's plot to bomb L.A.'s Library Tower didn't warrant torture.

Fact Sheet: Keeping America Safe From Attack

Sure its questionable......but then so is Feinstein.

Absent from the report is any discussion of the context the United States faced after 9/11. This was a time we had solid evidence that al Qaida was planning a second wave of attacks against the U.S.; we had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons; we had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City; and we had hard evidence that al Qaida was trying to manufacture anthrax. It felt like a "ticking time bomb" every single day.

CIASavedLives

JasperL · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Sure its questionable......but then so is Feinstein.

You keep diverting attention over to some other bouncing ball. The fact is the claims that the torture program 'worked' just aren't backed by evidence. The supporters have repeatedly made claims like the two you cited and which I then provided evidence that at best the claims are vague enough to be worthless. The claim that the attack on the library in LA was thwarted by waterboarding KSM before we captured him is obviously false, made up.

BTW, you haven't seen me encourage prosecution of those involved. What I'm mainly pushing back on is the cowardly stance that what we did wasn't torture. It just was and we should be honest about it, honest about the circumstances in which we tortured detainees, and do that to inform what we do in the future. If it's waterboard someone 300 times if we think he has intelligence, insert needles into their fingernails, freeze them potentially to death, beat them, whatever it takes short of intentionally slow death or some other arbitrary line, etc. then so be it. But let's have an honest conversation about it.

bubbabgone · Dec 10, 2014

Boo Radley said:
L

Give verifiable evidence and I'll believe it. You see, though I tease you guys because you can't produce even one, by cliam isn't that they never ever got anything. It is that over all it's ineffective, causing as much or more harm than good. But I would love someone to match me just to keep in interesting. Instead I get willing suspension of disbelief by true believers who will never ask question or think critically.

... and no matter what anyone comes up with you'll be ready with some reason to reject it.
That's clear.
We're done here.

Boo Radley · Dec 10, 2014

bubbabgone said:
... and no matter what anyone comes up with you'll be ready with some reason to reject it.
That's clear.
We're done here.

Actual supported reasons.

Boo Radley · Dec 10, 2014

MMC said:
Sure its questionable......but then so is Feinstein.

Absent from the report is any discussion of the context the United States fac
ed after 9/11. This was a time we had solid evidence that al Qaida was planning a second wave of attacks against the U.S.; we had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons; we had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City; and we had hard evidence that al Qaida was trying to manufacture anthrax. It felt like a "ticking time bomb" every single day.

CIASavedLives

These are just quotes. They are not supported by verifiable evidence.

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

JasperL

JasperL

joG

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Anthony60

JasperL

MMC

j-mac

MMC

JasperL

JasperL

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

JasperL

bubbabgone

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

MMC

JasperL

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

MMC

JasperL

bubbabgone

Boo Radley

Boo Radley