I question the timing.

[Yonivore]

Six things to watch for in CIA report (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226399-embassies-brace-for-violence-with-release-of-cia-report)

Hmmmm... What could be about to happen from which this administration would like to distract public attention?

Jonathan Gruber Agrees to Testify Before House Committee (http://www.mediaite.com/online/jonathan-gruber-agrees-to-testify-before-house-committee/)

THAT'S TODAY? Who knew?

[ChumpDumper]

I doubt anyone outside of right wing blogs cares about the Gruber testimony.

[Yonivore]

I doubt anyone outside of right wing blogs cares about the Gruber testimony.
Well, they should.

The administration hires a guy, loans him to Congress to write the most significant piece of legislation of our time, and then parades him around the country singing the praises of the law -- as if he were an independent expert.

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

That he revealed the ruses employed by this administration to get to 51 votes and placate the likes of you, is just icing on the cake.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, they should.

The administration hires a guy, loans him to Congress to write the most significant piece of legislation of our time, and then parades him around the country singing the praises of the law -- as if he were an independent expert.

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

The he revealed the ruses employed by this administration to get to 51 votes and place the likes of you, is just icing on the cake.Wow, you make it seem even less significant that it is.

If the Republicans had any alternative to Obamacare, they could introduce it at anytime.

Have they?

[boutons_deux]

Well, they should.

The administration hires a guy, loans him to Congress to write the most significant piece of legislation of our time, and then parades him around the country singing the praises of the law -- as if he were an independent expert.

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

That he revealed the ruses employed by this administration to get to 51 votes and placate the likes of you, is just icing on the cake.

Gruber didn't write ACA. The writing was directed by Liz Folwer, health insurance industry exec/lobbyist.

Gruber was right. Americans are pretty stupid, ignorant, esp the right wingers, Christians, bubbas, rednecks, Repug voters, and above most are politically disengaged, disaffected by the Repug MISgovernance.

[DarrinS]

I doubt anyone outside of right wing blogs cares about the Gruber testimony.

US media surely doesn't.

[ElNono]

US media surely doesn't.

Non-US media apparently doesn't either.

[ElNono]

FWIW, CIA Director response to the report:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2014-press-releases-statements/statement-from-director-brennan-on-ssci-study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

[Yonivore]

Gruber didn't write ACA. The writing was directed by Liz Folwer, health insurance industry exec/lobbyist.
The Democrat leadership seem to think he was pretty instrumental in its drafting.


Gruber was right. Americans are pretty stupid, ignorant, esp the right wingers, Christians, bubbas, rednecks, Repug voters, and above most are politically disengaged, disaffected by the Repug MISgovernance.
Actually, Gruber wasn't referring to the people who were actually trying to tell the world they were lying. Most of the ruses to which he admitted on video were already being described by the Right and, summarily being dismissed by the Left.

[Spurminator]

GRUBERGHAZI!

[Spurminator]

I, for one, welcome conservatives' new-found scrutiny into the people who write and contribute to the legislation that gets passed through Congress. I look forward to their continued scrutiny on future special interest bills.

[Spurminator]

I also commend the newfound respect for the American voter and his value to democracy.

[boutons_deux]

"conservatives' new-found scrutiny into the people who write and contribute to the legislation"

not BLUE'd?

:lol link?

BigCorp, BigFinance, ALEC, right-wing stink tanks, lobbyists, etc write all of Repug state and federal legislation. Can you show otherwise?

[Spurminator]

"conservatives' new-found scrutiny into the people who write and contribute to the legislation"

not BLUE'd?

:lol link?

BigCorp, BigFinance, ALEC, right-wing stink tanks, lobbyists, etc write all of Repug state and federal legislation. Can you show otherwise?

You are so, so dumb.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, they should.

The administration hires a guy, loans him to Congress to write the most significant piece of legislation of our time, and then parades him around the country singing the praises of the law -- as if he were an independent expert.

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

That he revealed the ruses employed by this administration to get to 51 votes and placate the likes of you, is just icing on the cake.

You claim to not be a RNC shill but you certainly like to parrot the RNC line.

#GRUBER

[FromWayDowntown]

It's good to know that we can avoid talking about the troubling matters actually included in the report by questioning the timing of its release.

[Yonivore]

It's good to know that we can avoid talking about the troubling matters actually included in the report by questioning the timing of its release.
Did you learn anything new from the report, FWD?

[ChumpDumper]

US media surely doesn't.To what US media are you referring?

You certainly didn't use the internet.

What media have you been monitoring today that you can make a blanket statement like that?

[DarrinS]

To what US media are you referring?

You certainly didn't use the internet.

What media have you been monitoring today that you can make a blanket statement like that?


Yes, it's getting attention now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Have to love how Darrin dissembles from the question. Sophist piece of shit is as sophist piece of shit does.

[SupremeGuy]

http://kfpcpa.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/head-in-the-sand.jpg

[Yonivore]

Today’s CIA critics once urged the agency to do anything to fight al-Qaeda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/todays-cia-critics-once-urged-the-agency-to-do-anything-to-fight-al-qaeda/2014/12/05/ac418da2-7bda-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html)


The leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and of both parties in Congress were briefed on the program more than 40 times between 2002 and 2009. But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to deny (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967.html) that she was told in 2002 that detainees had been waterboarded. That is simply not true. I was among those who briefed her.

There’s great hypocrisy in politicians’ criticism of the CIA’s interrogation program. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, lawmakers urged us to do everything possible to prevent another attack on our soil. Members of Congress and the administration were nearly unanimous in their desire that the CIA do all that it could to debilitate and destroy al-Qaeda. The CIA got the necessary approvals to do so and kept Congress briefed throughout. But as our successes grew, some lawmakers’ recollections shrank in regard to the support they once offered. Here are a couple of reminders.

On May 26, 2002, Feinstein was quoted in the New York Times saying that the attacks of 9/11 were a real awakening and that it would no longer be “business as usual.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/weekinreview/all-fronts-getting-more-than-one-step-ahead-of-an-attack.html) The attacks, she said, let us know “that the threat is profound” and “that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.”

...

If Feinstein, Rockefeller and other politicians were saying such things in print and on national TV, imagine what they were saying to us in private. We did what we were asked to do, we did what we were assured was legal, and we know our actions were effective. Our reward, a decade later, is to hear some of these same politicians expressing outrage for what was done and, even worse, mischaracterizing the actions taken and understating the successes achieved.

[ChumpDumper]

.
What are you trying to say?

Use your words.

[SupremeGuy]

What are you trying to say?

Use your words.If you can't figure out, no words are necessary, tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you can't figure out, no words are necessary, tbh.

I figure that bringing up someone scheduling a hearing when the conclusion of a 5 year investigation comes about is certainly sticking your head in the sand.

Is that what you meant?

[SupremeGuy]

Which is the whole point of the thread title, you get that right?

[Drachen]

US media surely doesn't.

Hmm. That's interesting. I've heard several stories about it on NPR over the last week. I guess they aren't US media.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Which is the whole point of the thread title, you get that right?

I get that the whole point is you and yoni want to fixate on the Fox and RNC scandal machine.

[Yonivore]

Torture Report: Former CIA Directors Say Interrogation Program 'Saved Thousands of Lives' (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-directors-interrogation-program-saved-thousands-lives/story?id=27470215)


The former directors argue that the CIA interrogation program “saved thousands of lives” by helping lead to the capture of top al Qaeda operatives and disrupting their plotting.

"A powerful example of the interrogation program’s importance is the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheik Muhammed, known as KSM, the 9/11 mastermind,” the former directors write. "We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program.”

As for Osama bin Laden, the former directors outline the steps that led the Navy SEALs to the Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

"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,” they write. “So the bottom line is this: The interrogation program formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation."

This is the first opportunity for these former intelligence chiefs to respond to the allegations made in the report: None of them — in fact no current or former CIA officials — were interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee for their report.

They argue that the report's release will do long-standing damage to the United States because it will make foreign intelligence agencies less willing to cooperate with the CIA, give terrorists a new reciting tool and make current CIA operatives fearful of future political attacks.
Here's the Op-Ed from which ABC draws its story:

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644)

[ChumpDumper]

If you can't figure out, no words are necessary, tbh.Oh, you can't explain yourself.

No problem.

Didn't think you could.

[Yonivore]

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644)

I find it interesting the Senate committee couldn't find time, in its five year investigation, to talk to any of the six former CIA Directors.

[ChumpDumper]

make current CIA operatives fearful of future political attacks.Keep them from torturing?

I'm good with that.

[Yonivore]

Oh, you can't explain yourself.

No problem.

Didn't think you could.
Okay, I find it amusing that you chide someone for answering you the way you answer 99% of the questions asked of you. Thanks for the laugh.

[SupremeGuy]

Oh, you can't explain yourself.

No problem.

Didn't think you could.Everyone else understood, except you. I'm not surprised.

[ChumpDumper]

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644)

I find it interesting the Senate committee couldn't find time, in its five year investigation, to talk to any of the six former CIA Directors.Republicans could have called in anyone they wanted.

Why didn't they?

[ChumpDumper]

Everyone else understood, except you. I'm not surprised.So you still can't explain?

I'm not surprised.

[CosmicCowboy]

The whole mea culpa thing is freaking ridiculous.

Everybody knows we waterboarded and fucked with their terrorist asses.

Feinstein may be pissed at the CIA but the average American is *yawning* and saying "so what?'

[boutons_deux]

You speak for The American People? :lol

The CIA cracked the Senate's computers, violation of separation of powers, nobody prosecuted, and Feinstein, former CIA ally, fucked the CIA real good.

heard a ex-CIA guy say this morning The American People, it's ALWAS their fault, WANTED the CIA to torture because The American People gave the CIA carte blanche to defend America :lol

... which includes hummus enemas :lol

Anybody who believes ANYTHING the CIA says is a stupid as the CIA is lawless

America, the GOD-loving, GOD-loved Shining Beacon On The Hill, humanly and morally superior to all non-Americans.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fuck those terrorist assholes

[Winehole23]

about 80% of the detainees at Gitmo were released -- some after a decade in prison, many of those having also been tortured -- without charges or appearing before a military commission, which strongly suggests that we had no reasonable basis to detain them to begin with.

[boutons_deux]

Fuck those terrorist assholes

several, many?, weren't terrorists. Now they are just destroyed human beings.

was there not enough evidence to try anybody?

the shit in the report was heavily redacted. We can guess the full shit was even more disgusting.

[CosmicCowboy]

We should have just been humanitarians and killed their asses on the battlefield instead of capturing them.

Po wittle terrorists.

[CosmicCowboy]

about 80% of the detainees at Gitmo were released -- some after a decade in prison, many of those having also been tortured -- without charges or appearing before a military commission, which strongly suggests that we had no reasonable basis to detain them to begin with.

Of those about 30% are allegedly back in action.

[boutons_deux]

Of those about 30% are allegedly back in action.

a minuscule %age of the total Muslims now pushing back against the invasive USA Murderous Corporate Empire.

The Repugs have debased the USA to level of all the other countries that torture.

[Winehole23]

Of those about 30% are allegedly back in action.blowback from indefinite detention plus torture. wouldn't you be mad if it happened to you?

what about the other 70%? no qualms or scruples there?

[Winehole23]

I question the tactics:


The report represented the most scathing congressional indictment of the Central Intelligence Agency in nearly four decades. It found that torture “regularly resulted in fabricated information,” said committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/dianne-feinstein), in a statement summarizing the findings. She called the torture programme “a stain on our values and on our history”.


“During the brutal interrogations, the CIA (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/cia) was often unaware the information was fabricated.” She told the Senate the torture program was “morally, legally and administratively misguided” and “far more brutal than people were led to believe”.
The report reveals that use of torture in secret prisons run by the CIA across the world was even more extreme than previously exposed (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal), and included “rectal rehydration” and “rectal feeding”, sleep deprivation lasting almost a week and threats to the families of the detainees.


The “lunch tray” for one detainee, which contained hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins, “was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused”, the report says. One detainee whose rectal examination was conducted with “excessive force” was later diagnosed with chronic hemorrhoids, anal fissures and rectal prolapse. Investigators also documented death threats made to detainees. And CIA interrogators, the committee charged, told detainees they would hurt detainees’ children and “sexually assault” or “cut a [detainee’s] mother’s throat”.


At least one prisoner died as a result of hypothermia after being held in a stress position on cold concrete for hours. At least 17 detainees were tortured without the approval from CIA headquarters that ex-director George Tenet assured the DOJ would occur. And at least 26 of the CIA’s estimated 119 detainees, the committee found, were “wrongfully held.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

[Winehole23]

relevant US and international law covering torture here:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/9/the-cia-torture-reportalegalexplainer.html

[Yonivore]

Republicans could have called in anyone they wanted.

Why didn't they?
First of all, I'm not sure your assertion is true but, that doesn't relieve the Democrat majority on the committee from doing the same. After all, if they wanted the truth, it might have been in their interest to actually talk to the agency they were investigating.

[CosmicCowboy]

blowback from indefinite detention plus torture. wouldn't you be mad if it happened to you?

what about the other 70%? no qualms or scruples there?

I guess I am morally corrupt but I honestly have a hard time getting worked up about the civil rights of the Gitmo detainees. As for it happening to me, I can't conceive of a situation where I would be detained while apparently being involved in terrorist activities.

[ChumpDumper]

First of all, I'm not sure your assertion is true but, that doesn't relieve the Democrat majority on the committee from doing the same. After all, if they wanted the truth, it might have been in their interest to actually talk to the agency they were investigating.Eh, the CIA couldn't even be honest about the number of detainees it held when asked.

Better to go by their own words in their internal records. Why should those be dismissed? Were they lying to each other?

[Warlord23]

I guess I am morally corrupt but I honestly have a hard time getting worked up about the civil rights of the Gitmo detainees. As for it happening to me, I can't conceive of a situation where I would be detained while apparently being involved in terrorist activities.

It doesn't bother you that most of the detainees aren't tried and proven guilty, that many aren't even charged, that many have got there because bounty hunters in Muslim countries turned them in to make a quick buck even if they weren't associated with terrorism, that many of them might be innocent?

After WW2, we executed German army personnel for running Gulags that dealt death and torture ... How do you reconcile the US running a Gulag that tortures people who may or may not be terrorists?

[Winehole23]

McCain's floor statement:


“Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1a15e343-66b0-473f-b0c1-a58f984db996

[Winehole23]

I guess I am morally corrupt but I honestly have a hard time getting worked up about the civil rights of the Gitmo detainees. As for it happening to me, I can't conceive of a situation where I would be detained while apparently being involved in terrorist activities.People were sold for reward money based on local beefs having nothing to do with terrorism. Goatherds and such.

[DarrinS]

McCain's floor statement:

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1a15e343-66b0-473f-b0c1-a58f984db996


That is such a fucking awesome endorsement. :lmao

[Winehole23]

more content-free scoffing. a very typical DarrinS post.

[ChumpDumper]

That is such a fucking awesome endorsement. :lmaoWhat do you mean by this?

What exactly are you saying about McCain's statement?

[Yonivore]

McCain's floor statement:

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1a15e343-66b0-473f-b0c1-a58f984db996

A statement on torture by John McCain is the same as a statement on gun violence by Gabby Giffords. Understandably biased.

[Yonivore]

So, what actions do the Senate Intelligence Committee recommend in their 500 page report?

[ChumpDumper]

A statement on torture by John McCain is the same as a statement on gun violence by Gabby Giffords. Understandably biased.So you can just dismiss his opinion out of hand?

You're just another chicken hawk. You never anything yourself or had anything happen to you, but somehow you think you are better qualified than a man who was actually tortured to say what torture is.

You're a joke, yoni.

[ChumpDumper]

So, what actions do the Senate Intelligence Committee recommend in their 500 page report?No more assplay.

Does that disappoint you?

[Yonivore]

I'm with Michael Hayden on this who, when asked how he would feel if members of his family were to be subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, said something to the effect (and I'm paraphrasing), "It would be terrible but, my response would be somewhat muted if it was believed my family had just been involved in the murder of 3,000 people."

[ChumpDumper]

I'm with Michael Hayden on this who, when asked how he would feel if members of his family were to be subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, said something to the effect (and I'm paraphrasing), "It would be terrible but, my response would be somewhat muted if it was believed my family had just been involved in the murder of 3,000 people."Yes, we know you lose all your morals and respect for law when you think you are Jack Bauer.

[Yonivore]

So you can just dismiss his opinion out of hand?
Pretty much, yeah; but, with sympathy and understanding.


You're just another chicken hawk. You never anything yourself or had anything happen to you, but somehow you think you are better qualified than a man who was actually tortured to say what torture is.

You're a joke, yoni.
Well, let's put the terrorist detainees up beside Senator McCain and see who really shows the signs of torture.

Look, being involved in a car accident doesn't make you an expert on the physics of accidents, does it? No, it makes you a victim.

[Spurminator]

I'm with Michael Hayden on this who, when asked how he would feel if members of his family were to be subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, said something to the effect (and I'm paraphrasing), "It would be terrible but, my response would be somewhat muted if it was believed my family had just been involved in the murder of 3,000 people."

That's pretty fucking sad. No one could possibly feel that way about members of their family unless they themselves also believed there was a chance they were involved in those murders.

Or you just don't love your family very much.

[Yonivore]

Yes, we know you lose all your morals and respect for law when you think you are Jack Bauer.
No, you make difficult judgments when every morning you wake up to a ticking time bomb scenario such as was the case in the days after 9/11, when the vast majority of the enhanced interrogation techniques were employed.

You have the luxury of not having to prevent another 9/11. That makes it easy for you to judge the actions of those who don't have that same luxury.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty much, yeah; but, with sympathy and understanding.And condescension.



Well, let's put the terrorist detainees up beside Senator McCain and see who really shows the signs of torture.

Look, being involved in a car accident doesn't make you an expert on the physics of accidents, does it? No, it makes you a victim.Physics?

lol now you're talking about physics.

Sorry, the person that has been in the car wreck knows more about car wrecks than a person who read a blog about someone else's reading an account of a car wreck.

Guess who you are in this analogy.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you make difficult judgments when every morning you wake up to a ticking time bomb scenario such as was the case in the days after 9/11, when the vast majority of the enhanced interrogation techniques were employed.

You have the luxury of not having to prevent another 9/11. That makes it easy for you to judge the actions of those who don't have that same luxury.Except there were no ticking time bombs and none diffused by torture.

What makes it easy for me to judge the actions is knowing what is right and what America actually stands for.

You are as un-American as the 9/11 terrorists.

[Yonivore]

And condescension.
Not at all. I just don't think he is in a position to know all that transpired with respect to the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Senator McCain wasn't on the Senate Intelligence Committee.


Physics?

lol now you're talking about physics.

Sorry, the person that has been in the car wreck knows more about car wrecks than a person who read a blog about someone else's reading an account of a car wreck.

Guess who you are in this analogy.
He knows what its like to be in a car wreck; that's it. He doesn't know more than the accident investigators, trained to understand car accidents, about the mechanics of the accident.

Being subjected to any process doesn't make you an expert on that process.

[CosmicCowboy]

People were sold for reward money based on local beefs having nothing to do with terrorism. Goatherds and such.

I am pretty confident that the random innocent goat herders have been culled out and sent back over the years.

If you have information otherwise, please share.

[Yonivore]

Except there were no ticking time bombs and none diffused by torture.
Well, this is where the intelligence community says you're wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao at the McCain supporters in this thread that suddenly have found him relevant.

[ChumpDumper]

Not at all. I just don't think he is in a position to know all that transpired with respect to the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Senator McCain wasn't on the Senate Intelligence Committee.But you claim to know enough to make a judgment.



He knows what its like to be in a car wreck; that's it. He doesn't know more than the accident investigators, trained to understand car accidents, about the mechanics of the accident.Actually, he knows more than any of them what it's like to be in an accident. You're trying as hard as possible to act like the CIA were a bunch of torture scientists, which is bullshit. They were a bunch of angry men who had no idea what they were doing and ignored their own agency's history about the ineffectiveness of torture.

Well, this is where the intelligence community says you're wrong.Proven liars with every reason to lie further since the possibility of criminal prosecution does exist.

Have you ever known a suspected criminal to lie?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao at the McCain supporters in this thread that suddenly have found him relevant.:lmao at his former supporters that suddenly threw him under the bus for being tortured.

You all just justified his torture along with the torture of the detainees.

Congratulations, all of you.

[CosmicCowboy]

Personally I haven't found McCain relevant since his pathetic run at the Presidency.

[ElNono]

Feinstein may be pissed at the CIA but the average American is *yawning* and saying "so what?'

I think Feinstein is a two-faced liar herself, but regardless, there's just simply no valid justification for torture. You can't go around claiming moral authority and pointing fingers at somebody else for doing atrocities when you're not only doing them yourself, but trying to fit them in some sort of 'legal' framework. This whole thing reminds me of the Jap internment camps back in WWII. You could say 'nobody cared' at the time, but it's a black eye.

[boutons_deux]

Peter King Dismisses Torture Report As Just People In 'Awkward Positions'
http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/ufr35sogye0d5fmwjfsj.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/peter-king-torture-report-awkward-positions?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Thanks, all y'all Repug voters. The Loopy Gohmert of New York!

[boutons_deux]

Taibbi

10 Craziest Things in the Senate Report on Torture

Regarding the rectal tube, if you place it and open up the IV tubing, the flow will self regulate, sloshing up the large intestines… What I infer is that you get a tube up as far as you can, then open the IV wide. No need to squeeze the bag – let gravity do the work.

Majid Khan's "lunch tray," consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was "pureed" and rectally infused.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/10-craziest-things-in-the-senate-report-on-torture-20141210#ixzz3LXHTzZrX

US military/CIA torturers "just following orders" would have followed Nazi orders (noGodwin!)

[Yonivore]

Context matters.

...the majority left out something critical to understanding the program: context.

The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. This was a time when:

• We had evidence that al Qaeda was planning a second wave of attacks on 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.

• We had hard evidence that al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.

It felt like the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario—every single day.

In this atmosphere, time was of the essence and the CIA felt a deep responsibility to ensure that an attack like 9/11 would never happen again. We designed the detention and interrogation programs at a time when “relationship building” was not working with brutal killers who did not hesitate to behead innocents. These detainees had received highly effective counter-interrogation training while in al Qaeda training camps. And yet it was clear they possessed information that could disrupt plots and save American lives.

The Senate committee’s report says that the CIA at that point had little experience or expertise in capture, detention or interrogation of terrorists. We agree. But we were charged by the president with doing these things in emergency circumstances—at a time when there was no respite from threat and no luxury of time to act. Our hope is that no one ever has to face such circumstances again.

The Senate committee’s report ignores this context.

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?”

In September 2006, at the strong urging of the CIA, the administration decided to brief full committee and staff directors on the interrogation program. As part of this, the CIA sought to enter into a serious dialogue with the oversight committees, hoping to build a consensus on a way forward acceptable to the committee majority and minority and to the congressional and executive branches. The committees missed a chance to help shape the program—they couldn’t reach a consensus. The executive branch was left to proceed alone, merely keeping the committees informed.

How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way.

The excuse given by majority senators is that CIA officers were under investigation by the Justice Department and therefore could not be made available. This is nonsense. The investigations referred to were completed in 2011 and 2012 and applied only to certain officers. They never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study. Yet a press account indicates that the committee staff did see fit to interview at least one attorney for a terrorist at Guantanamo Bay.

We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct. Which is another reason why the study is so flawed. What went on in preparing the report is clear: The staff picked up the signal at the outset that this study was to have a certain outcome, especially with respect to the question of whether the interrogation program produced intelligence that helped stop terrorists. The staff members then “cherry picked” their way through six million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to construct their argument against the program’s effectiveness.

In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.
Calling something torture doesn't make it torture.

Can anyone in here point to a legal finding that what the U.S. did was, indeed, torture?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Personally I haven't found McCain relevant since his pathetic run at the Presidency.

:lol like we should give a fuck as to what you 'find' means for who actually wields power in the senate.

He has been making waves since being named the head of the Armed Services Committee for a bout a month. For the last couple of years he has been one of the few people in congress that has been able to get legislation passed reaching to both parties for support; that in a congress famous for inactivity. All you saying this means is you have not been paying attention.

[ChumpDumper]

Context matters.

Calling something torture doesn't make it torture.

Can anyone in here point to a legal finding that what the U.S. did was, indeed, torture?Well, when the Japanese waterboarded Americans in WWII, they were tried and convicted for war crimes.

And court-martialed US soldiers who did it to Filipinos and Vietnamese.

US precedent says its torture.

But you knew all this. You just try to deny it.

[Yonivore]

Well, when the Japanese waterboarded Americans in WWII, they were tried and convicted for war crimes.

And court-martialed US soldiers who did it to Filipinos and Vietnamese.

US precedent says its torture.

But you knew all this. You just try to deny it.
Enhanced Interrogation Waterboarding =/= Japanese Waterboarding. Just because they share a name doesn't make them the same thing.

[ChumpDumper]

Enhanced Interrogation Waterboarding =/= Japanese Waterboarding. Just because they share a name doesn't make them the same thing.Oh, how is it different?

Cite all the cases and all the differences and why it makes what the CIA did OK.

Include the court martials of US soldiers while you're at it. You left those out for some reason.

[Yonivore]

Oh, how is it different?

Cite all the cases and all the differences and why it makes what the CIA did OK.

Include the court martials of US soldiers while you're at it. You left those out for some reason.
Well, the two significant differences is that 1) Japanese waterboarding often resulted in permanent injury and death whereas, zero people were injured or died at the hands of CIA waterboarders; and 2) Japanese were tried and convicted of war crimes for their application of waterboarding; whereas, people like you have spent the better part of the past 12 years whining about what the CIA did being a war crimes and, yet, can't seem to find a competent court with jurisdiction to bring charges.

Those are the two that matter.

[ChumpDumper]

lol you're saying it's not torture because it wasn't prosecuted as a war crime in this case?

That means nothing.

And you didn't describe the differences in the specifically prosecuted Japanese crimes and you are afraid to talk about the court martials.

Your silence says it all.

Thank you for your cowardice, chicken hawk.

[angrydude]

Anybody who thinks it's a good thing the CIA tortured all those people.......and I know there are lots of them.....i can't even listen to the radio in the car because I hear so many of them......you're what's wrong with this world. You're the same exact people who would have supported every horrible evil thing ever done by a government. If you were in the middle east and muslim, you'd be signing up to be a member of ISIS. If you lived in nazi germany you'd go to all of Hitler's rallies. If you lived in the middle ages you'd be all for burning witches at the stake.

What the CIA did is not excusable. It's bullshit, and the government knows it. The government lies. It especially lies about the war on terror. And you'd be a fool to believe them.

It's called moral clarity. Get some.

[ElNono]

Anybody who thinks it's a good thing the CIA tortured all those people.......and I know there are lots of them.....i can't even listen to the radio in the car because I hear so many of them......you're what's wrong with this world. You're the same exact people who would have supported every horrible evil thing ever done by a government. If you were in the middle east and muslim, you'd be signing up to be a member of ISIS. If you lived in nazi germany you'd go to all of Hitler's rallies. If you lived in the middle ages you'd be all for burning witches at the stake.

What the CIA did is not excusable. It's bullshit, and the government knows it. The government lies. It especially lies about the war on terror. And you'd be a fool to believe them.

It's called moral clarity. Get some.

I think there's a self-delusion aspect to it too on some of those people... still inexcusable, but fairly sad.

[Winehole23]

I am pretty confident that the random innocent goat herders have been culled out and sent back over the years.Easy for you to say. You ain't been in Gitmo for a few years for no good reason and tortured into the bargain.

[Winehole23]

Well, this is where the intelligence community says you're wrong.Where please? Your last source was bloviation and bs.

[Winehole23]

A statement on torture by John McCain is the same as a statement on gun violence by Gabby Giffords. Understandably biased.kinda like saying we shouldn't listen to Jacqui Saburido related to drunk driving.

even if John McCain is biased against torture, qua torture victim, it is entirely possible, even very probable, his honor and morals already precluded it. the destigmatization of torture post 9/11 has put the scruple against it -- part of conventional morality -- in the shade.

[Yonivore]

Where please? Your last source was bloviation and bs.
And, to you, they all will be so, what's the point?

[Yonivore]

kinda like saying we shouldn't listen to Jacqui Saburido related to drunk driving.

even if John McCain is biased against torture, qua torture victim, it is entirely possible, even very probable, his honor and morals already precluded it. the destigmatization of torture post 9/11 has put the scruple against it -- part of conventional morality -- in the shade.
That you, and others, are unwilling to put the enhanced interrogation techniques into the context of what was going on when they were employed demonstrates your unwillingness to even consider the tactics were a valuable tool that prevented many other deaths.

Immediately after 9/11, there was a fear the terrorists were going to execute a second wave.

Congress and the Administration put tremendous pressure on the Intelligence community to uncover and stop subsequent attacks.

The Intelligence Community developed a plan that they then shared with the White House and Congress, asking for a legal opinion on the legality and constitutionality of their plan.

That opinion was given -- with a bright line description of where they would cross the line of both legality and constitutionality.

The Intelligence community went to work.

They kept the Congress fully informed of the tactics they were using and people on whom they were using them. (Including Dianne Feinstein)

Actionable intelligence was discerned and attacks were thwarted.

As a bonus, they obtained the name of a person that eventually led them to Osama bin Laden.

I'm okay with it. I'm not sure why you keep screaming "torture." Would I want to have any that done to me? No. But, the fact remains, while people keep screaming "torture" and "war crimes," no one is taking any concrete steps to bring the torturers and war criminals to justice. Why? Because they know what was done was neither torture nor a war crime. They also know they were perfectly fine with it all when it was going on, including Democrat members of Congress that were kept fully informed o fthe program.

We're confronted with an enemy that has no official state and who kills with impunity, sawing off the heads of their hostages and broadcasting the horror for the whole world to see. I don't believe our conducting some uncomfortable techniques on al Qaeda or Taliban members, with the intent of extracting information, made them any more brutal and unconscionable than they already were and continue to be.

[Winehole23]

In his view, torture is worse than killing people, because it doesn’t work, which was obvious before the release of the Senate report and further confirmed by it. A person being tortured will tell you anything you want to hear, even if it’s all lies, and a lot of the victims had to lie because they didn’t have valuable information to begin with.


“It doesn’t matter what tactics you use, you’re not going to get information if people don’t know anything and most of these Gomers didn’t know shit,” he said. “Who in the leadership was stupid enough to think they would? Why would these guys have detailed knowledge about plans and targeting? Even if they were hard-core jihadis who took part in operations, that doesn’t mean they would have knowledge of upcoming attacks.”


Once the U.S. went into “the business of interrogation,” U.S. allies in the “war on terror” were encouraged to hand over suspects — and they did, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Lots of others were turned in by bounty hunters. And of course we know that a lot of people falsely dimed out their personal enemies or political rivals.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/10/lot-gomers-didnt-know-shit-former-cia-officer-torture-report/

[Winehole23]

That you, and others, are unwilling to put the enhanced interrogation techniques into the context of what was going on when they were employed demonstrates your unwillingness to even consider the tactics were a valuable tool that prevented many other deaths.Assumed and claimed, but this hasn't been shown.



They kept the Congress fully informed of the tactics they were using and people on whom they were using them. (Including Dianne Feinstein)They did not. The very existence of this report owes partly to the fact that the CIA wasn't upfront with Congress.


Actionable intelligence was discerned and attacks were thwarted.Prove it.



I'm okay with it. I'm not sure why you keep screaming "torture." Would I want to have any that done to me? No. But, the fact remains, while people keep screaming "torture" and "war crimes," no one is taking any concrete steps to bring the torturers and war criminals to justice. Why? Because they know what was done was neither torture nor a war crime. They also know they were perfectly fine with it all when it was going on, including Democrat members of Congress that were kept fully informed o fthe program.Fiat reasoning and obfuscation. What we did fits commonly accepted and legally agreed to definitions of torture and war crimes.


We're confronted with an enemy that has no official state and who kills with impunity, sawing off the heads of their hostages and broadcasting the horror for the whole world to see. I don't believe our conducting some uncomfortable techniques on al Qaeda or Taliban members, with the intent of extracting information, made them any more brutal and unconscionable than they already were and continue to be.Morality is not relative. The depravity of one's adversary does not mitigate one's own evil conduct.

Also, not everyone who was subjected to torture was Al Qaeda and Taliban, not by a long shot.

[Winehole23]

Torture is immoral and illegal. It's an abuse of power and honor. It might be the exemplary case of inhumanity.

[Winehole23]

It’s official: torture doesn’t work. Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not in fact “produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden," as former Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in 2011. Those are among the central findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation and detention after 9/11.


The report’s executive summary is expected to be released Tuesday. After reviewing thousands of the CIA’s own documents, the committee has concluded that torture was ineffective as an intelligence-gathering technique. Torture produced little information of value, and what little it did produce could’ve been gained through humane, legal methods that uphold American ideals.


I had long since come to that conclusion myself. As special agent in charge of the criminal investigation task force with investigators and intelligence personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I was privy to the information provided by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I was aware of no valuable information that came from waterboarding. And the Senate Intelligence Committee—which had access to all CIA documents related to the “enhanced interrogation” program—has concluded that abusive techniques didn’t help the hunt for Bin Laden. Cheney’s claim that the frequent waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed “produced phenomenal results for us" is simply false.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-dick-cheney-110306.html#ixzz3LbGeyLir

[Winehole23]

Mark Fallon served as an interrogator for more than 30 years, including as a Naval Criminal Investigative Service special agent and within the Department of Homeland Security, as the assistant director for training of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

[Yonivore]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/10/lot-gomers-didnt-know-shit-former-cia-officer-torture-report/


In his view, torture is worse than killing people, because it doesn’t work, which was obvious before the release of the Senate report and further confirmed by it. A person being tortured will tell you anything you want to hear, even if it’s all lies, and a lot of the victims had to lie because they didn’t have valuable information to begin with.
But, according to anyone who had direct knowledge of the events -- including Democrat CIA Director Leon Panetta, the enhanced interrogation techniques did work to identify and thwart further terrorist attacks after 9/11.


“It doesn’t matter what tactics you use, you’re not going to get information if people don’t know anything and most of these Gomers didn’t know shit,” he said. “Who in the leadership was stupid enough to think they would? Why would these guys have detailed knowledge about plans and targeting? Even if they were hard-core jihadis who took part in operations, that doesn’t mean they would have knowledge of upcoming attacks.”
Again, they did obtain actionable intelligence. And, as for "Gomers," every significant person of interest is surrounded by "Gomers," Osama bin Laden was located by using these techniques to identify a "Gomer" who then led the U.S. to the compound where bin Laden was found.


Once the U.S. went into “the business of interrogation,” U.S. allies in the “war on terror” were encouraged to hand over suspects — and they did, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Lots of others were turned in by bounty hunters. And of course we know that a lot of people falsely dimed out their personal enemies or political rivals.
You're now conflating detention with enhanced interrogation techniques. To my knowledge, no one was subjected to the enhanced interrogation techniques that U.S. authorities did not believe possessed information they needed to obtain.

[Winehole23]

The CIA imprisoned and mistreated two individuals who were entirely innocent, even by the Agency's own warped standards. Why? To be used as leverage against family members. One of them, Nazar Ali, was mentally disabled. The CIA sent videos to Ali's family showing him weeping under interrogation.

[Winehole23]

But, according to anyone who had direct knowledge of the events -- including Democrat CIA Director Leon Panetta, the enhanced interrogation techniques did work to identify and thwart further terrorist attacks after 9/11.often claimed, but never shown. US Senators who reviewed the program -- and were briefed in detail on it-- do not think so.


Again, they did obtain actionable intelligence. And, as for "Gomers," every significant person of interest is surrounded by "Gomers," Osama bin Laden was located by using these techniques to identify a "Gomer" who then led the U.S. to the compound where bin Laden was found.does not prove that no other means effective means to get the same information existed. it does not prove torture necessary, nor does tactical expedience justify torture. it's immoral, illegal and inhumane according to laws and conventions the US has already agreed to.



You're now conflating detention with enhanced interrogation techniques. it's hard to think of any torture worse than being jailed unjustly, indefinitely and abusively.


To my knowledge, no one was subjected to the enhanced interrogation techniques that U.S. authorities did not believe possessed information they needed to obtain.read the fucking report. did you catch the part about detaining innocent family members to put pressure on bad guys?

[Winehole23]

did you read the part about torturing our own informants? surely we did so in good faith, but does that excuse it?

[Spurminator]

But, according to anyone who had direct knowledge of the events -- including Democrat CIA Director Leon Panetta, the enhanced interrogation techniques did work to identify and thwart further terrorist attacks after 9/11.

What a surprise that the CIA Director would say the CIA's techniques were effective!

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni is just a partisan Kool Aid drinker.

A Republican said assplay was good and proper and desirable and just dandy to have done to Americans. Yoni has been in a constant state of arousal ever since.

Look, I know Americans felt vulnerable and impotent after 9/11; that's precisely why they went too far to try to make up for their abject failures in their real job before 9/11.

That does not make it right. Now Yoni is pulling out every excuse used by Japanese and Nazi war criminals -- just following orders, it was war, imminent danger -- proving he is no better than those criminals or the Islamists themselves. He's just that kind of person. He doesn't want America to be exceptional and he is part of the reason it is not seen as exceptional anymore.

[Winehole23]

1) "Rectal Feeding."


Two phrases leap out at you in the very first pages of the report. Feinstein's authors drop the terms "rectal feeding" and "rectal hydration" on page four, in an early summary of abuses, and then simply move on without explaining:
At least five CIA detainees were subjected to "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water "baths…"



As a reader I was really distracted by the use of quotation marks around the term "rectal rehydration" while there was no punctuation at all around rectal feeding. Was I supposed to know what the one was, and not the other?
Reading on, one at first thinks that these are just fancy terms for simple enemas and force-feedings – techniques the interrogators used to try to circumvent the attempts of terror suspects like Khalid-Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah to resist the intake of food and water. In some places, the shoving of water and sustenance up the terror-suspect's backside is described as merely more efficient than IV methods, quoting CIA operatives:


[W]hile IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion in ending water refusal in another case…



But as you read on, you start to sense a kind of fondness for the rectal procedures that is frankly a little creepy. Sounding like a man describing with satisfaction how well his new remote-control garage-door opener works, one officer reported:


Regarding the rectal tube, if you place it and open up the IV tubing, the flow will self regulate, sloshing up the large intestines… What I infer is that you get a tube up as far as you can, then open the IV wide. No need to squeeze the bag – let gravity do the work.



Then, later, you find out that the "rectal hydration" procedures were not only executed to fill resisting suspects with fluid and sustenance. They were also used to put them in a talking mood. The report talks of how "rectal hydration" of KSM was ordered "without a determination of medical need," which the chief interrogator explained was indicative of the questioner's "total control over the detainee."


In the case of KSM, they used the technique as a means to "clear a person's head," and believed it was helpful in getting him to talk. The report explains that KSM fabricated information during this period, leading to the capture and CIA detention of "two innocent individuals."


Then, in a classic case of "force drift (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/force-drift)" – the phenomenon in which the use of one permitted interrogation technique inexorably moves toward harsher and weirder behaviors – the CIA interrogators got downright bizarre with a suspect named Majid Khan:
Majid Khan's "lunch tray," consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was "pureed" and rectally infused.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/10-craziest-things-in-the-senate-report-on-torture-20141210#ixzz3LbY7gO3v

[Winehole23]

For the record, here is a list of these named permitted techniques, as outlined in the report:


(1) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.

[Winehole23]

Sleep Deprivation.

The report notes
:

Beginning the evening of March 18, 2003, KSM began a period of sleep deprivation, most of it in the standing position, which would last for seven and a half days, or approximately 180 hours.



After I tweeted yesterday that I didn't know 180 hours of sleep deprivation was medically possible, a few meth users emailed me expressing similar surprise. "A hundred, for sure, but you start to fall down and drool after that," wrote one.


The report is full of descriptions of sleep deprivation efforts, and carefully noted how much each suspect was subjected to. It seems there was a hierarchy: the higher on the suspected-terrorist totem pole, the longer the subject was deprived of sleep.
A suspected extremist named Gul Rahman (who died, incidentally – more below) got "48 hours of sleep deprivation, auditory overload, total darkness, isolation, a cold shower, and 'rough treatment.'" Meanwhile, a Tunisian named Rafiq Bashir al-Hami (http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/892-rafiq-bin-bashir-bin-jalud-al-hami), suspected of having ties to some of the "Hamburg Cell" responsible for the 9/11 attacks, got a meth-friendly 72 hours of sleep deprivation. And the "mastermind" KSM got the Guinness-Book 180 hour treatment, most of it standing.


I knew our government was using sleep deprivation, but 180 hours gets into NKVD/Felix Dzerzhinsky (https://books.google.com/books?id=16l79hfKMzEC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=%22robert+conquest%22+interrogation+sleep&source=bl&ots=KyZNXs9g0B&sig=tq2hs8Hx7jruOmryQpJhuFh-HSg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnqIVNeMN6TGsQTL04HIAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20conquest%22%20interrogation%20sleep&f=false) territory. This is classic torture-regime stuff, and one of the better examples of why a sanitary term like "enhanced interrogation" just doesn't cut it.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/10-craziest-things-in-the-senate-report-on-torture-20141210#ixzz3LbYzLBKF

[Winehole23]

so much for the canard that EITs led to the elimiantion of UBL. the bolded is from the report.


But the report is pretty clear that they didn't get much, if anything, of value from these techniques. It's littered throughout with examples of mountains of false leads and vast stretches of time wasted. Moreover, many of the instances of intel that supposedly was gleaned by torture turned out, upon closer examination, to have come from information provided before the interrogators started putting people in boxes or revving cordless drills up near their genitalia. The case of the famous Usama bin Laden courier, who is supposed to have lead to the Evil One's capture, is one such example:


The most accurate information on Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti — a facilitator whose identification and tracking led to the identification of UBL's compound and the operation that resulted in UBL's death — obtained from a CIA detainee was provided by a CIA detainee who had not yet been subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques; and CIA detainees who were subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques withheld and fabricated information about Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/10-craziest-things-in-the-senate-report-on-torture-20141210#ixzz3LbZssbKI

[boutons_deux]

at least the rectal feeding of CIA captive was of a proven-healthy "Mediterranean diet"

When enemies rectally feed a US military captives, will it be a purified BigMac with cheese, 32 oz sugar drink, and large fries?

[Winehole23]

from the report:


At times, the detainees at COBALT were walked around naked or were shackled with their hands above their heads for extended periods of time. Other times, the detainees at COBALT were subjected to what was described as a "rough takedown," in which approximately five CIA officers would scream at a detainee, drag him outside of his cell, cut his clothes off, and secure him with Mylar tape. The detainee would then be hooded and dragged up and down a long corridor while being slapped and punched.

[Winehole23]

add insects:


Over the course of [an] entire 20-day "aggressive phase of interrogation," Abu Zubaydah spent a total of 266 hours (11 days, 2 hours) in the large (coffin size) confinement box and 29 hours in a small confinement box, which had a width of 21 inches, a depth of 2.5 feet, and a height of 2.5 feet. The CIA interrogators told Abu Zubaydah that the only way he would leave the facility was in the coffin-shaped confinement box.

[CosmicCowboy]

so much for the canard that EITs led to the elimiantion of UBL. the bolded is from the report.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/10-craziest-things-in-the-senate-report-on-torture-20141210#ixzz3LbZssbKI

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

rolling stone = breitbart

[boutons_deux]

rolling stone = breitbart

:lol False equivalence and lies are ALL you right-wingers have.

[Winehole23]

rolling stone = breitbartthe report is the report

[Winehole23]

are you ashamed to read it?

[CosmicCowboy]

Not really. I just don't share your Guantanamo guilt. The "torture" sounds like not much more than old school fraternity hazing. it's not like they were drilling on their teeth without novocaine and asking "isss it safe"?

Blowing up suspected terrorists and their families with drone mounted hellfire missiles is much more humane.

for those that didn't get the reference...

c-OviftusB8

[Yonivore]

often claimed, but never shown. US Senators who reviewed the program -- and were briefed in detail on it-- do not think so.
And six CIA Directors (including those that served Democrat administrations) say they're lying. Hell, President Obama even changed his tune on the matter after taking office.


does not prove that no other means effective means to get the same information existed. it does not prove torture necessary, nor does tactical expedience justify torture. it's immoral, illegal and inhumane according to laws and conventions the US has already agreed to.
Again, you're discounting the context in which these decisions were made and the CIA did not feel they had the luxury to use less time-efficient measures.

There is still no legal finding that what was done constituted torture. There is, however, Justice Department documentation that show why the administration does not believe what was done constituted torture.

Start naming the laws that were broken.


it's hard to think of any torture worse than being jailed unjustly, indefinitely and abusively.
Oh, I can think of a few but, long-term detention isn't the subject of the report. Once again, you're conflating detention with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information from high-value terrorists.


read the fucking report. did you catch the part about detaining innocent family members to put pressure on bad guys?
So far, I've heard nothing that moves the needle for me. Why? Because I'm satisfied the techniques resulted in actionable intelligence that prevented the deaths of thousands. I'm satisfied the administration went to extraordinary lengths to define the bright line between torture and the enhanced techniques they ended up using. I'm satisfied that after a dozen years of whining about torture and war crimes, not one criminal complaint has been forwarded in any court -- domestic or international, seeking the prosecuting of anyone involved in the program.

I know you'll carry on but, as for me, it's ancient history the left continues to want to litigate in spite of losing every argument so far.

Reminds me of the light rail lunatics in Austin. The public keeps rejecting their proposition but, they keep bringing it up, every election.

[CosmicCowboy]

Eric Holders fucked up politically partisan justice department couldn't even find that any crimes had been committed.

[Yonivore]

the report is the report
And a very flawed report at that.

ST0rGMkaHT4

I'm not in favor of withholding publication of the Senate Committee report because 1) the United States doesn't cede control of our public discourse to terrorists and 2) I think it, once again, demonstrates the unwavering tendentiousness and pettiness of Left in this country. But, since the report originates in our Congress, I think it's publication demands a statement of rationale for publishing. What purpose is being served by it's publication? It calls for no remedial action. It doesn't even reveal anything new -- or that which is purported to be new can't be viewed as reliable, give the absurd self-imposed limitations of the Committee's investigation. What possible justification is there for not interviewing anyone from the agency you're investigating?

Sorry, I don't discern a clear purpose other than Dianne Feinstein is pissed and wanted to exact some parting revenge as she is removed from her Chair in January.

If you see a clear purpose for releasing a one-sided, partisan, re-hashed report -- the administration fears endangers Americans worldwide -- I'd like to hear it.

[FromWayDowntown]

John Yoo, American hero.

if there was a Rushmore for civil servants, that guy would have to be on it.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure there is a political component to the release of the summary now.

So what?

The public has a right to know about assplay being done in their name.

You got a chance to voice your support for assplay done in your name, which you quickly and eagerly did.

[Yonivore]

It's all old news and the Senate Democrats know it.

What purpose was served in releasing a report containing information everyone knew?

And, at what point do you weigh the possible negatives (security of Americans around the world) with whatever purpose you can conjure up? I'd still like to see a rationale from Feinstein for releasing this document.

[ChumpDumper]

It's all old news and the Senate Democrats know it.

What purpose was served in releasing a report containing information everyone knew?

And, at what point do you weigh the possible negatives (security of Americans around the world) with whatever purpose you can conjure up? I'd still like to see a rationale from Feinstein for releasing this document.You're trying to have it both ways.

You're saying everyone already knows all of this, but the people who you say already know this will somehow act differently regarding the security of Americans around the world.

Pick a lane.

Does everyone already know everything or not?

[FromWayDowntown]

.

[Yonivore]

Gruber didn't write ACA.
JvZs9w824CE#t=45

"Full disclosure, I helped write the bill.

[SnakeBoy]

For the record, here is a list of these named permitted techniques, as outlined in the report:


(1) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.

Sucks that our govt spent so much time and money coming up with these things. They could have just forced the terrorists to be contestants on Fear Factor.

[Winehole23]

totally disingenuous, SnakeBoy, and not at all funny.

[Winehole23]

Laws broken:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113C
American Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Convention_on_Human_Rights) (1977)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Righ ts) (signed 1977; ratified 1992).
UN Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture)(signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified by the US Senate in 1994)
The War Crimes Act of 1996

the alien tort act allows tortured aliens to bring suit in district courts: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350

the Army Field Manual prohibits torture:


In late 2006, the military issued updated field manuals on intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf), September 2006) and counterinsurgency (FM 3-24. Counterinsurgency (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf), December 2006). Both manuals reiterated that "no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in U.S. law."[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_in_the_United_States#cite_note-16) Specific techniques prohibited in the intelligence collection manual include:



Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner;
Hooding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooding), that is, placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes;
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain;
Waterboarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding);
Using military working dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_dogs);
Inducing hypothermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia) or heat injury;
Conducting mock executions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_execution);
Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_in_the_United_States#cite_note-17)

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sorry that they only waterboarded the guy responsible for this:

eMBB_HYlz2Y

BooHooHoo

[Yonivore]

Laws broken:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113C
American Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Convention_on_Human_Rights) (1977)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Righ ts) (signed 1977; ratified 1992).
UN Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture)(signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified by the US Senate in 1994)
The War Crimes Act of 1996

the alien tort act allows tortured aliens to bring suit in district courts: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350

the Army Field Manual prohibits torture:
Where are the prosecutions?

My understanding is that most of what you listed does not apply because the provision are only applicable to signatories and uniformed armies and, to my knowledge, al Qaeda and the Taliban aren't member of the UN, nor did they identify as a regular army.

All of your examples pre-date 2001 and, apparently, everyone was satisfied that the Department of Justice adequately addressed the provisions of these documents. If not, I'm sure there would have been more than just the caterwauling about "torture" and "war crimes."

Besides, there has yet to be a legal finding that any of the enhanced procedures used constituted torture.

And, I don't believe the CIA is subject to the Army Field Manual...or, wasn't at the time.

[Yonivore]

totally disingenuous, SnakeBoy, and not at all funny.
Neither is the murder of 3,000 people.

[boutons_deux]

JvZs9w824CE#t=45

no doubt, he was an ACA consultant.

probably 10s or 100s of people contributed to bill, but health executive/lobbyist Liz Fowler was lady, along with her scumbag health insurance lobbyists, who had overall responsibility for the text.

but keep trying to stick Gruber with sole and/or primary responsilibity for

grubergate! the ankle biters and mad dogs are out for blood!

Benghazigate!

btw, The American People ARE pretty stupid, esp the right wingers, rednecks, bubbas, Christian Taliban, Bible humpers, Repug voters

[Yonivore]

no doubt, he was an ACA consultant.

probably 10s or 100s of people contributed to bill, but health executive/lobbyist Liz Fowler was lady, along with her scumbag health insurance lobbyists, who had overall responsibility for the text.

but keep trying to stick Gruber with sole and/or primary responsilibity for

grubergate! the ankle biters and mad dogs are out for blood!

Benghazigate!

btw, The American People ARE pretty stupid, esp the right wingers, rednecks, bubbas, Christian Taliban, Bible humpers, Repug voters
But, Gruber was the resident expert on the topic of controversy, federal subsidies of State Exchanges.

You keep saying it is the Right that is stupid but, they saw right through the ruse from the very beginning -- No, Gruber was talking about his friends on the Left that will drink from whatever cup of Koolaid the Obama administration hands them.

[Yonivore]

You know, words matter.

DOJ Lawyers Bybee and Yoo did extensive expositions on the relevant laws and, to their credit, made a convincing argument that the technique use were not in violation of any U.S. Law or International Convention.

That their findings only produced a gnashing of teeth and not any successful legal challenges, tells me all I need to know.

Good on them.

You all should read the Bybee memo sometime, it is a masterpiece of legal understanding on the laws of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.

[ChumpDumper]

Where are the prosecutions?There don't have to be prosecutions, genius.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, words matter.

DOJ Lawyers Bybee and Yoo did extensive expositions on the relevant laws and, to their credit, made a convincing argument that the technique use were not in violation of any U.S. Law or International Convention.

That their findings only produced a gnashing of teeth and not any successful legal challenges, tells me all I need to know.

Good on them.

You all should read the Bybee memo sometime, it is a masterpiece of legal understanding on the laws of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.It's just a lawyer lawyering, but he's on your team so hooray torture!

Memos < > law.

[Yonivore]

There don't have to be prosecutions, genius.
You would think with 12 years of this nonsense someone would have the balls to file a criminal complaint -- somewhere. Are the complainers just going to go on making themselves look silly?

[Yonivore]

It's just a lawyer lawyering, but he's on your team so hooray torture!

Memos < > law.
Complaining <> law either. At least Bybee and Yoo spoke to each specific element of the law, individually and in detail. And, they obviously made a compelling case.

[ChumpDumper]

You would think with 12 years of this nonsense someone would have the balls to file a criminal complaint -- somewhere. Are the complainers just going to go on making themselves look silly?It's not necessary, there is plenty of precedent for such things not actually being prosecuted. If Obama wants to make a nice statement about it, he could just pardon those involved.


Complaining <> law either. At least Bybee and Yoo spoke to each specific element of the law, individually and in detail. And, they obviously made a compelling case.They simply worked in an echo chamber to get the result they wanted, which was halfway plausible legal cover for torture. It's not difficult to say you think torture is dandy.

[Yonivore]

It's not necessary, there is plenty of precedent for such things not actually being prosecuted. If Obama wants to make a nice statement about it, he could just pardon those involved.
Except that there's nothing to pardon.


They simply worked in an echo chamber to get the result they wanted, which was halfway plausible legal cover for torture. It's not difficult to say you think torture is dandy.
I think the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques against the very few high-value terrorist targets is okay. Yes.

[Yonivore]

Here's another question to ponder...

Why, when the House, with a Republican majority, issued a report criticizing government misdeeds or failures (Benghazi or IRS political harassment), the media dismissed it as a mere "partisan" exercise but, when Senate Democrats issue a partisan report attacking the CIA, it's treated as gospel by the media?

Just another example of the left-leaning bias of the media.

[ChumpDumper]

Except that there's nothing to pardon.Sure there is.



I think the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques against the very few high-value terrorist targets is okay. Yes.Why is it bad in other cases?

Why can't it be used against anyone in any interrogation? You never answer that question when asked.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's another question to ponder...

Why, when the House, with a Republican majority, issued a report criticizing government misdeeds or failures (Benghazi or IRS political harassment), the media dismissed it as a mere "partisan" exercise but, when Senate Democrats issue a partisan report attacking the CIA, it's treated as gospel by the media?

Just another example of the left-leaning bias of the media.Well, the latest bipartisan Benghazi report confirms that the partisan conspiracy talk was just that.

Given the overall credibility of the CIA since its creation, I feel quite comfortable with the notion they are lying through their teeth no matter who is President. What reason do you have to believe differently?

[Yonivore]

Sure there is.
No, there's not.


Why is it bad in other cases?
Never said it was; I just said I'm okay with it in the cases discussed in the Senate report.


Why can't it be used against anyone in any interrogation? You never answer that question when asked.
Don't recall it being asked. First, the people against whom it was was used fit into a very finite set of people -- terrorists with no nation-state or formal army who had information that could lead to the disruption of further terrorism that would claim countless more innocent lives, and the location of other key terrorists leaders. Should we ever have to extract information, similar to what was being sought from those discussed in the report -- I'd be fine with it, all over again.

You betcha!

[Yonivore]

Well, the latest bipartisan Benghazi report confirms that the partisan conspiracy talk was just that.
Actually, it doesn't. However, I'm confident a bi-partisan report on the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques would result in an exoneration of them.


Given the overall credibility of the CIA since its creation, I feel quite comfortable with the notion they are lying through their teeth no matter who is President. What reason do you have to believe differently?
No evidence needed for you, eh. Nice position.

[ChumpDumper]

No, there's not.Sure there is.


Never said it was; I just said I'm okay with it in the cases discussed in the Senate report.So you need to tell me when you think it wouldn't be good and why. Otherwise, I will have to assume you think it is acceptable in any situation since it is so effective and harmless.



Don't recall it being asked. First, the people against whom it was was used fit into a very finite set of people -- terrorists with no nation-state or formal army who had information that could lead to the disruption of further terrorism that would claim countless more innocent lives, and the location of other key terrorists leaders. Should we ever have to extract information, similar to what was being sought from those discussed in the report -- I'd be fine with it, all over again.

You betcha!But why limit it to those conditions? What is to stop anyone from using it for any purpose?

[ChumpDumper]

No evidence needed for you, eh. Nice position.The only evidence you cite is the word of the CIA. My position is that isn't enough. Given the agency's history of lying to the public since it's creation and the actual documents where they plan to lie to Congress, what specifically makes these statements more credible other than it's peripherally supporting your team?

[Winehole23]

good discussion here: http://theotherjournal.com/2009/05/08/telling-the-truth-about-ourselves-torture-and-eucharist-in-the-u-s-popular-imaginat/

[Yonivore]

Sure there is.
Yep, there is.


So you need to tell me when you think it wouldn't be good and why. Otherwise, I will have to assume you think it is acceptable in any situation since it is so effective and harmless.
I did in the very next paragraph.


But why limit it to those conditions? What is to stop anyone from using it for any purpose?
I suggest you read the Bybee and Yoo memos, it's explained there; probably better than I could do for you.

[Yonivore]

The only evidence you cite is the word of the CIA. My position is that isn't enough. Given the agency's history of lying to the public since it's creation and the actual documents where they plan to lie to Congress, what specifically makes these statements more credible other than it's peripherally supporting your team?
The report provides no evidence of the contrary, just the word of the CIA...an incomplete account, at that.

[ChumpDumper]

I did in the very next paragraph.


I suggest you read the Bybee and Yoo memos, it's explained there; probably better than I could do for you.No, you need to tell me where you think it is applicable and where it is not.

I am asking you, not them.

Think for yourself for once.

[Yonivore]

No, you need to tell me where you think it is applicable and where it is not.

I am asking you, not them.

Think for yourself for once.
I don't need to tell you anything, pack sand.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't need to tell you anything, pack sand.Sure you don't need to.

But your refusal tells me volumes.

You're a parrot who relies on others to do the thinking for you. You wouldn't dare even potentially disagree with those you are following simply because of who hired them.

[Yonivore]

Sure you don't need to.

But your refusal tells me volumes.

You're a parrot who relies on others to do the thinking for you. You wouldn't dare even potentially disagree with those you are following simply because of who hired them.
It's not a refusal, I've already paraphrased a couple of times the rationale behind the Bybee and Yoo memos, merely referring back to that and them should be sufficient for most people but, I realize you're special. Sorry, I'm not a Special Education teach, Chump.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not a refusal, I've already paraphrased a couple of times the rationale behind the Bybee and Yoo memos, merely referring back to that and them should be sufficient for most people but, I realize you're special. Sorry, I'm not a Special Education teach, Chump.You dodged the question. You simply rehashed where they were used. You're afraid to say whether you would approve of their use in any other situation or not.

I realize I asked far too much of you to have your own opinion. You couldn't teach anyone anything -- copy and paste is not education, yoni.

[Yonivore]

You dodged the question. You simply rehashed where they were used. You're afraid to say whether you would approve of their use in any other situation or not.
Not a dodge; I specifically stated I would be comfortable with them being used again under the same circumstances; which I believe to be unique.


I realize I asked far too much of you to have your own opinion. You couldn't teach anyone anything -- copy and paste is not education, yoni.
I don't pretend to be an educator, Chump. Having an opinion which I support with already published material is fairly common.

My opinion is the EITs were warranted, legal and justified. That opinion is based on a whole body of information beginning with the Bybee and Yoo memos and ending, so far, with the Senate Committee report.

[ChumpDumper]

Not a dodge; I specifically stated I would be comfortable with them being used again under the same circumstances; which I believe to be unique.


I don't pretend to be an educator, Chump. Having an opinion which I support with already published material is fairly common.So, those are the only and exclusive circumstances under which you would approve the use of those methods?

Yes or no.

State your opinion.

[Yonivore]

So, those are the only and exclusive circumstances under which you would approve the use of those methods?

Yes or no.
Yes.


State your opinion.
I have.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes.Why only those?

Why would you exclude the use of these techniques you consider to be safe and completely effective?

[Yonivore]

Why only those?
I'm sorry, you restricted my answer to yes or no but, if you'll look back, I've already qualified the answer.


Why would you exclude the use of these techniques you consider to be safe and completely effective?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Exclude them from where?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry, you restricted my answer to yes or no but, if you'll look back, I've already qualified the answer.humor me and answer this question as asked:


Why only those?


I'm not sure what you're asking. Exclude them from where?Exclude their use under any other circumstances like you said.

[Yonivore]

humor me.
No.

[ChumpDumper]

No.Of course, there isn't a blog to tell you what to think here.

I understand.

[Yonivore]

Of course, there isn't a blog to tell you what to think here.

I understand.

Read this and you will...

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.08.01.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

Read this and you will...Is your personal opinion in someone Berto's pdf?

[Yonivore]

Is your personal opinion in someone Berto's pdf?
I'm always amused in this forum when people pretend their position is derived from some personal knowledge of the circumstances.

Your opinion is no more based on a direct knowledge of the circumstances or the law than mine. You've based your opinion on information you've consumed from other sources; as have I.

I said earlier my general opinion is the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques were warranted, legal, and justified. I based that opinion on a lot of information I've read over the years but, the Bybee memo to Attorney General Gonzales is the place where much of it is formed, yes.

This conversation between you and I long ago devolved into another of your ankle-biting, strawman strewn, annoying threads. Unless you want to start defending your position that the EIT's constituted torture and can cite specific law or legal opinions that validate that -- so we can actually discuss the merits of our arguments -- don't continue to waste our time with your pedantic nonsense.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm always amused in this forum when people pretend their position is derived from some personal knowledge of the circumstances.

Your opinion is no more based on a direct knowledge of the circumstances or the law than mine. You've based your opinion on information you've consumed from other sources; as have I.

I said earlier my general opinion is the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques were warranted, legal, and justified. I based that opinion on a lot of information I've read over the years but, the Bybee memo to Attorney General Gonzales is the place where much of it is formed, yes.

This conversation between you and I long ago devolved into another of your ankle-biting, strawman strewn, annoying threads. Unless you want to start defending your position that the EIT's constituted torture and can cite specific law or legal opinions that validate that -- so we can actually discuss the merits of our arguments -- don't continue to waste our time with your pedantic nonsense.I simply asked your opinion.

You posted not your opinion.

It's OK. I did not expect you to have an opinion of your own. No need to be pissy about it. Rather than getting upset at me why not try actually thinking for yourself?

[Yonivore]

I simply asked your opinion.

You posted not your opinion.

It's OK. I did not expect you to have an opinion of your own. No need to be pissy about it. Rather than getting upset at me why not try actually thinking for yourself?
I had previously posted my opinion and I just did it again.

And, again, you're misreading emotions. Perhaps you should give it up.

So, on what is your opinion the EITs constituted torture based?

[ChumpDumper]

I had previously posted my opinion and I just did it again.You didn't give any reasoning why you personally have that opinion and why you think it shouldn't be used in any other circumstances.

[Yonivore]

You didn't give any reasoning why you personally have that opinion and why you think it shouldn't be used in any other circumstances.
Yes, I did.

But, it's your turn. So, why do you hold the opinion the EITs constituted torture and that they shouldn't have been used in these specific cases?

[ChumpDumper]

So, on what is your opinion the EITs constituted torture based?US legal precedent.

You know, actual case law and real court decisions.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, I did.No you didn't give any reasons why you wouldn't waterboard in other situations.

Why lie?

[Yonivore]

US legal precedent.

You know, actual case law and real court decisions.
Cite the specific cases and law.

[ChumpDumper]

Cite the specific cases and law.Again?

Are you sure you remember no cases involving waterboarding in the history of the US?

I thought you were well versed in this subject.

[ChumpDumper]

Besides, I could just use the Bush administration's own definition of torture post 9/11:


Members of the security forces continued to torture and mistreat detainees and other prisoners, particularly during interrogation. Methods of torture included electric shock, beatings, suspension by the wrists or feet in contorted positions, burning, slamming testicles in desk drawers, and near drowning. In other cases, victims must remain in unnatural positions for extended periods or have bags laced with insecticide, chili powder, or gasoline placed over their heads.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18315.htm

Anything look familiar to you?

[Yonivore]

Besides, I could just use the Bush administration's own definition of torture post 9/11:

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18315.htm
What was the intent of the abuse noted in the State Department release?


Anything look familiar to you?
No. Not as it relates to the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to obtain information on imminent terrorist attacks and the whereabouts of key terrorist leaders. None whatsoever.

[ChumpDumper]

What was the intent of the abuse noted in the State Department release? Irrelevant, but thanks for characterizing the methods as abuse. Doesn't help your team much though.



No. Not as it relates to the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques to obtain information on imminent terrorist attacks and the whereabouts of key terrorist leaders. None whatsoever.Exactly the same.

Too bad for your team, but hooray for your team in this case. It's nice they took a stand against such methods of torture as those the CIA put into use.

Good for them.

They were right to speak out against them.

[Yonivore]

Irrelevant, but thanks for characterizing the methods as abuse. Doesn't help your team much though.
Actually, it's not irrelevant. Intent is important to determining criminality.


Exactly the same.
Nope. Other than using some (but, not many) of the same words, the acts described in the State Department release are not remotely related to the EITs.


Too bad for your team, but hooray for your team in this case. It's nice they took a stand against such methods of torture as those the CIA put into use.

Good for them.

They were right to speak out against them.
How are they the same?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, it's not irrelevant. Intent is important to determining criminality.Torture is torture. Why someone tortures doesn't change the torture.


Nope. Other than using some (but, not many) of the same words, the acts described in the State Department release are not remotely related to the EITs.Some are exactly the same. Too bad for your team.



How are they the same?How are they different? Intent doesn't change a method.

Stress positions are stress positions.

Near drowning is near drowning.

I'm glad they took a stand against torture.

[spurraider21]

i feel like some people here took the show 24 too seriously

[Winehole23]

Neither is the murder of 3,000 people.justifies torture how?

[Yonivore]

justifies torture how?
Who was tortured?

[Yonivore]

i feel like some people here took the show 24 too seriously
Yeah, me too.

I don't recall a scene from 24 where Jack Bauer was bound by written rules of interrogation that had been developed, vetted, and legally justified, surrounded by lawyers to make sure he didn't exceed his authority, and medical staff to insure the safety of the interrogated.

[Yonivore]

Torture is torture. Why someone tortures doesn't change the torture.
If this were true, the United Nations wouldn't have included the phrase "...for the purpose of..." after defining the acts that might constitute torture. They would have just ended with a definition of the acts that constitute torture.

IF A does Z "...for the purpose of..." Y.

That's intent.

Then, when the United States adds a signing reservation that changes the wording to "...specifically intended..." you change the intent but, whether or not it's torture still depends on an intent.

This is one of the distinction Bybee explored and interpreted to the satisfaction of almost everyone, except you and a few other Bush haters.

Torture isn't just torture, it has specific elements just like any other crime. I'm not going to fault the administration, under the circumstance in which they found themselves on September 11, 2001, for defining the bright line and developing techniques that walk right up to it. I'm satisfied they made a good faith effort to not cross the line while still achieving their immediate goal of obtaining information that ended up thwarting further terrorist attacks and led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

And, according to Bybee (and the convention itself) the UN Convention make a distinction between torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments or punishments.

In Bybee's legal opinion, which you're certainly welcome to challenge, he argues the UN only specifically outlaws torture while only discouraging the rest.

[ChumpDumper]

If this were true, the United Nations wouldn't have included the phrase "...for the purpose of..." after defining the acts that might constitute torture. They would have just ended with a definition of the acts that constitute torture.

IF A does Z "...for the purpose of..." Y.

That's intent.

Then, when the United States adds a signing reservation that changes the wording to "...specifically intended..." you change the intent but, whether or not it's torture still depends on an intent.

This is one of the distinction Bybee explored and interpreted to the satisfaction of almost everyone, except you and a few other Bush haters.

Torture isn't just torture, it has specific elements just like any other crime. I'm not going to fault the administration, under the circumstance in which they found themselves on September 11, 2001, for defining the bright line and developing techniques that walk right up to it. I'm satisfied they made a good faith effort to not cross the line while still achieving their immediate goal of obtaining information that ended up thwarting further terrorist attacks and led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

And, according to Bybee (and the convention itself) the UN Convention make a distinction between torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments or punishments.

In Bybee's legal opinion, which you're certainly welcome to challenge, he argues the UN only specifically outlaws torture while only discouraging the rest.

The echo chamber memo is not law.

Just another thing you can't understand.

Torture is torture. Bush administration said so.

[Yonivore]

The echo chamber memo is not law.

Just another thing you can't understand.

Torture is torture. Bush administration said so.
Saying it over and over won't change the convention or the law.

[Yonivore]

Seems legit...

http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/12/Droves-v-Torture-copy.jpg

http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/12/Inhuman-Drones-copy.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Saying it over and over won't change the convention or the law.Right, that was ultimately Bybee and Woo's problem. No matter what they wrote, it didn't change the convention or the law.

Torture is torture and what the CIA did was torture.

[Yonivore]

Right, that was ultimately Bybee and Woo's problem. No matter what they wrote, it didn't change the convention or the law.

Torture is torture and what the CIA did was torture.
So, even though the convention makes intent an element of torture and even though the United States added a reservation in 1994 changing the element of intent, you're sticking with "torture is torture?"

I guess there's no need to discuss further if you're not at least willing to respond when you're shown to be wrong on such a fundamental aspect of the argument.

[ChumpDumper]

So, even though the convention makes intent an element of torture and even though the United States added a reservation in 1994 changing the element of intent, you're sticking with "torture is torture?"I just went by what the Bush administration itself said.

They called those methods used during interrogation as torture, and Sri Lanka's situation was much more imminently dangerous with thousands more deaths than that of the US.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess there's no need to discuss further if you're not at least willing to respond when you're shown to be wrong on such a fundamental aspect of the argument.Too bad I'm not wrong.

[Yonivore]

I just went by what the Bush administration itself said.

They called those methods used during interrogation as torture, and Sri Lanka's situation was much more imminently dangerous with thousands more deaths than that of the US.
Why would you rely on an administration you inherently distrust? Why not rely on the law and convention?

Let's talk about what they say, not the Bush administration's opinion of a completely different circumstance.

[Yonivore]

Too bad I'm not wrong.
Well, again, saying something doesn't make it so.

You said intent wasn't an element of torture and I demonstrated where in the very document you hold up that it is an element of torture.

In most places in the universe, that makes you wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would you rely on an administration you inherently distrust? Why not rely on the law and convention?

Let's talk about what they say, not the Bush administration's opinion of a completely different circumstance.I said it was irrelevant to the conversation, but since you brought it up Sri Lanka was doing those things for the same reason we were. The US condemned them all the same.

And the situation there was much worse than ours.


Well, again, saying something doesn't make it so.

You said intent wasn't an element of torture and I demonstrated where in the very document you hold up that it is an element of torture.

In most places in the universe, that makes you wrong.Both tortured in the course of interrogations to get information about terra groups and attacks.

That makes them wrong.

[Yonivore]

I said it was irrelevant to the conversation, but since you brought it up Sri Lanka was doing those things for the same reason we were. The US condemned them all the same.

And the situation there was much worse than ours.

Both tortured in the course of interrogations to get information about terra groups and attacks.

That makes them wrong.
We obviously disagree.

However, on my side, I have an unchallenged legal opinion saying what was done didn't constitute torture.

You? You have a bunch of Bush haters with their panties in a wad.

I'd say my argument is a bit more legitimate than yours.

And, you can quit bringing up Sri Lanka -- there's no comparison.

[ChumpDumper]

We obviously disagree.

However, on my side, I have an unchallenged legal opinion saying what was done didn't constitute torture.It was abandoned. It's a loser by default.


You? You have a bunch of Bush haters with their panties in a wad.

I'd say my argument is a bit more legitimate than yours.Since your side already forfieted, my side won.


And, you can quit bringing up Sri Lanka -- there's no comparison.You're right -- in Sri Lanka there actually was in danger of imminent attack after suffering tens of thousands of deaths on its own soil in an area the roughly size of Indiana.

And the Bush administration rightly condemned their torture, just as the US torture should be condemned.

They gave up torture because they knew it didn't work and they knew they had gone too far. Now all you really have on your side are the dead enders who were lying from the start and never stopped.

[Yonivore]

It was abandoned. It's a loser by default.
I'm not sure it was.


Since your side already forfieted, my side won.
I'm not sure what you mean by "forfieted." Jay Bybee stands by the findings of his memorandum; Attorney General Ashcroft reaffirmed the techniques described in them and OLC Chief Steven Bradbury updated the protocols with a memo of his own -- that generally followed the model of the Bybee memo. It appears the Bradbury memos are still in effect today.


You're right -- in Sri Lanka there actually was in danger of imminent attack after suffering tens of thousands of deaths on its own soil in an area the roughly size of Indiana.
Well, you're correct in one sense - the extrajudicial killings are right out of Barack Obama's playbook...it's just that Sri Lanka doesn't have drones or Hellfire missiles to toss around.

But on your specific point, there's no indication in the report that the torture methods used by Sri Lanka are the same as the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques designed by the CIA and vetted by the U. S. Department of Justice.


And the Bush administration rightly condemned their torture, just as the US torture should be condemned.
I condemn their torture too. Feel better?


They gave up torture because they knew it didn't work and they knew they had gone too far. Now all you really have on your side are the dead enders who were lying from the start and never stopped.
And, yet, the CIA's use of EITs did result in actionable intelligence that thwarted significant terrorist plots and led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

If torture doesn't work, the EITs must not be torture because, they worked.

And, speaking of dead; no one died during the application of EITs; no one even sustained lasting injury. Another distinction from actual torture, whose employers rarely concern themselves with the health or well-being of those subjected to it and often leave their victims dead or maimed for life.

[boutons_deux]

...

[Yonivore]

dickhead SEVERELY circumscribed the 9/11 report (IIRC, he didn't even trust dubya to speak the commission without dickhead there, too), but still the report listed a bunch of stuff The Defenders of America failed to do between 20 Jan 2001 and 11 Sep 2001, if they had been serious about defending rather than HOPING for an attack so they had a pretext to invade Iraq-for-oil.

OBL and terrorism just wasn't on WH radar, at all. Their priorities were

1) ramming through, with Senate reconciliation, the biggest tax cuts in history for themselves

2) invading Iraq for oil

Iraq's oil was OBVIOUSLY much more important to BigOil man dickhead, and his SECRET "national energy policy (invade Iraq)", than OBL and terrorism.
I notice you don't post this in the thread where it is addressed...

Here, I'll cut and paste from there, perhaps you can be cajoled into actually responding to the facts...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184622&p=7725249&viewfull=1#post7725249

You're welcome.

[ChumpDumper]

If torture doesn't work, the EITs must not be torture because, they worked.Except they didn't. Real interrogators already knew this. Hell the CIA amateurs already knew this. They directed each other to lie about the effectiveness and you bought it.


And, speaking of dead; no one died during the application of EITs; no one even sustained lasting injury. Another distinction from actual torture, whose employers rarely concern themselves with the health or well-being of those subjected to it and often leave their victims dead or maimed for life.How does anyone know? It's not like those subjected the torture can say anything about it.

One died of hypothermia and they had contingency plans for guys like Zubaydah in case they did die.

You can't even get one fact right, yoni.

[Yonivore]

Except they didn't. Real interrogators already knew this. Hell the CIA amateurs already knew this. They directed each other to lie about the effectiveness and you bought it.

How does anyone know? It's not like those subjected the torture can say anything about it.

One died of hypothermia and they had contingency plans for guys like Zubaydah in case they did die.

You can't even get one fact right, yoni.
So, conjecture.

Not even the Democrats are claiming anyone died from the EITs.

And, President Obama himself, admitted the EITs obtained actionable intelligence. He just argued the information could have been obtained by other methods. And, of course, the head of the program has already stated, the other ways weren't working on these terrorists.

[ChumpDumper]

So, conjecture.

Not even the Democrats are claiming anyone died from the EITs.Keeping a guy in a cold room is an EIT.

A guy died from hypothermia after being subjected to an EIT.

You don't know your facts. This is just like net neutrality.


And, President Obama himself, admitted the EITs obtained actionable intelligence. He just argued the information could have been obtained by other methods. And, of course, the head of the program has already stated, the other ways weren't working on these terrorists.Since they had to waterboard guys hundreds of times, that didn't work either.

[Yonivore]

Keeping a guy in a cold room is an EIT.

A guy died from hypothermia after being subjected to an EIT.

You don't know your facts. This is just like net neutrality.

Since they had to waterboard guys hundreds of times, that didn't work either.
I'm persuaded they did work.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm persuaded they did work.Of course, persuaded by the people who planned to lie about it without exception.

[Yonivore]

Of course, persuaded by the people who planned to lie about it without exception.
No, not the Democrats.