Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: torture report (1 Viewer)

[johnnycakes]

Link to document. Should have been released with a free copy of Toby Keith's How Do You Like Me Now?

Conclusions:

#1: The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of

acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

#2: The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on

inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.

#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA

represented to policymakers and others.

#4: The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had

represented to policymakers and others.

#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice,

impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

#6: The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

#7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

#8: The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases

impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

#9; The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.

#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including

inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation

techniques.

#11: The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation

Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.

#12: The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program

was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early

2003.

#13: Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and

played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's

Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced

operations related to the program.

#14: CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been

approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of

individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for

detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its

enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.

#16: The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation

techniques.

#17: The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and

significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management

failures.

#18: The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and

objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and

Interrogation Program.

#19; The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and

had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation

from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.

#20; The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States'

standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

 

[badmojo1006]

This just makes me depressed

 

[NutterButter]

Solid top 20 there

 

[CGRdrJoe]

I've been reading it most of the morning, this really makes me sick:

At least five CIA detainees were subjectedto "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without

documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water "baths." The CIA led

several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting

to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box.^ Oneinterrogator told another

detainee that he would never go to court, because "we can never let the world know what I have

done to you."^ CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees withharm to theirfamilies—

to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a

detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee's] mother's throat."^

 

[johnnycakes]

#20 is the real killer... even if they were to conclude enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, which they did not, #20 would still make their use, in all but a few very limited and extreme circumstances, highly dubious.

#20; The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States'standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Hopefully this comes as no surprise to anyone but... it will.

 

[johnnycakes]

Hopefully this comes as no surprise to anyone but... it will.

Oh, there were tons and tons of conservative types scoffing at the idea that enhanced interrogation wouldn't be effective back when it was happening. I mean, it was downright unAmerican at the time to be in vocal opposition. This isn't just an inictment of the government... it really is an indictment of the entire American public because, imo, the Administration at the time knew the public sentiment was, more or less, to use "whatever means necessary" to avoid another 9-11. So here we have it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Hopefully this comes as no surprise to anyone but... it will.

Oh, there were tons and tons of conservative types scoffing at the idea that enhanced interrogation wouldn't be effective back when it was happening. I mean, it was downright unAmerican at the time to be in vocal opposition. This isn't just an inictment of the government... it really is an indictment of the entire American public because, imo, the Administration at the time knew the public sentiment was, more or less, to use "whatever means necessary" to avoid another 9-11. So here we have it.

Being tough on crime has always been an excuse to do stupid ####.

 

[timschochet]

Where are all the people who defended it?

 

[Jackstraw]

"Rectal exams with excessive force"

 

[johnnycakes]

"Rectal exams with excessive force"

Don't miss out on the "rectal rehydration" and rectal feeding parts!

 

[jonessed]

You guys are some damn fast readers.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Where are all the people who defended it?

Retired and rich from Halliburton. PHOOOOOOOOOEY!!!!!!

 

[Fennis]

IMO #21 CIA bans Chinese wives was just over the top

 

[johnnycakes]

IMO #21 CIA bans Chinese wives was just over the top

 

[Parrothead]

#22 CIA supports TCU over OSU

 

[Doug B]

Not advocating anything ... just curious:

Are there tried and true totally moral and intenationally-acceptable methods for getting lawful combatants to divulge information?

The way it's lookng now going forward, after asking reasonably, there is no way to get information out of prisoners. Something that comes to mind, though, is something of a privilege system, or a denial of luxuries after having them early on.

 

[Jackstraw]

Silence is deafening.

Drudge is leading with Lena Dunham and Gruber.

 

[Hilts]

This just makes me depressed

I knew it was bad, but reading the details is horrifying. I'm disgusted and ashamed our country pulled this nonsense.

 

[tommyboy]

Should edit thread title to reflect reality. senate dems released this report

 

[tommyboy]

Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago

 

[johnnycakes]

This just makes me depressed

I knew it was bad, but reading the details is horrifying. I'm disgusted and ashamed our country pulled this nonsense.

I'm surprised we stopped as short as we did. I still think there's a lot of covert "abuse" or even executions that we just never hear about. But then I used to work with a Jewish guy (originally from Germany) who served with the US Army during WWII as a translator. He described stuff you just wouldn't believe and that makes this stuff look like absolutely nothing.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago

Many?

 

[coyote5]

But we got Osama!

 

[coyote5]

This just makes me depressed

I knew it was bad, but reading the details is horrifying. I'm disgusted and ashamed our country pulled this nonsense.

I'm surprised we stopped as short as we did. I still think there's a lot of covert "abuse" or even executions that we just never hear about. But then I used to work with a Jewish guy (originally from Germany) who served with the US Army during WWII as a translator. He described stuff you just wouldn't believe and that makes this stuff look like absolutely nothing.

such as?

 

[johnnycakes]

This just makes me depressed

I knew it was bad, but reading the details is horrifying. I'm disgusted and ashamed our country pulled this nonsense.

I'm surprised we stopped as short as we did. I still think there's a lot of covert "abuse" or even executions that we just never hear about. But then I used to work with a Jewish guy (originally from Germany) who served with the US Army during WWII as a translator. He described stuff you just wouldn't believe and that makes this stuff look like absolutely nothing.

such as?

The same kind of crap you used to hear about in Vietnam....

You have several prisoners lined up; you ask the first one for information; they don't give any reply, so you blow his head off in full view of the others. Then you go to the next guy. That stuff really happened. It happened in WWII for sure... I have first-hand testimony to that effect; I have heard that it happend in Vietnam, and I have a hard time believing it isn't still going on.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

 

[Josie Maran]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

What omelette?

 

[SacramentoBob]

"Rectal exams with excessive force"

Wet Dream> hey

 

[joffer]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

What omelette?

don't even bother

 

[tommyboy]

Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago

Many?

feinstien, for one (she's the committee head, that is responsible for this report)

Echoing this theme, Senator Dianne Feinstein seemed to defend the use of extraordinary measures:



I think it’s a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that. I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.

In 2011, when the danger appeared to have passed, Feinstein was suddenly aghast at the use of these measures, “I happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations were conducted, and in my view nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used.”

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-cia%E2%80%99s-greatest-fear-being-thrown-under-the-bus-by-11034

 

[MaxThreshold]

Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago

Many?

feinstien, for one (she's the committee head, that is responsible for this report)

Echoing this theme, Senator Dianne Feinstein seemed to defend the use of extraordinary measures:



I think it’s a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that. I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.

In 2011, when the danger appeared to have passed, Feinstein was suddenly aghast at the use of these measures, “I happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations were conducted, and in my view nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used.”

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-cia%E2%80%99s-greatest-fear-being-thrown-under-the-bus-by-11034

Weird. Democrats aren't usually hypocrites and liars, so this seems odd.

 

[shader]

Silence is deafening.

Drudge is leading with Lena Dunham and Gruber.

How many TV programs or movies have shown the gov't or gov't agencies torturing people. This reminds me of the spying that the NSA does. It doesn't get outrage from the general population because....everyone kind of already assumed it happens.

 

[Jackstraw]

Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago

Many?

feinstien, for one (she's the committee head, that is responsible for this report)

Echoing this theme, Senator Dianne Feinstein seemed to defend the use of extraordinary measures:



I think it’s a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that. I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.

In 2011, when the danger appeared to have passed, Feinstein was suddenly aghast at the use of these measures, “I happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations were conducted, and in my view nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used.”

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-cia%E2%80%99s-greatest-fear-being-thrown-under-the-bus-by-11034

Weird. Democrats aren't usually hypocrites and liars, so this seems odd.

Ahh the old both sides do it. Is there nothing that can stand its defense?

Cool. Let's start with the head war criminals and work our way down from there.

 

[Jackstraw]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.

 

[Todd Andrews]

sickening

 

[tommyboy]

Obama doesnt mind it

 

[MaxThreshold]

Obama doesnt mind it

Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.

You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?

 

[Jackstraw]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.

You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?

Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.

 

[Jackstraw]

Obama doesnt mind it

Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.

Are you? Are you pretty sure? Want to flesh that out. I think his lack of transparency on the issue is appalling. I think there's plenty of blame to go around but I think you need to support "doubled down" on torture.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just out of curiosity: when the US took Ahmed Abu Khattala back on a US Navy ship far far far out in international waters, basically a slow boat to New York with no prying eyes, what do you think we were doing with him?

 

[Jackstraw]

Just out of curiosity: when the US took Ahmed Abu Khattala back on a US Navy ship far far far out in international waters, basically a slow boat to New York with no prying eyes, what do you think we were doing with him?

You seem to have an opinion. Stop being cute and spit it out.

Just saw this from a Fox talking head. What a F'ed dangerous up way to think. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/09/1350554/-Fox-News-host-on-torture-report-We-are-awesome

"The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome," she said. "We’ve closed the book on it, and we’ve stopped doing it. And the reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome."

"They apologized for this country, they don’t like this country, they want us to look bad. And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us, that we are having this debate again," Tantaros continued.

 

[johnnycakes]

Interesting op/ed from the WSJ:

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives The Senate Intelligence investigators never spoke to us—the leaders of the agency whose policies they are now assailing for partisan reasons. Updated Dec. 9, 2014 12:20 p.m. ET148 COMMENTS
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

Examining how the CIA handled these matters is an important subject of continuing relevance to a nation still at war. In no way would we claim that we did everything perfectly, especially in the emergency and often-chaotic circumstances we confronted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As in all wars, there were undoubtedly things in our program that should not have happened. When we learned of them, we reported such instances to the CIA inspector general or the Justice Department and sought to take corrective action.

The country and the CIA would have benefited from a more balanced study of these programs and a corresponding set of recommendations. The committee’s report is not that study. It offers not a single recommendation.

Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.

What is wrong with the committee’s report?

First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:

• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.

• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.

• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.

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

Information provided by Zubaydah through the interrogation program led to the capture in 2002 of KSM associate and post-9/11 plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Information from both Zubaydah and al-Shibh led us to KSM. KSM then led us to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, East Asia’s chief al Qaeda ally and the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia—in which more than 200 people perished.

The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.

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

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

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

Specifically, information developed in the interrogation program piqued the CIA’s interest in the courier, placing him at the top of the list of leads to bin Laden. A detainee subjected to interrogation provided the most specific information on the courier. Additionally, KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi—both subjected to interrogation—lied about the courier at a time when both were providing honest answers to a large number of other critical questions. Since other detainees had already linked the courier to KSM and Abu Faraj, their dissembling about him had great significance.

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.

The second significant problem with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is its claim that the CIA routinely went beyond the interrogation techniques as authorized by the Justice Department. That claim is wrong.

President Obama ’s attorney general, Eric Holder , directed an experienced prosecutor, John Durham, to investigate the interrogation program in 2009. Mr. Durham examined whether any unauthorized techniques were used by CIA interrogators, and if so, whether such techniques could constitute violations of U.S. criminal statutes. In a press release, the attorney general said that Mr. Durham “examined any possible CIA involvement with the interrogation and detention of 101 detainees who were alleged to have been in U.S. custody” after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation was concluded in August 2012. It was professional and exhaustive and it determined that no prosecutable offenses were committed.

Third, the report’s argument that the CIA misled the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, and the American people is also flat-out wrong. Much of the report’s reasoning for this claim rests on its argument that the interrogation program should not have been called effective, an argument that does not stand up to the facts.

Fourth, 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.

As lamentable as the inaccuracies of the majority document are—and the impact they will have on the public’s understanding of the program—some consequences are alarming:

• Many CIA officers will be concerned that being involved in legally approved sensitive actions can open them to politically driven scrutiny and censure from a future administration.

• Foreign intelligence partners will have even less confidence that Washington, already hemorrhaging with leaks, will be able to protect their cooperation from public scrutiny. They will cooperate less with the United States.

• Terrorists, having acquired now the largest haven (in the Middle East and North Africa) and string of successes they have had in a decade, will have yet another valuable recruitment tool.

All of this means more danger for the American people and for our allies.

Anyone who has led a U.S. intelligence agency supports strong congressional oversight. It is essential as a check on leadership judgment in a profession that deals constantly with uncertainty, crises and the potential for surprise. We have all experienced and benefited from that in our careers, including at times when the judgment of overseers was critical.

When oversight works well, it is balanced, constructively critical and discreet—and offers sound recommendations. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is disrespectful of that standard.

It’s fair to ask whether the interrogation program was the right policy, but the committee never takes on this toughest of questions.

On that important issue it is important to know that the dilemma CIA officers struggled with in the aftermath of 9/11 was one that would cause discomfort for those enamored of today’s easy simplicities: Faced with post-9/11 circumstances, CIA officers knew that many would later question their decisions—as we now see—but they also believed that they would be morally culpable for the deaths of fellow citizens if they failed to gain information that could stop the next attacks.

Between 1998 and 2001, the al Qaeda leadership in South Asia attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa, a U.S. warship in the port of Aden, Yemen, and the American homeland—the most deadly single foreign attack on the U.S. in the country’s history. The al Qaeda leadership has not managed another attack on the homeland in the 13 years since, despite a strong desire to do so. The CIA’s aggressive counterterrorism policies and programs are responsible for that success.

 

[jonessed]

It's interesting that they give specific examples of information gleaned and how it was acted upon. I don't believe I have seen that before.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.

You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?

Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just out of curiosity: when the US took Ahmed Abu Khattala back on a US Navy ship far far far out in international waters, basically a slow boat to New York with no prying eyes, what do you think we were doing with him?

You seem to have an opinion. Stop being cute and spit it out.

Just saw this from a Fox talking head. What a F'ed dangerous up way to think. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/09/1350554/-Fox-News-host-on-torture-report-We-are-awesome

"The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome," she said. "We’ve closed the book on it, and we’ve stopped doing it. And the reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome."

"They apologized for this country, they don’t like this country, they want us to look bad. And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us, that we are having this debate again," Tantaros continued.

I am going to think about whether I or anyone wants to have a serious discussion here.

My point was we - ie our President, President Obama - shipped Khattala by slow boat so we could pry him apart for information, slowly, deliberately, and painfully, that's my guess. Point being, it still goes on but we no longer have our AG write memos on it. In fact he's probably not even told about it, like the old days. My guess is that is where our torture policy will stay for the coming decades, undocumented.

As for Andrea Tantaros - she's nice looking, she's a press secretary for GOP politicians, and she runs a pr firm. I'm not sure why I should consider her opinion on torture anymore than I should consider the opinion of an MSNBC pundit talking about how women or blacks are hated second class citizens in America. - As for her actual opinion as stated, it's puerile considering how important an issue this is. Yes it's wrong and sad if Fox instructs its listeners to fistbump about the report.

 

[Koya]

Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago

Why would anyone's knee jerk reaction to this be in any way partisan?

WE FAILED.

WE FAILED AS A NATION TO LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS.

Let's ####### be honest, FOR ONCE, about an issue and determine how we as a nation - not a nation of democrats or republicans but as a nation of Americans - are going to do better.

Because we failed. Plain and simple. And anyone who supported these efforts should be forced to face the sad, dangerous and criminal reality of what has taken place.

 

[RandyDB]

Interesting op/ed from the WSJ:

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.

Hmmm this is close to:

"We had evidence/reports/certain knowledge that Saddaam Hussein /Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction"

 

[whoknew]

Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......

We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.

You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?

Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.

Interesting that you condemn the terrorists when they violate the rules but are totally ok with it when the US does it.

Some would see that as a double standard or hypocritical. Like me. I see it as that.