Senate report on CIA torture techniques released

[CaptainMattJ.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-intelligence-committee-cia-torture-report.html

A scathing report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday found that the Central Intelligence Agency routinely misled the White House and Congress about the information it obtained from the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, and that its methods were more brutal than the C.I.A. acknowledged either to Bush administration officials or to the public.

[Skybird]

A state within a state. NSA, CIA, and what else there is: a state within a state. They even have their own secret laws, secret courts, a secret legislation and jurisdiction, that is. They even lie to their own government, apparently.

Thank God the state is in control of everything.

Question remains which state it actually is.

"An intelligence service's major job is not espionage against en enemy, but manipulation of the own public."

[Rockstar]

Just in case anyone would rather read the actual 525 page executive summary. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

download was somewhat slow, for me atleast.

[Armistead]

Haven't heard, but anything of real torture, severe beatings, things that actually did bodily harm? Not talking about what we...er..let other nations do for us..

[Oberon]

Wondered if somebody would bring this up.

Still, it's all in the name of keeping the bad guys out...right? :yep:

[Cybermat47]

I can't say I feel particularly sorry for the terrorists (I hope the CIA didn't screw up and accidently arrest innocent people...) there, but what the CIA is doing there is as sick as some of the things the terrorists do.

And anyway, didn't the British Intelligence services in WWII get reliable information that helped win the war by befriending German POWs? I'm pretty sure that would be more effective than shoving food up someone's backside.

[Oberon]

And anyway, didn't the British Intelligence services in WWII get reliable information that helped win the war by befriending German POWs? I'm pretty sure that would be more effective than shoving food up someone's backside.

I don't know if I'd say it helped win the war (not in as much as the Enigma breakthroughs did) but what we used to do was bug the rooms that the men were in and give them food and alcohol and see what came out.

However, I would not be at all surprised if other more...questionable...methods were also used, but, as we have seen in this report, the reliability of the information extracted by such methods is not exactly brilliant which brings into question the whole point of the affair.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I can't say I feel particularly sorry for the terrorists (I hope the CIA didn't screw up and accidently arrest innocent people...) there, but what the CIA is doing there is as sick as some of the things the terrorists do.
They did indeed arrest and torture innocent people, and in the article it says they actually tortured one guy as leverage to make his family talk. The methods the CIA used are inexcusable human rights violations, not to mention completely unreliable. Bush and Cheney will probably go to their graves without admitting that what they allowed the CIA to do was disgusting, and had little to nothing to do with the safety of the american people. :nope:

[razark]

...anything of real torture...
That really comes down to how you define "real" torture.

If medical intervention is required to revive a prisoner, I would consider that beyond the bounds of interrogation.

[Catfish]

Direct physical beating has been and is also used, right now as we read this.

Germany allows CIA planes to cross the air space for special interrogations, to take some prisoners to e.g. Poland where US laws do not apply. But there it is being done by Americans, not Polish people.
It all cries to the heavens, but it is not exactly new though.

And it is not done by the US alone, mind you.

[ikalugin]

The only real problem here that I see is the ideological one.

Ie, does the US have the right to selectively enforce it's ideals onto the other states? Or even not enforce those ideals, but use the enforcement of those ideals as an excuse for major geopolitical (often armed) intervention?

Interestingly enough only now does the ICC begin to look into the whole Afghanistan (and US war on terror in general) mess, not that there would be a proper investigation or anything (as per letter of International Law half of the world's leading politicians could be found guilty of some crime against peace or humanity if one looks well enough).

[Catfish]

The only real problem here that I see is the ideological one.
Ie, does the US have the right to selectively enforce it's ideals onto the other states? [...]

Methinks it would be better to have an own thread, for this :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

Methinks it would be better to have an own thread, for this :hmmm:
Well it is all about exceptionalism that rose after the end of the Cold War I think. Ie:
- it is fine to torture bad guys, it is fine to have your friend torture guys (but not you), but it is not fine when some one else torture some one (even other bad guys). Who is bad and who is good is very situational - best example is Osama.
- it is fine to spy on your citizens, it is fine to spy on your friends, it is fine if your friends spys (but not on you), it is not fine when some one else spies on people (even on the bad people). Known example - Snowden controversy (classification of his action is a separate matter - what is important is that he confirmed the extent of the US surveillance programs). Certain charter between major IT firms and USG doesn't help this moral dilemma.
- it is fine to invade other countries for bogus reasons, to supply arms to dangerous and unstable groups of people, to bomb other countries without declaration of War (Syria). It is not fine if anyone else does this.

The list goes on, but those are the most obvious points I think.

[Jimbuna]

This matter could well have far reaching consequences over the long term for America on the international stage but it begs the question....how many other countries have and are acting in a similar fashion?

[ikalugin]

This matter could well have far reaching consequences over the long term for America on the international stage but it begs the question....how many other countries have and are acting in a similar fashion?
Ie applying torture? Depending on the definition (as some methods of torture leave little if any permanent marks) most countries do to some degree or another.

Certainly a number of US allies does - such as the Gulf States.

[Catfish]

[...] ... but what we used to do was bug the rooms that the men were in and give them food and alcohol and see what came out.
However, I would not be at all surprised if other more...questionable...methods were also used [...] .

Of course England tortured, from the SS to people who were thought to be spies of the Soviet Union right after WW2 1946 until .. today (post WW2 example with evidence prison camp Bad Nenndorf, Germany). Did not take place on english ground (though the british zones were british territory, in a way) so no home law involved, but nevertheless done by english soldiers/ interrogation 'specialists'.

As already Mr. Eric Ambler said, "certain people always find their way into certain organisations like organised eavesdropping, secret services and torture squads, in each and every country, worldwide".

This is indeed a very special breed, and they seem to have great time, in today's "politics" and geostrategic planning.
In sane and healthy societies, you could meet them in asylums.

[ikalugin]

Of course England tortured, from the SS to people who were thought to be spies of the Soviet Union right after WW2 1946 until .. today (post WW2 example with evidence prison camp Bad Nenndorf, Germany). Did not take place on english ground (though the british zones were british territory, in a way) so no home law involved, but nevertheless done by english soldiers/ interrogation 'specialists'.

As already Mr. Eric Ambler said, "certain people always find their way into certain organisations like organised eavesdropping, secret services and torture squads, in each and every country, worldwide".

This is indeed a very special breed, and they seem to have great time, in today's "politics" and geostrategic planning.
In former times, you would have met them in asylums.
Atleast now a days it is considered to be a good practice as not to leave any permanent mark on the subject as far as I know. In professional circles at least, it is with semi professional amateurs where the extremes are in my opinion.

[Catfish]

... it is considered to be a good practice as not to leave any permanent mark on the subject as far as I know. In professional circles at least, it is with semi professional amateurs where the extremes are in my opinion.

This is [insert a nice, fitting infraction here] !! (Hello Steve)

Having visual permanent marks that you keep for a lifetime have certainly other implications, but the effect of torture itself to the individual and his mind is the same, visible or invisible marks.
There is no such thing as civilized or professional torture.

People who do such things are psychopaths that deserve to be despised, charged, and locked away. At least.

Unless they make a career as patriotic heroes, in the secret services of the world :shifty:

[Dread Knot]

One would think the ancient witchcraft trials of the past should have been sufficient to show that people will eventually say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, but it never sinks in. I've since come to the conclusion that some people simply relish the act of torture, but the aren't willing to be thought of as the sort of people who enjoy torture. So they make up rationalizations. They assume that it does good, that is, torture is better than not. It also certainly appears that a fair number of people simply want to torture because they want to get pay-back from the bad guys, who we otherwise seem powerless to stop. So it becomes a short-term frustration release valve more than anything sort of effective intelligence gathering.

Anyway, with what is left of our moral authority shot, I guess it's time to turn to the immortal wisdom of Pogo again.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/180x274q90/538/soZNnc.png

[Dowly]

- it is fine to torture bad guys, it is fine to have your friend torture guys (but not you), but it is not fine when some one else torture some one (even other bad guys). Who is bad and who is good is very situational - best example is Osama.
- it is fine to spy on your citizens, it is fine to spy on your friends, it is fine if your friends spys (but not on you), it is not fine when some one else spies on people (even on the bad people). Known example - Snowden controversy (classification of his action is a separate matter - what is important is that he confirmed the extent of the US surveillance programs). Certain charter between major IT firms and USG doesn't help this moral dilemma.
- it is fine to invade other countries for bogus reasons, to supply arms to dangerous and unstable groups of people, to bomb other countries without declaration of War (Syria). It is not fine if anyone else does this.

The list goes on, but those are the most obvious points I think.
This. :up:

[Skybird]

This also seems to support my old argument that torture only has a chance to make sense - ignoring all moral aspects here - if the answer obtained could be immediately checked and so valsified or verified. Else the subject will tell just anything to escape the agony. If the subject knows that the truth or lie of its statements will be immediately revealed and so a lie will not mean escape from pain, the situation is a very different one immediately, an dit also immediately limits the situation where torture may provide some usefulness, assuming the severity of the issue it all is about indeed makes it morally defendable to consider torture (which like death "penalty" I consider to be as something that is in no way part of the ordinary tool kit of fighting crime and terrorism). - Report was summarised by media to conclude that there has been little or no useful information being obtained by the CIA in these sessions.

Apropos agony, somebody again questioned that certain things that5 do not leave bleeding scars on the body and see the flesh being snibbled off the bone, would be torture. Imposing agony on the body and soul (waterboarding), or pushing the subject physically beyond breaking point (sleep prevention) IS torture for sure.

As usual, I do not 100% rule out torture under every imaginable circumstance. But I recommend to mostly stay away from it. The dilemma is best described in this movie that I referred to in earlier years already, one of the Dirty Harry movies. The kidnapped girl is in a box somewhere, suffocating, the perpetrator knows where she is, and is in custody. What do you rate higher in this setting? The intererst of the villain laughing in your face while the girl dies - or the right of the girl to live and get freed, at the cost of the villain's rights being violated and pain inflicted on him to make him hand over the information?. In such a clear setting, the choice if as clear for me: victim's interests rule higher than bad guy's interests.

In Germany, there was a crime case some years ago, the kidnapping of a boy whose parents were millionaires. The criminal was caught, to me an clear case of very severe psychopathic personality structure, with zero space for any empathy for others, or emotional life. The responsible police inspector threatened to beat him if he would not tell them where he had hidden his victim. In fact, it did not go beyond the threatening. The subject was successfully intimidated and led them were the boy was held, but it was too late, he was dead. Later the man sued the police inspector over charges of threatening excessive force and even violation of human rights (his own violation of his victim's rights he never lost a word for), if I remember correctly, this bastard went as far as the European Courts. Disciplinary measure also were exceuted by th auhtorities by themselves. The inspector, as far as I remember, was sentenced (a scandal, imo) for a suspended milder penalty. Justice fled from making a clear moral statement here: on behalf of the victims, and against the criminal perpetrators.

These days everything, even good and evil, need to be balanced 50:50 and need to be seen in relation, it seems. Pfui.

[Dread Knot]

In Germany, there was a crime case some years ago, the kidnapping of a boy whose parents were millionaires. The criminal was caught, to me an clear case of very severe psychopathic personality structure, with zero space for any empathy for others, or emotional life. The responsible police inspector threatened to beat him if he would not tell them where he had hidden his victim. In fact, it did not go beyond the threatening. The subject was successfully intimidated and led them were the boy was held, but it was too late, he was dead. Later the man sued the police inspector over charges of threatening excessive force and even violation of human rights (his own violation of his victim's rights he never lost a word for), if I remember correctly, this bastard went as far as the European Courts. Disciplinary measure also were exceuted by th auhtorities by themselves. The inspector, as far as I remember, was sentenced (a scandal, imo) for a suspended milder penalty. Justice fled from making a clear moral statement here: on behalf of the victims, and against the criminal perpetrators.

These days everything, even good and evil, need to be balanced 50:50 and need to be seen in relation, it seems. Pfui.



In the war on terrorism you often heard the argument framed as: "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture a suspect to find out where it is?"

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time. It seems to me an interrogation subject in such a situation would be inclined to be a tougher nut to crack than average, because he only has to endure for a few hours to achieve what he would regard as a monumental success and maybe a ticket to paradise. His ultimate payoff. Unlike the kidnapper who motives were only monetary and since he's been caught he's never going to see his payoff at this point.

[ikalugin]

Note - I use word "torture" to cover a wide range of pressuring interrogation techniques (for example popularised sensory deprivation could be seen as mental torture, you could use various drugs and so on), torture though pain (especially though crippling injuries) even though (sadly) it is common is not (a proper, professional) way to go.

As such - those interrogation techniques are effective and were (still are and in the future will be) used by majority of the states in the world (and non state actors), who have a requirement for this. Thus I cannot say that it is uncivilised, provided there is a legal structure to effectively regulate this. This is so because currently a number of punitive measures (such as arrest) are already available before trial and hence any interrogation technique that is aimed at finding out facts (not pressuring the suspect to admit to a crime) and does not cause lasting damage could be conditionally justified.

[Bilge_Rat]

Again you have to look at the political context, Feinstein is releasing it now because in january the Republicans take over and she loses the spotlight. I perused both the Democratic main report and the Republican minority report, impossible to read completely since it is close to 1,000 pages, but as usual the Democrats and the Press are sensationalizing the issue.

example:

-main report/Press report that EITs are useless and yielded no useful info, yet the minority report points out several instances where EITs yielded valuable info leading to arrest of top Al Qaida suspects and foiling terrorist plots.

-main report/Press report that the CIA lied to the WH and kept info secret. As the min report points out, the CIA always acted under direct orders from WH and top WH officials were kept fully informed. Even the top Congressional leaders were briefed!

-what is most interesting is that EITs were only used for a short period of time, apparently "waterboarding" was only used for a few months in 2002-03 and only on 3 individuals.

[Bilge_Rat]

This matter could well have far reaching consequences over the long term for America on the international stage but it begs the question....how many other countries have and are acting in a similar fashion?

Russia and China do a lot worse, they just don't wash their dirty laundry in public.

[Rockstar]

How many people in that report were said to have died from torture?

In every war it is known a number of people fighting it lose their sense of direction and go off the reservation embarrassing their fellow countrymen. These should by all means face the consequences for their actions.

But what blows my mind is the very same names and politicians busting on the CIA for what I believe are a few loose cannons are the same ones who think it their solemn duty to launch drone strikes which have killed more than suspected terrorists.

Obama recently told The New Yorker that he "wrestle[s]" with civilian casualties. But, he said, he has "a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans -- killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes."

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html


We are in a world of (poop)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PV3RmnLtuPw/UIRbbH5NGZI/AAAAAAAABX4/9zLKCXJMvfc/s400/full+metal+jacket_2.gif

[Skybird]

In the war on terrorism you often heard the argument framed as: "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture a suspect to find out where it is?"

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time. It seems to me an interrogation subject in such a situation would be inclined to be a tougher nut to crack than average, because he only has to endure for a few hours to achieve what he would regard as a monumental success and maybe a ticket to paradise. His ultimate payoff. Unlike the kidnapper who motives were only monetary and since he's been caught he's never going to see his payoff at this point.

Only endure a few hours, you say. Serious...? Then you do not know what you are talking about when talking about torture.

Many years ago, I volunteered in an aid project for torture victims from the Balkans. They were shuttled my a doctor's initiative to several facilities in Germany and think Denmark. I save you the grim detials of some things I learned there, just this: that some of the troths I learned there broke a usually well-hidden corner in my soul, and that it was some of the toughest time IU ever spend on anything.

EVERYBODY has a breaking point. And that point is reached the earlier the more unscrupulous and unrestrained pain is inflicted on him.

"Just enduring a few hours"? You couldn't be more wrong.

People can hold out if they see a meaning in it. "He who has a Why to live for, bears almost every How", Viktor Frankl said (translated from the German), a survivor of the KZs and founder of the so-called Logotherapy. Take away that meaning from them, and they find it so much easier toi collapse early.

A bad guy wanting to play for time, sees a chance to do that when knowing that his lies buys him that time and gives him a timeout from the application of pain. So far you are right, then, it makes little sense to torture him if you cannot evaluate his answers relatively close in time to the situation he is in. Very short time, that is. However, if the xcase is about an informaiton nthat can be verified so quickly that the subject knows that he cannot buy himself any releif time when lying, the situaiton is a completely different one. Needless to say: that difference dramatically reduces the number of situations with circumstances where thus the use of torture could mean to make a difference (assuming that the severity of the case at stake justifies the consideration of torture, which - as I said - I would fall back to only in the fewest of cases. It should never be a routine tool from the ordinary tool box of fighting crime or terror or a war opponent.

However, realistically seen one always has to expect that torture will be used in eras of war and civil wars, on a great scale, and not just to win information, but even often to just wage war against the civil population. Which was the case on the Balkan. That is what at first I struggled to understand: that those people that had the core of their being removed from their souls - were no interrogated or asked questions, but just were tortured, and then released. No questions asked.

When you really think you can endure torture to win time, then you imply that the torturer knows limits and scruples. Talking about limited torture then. When the subject faces a torturer not knowing such scruples - then the universe around collapses for that poor thing.

Bäh. Very ugly and evil things we are speaking about. I stop it here.

[ikalugin]

When you really think you can endure torture to win time, then you imply that the torturer knows limits and scruples. Talking about limited torture then. When the subject faces a torturer not knowing such scruples - then the universe around collapses for that poor thing.

Bäh. Very ugly and evil things we are speaking about. I stop it here.
If you kill the suspect then you gain nothing. So a good interrogator would never pass the line where the suspect can no longer answer. Be that from not using extreme measures or just excellent medical support, he doesn't get the suspect killed (or permanently damaged).

And good interrogator would have said medical support even if there are no damaging techniques (the ones I believe are unethical and pointless anyway) used, as medics can provide both the wealth of information (psychological analysis for example) and aids (such as various drugs) in addition to the good care for the person in question.

[Schroeder]

And good interrogator would have said medical support even if there are no damaging techniques (the ones I believe are unethical and pointless anyway) used, as medics can provide both the wealth of information (psychological analysis for example) and aids (such as various drugs) in addition to the good care for the person in question.
That sounds just plain disgusting. Sugarcoating of it's best.
They take good care of the subject, nothing wrong going on here, move along...*scream in the background*

[Oberon]

:hmmm:

http://www.terrysfabrics.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/glass-house.jpg

[MH]

How many people in that report were said to have died from torture?

In every war it is known a number of people fighting it lose their sense of direction and go off the reservation embarrassing their fellow countrymen. These should by all means face the consequences for their actions.

But what blows my mind is the very same names and politicians busting on the CIA for what I believe are a few loose cannons are the same ones who think it their solemn duty to launch drone strikes which have killed more than suspected terrorists.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html


We are in a world of (poop)

The reason is that this torture issue is very much political issue in USA and not only... and some people need promotions while others don't want to get fired or put on trial.
I believe it is similar case with this report , while it may be correct in the context it was written it is not entirely accurate and objective on the issue.
It very much serves ideology of current administration.
Not that I personally justify mass torture , the USA as it seems lost the proportions a bit.

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb..... Again... the issue is about the portability of acquiring information.
I believe that the people who do this kind of stuff are not less smart that you and take certain things into consideration -including goose chase.
What do you mean by wasting resources?

[ikalugin]

That sounds just plain disgusting. Sugarcoating of it's best.
They take good care of the subject, nothing wrong going on here, move along...*scream in the background*
If torture is permitted (or it has to be not only banned, but that ban uniformly enforced), then I believe that well executed interrogation without permanent damage (and thus without the likelihood of the suspect dying during it), with proper legal process (ie such methods are specifically sanctioned, clear rules exist and they are uniformly enforced, in a way not dissimilar with the arrest), with compensation and rehabilitation should the suspect be found to be not guilty, is the way to go.

Otherwise, without regulation (or uniformly enforced ban), what you get is a dysfunctional (doesn't get the results) and open to misuse (because it is done secretly, without clear cut rules) instrument.

[Mittelwaechter]

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15397&LangID=E

We'll see...

[Dread Knot]

The question of whether or not torture works is similar to asking whether germ warfare or poison/nerve gas munitions are effective. It's a moot point, since they are all outlawed by the laws of human decency.

Maybe I am hopelessly naive, but it seems to me relying on torture to find a ticking time bomb makes about as much sense as doing an Indian rain dance to save a burning building.

[ikalugin]

The question of whether or not torture works is similar to asking whether germ warfare or poison/nerve gas munitions are effective. It's a moot point, since they are all outlawed by the laws of human decency.

Maybe I am hopelessly naive, but it seems to me relying on torture to find a ticking time bomb makes about as much sense as doing an Indian rain dance to save a burning building.
Are nuclear weapons outlawed?

Then one must specify as to which measures are permitted. For example what is "torture"? Is the use of drugs ethical? And so on and so forth.

[Bilge_Rat]

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf

Here is the link to the minority report if anyone is interested. When Democrats and Republicans can't even agree on basic facts and each release contradictory reports, it is hard to see this as more than a political exercise. If it was a joint report with bi-partisan support, I would take it more seriously.

[Dread Knot]

Are nuclear weapons outlawed?

Then one must specify as to which measures are permitted. For example what is "torture"? Is the use of drugs ethical? And so on and so forth.

No. But I haven't seen one fired in anger in quite some time. They are also subject to some stringent treaties regarding their numbers and testing.

When it comes to treaties, the US is a signatory to the UN convention against torture (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture#Optional _Protocol) which puts us in a sticky spot.

[ikalugin]

No. But I haven't seen one fired in anger in quite some time. They are also subject to some stringent treaties regarding their numbers and testing.

When it comes to treaties, the US is a signatory to the UN convention against torture (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture#Optional _Protocol) which puts us in a sticky spot.
Hence why I argue either for banning it (torture, and more importantly - enforcing this ban) or regulating it.

You would note that PRC and Central Asia states (and others, including USSR and it's successor - Russia) signed the very same convention. It isn't working.

[Skybird]

Maybe I am hopelessly naive, but it seems to me relying on torture to find a ticking time bomb makes about as much sense as doing an Indian rain dance to save a burning building.
Not "maybe", but for sure, if you mean that comparison serious.

Better take the scenario that I described, from the German criminal case that somehow is equal to the one describe din Dirty Harry II or IV, I think.

What would you do in that scenario? Dop myou semnetence the victim of the crime to suffocate in order to not touch the criminal? Or do you accept the lesser evil: handing over the criminal in a bit to for keeping the chance for his victim to survive?

I would chose the latter. The first option would be inhumane, cynical and tokenistic. The victim's interest to live rates infinitely higher than the wish of the criminal to see it dying just to piss the police and next of kin. There is no equality of rights and onterests in that scenario, but the one side - the victim - has all rights and all interests, and the other side - the criminal - has zero, rien, nada interests and rights in that scenario.

Putting that in doubt is not just like questioning that the victim of a physical attack has the right to defend itself, or to kill an attacker who tried to kill the victim - its even worse, its like demanding the victim to accept getting killed just so to not violate the physical integrity of the attacker.

That would not be just cynical, or inhumane. That would be malicious.

[Oberon]

But they're the bad guys, remember?

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

[Skybird]

Personally, I find the amount of violence conducted in the name of many regimes in the second and third world, in the ME, Africa and elsewhere, the sexual mutilation of girls and the general submission of women in many Islamic countries, the excesses practiced by IS and so on and on, much more worrying an issue. The US service did - and do, I'm certain - some bad stuff. Okay. But by quantity alone, they are a relatively unimportant contributor to the worldwide statistics about torture and excessive violence against prisoners and victims of war.

[Catfish]

Have just read some of the documents.
Still, a lot of things are still blackened out in the documents, but the readable 'rest' ist disgusting enough. I cannot imagine mentally sane people do that, in the name of anything.
The german Spiegel has initially published alot of it, but also meanwhile taken the worst back. I think this is good. Words fail me, i do not want any more of this stuff.

[Mr Quatro]

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf

Here is the link to the minority report if anyone is interested. When Democrats and Republicans can't even agree on basic facts and each release contradictory reports, it is hard to see this as more than a political exercise. If it was a joint report with bi-partisan support, I would take it more seriously.

I didn't see anything that the intelligence departments of foreign countries didn't already know. This just stirs up strife with normal hardworking people all over the world that pay attention to this sort of thing.

Funny that Democrats lost the national elections in November and the House and the democrats already changed the rules last year that a majority rules instead of the former 2/3rds votes needed.

Funny that the first causality is the Secretary of Defense a republican and now with this report being released the shame of it all is on Bush and the Republican Party.

Too late now ... what's next Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?

Two more years of surprises from a President that can veto any bill they put on his desk, plus pardon every druggie and drug dealer in the USA.

Not all that bad if it was just over marijuana now that I think about it.

Two more years till Jeb Bush (whoops) I mean the next president takes over.

[Cybermat47]

They did indeed arrest and torture innocent people, and in the article it says they actually tortured one guy as leverage to make his family talk. The methods the CIA used are inexcusable human rights violations, not to mention completely unreliable. Bush and Cheney will probably go to their graves without admitting that what they allowed the CIA to do was disgusting, and had little to nothing to do with the safety of the american people. :nope:

Oh, bugger :dead:

The places where all this stuff is happening should be shut down.

It's so comforting to know that the CIA thinks being sadistic to a bunch of terrorists and innocent people is more important than getting information that could help the War on Terror :/\\!!

[August]

Ie applying torture? Depending on the definition (as some methods of torture leave little if any permanent marks) most countries do to some degree or another.

Certainly a number of US allies does - such as the Gulf States.

I note that you don't have much to say about your own country. People that live in glass houses and all that...

[August]

:hmmm:

http://www.terrysfabrics.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/glass-house.jpg

Elegantly stated though roundly ignored I see.

As an aside I would hate living in that thing. Especially at night!

[Rockstar]

The reason is that this torture issue is very much political issue in USA and not only... and some people need promotions while others don't want to get fired or put on trial.
I believe it is similar case with this report , while it may be correct in the context it was written it is not entirely accurate and objective on the issue.
It very much serves ideology of current administration.
Not that I personally justify mass torture , the USA as it seems lost the proportions a bit.


I read the report and I do understand this is simply political hay at others expense, namely at the expense of an entire agency and country. It's the hypocrisy that on one hand they publically blame an entire agency for the misdeeds of a few. Then turn right around launch a drone against 'suspected' terrorist targets killing them and their wives and children as well. And have the audacity to tell me it was their solemn duty to so.

The report didn't have jack-squat to do with the good of the nation, it wasn't for justice, or for better regulations. It is just simply good ol' fashioned divisiveness.

[Oberon]

Elegantly stated though roundly ignored I see.

As an aside I would hate living in that thing. Especially at night!

One would hope that the glass is tintable... :hmmm: :yep:

[ikalugin]

Sky, you assume that humans are rational and ego centric.

I don't talk about Russia because there is nothing to talk about, it is not a part of our ideology to prosecute other states for human rights violations.

[Buddahaid]

....Two more years of surprises from a President that can veto any bill they put on his desk....

Oh please. Like the next president won't when it suits his fancy. Get real.

[Skybird]

Sky, you assume that humans are rational and ego centric.

I assume that humans are motivated and driven by egoist motives, yes. The whole model of the free market bases on that assumption as well, btw. It makes egoists interacting and cooperating for fulfilling their egoist motives. It'S kind of a super-complex coordination mechanism.

But being rational humans need to learn, it is an exercise in self-discipline, else human egoism meets emotions and sentiments, genetically rooted drives, also some ratio: but as well a good load of irrationality, short-termed instinct and last but not least: reflexes.

That man is born to be a rational being only is true in so far as one would claim that egoism always matches the understanding of being a rational motive. But even when being egoist, the chosen methods to fulfill that egoism can be irrational. Rational only is to want to be egoist. In the end, the ultimate egoism is the drive to survive and even kill othe rlife ion order to secure one's own survival, may it be a fight man against man to fight off a robber or murderer, or man slaughtering an animal to eat it.

And as a former psychologist you will not convince me from man being all-rational by birth anyway. Rationality is just part of the whole package. And a relatively small one. ;)

I don't talk about Russia because there is nothing to talk about, it is not a part of our ideology to prosecute other states for human rights violations.So does China and a couple of other dictatorships as well. Many states practicing something suppressive do not attack other states over being suppressive themselves, not wanting to draw attention to their own misdoing that way. Western states however love to lecture others about how superior Western corrupted (!) politics are, the corrupted state of things usually gets completely ignored and faded out. Especially the US, regarding the spreading of the American model, and Germany, regarding the general moral good-doing.

[Rockstar]

Politics, n. An unclean and sordid business. Etymology: from Ancient Greek poly-, “many,” plus ticks, n. pl., “small bloodsucking arthropods.”) :rotfl2:

[Dread Knot]

For those who are interested in a delightful Christmas gift, the Senate CIA report will be available from publisher Melville House in bound book form this holiday season.

http://cdn.mhpbooks.com/uploads/2014/12/reportontorture-320x487.jpg

Should look smart up on the shelf somewhere between The Pentagon Papers and the Tower Commission Report.

[Wolferz]

Leave it to the comedians to state the truth of it.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere and applying all the wrong remedies
"Groucho Marx"

Colbert and Stewart have been having a blast going after this latest governmental faux pas. Those guys get a constant feed of material from people I consider total idiots. Good for a laugh though. :haha:

[Oberon]

For comedians, politics is the gift that keeps on giving. :yep:

[ikalugin]

@Skybird

And this is where our points of view differ, as I assume that:
- not all humans are rational.
- not all humans are egoistical.
- a perfectly rational human would not only act on his best interests, but on the over all community's best interests (well Economics and Game Theory advanced beyond the Adam Smith).

Back to the topic - as not all humans are rational, then torture (and such interrogation techniques) may be highly ineffective - ie what if the suspect happens to be a fanatic and doesn't value his own survival?

[Jimbuna]

If I wanted to go crazy I would do it in Washington because it would not be noticed - Irwin S. Cobb

[Mr Quatro]

Oh please. Like the next president won't when it suits his fancy. Get real.

Just that it will be easier to get along with a Republican President that has a Republican Senate majority and House of Representatives.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Abraham_Lincoln/)

[August]

Western states however love to lecture others about how superior Western corrupted (!) politics are, the corrupted state of things usually gets completely ignored and faded out.

You really don't see a difference between the hand wringing Western states do over comparatively minor transgressions and the anonymous bullet to the back of the head that enemies of the Eastern states usually recieve?

[MH]

You really don't see a difference between the hand wringing Western states do over comparatively minor transgressions and the anonymous bullet to the back of the head that enemies of the Eastern states usually recieve?

He is just softrolling:haha:

[Catfish]

"... [...] The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity."

Mr 'Dick' [sic!] Cheney is so full of it, I am sure he did the latter himself :hmmm:

[Skybird]

@Skybird

And this is where our points of view differ, as I assume that:
- not all humans are rational.
- not all humans are egoistical.
I say there is some raitonality and much egoism to be found in any human - and usually both must not be opposiutes, but also can be mutually supporting.


- a perfectly rational human would not only act on his best interests, but on the over all community's best interests (well Economics and Game Theory advanced beyond the Adam Smith).
No. Not only is there no such thing like a perfect human or a perfectly rational human, rendering the whole argument too abstract as if it has any meaningful point - you also imply that altruism in princiapl always is rational. Which it is not: not as a goal in itself, and not as a egoist mechanism to trade some altruistic own behaviour for something one wants to get in return, making that altruism a selfish (=egoist) motive again.

Whether one sees altruism as paying off or not, and thus one practices it, last but not least depends on empiric experiences in the past one hads had. Inm other words: the probability for altruistic behavior to a certain degree depends on situational context. For example the altruistic act I am willing to show for some people - I refuse to show for others.

Generalising altruism in principle as a quality that always is to be seen as somethign good and psoitve, is not an object of rationality, but morality. And morals can very well violate rationality, and vice versa.


Back to the topic - as not all humans are rational, then torture (and such interrogation techniques) may be highly ineffective - ie what if the suspect happens to be a fanatic and doesn't value his own survival?
I adressed that already, didn't I:
1. EVERYBODY has his breaking point, believe me. EVERYBODY.

2. I explained an inevitable preconditon that must be fulfilled in order for increaisng the probabiilty for a success in torture-based interrogation. that it the verifiation of the information given to escape the implementaiton of firther tiorture must be such that it vcan be gained very close in time - close enough so that the deliquent understanbds that just a lie will be discovered so soon that it will not buy him time and no escape from further pain, agony, fear. This already reduces the situations when it might be both moral and rational to consider torture, by several factors.

Beyond that I made it clear that it shall not be a routine from the ordinary tool box of lw enforcement. It must remain to be an absolute and total exception from the rule. Which in case of the CIA story it obviously was not, not by a wide margin.

[Skybird]

You really don't see a difference between the hand wringing Western states do over comparatively minor transgressions and the anonymous bullet to the back of the head that enemies of the Eastern states usually recieve?
"Minor transgressions"? Then it is a difference.

Needless to say I most likely consider much of what you probably would still see as "minor transgressions", as major criminal issues too severe in their future-crushing consequences and distortions of law and society, as if I would agree to call them as anything "minor" only.

[August]

"Minor transgressions"? Then it is a difference.

Needless to say I most likely consider much of what you probably would still see as "minor transgressions", as major criminal issues too severe in their future-crushing consequences and distortions of law and society, as if I would agree to call them as anythiing "minor" only.

No I said "comparatively minor transgressions", as in compared to the methods used by others. Note this does not excuse our use of such physical coercion but i'm also not going to pretend that it's anything near as bad as what has been perpetrated throughout human history.

[Skybird]

Since I was mentioning corrupted political systems, I did not so much thought about violence in law enforcement and counter terrorism, but politics, finance, economics and social structures in society when comparing. Both nationally , and internationally.

When comparing torture methods alone, as you seem to do, I said this:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2267611&postcount=41

[ikalugin]

@skybird
I think we could get that discussion into the real of private messages.

As to the breaking point - it does indeed exist, however for a number of suspect/interrogator combinations it exists after the suspect dies (goes insane and so on) or after whatever event you were trying to avoid passes to be.

[Wolferz]

It's nice that the Senate has made this travesty public and all but,
What the heck are they going to do now that they and we all know about it?
Same thing they've been doing... NOTHING!
The police state will not allow it.:-?

Clearly, the architects should be tried and jailed but we all know that's not going to happen.

Wait a few years and we can read all about it in Dubya's memoirs entitled...
"How I Screwed The World With My Big Dick Cheney"

[MH]

Wait a few years and we can read all about it in Dubya's memoirs entitled...
"How I Screwed The World With My Big Dick Cheney"

Maybe ...or maybe this post Bush hysteria will end and the subject will be approached in more balanced / objective manner.

Meanwhile be wary children...Bush will come and eat you.

[Catfish]

Maybe ...or maybe this post Bush hysteria will end and the subject will be approached in more balanced / objective manner.

Meanwhile be wary children...Bush will come and eat you.

Hysteria? Hysterical laughter!
Good to see there's a democracy at work, and not the middle ages bloodline succession to the throne.
I am sure there was no better man in the whole USA, to deserve that rank, and position, than the son of former president Bush senior.

[Bilge_Rat]

sooooooo, if I understand the message corectly...

...subjecting detainees to enhanced interrogation techniques is BAD, the USA does not do that sort of thing. We have to keep the moral high ground...:nope:

...however, killing suspected "terrorists" and their entire family with Drone strikes is perfectly fine...:hmmm:

[MH]

Hysteria? Hysterical laughter!
Good to see there's a democracy at work, and not the middle ages bloodline succession to the throne.
I am sure there was no better man in the whole USA, to deserve that rank, and position, than the son of former president Bush senior.

I'm all for democracy.
I'm happy you have a faith in it.

[Wolferz]

Hysteria? Hysterical laughter!
Good to see there's a democracy at work, and not the middle ages bloodline succession to the throne.
I am sure there was no better man in the whole USA, to deserve that rank, and position, than the son of former president Bush senior.

From what I have seen from my armchair, we ceased being a democracy the day those planes hit those buildings. Sure we still elect those who supposedly lead us but, we all know that's just the public face of it. The dog and pony show that prevents the somnambulent masses from waking up to what's really going on.... The global chess match for control of resources.

[Schroeder]

sooooooo, if I understand the message corectly...

...subjecting detainees to enhanced interrogation techniques is BAD, the USA does not do that sort of thing. We have to keep the moral high ground...:nope:

...however, killing suspected "terrorists" and their entire family with Drone strikes is perfectly fine...:hmmm:
So you say the the drone strikes are wrong so we should also allow torture? I don't get it. This is not just a Bush bashing thing, it's much bigger than that.

[MH]

So you say the the drone strikes are wrong so we should also allow torture? I don't get it. This is not just a Bush bashing thing, it's much bigger than that.

It is not something any country should be proud of also no country should torture prisoners.
The USA has used this method extensively on some 100+ prisoners according to the report which indicates this issue was not taken so lightly... considering the scope of the conflict and its nature.
The presumed innocent people detained by mistake relisted , not shot in the head and thrown in a ditch.

This is probably no more than Saddam Hussein used to torture senselessly in a day.
You know the guy west feel sorry for so much now because he really knew how to run Iraq...while west had no right to mess with his business because the place turned out crazier than expected.

[Skybird]

These are extreme things being thought about in this thread, and i doubt that it is possible to form generalised blueprints "one size fits all imaginable situations" on when to do what, in every situation matching the according criteria to allow the measurements being considered. you have to consider them on a one-by-one basis instead, always, and decide new and from scratch every time such an extreme case shows up. It remains to be an act of balancing on the sharp edge of the sword.

And never shall it become a thing of routine. When deciding for torture, death penalties, and drone strikes in situations of non-declared war, become acts of routine - then you know that you are living in a dictatorship for sure.

[Dowly]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Torture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeF2rzsZSU