CIA lied about severity and effectiveness of torture, Senate report says - Polidicks

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-misled-on-interrogation-program-senate-report-says/2014/03/31/eb75a82a-b8dd-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html[/url] [quote]A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA misled the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques. The report, built around detailed chronologies of dozens of CIA detainees, documents a long-standing pattern of unsubstantiated claims as agency officials sought permission to use — and later tried to defend — excruciating interrogation methods that yielded little, if any, significant intelligence, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed the document. “The CIA described [its program] repeatedly both to the Department of Justice and eventually to Congress as getting unique, otherwise unobtainable intelligence that helped disrupt terrorist plots and save thousands of lives,” said one U.S. official briefed on the report. “Was that actually true? The answer is no.” Current and former U.S. officials who described the report spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue and because the document remains classified. The 6,300-page report includes what officials described as damning new disclosures about a sprawling network of secret detention facilities, or “black sites,” that was dismantled by President Obama in 2009. Classified files reviewed by committee investigators reveal internal divisions over the interrogation program, officials said, including one case in which CIA employees left the agency’s secret prison in Thailand after becoming disturbed by the brutal measures being employed there. The report also cites cases in which officials at CIA headquarters demanded the continued use of harsh interrogation techniques even after analysts were convinced that prisoners had no more information to give.[/quote]

Discussed this this morning in a terrorism analysis class, with the eventual conclusion that not enough is publicly known to judge one way or the other. I'm really curious as to how much of it they're going to redact, declassify, and release to the public. At the very least, if the report is exactly what it claims to be, then there's certainly going to be ramifications within the government. It'll also be yet another reason to fire Clapper already. [editline]1st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellreaver;44421600]Well, I'm sorry, but when an organisation is allowed to maintain such a level of secrecy there's bound to be some level of corruption in it.[/QUOTE] That's exactly why we have groups like the HPSCI and SSCI (the group that published this) to keep tabs on the intelligence community. The idea that there are these shadowy government organizations that answer to nobody makes for a great Hollywood film but has no basis in reality. If they're overstepping their bounds, there are audit groups, Congressional committees, and whistleblowing laws designed to bring that sort of misconduct to light. Considering the sort of powers these agencies have at their disposal, it's extremely important to keep them on a tight leash.

[QUOTE=Hellreaver;44421600]Well, I'm sorry, but when an organisation is allowed to maintain such a level of secrecy there's bound to be some level of corruption in it. Dumb ratings ahoy.[/QUOTE] Why would you think facepunch would disagree with that?

[QUOTE=Hellreaver;44421600]Well, I'm sorry, but when an organisation is allowed to maintain such a level of secrecy there's bound to be some level of corruption in it. Dumb ratings ahoy.[/QUOTE] Rated dumb only because you asked.

[QUOTE=Apache249;44422080]Rated dumb only because you asked.[/QUOTE] true friend

[QUOTE=catbarf;44421619] That's exactly why we have groups like the HPSCI and SSCI (the group that published this) to keep tabs on the intelligence community. The idea that there are these shadowy government organizations that answer to nobody makes for a great Hollywood film but has no basis in reality. If they're overstepping their bounds, there are audit groups, Congressional committees, and whistleblowing laws designed to bring that sort of misconduct to light. Considering the sort of powers these agencies have at their disposal, it's extremely important to keep them on a tight leash.[/QUOTE] In theory, but two things point to a worrying trend: First, revelation that oversight committees themselves are subject to spying and even sabotage by agencies they are supposed to watch over. Second, as a result of the few recent leak cases there's been talk about amending leaking laws so that consequences of divulging classified information are harsher, and it becomes more difficult to use said information in court. While it's expected that some agencies lobby for it, it is much more worrying that there seems to be a deal of general support for it, with reasoning similar to what was used to pass Patriot Act. With that, it seems that majority of US voters considers that there is nothing worrying in conduct of their intelligence agencies, and sooner back expanding rather than restricting their mandate.

The old rationalization of "What if there was a ticking bomb set to go off killing millions?" when there's never a bomb, just some guy who was either brainwashed or needed money for his family who they kidnapped and hauled across the border. If someone kidnaps and tortures an American, we view that as horrifying and then turn around and try to justify doing it to others. It's not shocking, it's just sad how we say we're above that when we're blatantly committing the same atrocities.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;44422093]In theory, but two things point to a worrying trend: First, revelation that oversight committees themselves are subject to spying and even sabotage by agencies they are supposed to watch over.[/QUOTE] That sort of behavior is exactly why Clapper needs to go, as his lying directly to Congress during the initial NSA investigation back in August undermines the confidence Americans have in the intelligence community. And while you're right, and that sort of behavior is inevitable if dealing with corruption, that's why they're given powers like surprise audits to prevent those agencies from just lying to them continuously. Consider that if this report is exactly what it claims to be, then clearly there was a mechanism that allowed them to discover that they were being mislead. [QUOTE=Vlevs;44422093]Second, as a result of the few recent leak cases there's been talk about amending leaking laws so that consequences of divulging classified information are harsher, and it becomes more difficult to use said information in court. While it's expected that some agencies lobby for it, it is much more worrying that there seems to be a deal of general support for it, with reasoning similar to what was used to pass Patriot Act.[/QUOTE] Leaking and whistleblowing have always been considered two different things. While there is talk about changing leaking laws, especially regards to journalist culpability, Obama has only expanded whistleblower protection during his tenure. Between the WPEA of 2012 and Presidential Policy Directive 19, it's much clearer now for government employees what exactly constitutes whistleblowing and what protections are provided against reprisal. Most people support whistleblowing regardless of how they feel about outright leaks.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;44422093]In theory, but two things point to a worrying trend: First, revelation that oversight committees themselves are subject to spying and even sabotage by agencies they are supposed to watch over. Second, as a result of the few recent leak cases there's been talk about amending leaking laws so that consequences of divulging classified information are harsher, and it becomes more difficult to use said information in court. While it's expected that some agencies lobby for it, it is much more worrying that there seems to be a deal of general support for it, with reasoning similar to what was used to pass Patriot Act. With that, it seems that majority of US voters considers that there is nothing worrying in conduct of their intelligence agencies, and sooner back expanding rather than restricting their mandate.[/QUOTE] Well, it's a shame that laws are never black and white. There's always something you want looped in with something you hate. For example, one benefit of the PATRIOT ACT is that law enforcement agencies could better coordinate and communicate their investigations. Such as an FBI wiretap on a suspected corrupt politician who they find out is also dealing drugs. Prior to the PATRIOT ACT, the public corruption investigators were NOT allowed to use the evidence they had found, since the original wire tap warrant had not been for drug trafficking. The ACT passing allowed public corruption to pass their evidence over to the narcotics squad where previously that would have been illegal and they would not be allowed to use that evidence. It's politics and it's horrifying that to gain anything good, you need to accept some evils. It's not right but not much will change until we can separate money and politics.

[QUOTE=catbarf;44422168]That sort of behavior is exactly why Clapper needs to go, as his lying directly to Congress during the initial NSA investigation back in August undermines the confidence Americans have in the intelligence community. And while you're right, and that sort of behavior is inevitable if dealing with corruption, that's why they're given powers like surprise audits to prevent those agencies from just lying to them continuously. Consider that if this report is exactly what it claims to be, then clearly there was a mechanism that allowed them to discover that they were being mislead.[/quote] True enough. Now, how much oversight can effect questionable conduct depends on consequences it can cause. I know very little about handling cases like this in the past, but I'm quite surprised if misconduct leads to immediate and decisive action. I hope my pessimism here is unfounded. Regarding topic's program I doubt much will come out of it as it was instituted and is widely supported by republicans as a necessity. As such even if report's findings turn out to be accurate they will be subject to much politicking and spin before anyone gets anywhere, seeing that there's a good deal of political capital invested in the less savory part of anti-terror action. [QUOTE=catbarf;44422168] Leaking and whistleblowing have always been considered two different things. While there is talk about changing leaking laws, especially regards to journalist culpability, Obama has only expanded whistleblower protection during his tenure. Between the WPEA of 2012 and Presidential Policy Directive 19, it's much clearer now for government employees what exactly constitutes whistleblowing and what protections are provided against reprisal. Most people support whistleblowing regardless of how they feel about outright leaks.[/QUOTE] That is good to hear, since I mostly hear about whistleblowers that they are in dismal position personally and legally. Is someone revealing state secrets eligible for whistleblower protection? Intelligence agencies have necessarily extensive powers to protect their information. [editline]1st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=outlawpickle;44422229]Well, it's a shame that laws are never black and white. It's politics and it's horrifying that to gain anything good, you need to accept some evils.[/QUOTE] Rather the problem with Patriot Act in particular and legislation in general tends to be, that they tend to be unnecessarily expansive and bad parts are passed on the wing of good parts. Rarely anti-corruption activity requires limitless wiretapping without charges or offshore detention. But enough with my OT.

April Fools!

What about Sodium Pentathol?

If we didn't have severe torture methods, we wouldn't be able to gather as much information about terrorist and other things. If you sit down and give them a cup of tea, do you think they will tell you secrets? They will interrogate anyone if they have any information worth anything. Sure it's extreme, but what else can you do?

[QUOTE=TheEncrypted;44425547]If we didn't have severe torture methods, we wouldn't be able to gather as much information about terrorist and other things. If you sit down and give them a cup of tea, do you think they will tell you secrets? They will interrogate anyone if they have any information worth anything. Sure it's extreme, but what else can you do?[/QUOTE] you can always force them to browse facepunch for an hour [editline]1st April 2014[/editline] rust subforum

[QUOTE=TheEncrypted;44425547]If we didn't have severe torture methods, we wouldn't be able to gather as much information about terrorist and other things. If you sit down and give them a cup of tea, do you think they will tell you secrets? They will interrogate anyone if they have any information worth anything. Sure it's extreme, but what else can you do?[/QUOTE] Information given up under torture is usually worthless, you can get anyone to say anything and state that anyone is complicit in anything if it stops them from experiencing pain. Oh, that's just on top of ALL THE OTHER FUCKING MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE PARTS OF TORTURE. Are you really offering apologetics for state-sponsored torture and terrorism?

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;44425573]Information given up under torture is usually worthless, you can get anyone to say anything and state that anyone is complicit in anything if it stops them from experiencing pain. Oh, that's just on top of ALL THE OTHER FUCKING MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE PARTS OF TORTURE. Are you really offering apologetics for state-sponsored torture and terrorism?[/QUOTE] A lot of torture methods are not painful. The most effective and used are psychological.

[QUOTE=smurfy;44421575]taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques.[/QUOTE] Seriously? Why?

My senator is on the committee fighting to declassify the report. [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-patriot.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44425873]If it wasn't painful, it wouldn't be torture. Psychological pain is still pain. Psychological torture is still torture.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pain[/url] [QUOTE]: the [B]physical[/B] feeling caused by disease, injury, or something that hurts the body[/QUOTE] I understand what you are saying though. Do you have a better solution?

What if the lie was that torture was[I] so[/I] effective that it would be dangerous if people knew just what they could do?

I'm not saying it makes it right but I'm pretty sure that the majority of the world has the USA beat when it comes to torture.