
US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program - uptown
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
======
rdtsc
> Interrogation techniques such as slaps and "wallings" (slamming detainees
> against a wall) were used in combination, frequently concurrent with sleep
> deprivation and nudity. Records do not support CIA representations that the
> CIA initially used an "an open, non-threatening approach," or that
> interrogations began with the "least coercive technique possible" and
> escalated to more coercive techniques only as necessary.

> The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and
> vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with
> bubbles rising through his open, full mouth." Internal CIA records describe
> the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of
> near drownings.

> Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours,
> usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled
> above their heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing
> hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of
> those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation.

> Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA
> instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take
> "precedence" over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a
> bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture.

> CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their
> families— 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."

The list goes on.

I have no words. This stuff would make Gestapo, KGB and Stasi proud. I can
only hope more people read this report. Worse imaginable crimes are committed
in the heat of passion or because of madness. Those are scary. What is more
scary to me is cold institutionalized, calculated, torture, which is what this
is.

Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even
debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already
lost. Torture should be like rape. Anyone suggesting debating if rape is
acceptable should be slapped on the head and considered an idiot. Torture
should be the same in any civilized country. We are not only debating it, we
have also done it, we have institutionalized it, and make no mistake, Fox and
the like will also be debating its "benefits and how it saved Americans'
lives".

~~~
willscott
The saving grace is that we have a country that was able to admit that it did
this. For me, that's hope that we're still in a position to learn from our
wrongs, and that the checks-and-balances are still somewhat in-tact.

~~~
bradleyjg
We haven't apologized, we haven't made restitution, and we sure as heck
haven't prosecuted the guilty (as required by the convention against torture).
I'm struggling to see any saving grace.

~~~
spacefight
Right. And the only one sitting in prison so far is former CIA operative John
Kiriakou who blew the whistle on the torture program. Go figure.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou)

~~~
tptacek
The Kiriakou story is not as straightforward as this thread makes it. You can
go to FAS.ORG to see the actual case files.

Kiriakou was charged with using numerous forms of classified information about
foreign intelligence operations in order to promote a book, and, in doing so,
outing a still-undercover foreign operative involved in the Zubaydah case.
That operative had allegedly been under cover for over 20 years.

If you read the filings, you'll also see that Kiriakou claims to have outed
the program accidentally --- in other words, that the leak didn't occur
because he was deliberately blowing the whistle on the program, but instead by
accident (or, as the USG would have it, negligence).

However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain
clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including
Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network.

The case files are not themselves dispositive; I merely comment to suggest
that it's harder to judge the Kiriakou case than it immediately seems.

I share the prevailing sentiment that our failure to prosecute CIA employees
at all levels for torture is frustrating, and a miscarriage of justice. Though
I'm not particularly interested in discussing that on HN.

~~~
rurounijones
> However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain
> clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including
> Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network.

Is that supposed to be a rationalization for his treatment?

~~~
tptacek
No, that's a shitty thing to accuse someone of, and if you read my entire
comment you can see I don't believe that.. What's at issue in this subthread
is Kiriakou's culpability in exposing intelligence programs for his own
personal benefit.

~~~
rurounijones
Then I do not get the purpose of that sentence in your post since it reads
like "Yes we did shitty stuff to him but remember they thought he was a bad
guy at the time."

~~~
tptacek
I'll assume that's because you're unfamiliar with the Kiriakou case, in which
Zubaydah plays an important role.

You could sum that case up by saying that Kiriakou is accused of two major
harms to the USG: first, outing a 20-year undercover operative, and second,
potentially compromising the Zubaydah case. It would be an easy message board
rebuttal to say, "well, it turns out Zubaydah was a pawn with virtually no
value to the USG or Al Qaeda, so compromising him was not a big deal". But, at
the time when Kiriakou was alleged to have leaked secrets to promote his book,
nobody believed that about Zubaydah. He was instead believed to have a key
operational role in Al Qaeda, and compromising him to promote a book would
have been a grave matter.

It is hard to explain the nuance of this case without sounding like I'm taking
a side in it. CIA is also accused throughout the Senate report of leaking
secrets to polish its own reputation. The only issue I'd have a problem with
is the idea that Kiriakou's actions were heroic. By his own stipulations that
appears not to be the case.

I'll say this again: I'm may be more ambivalent than most of HN when it comes
to surveillance and law enforcement and regulation, but I am not ambivalent
about torture or, for that matter, the CIA, or criminal liability for the CIA.

I should have to make that disclaimer, but obviously I do.

~~~
rurounijones
I am not in disagreement with your assesment of Kiraikou and I don't see how
any of that ties into your original statement

"However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain
clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including
Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network."

which seems totally unrelated to anything you have posted above, which was
what make it stand out in the first place.

I cannot see any other way of interpreting it than the way I mentioned in my
previous post, could you clarify what you meant by this since I am obviously
not getting your meaning?

~~~
tptacek
No.

~~~
rurounijones
Ok then, end of thread.

------
lotharbot
It seems to me like there are four key findings here:

(1) the CIA did some truly horrific stuff to detainees -- wallings,
waterboardings, sleep deprivation, threatening their families, etc. (Specific
quotes are in rdtsc's comment at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8723834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8723834)
).

(2) the CIA systematically lied about and hid information about what they were
doing from other parts of the government -- from the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the FBI, the State Department, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, US ambassadors in countries that housed detention
facilities, etc.

(3) the CIA didn't provide its operatives with training in interrogation until
months after the program started, didn't have facilities in place until just
shortly before they took custody of their first prisoner, had very little
oversight even within the CIA itself (see finding #12, page 17 of the pdf),
and otherwise seemed to be flying by the seat of their pants. So they weren't
even making decisions in a coherent, systematic fashion.

(4) all of this horrific, lied-about stuff... didn't even work. They weren't
saving lives, and they had plenty of reason to _know_ (before, during, and
after) that the techniques wouldn't/weren't/didn't accomplish anything of
value. So even firm believers in "the ends justify the means" don't have a leg
to stand on here.

~~~
gcb0
and even when it is public, there is still not repercussion to the people that
made the bad decision.

------
cryoshon
A few things:

The Republicans have issued a rebuttal. I assume this means they support
torture. I hope this dissuades some of their remaining voter base from
continuing to support them.

Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I
assume he also supports torture. Not sure that he has any credibility left
after being caught on the record lying to congress, but whatever.

The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out. Obama's
admission that "we tortured some folks" was hollow, and his promises regarding
torture transparency have been refuted as lies. I assume that the White House
supports torture, via its resistance to exposing torture. I hope this
dissuades some of their voter base from continuing to support them.

Feinstein, though extremely undesirable due to her support of the NSA, has
showed some balls here. In the months leading up to the release of this
report, she claimed that the CIA was threatening her, so we'll see what
happens. I would like it if the next big stink she makes is about the CIA's
surveillance of the Senate committee.

The CIA itself has just been pinned on the record as having intentionally
misled Congress (its only real oversight) for a period of nearly a decade.
Additionally, the CIA has been pinned on the record as having attempted to
cover up evidence that it tortured people, and then also spied on the people
investigating the torture within the US government. I hope that this agency is
drastically reduced by some sort of chemotherapy now that some of its crimes
have come to light.

Just remember that this isn't over. Keep paying attention to who defends the
CIA, and which media outlets place torture as a choice on the same level as
other options. Keep paying attention to the way that the government tries to
deny, scapegoat, and minimize this, and make sure to point it out wherever you
see it. Finally, don't let them re-focus on the inevitable violent reprisals
that will soon come. Releasing the report isn't the ultimate cause of violence
against the US or its proxies, torturing people is.

Edit: It appears as though in one of the footnotes of the report there is an
admission that one of the people who was tortured to death was an innocent man
who was wrongly abducted.

~~~
anigbrowl
_The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out._

That's inaccurate. Kerry asked for a delay in its release; as Secretary of
State, responsible for US embassies around the world, it's his job to draw
attention to the risk factors. All reports I've read prior to the release said
that both the President and Vice President were strongly in favor of
publication. Ultimately the choice to classify or declassify rests with the
President.

~~~
cryoshon
When you say that the President and VP were in favor of publication, that is
definitely not consistent with what we've seen from Obama.

Remember when Obama blocked the release of additional Gitmo evidence because
he claimed it would result in Americans being hurt? I assume the exact same
logic was used here to prevent this report from coming out.

I assume Kerry's plea for a delay was a result of the CIA pressuring him to
protect their assets which are embedded with embassies worldwide. The
collaboration between the State Department and the CIA runs deep, like a mold
with many filaments.

~~~
dragonwriter
> When you say that the President and VP were in favor of publication, that is
> definitely not consistent with what we've seen from Obama.

We've seen Obama declassify this exact report, without which it could not be
published. I'm not sure how much more consistency there can be on this point.

> Remember when Obama blocked the release of additional Gitmo evidence because
> he claimed it would result in Americans being hurt? I assume the exact same
> logic was used here to prevent this report from coming out.

I conclude (rather than _assume_ ) that it wasn't, because if it that logic
was used by Obama, then this report wouldn't have been declassified.

> I assume Kerry's plea for a delay was a result of the CIA pressuring him to
> protect their assets which are embedded with embassies worldwide.

I don't see any reason to assume that. Its not entirely implausible, but the
way that it paints US ambassadors as dupes of the CIA and undermines US
diplomatic credibility is _also_ a plausible reason for Kerry to seek to delay
it, particularly if there are ongoing negotiations to which the particular
issues on which it most damages that credibility may be relevant, and there
are numerous other plausible reasons why Kerry might have sought the delay.

------
eslaught
I think we should be a little more amazed that this report is available at all
---an through internal channels at that. While we're all bashing the CIA for
what they've done (and are right to do so), we should also appreciate that
this is also at some level an instance of government working "properly": one
branch of government audited another branch, found that there had been
misconduct, and was able to publish a report showing what had been done wrong.
This is not the end of the road---we still need to fix the problems and
prevent them from happening again---but publicly acknowledging the problems is
a massive first step.

Before we all jump on the bandwagon to paint the USA as the next major
authoritarian regime, ask yourselves the question: would this report ever get
published in North Korea, China, or the former USSR? Frankly, I can't imagine
it. This report proves that the USA might not be better than any of those
countries with regard to these events... but at least it appears that the USA
has the guts to acknowledge publicly its mistakes.

~~~
baconner
Its something yes, but considering no one will be charged at all for well
documented and extremely grave crimes well... Its hard to take solace in being
_a little_ better than a full on totalitarian regime.

------
MisterMashable
In 2004 a whole layer of top CIA officials were forced out. Defense Secretary
Colin Powell resigned. Dick Cheney purged the CIA of personnel who might have
served as some counterbalancing force. Once the good and reasonable people
were gone (fired, forced to resign etc.), the CIA ran amok. If we look
honestly at what went wrong, it's pretty clear how to fix it. Fire all the
people that lied to Congress and broke the law by employing prohibited
techniques. Prosecute them to the fullest extent possible. Simultaneously,
conduct an internal review of all the former CIA fired for political reasons
and hire them back. These are the people America desperately needs to repair
our broken system. The CIA is desperately in need of reform. The world is too
dangerous and complicated a place to have the wrong people running our foreign
policy. If they lied about torture, what else are they lying to Congress
about? Clearly it isn't the solution to every problem but it would be the best
possible, immediately actionable step. Bring back the good patriot Americans
who were fired from their job with the intelligence agencies for political
reasons. Get rid of and prosecute the bad apples.

~~~
dragonwriter
Colin Powell was never Defense Secretary, he was Secretary of State. In any
case, as the report notes, the CIA was already running amok before 2004, so
any purge then was not a necessary prerequisite for the CIA to run amok,
though it might have removed a constraint that would have reigned things in
sooner.

------
fnordfnordfnord
Local and national news TV programs have been going on for days about how all
of our embassies are on "High Alert" in anticipation of violence directed at
them/us on the basis of what's in the report. I take that by itself as an
admission that the government's conduct has been what should be considered
unacceptable, and is probably only "lawful" in the most meaningless sense of
the word (if at all).

~~~
exelius
Rightfully so. People should be upset. We let a sense of urgency take over our
moral compass. Which was the completely wrong way to look at this conflict
anyway: we had no need to be that urgent given that our resources were (and
still are) effectively inexhaustible. We got bad intelligence, we made a lot
of enemies, and we lost the moral high ground that the US had worked hard to
rebuild after Vietnam. The failure happened at the top: Bush (presumably
guided by Cheney and the neo-con "long war" doctrine) chose to ignore decades
of intelligence research showing that torture leads to bad intel. Because the
failure happened at the top, nobody will pay for it.

Had we done things the right (slow) way, we would have a lot more friends in
the region. Because the long, slow way of intelligence gathering involves
building trust and developing friendship with people. But the American public
doesn't have the patience for long peacekeeping missions like that, and the
international community doesn't either.

There are so many layers of secret courts and classified legal opinions that
it's hard to say the US has much rule of law anymore. People have lost faith
in the legal system much the same as they have lost faith in our legislative
system. All that's left is the executive branch, which leaves us dangerously
at risk of a dictator taking over if we elect the wrong person, because the
other two branches of government are too weak to stop him. I hate to get all
tinfoil-hat, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched anymore.

~~~
cyorir
"we would have more friends in the region"

This seems to be thrown around a lot. You hear things like, "if we didn't go
into Iraq/Afghanistan, we would have more friends in the region," "if we
didn't prop up Mubarak or the Saudis or someone else, we would have more
friends in the region," "if we gave more support to the Palestinians, we would
have more friends in the region."

I think this is the wrong way to think about our policy. We currently have a
set of "friends" in the region; Israel, Saudi, etc. The things we do will
always upset a portion of the population, but you will also have some who
support those actions (foreign policy has not all been a shambles, which is
why we retain regional allies in spite of the things that have happened over
the past two decades).

Changing your actions will never guarantee that you will make more friends,
because in making some friends we would lose others. By catering to the
progressive populations in the Middle East, you isolate the conservative
populations, and vice versa. Rapprochement with Iran, as an example, may seem
like a fine idea, but the mere prospect has Israel and the Saudis concerned.
So changing policy cannot achieve "more friends." What we can do is choose who
we want to be friends with carefully, and let that guide our policy.

~~~
exelius
The friends we've chosen in the region also don't help us. Neither Saudi
Arabia nor Israel are particularly well-liked in the region (and that's
putting it lightly), but both are seen as US puppets.

Honestly I don't think we really care much anymore what the Saudis think; the
regime has fantastic wealth but very little real power beyond holding the
purse strings for hyper conservative terror groups. I think eventually the
hypocrisy and opulence of the regime will cause the terror groups to throw off
their former masters and come after them -- and all credible reports say the
Saudi army isn't much more than a facade propped up by a handful of US
contractors. We probably wouldn't let them fall to terror groups, but we also
aren't really comfortable propping up a regime that is actively funding a
proxy war against us.

~~~
afterburner
"The friends we've chosen in the region also don't help us"

The recent OPEC decision declining to reduce production in the face of falling
oil prices, thus screwing over Russia hard, means that Saudi Arabia is most
certainly a useful US ally.

~~~
exelius
All allies are useful, even backstabbing frenemies like Saudi Arabia. But
Saudi Arabia (or more specifically, the ruling regime in Saudi Arabia) needs
us more than we need them these days.

I mean, I realize the prime reason they fund Islamist terror groups is to
cause regional instability that drives up the price of Saudi oil...

~~~
afterburner
That's actually a terrible reason to fund armed groups. Al Qaeda's original
mission was to replace the Saudi monarchy; there were many attacks in Saudi
Arabia after 9/11, they weren't talked about much. So the Saudi monarchy is
not interested in helping those kinds of groups.

Armed groups are often funded by wealthy individuals for a variety of reasons
(Osama bin Laden being a famous example). Armed groups funded by the Saudi
monarchy are in other countries, fighting the regime's enemies by proxy (eg.
the Syrian and Iranian governments).

------
Loughla
Why do they insist on saying 'enhanced interrogation technique' instead of
torture? Even when it obviously means torture: "Another senior CIA officer
stated that COBALT was itself an enhanced interrogation technique."

When talking about a physical place. That is so blatant word replacement that
I find it hard to take it seriously.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why do they insist on saying 'enhanced interrogation technique' instead of
> torture?

"Enhanced interrogation technique" is an uncontroversial, accurate factual
description. "Torture" is a conclusion of law applied to the facts that, while
there is overwhelming reason to accept that the conclusion is valid for the
program as a whole, and many of the specific instances in particular, does not
necessarily apply to all of everything that is under the label "enhanced
interrogation techniques", and is, in any case, not a legal conclusion that
the Committee reached (though the Chair of the Committee, Senator Feinstein,
in her introduction to the release, emphatically and directly states as her
personal conclusion _both_ that the program involved "torture", and that it
involved "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment (both terms being
significant in regard to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
(including Common Article 3 of the Conventions, which applies to conflict that
is _not_ between states-parties to the convention) [0] and the manner in which
grave breaches of the Conventions are incorporation into US criminal law as
war crimes under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441 [1].)

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Grave_breach...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Grave_breaches)

[1]
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441)

~~~
robin_reala
‘Enhanced’ is factual here? How about ‘Damaging interrogation technique’?
That’s certainly more factual than ‘enhanced’.

~~~
dragonwriter
> ‘Enhanced’ is factual here?

Yes, in terms of intensity.

> How about ‘Damaging interrogation technique’?

That's more conclusory than descriptive of the technique, though certainly the
_whole report_ (well, the whole several-hundred-page "executive summary")
makes that point.

I don't think there is any advantage to adding the emotional weighting
associated with the conclusion that the report leads to into the language
describing the individual facts. Its more comfortable, perhaps, to people who
didn't need the facts to come to the conclusion that the report demands, but I
don't see that as an important feature.

------
pessimist
Dianne Feinstein deserves enormous credit. Fox News and Republicans are
bashing her and by extension her party as traitorous as we speak. The argument
that this report should be kept in secret because it endangers Americans'
lives is abominable. As an American living abroad, I'm happy to see this
released.

Still, I wonder about some of the side-effects of this. Instead of arresting
and interrogating terrorists we kill them with drones as its less messy.

~~~
scott_karana
It's really disappointing that she _does_ support the NSA's extrajudicial
activities, though, to the point of calling Snowden a traitor.

C'est la vie :P

~~~
sigzero
This does nothing to help my view of her.

------
debacle
Fellow parents, how do you teach or plan to teach your kids about this? I was
discussing this with my son last night, but I really couldn't explain to him
the prejudice and fear that people use to justify these types of acts, or the
"otherness" that the perpetrators try to construct around the victims in the
media. It's just not something he's experienced yet. There's no way to put it
into context.

~~~
Cushman
Are you familiar with Jane Elliott's "Blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment? It's a
good kind of ultra-lite introduction to racism/discrimination if you've
literally never come across the concept before. (Comes up a lot in Holocaust
curriculum.)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQAmdZvKf6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQAmdZvKf6M)

Though I wonder if small children aren't closer to understanding this than
most of us. They're such a jumble of implicit biases at the best of times...
You know that thing you're so scared of, that only comes out when you turn off
the lights? Some adults grow up and stop being scared, and some adults don't.

~~~
pdkl95
Elliott's experiment is one of the most impressive teaching methods I've ever
seen. This is such a good way of introducing kids to discrimination and
hatred, how easily it spreads, and how it affects people.

The interviews with the people that had Elliott's lesson much later when they
were adults is notable - the lesson stuck with people, in life-affecting ways.

------
pwnna
In the foreword:

> Reading them, it is easy to forget the context in which the program began -
> not that the context should serve as an excuse, but rather as a warning for
> the future.

Well said.

~~~
tormeh
Ooh, that's good. Here, have a comment so your citation stands out more.

------
icpmacdo
From the section "The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:"
on page 9 number 10 is interesting "#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."
I have assumed that's the case with many of their operations, are there more
public accounts of them doing this?

------
arh68
Classification has become a tool to protect careers, not the nation. These
people all acted individually towards whatever incentives they saw desirable.
Money, power over helpless detainees, I don't know. Specific people did
exactly what they wanted to do. And it's not like the whole CIA was on board,
but the people who disagreed can get the fuck out of the room and let the
adults play torture games.

    
    
        CIA attorneys, discussing aspects of the campaign involving off-the-record 
        disclosures, cautioned against attributing the information to the CIA itself.
        One senior attorney stated that the proposed press briefing was "minimally 
        acceptable, but only if not attributed to a CIA official." The CIA attorney 
        continued: "This should be attributed to an 'official knowledgeable' about 
        the program (or some similar obfuscation), but should not be attributed to a 
        CIA or intelligence official.
    
        Another CIA attorney noted that the draft "makes the [legal] declaration I
        just wrote about the secrecy of the interrogation program a work of fiction.."
        CTC Legal urged that CIA leadership needed to "confront the inconsistency" 
        between CIA court declarations "about how critical it is to keep this 
        information secret" and the CIA "planning to reveal darn near the entire 
        program.

------
ProAm
This is horrific. Just reading the findings and conclusions section is
astounding. Embarrassing and shameful day for the USA.

~~~
nraynaud
I am not an American, but I have one specific positive point to say about
that: generally the only way to get a country to acknowledge the horror it did
is to invade it and trial the leaders (Germany WWII: trial, Iraq against
kurds: trial, France Vichy: nothing substantial, France colonial wars:
amnesty, USSR: nothing, Yugoslavia: trial, without real invasion). In this
instance, nobody is in court (if we ignore Poland), but at least there is some
admission.

~~~
pmr_
It is easy to forget that this is just a report and up to this point it hasn't
had any real consequences yet. If this will ever lead to anything (be it
criminal charges, convictions or change in policy) is still open.

~~~
nraynaud
I don't think it will lead to anything, not more than the 11th september 1973,
or the whole Operation Condor. There is no balance of powers around the CIA.

------
nickbauman
Reading the report leaves me slack-jawed considering my own history. My great
uncle was an officer of the Geheime Feldpolizei, a secret state security
organization developed to combat native resistance against Nazi occupation
during WWII. His job was to infiltrate and destroy Maquis French and their
supporters (the resistance). The means they used were mass betrayal, example
executions, torture, even the wholesale destruction of entire villages.

In 1946 he was charged with Crimes Against Humanity and sentenced as a war
criminal by an allied tribunal consisting mostly of official American
personnel. He deserved exactly what he got. What he did was utterly
unconscionable even in a time of war.

I cannot, however, imagine representatives of today's America having the same
kind of tribunal against war criminals with the same kind of standing. It is
now simply unimaginable in anything but lurid, obscene terms. Dark days
indeed.

~~~
rhino369
America did a hell of a lot worse than this stuff during WWII. In fact, this
stuff is child's play.

We loaded up air planes with incendiary bombs and flew over Toyko purposely
igniting their wooden homes to purposely cause a firestorm that killed .1
million people in a single night. Pretty fucking brutal.

Pooring ensure up a guys ass is pretty bad, but we instead of letting our
B-52's bomb Taliban villages into nothing, we use drones.

Progress is slow, but it's happening.

~~~
nickbauman
I won't argue with you on this. I think if we're at the point of comparing
effects against intent in the discussion, nobody proves anything much anymore.
Shades of darkness are less important now than working together to change the
direction towards light, peace.

------
revelation
Best part is page 403:

 _" most of them [CIA personnel] do not know that when the wpost/ny times
quotes 'senior intel official,' it's us... authorized and directed by opa
[Office of Public Affairs]."_

Of course everyone with half a brain knows this, it's funny 1) CIA personnel
don't and 2) the WPost and NYT continue this practice of citing anonymous
_sources_ that are in reality public speakers, giving a carefully designed
statement.

------
chroma
It's a shame the report is so partisan. The democrat and republican sides
disagree on basic facts, such as whether torture worked in extracting
information, and whether that information helped to save lives. Both sides
accuse the other of cherry-picking to bolster their cause. Since the primary
records are unavailable to us, there's no way to get a more trustworthy
opinion on the program. The CIA's behavior is probably pretty horrible, but
it's unwise to be very confident in that assessment.

Another interesting fact is that torture may work, or it may not, yet many
people _don 't want_ torture to work. But think about it for a second: If
torture worked, it would be an opportunity to save lives. Torturing one known
criminal to extract information that could save dozens (or hundreds) of
innocents is unsavory to say the least, but it's better than the alternative.
(To reverse the situation, one wouldn't kill dozens of innocents to prevent
the torture of a known criminal.) Simply ignoring the issue and saying,
"Torture is always wrong," can lead to more death and suffering than
thoughtfully considering the issue.

I'm not talking about some hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario. This can
actually apply to real life. Consider collateral damage. In war, it is
acceptable to accidentally kill innocent people. It is also acceptable to
intentionally kill combatants. But torturing combatants to extract information
that would reduce collateral damage is unacceptable. It's such a strange
instance of moral blindness.

Note that this doesn't mean I would want torture to be legal even if it
worked. It seems like there's a good case to be made for keeping torture
illegal, since doing so would force a would-be torturer to be sure about the
circumstances; so sure that they'd willingly to go to prison to save innocent
people.

Edit: So far, both replies are attacking positions I do not endorse. I'm
saying make torture illegal even if it works. I'm saying ticking time bomb
scenarios are poor justifications for torture. But I'm also saying that
torture may save lives in some circumstances. If we're willing to accept the
horror of collateral damage, we should also be willing to reduce it using
methods as horrific as torture.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Firstly, torture doesn't work, but it's not about that.

Violence simply isn't morally legitimate ever, whether it's aggression or as a
response to violence (possibly even greater violence).

Whether it's torture, murder, whatever, it doesn't matter. Doing it in the
name of war or national security doesn't make a moral difference.

The ticking time bomb thing is just an excuse for this behaviour.

~~~
zghst
I disagree about violence. The animal kingdom is inherently violent. Is it
socially inappropriate to use violence in most parts of Western civilization?
Yes. But in other places around the world (and in some cultures and groups in
the West), violent behavior is the norm. It's brutal, it has lasting effects,
it's demoralizing to the victim, however it is what we are all born with.

Does that mean violence is 100% unacceptable? If it wasn't, then we would not
eat meat, many sports would not be popular, they wouldn't display fights in
movies, etc. As an element of evolution, violence in some form will persist
and thrive in our society.

~~~
kossTKR
So you want to skew the conversation from a discussion the legitimacy of
torture, to "is violence bad in it's biological essence".

The reason people come to stark conclusions like "all violence is bad" is
because they experienced real war, or real violence.

Read post war literature.

I would rather dismiss violence completely, even though it would be slightly
intellectually dishonest, rather than indulge in quasi philosophical
conversations on violence in it's biological essence (when the context is war
or torture).

To me, it's obscene, a mockery of the millions that has lost their lives to
war, and a self masturbatory intellectual privilege of the few wealthy enough
to live far from the unimaginable horrors of real war.

~~~
zghst
> torture, murder, whatever, it doesn't matter. Doing it in the name of war or
> national security doesn't make a moral difference.

Well it seems that the narrative of your post veered toward violence. I don't
agree with sadistic methods for extracting information. Violence would be the
absolute last tool in my belt to resolve a conflict. War is brutal and
unseemingly unnecessary these days. I do agree that not only the elite, but
our society treats war as a game. Most of our society is (successfully) far
removed from conflict, many of us don't know what it is like to lose our home,
security, a loved one, a limb, etc. all to war.

I am fully aware of what our "enemy" is capable of, of what they have done to
us, what they do to their own people. I can't say that I get a knee-jerk
reaction to the thought that certain parts of our government employs methods
of torture when in the back of my mind lies countless stories of reportedly
worse violent methods by others. I can't condemn the methods used in the
report until I fully read it. I do condemn the overreach of power, misleading
our elected officials, and other politically subversive actions.

------
junto
let's assume a group like Occupy started to gain enough traction that they
became a serious threat to the status quo. that is to say, that the current
power base started to shift to a form of politics outside the current two
party flip flop system the USA has today.

How long do you think it would be before those 'subversive' groups, even as
non-violent, would start to receive the same treatment?

There are few of us prepared to stick our heads above the parapet. Those that
do, end up fucked. I.e. Snowden, Assange and Manning.

Sometimes I dream about a people's takeover, Fight Club style, where each man
on the street reminds those in power who cooks their food, who washes their
clothes, who takes care of their children. A subtle collective threat en-mass
to fight the power.

Then I drift back off to sleep.

    
    
       I am the People, the Mob
       Carl Sandburg, 1878 - 1967
    
       I am the people—the mob—the crowd—the mass.
       Do you know that all the great work of the world is 
       done through me?
    
       I am the workingman, the inventor, the maker of the 
       world’s food and clothes.
    
       I am the audience that witnesses history. The Napoleons 
       come from me and the Lincolns. They die. And then I send 
       forth more Napoleons and Lincolns.
    
       I am the seed ground. I am a prairie that will stand for 
       much plowing.
    
       Terrible storms pass over me. I forget. The best of me is 
       sucked out and wasted. I forget. Everything but Death 
       comes to me and makes me work and give up what I have. 
    
       And I forget.
    
       Sometimes I growl, shake myself and spatter a few red 
       drops for history to remember. Then—I forget.
    
       When I, the People, learn to remember, when I, the 
       People, use the lessons of yesterday and no longer forget 
       who robbed me last year, who played me for a fool—then 
       there will be no speaker in all the world say the name: 
       “The People," with any fleck of a sneer in his voice or 
       any far-off smile of derision.
    
       The mob—the crowd—the mass—will arrive then.

~~~
sabfdkjwab
Actually, there were already leaked plans from the FBI to assassinate Occupy
members if the movement became too influential.

[http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/FloridaFBIS...](http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/FloridaFBISniperMemo.jpg)

[http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/25/why_did_fbi_monitor_oc...](http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/25/why_did_fbi_monitor_occupy_houston)

I guess we can't let those plebeians have their way, now, can we?

------
jgrowl
Well, when do the trials begin? Remember, 'Just following orders' is not a
defense.

------
binarymax
"enhanced interrogation techniques"

I hate this bullshit language. Just use the real word: Torture.

------
sbierwagen
I didn't know this was actually going to get declassified! Apparently it's a
legit release, not a leak: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/wp/2014/12/08/...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/wp/2014/12/08/why-the-upcoming-battle-over-the-senate-torture-report-is-
such-a-big-deal/)

~~~
lotharbot
the first paragraph makes it clear:

"On April 3, 2014, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted to send
the Findings and Conclusions and the Executive Summary of its final Study on
the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program to the President for
declassification and subsequent public release"...

EDIT: also the fact that it's stamped "Unclassified" everywhere. If it was
stamped as still classified and had been leaked, anyone with a clearance would
risk losing it by reading the file.

~~~
phkahler
Wait what? >>EDIT: also the fact that it's stamped "Unclassified" everywhere.
If it was stamped as still classified and had been leaked, anyone with a
clearance would risk losing it by reading the file.

So a person with clearance can't read a leaked classified document? I'm
confused, more explanation please ;-) This IS sounding vaguely familiar in
some way, but I don't get it.

EDIT: Thanks for all the replies. Also, I find it interesting how many people
here on HN are up to snuff on security clearance issues and ready to answer
this question. 5 informative answers in 30 minutes!

~~~
spoonman1
In order to legally view a classified document you must possess two things: 1)
the appropriate classification level (or above) and 2) a need to know

~~~
simoncion
The only people who are restricted from reading classified documents are those
who hold government security clearances. Folks who haven't bound themselves to
that particular machine cannot be told what they can and cannot read.

------
ad_hominem
Keep in mind this is just an executive summary, not the full report, and the
CIA and White House were able to heavily redact it:
[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/02/x-things-
keep-...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/02/x-things-keep-mind-
ever-get-read-torture-report/)

------
ZanyProgrammer
Too bad this only covers the CIA and not the military. I was a 97E
(interrogator) in the Army during both Bush administrations, who was lucky to
never be deployed. I bet the military also has lots and lots of sins that need
to be uncovered.

~~~
Someone1234
If I may ask, were you trained in the stuff discussed in this report?

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Nope. But then again, what goes on downrange can be very different than what
goes on in the schoolhouse.

------
ryanmarsh
There's a table at the end with Hayden's testimony adjacent its factual
refutation.

This guy will never face charges for lying to Congress.

------
theandrewbailey
If anyone has senators on the Intelligence Committee (like Feinstein D-CA),
write or call your senator and tell them that they made the right choice.

Members:
[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html](http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html)

~~~
mikeyouse
Not _all_ members of the committee deserve your appreciation..

> The 6,000-page report was researched and written by Democratic staff members
> of the Senate Intelligence Committee between 2009 and 2013 after committee
> Republicans chose not to participate.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/politics/q-and-a-
about-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/politics/q-and-a-about-the-
torture-report.html?_r=0)

~~~
ad_hominem
Feinstein has chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee since 2009. Her job
over the past 5 years in this role was supposed to be oversight of these
intelligence agencies.

Fact is until this release she has been a staunch defender of the existing
intelligence programs and the status quo among NSA, White House, and CIA.
She's exactly the type of person you do _not_ want chairing this committee.
Unfortunately when Edward Snowden stepped up and did her job for her (without
the privilege of legislative immunity), she called it "an act of treason."[1]

In my opinion if the CIA hadn't been caught spying on her committee's
computers she wouldn't have released this report at all. It's an act of
retribution in my cynical opinion.

That said, props to her for releasing the executive summary[2] of the report.

[1]: [http://thehill.com/policy/defense/304573-sen-feinstein-
snowd...](http://thehill.com/policy/defense/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-
leaks-are-treason) [2]:
[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/02/x-things-
keep-...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/02/x-things-keep-mind-
ever-get-read-torture-report/)

~~~
wmeredith
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

------
rasz_pl
Leszek Miller, prime minister of Poland at the time of US concentration camps
and architect of CIA-PL deal, was interviewed couple of times since 2005 on
TV. Every time he urged to "shut the fuck up about it already", to not upset
"our allies", and to stop directing "terrorist" attention at our country.
Thats pretty much current state of TV coverage in Poland.

"Funny coincidence": We had Andrzej Lepper, opposition leader in government of
Leszek Miller, commit "suicide" in 2011. Whats so weird about that? Lepper was
famous for announcing TALIBAN presence in village Klewki at the end of 2001.
Klewki is 50km from Stare Kiejkuty and Szymany - locations of US concentration
camp.

------
malloreon
It is incredibly depressing how many war criminals in/formerly in the US
government will get away with what they've done.

------
szierk
How can the average person combat this? Does anyone have recommendations for
organizations to support? I'm honestly at a complete loss for where to start.

edit: removed a comment on this article getting flagged.

~~~
twoodfin
_Wonder who we have to thank for that._

As we're not supposed to comment as to why we flagged a particular article,
it's probably not productive to complain about flagging in the comments.

~~~
szierk
You're right. I've edited the comment to reflect that.

------
secfirstmd
Glad that it's released but years too late.

The idea that policy-makers did not know what was going on is ridiculous. The
reality is many did not want to know and where more concerned about the post
9/11 political environment instead of standing up for what was right.

------
brianstorms
Meanwhile, legendary Silicon Valley angel Ron Conway appears to support the
CIA and its torture program.

[http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2014/12/09/ron-conway-
twee...](http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2014/12/09/ron-conway-tweets-
support-of-cia-torture)

[https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542404171865927681](https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542404171865927681)

------
argumentum
This release is a great development, and despite the overwhelming angst and
disgust that many here are (rightly) feeling about these actions, it affirms
that we _aren 't_ a totalitarian state. That our system of checks and balances
_does work_ , imperfectly for sure, but what system is perfect? If you aim for
perfection, you will always fall short, but surely this means you should
correct your aim and do better, not give up. And _better we will do_.

Those comparing these actions to the KGB, or Gestapo, are wrong on two counts:
scale and intention. There is a _difference_ between the mistreatment of few
hundred and that of a few million. There's a _difference_ between the goal of
fighting nihilistic terrorists and the goal of exterminating undesirable
ethnicities and dissidents.

That we are better than the worst may seem small consolation, but it is
something that needs pointing out, if only to protect against moral
relativism. To be able to reach _towards_ righteousness, we must be able to
distinguish not only right from wrong, but _more right_ from right and _more
wrong_ from wrong. Moral relativism is seductive, but it's a crutch that
prevents us from building a better society.

The United States of America has unique responsibilities in the world, perhaps
in world history, we are the stewards of liberal civilization. As such, we
should certainly aim for the highest standards and chastise and correct
ourselves when we fail. But only fools could think that if we go away, or
withdraw unto ourselves, the world will suddenly be a better place (as many is
this thread seem to suggest). Those who deny the _reality_ of power can never
fight it's ill-effects.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _Moreover, CIA officers told U.S. ambassadors not to discuss the CIA program
> with State Department officials, preventing the ambassadors from seeking
> guidance on the policy implications of establishing CIA detention facilities
> in the countries in which they served. (#8)_

I was not aware the CIA could order an ambassador from seeking the guidance of
its superiors...

~~~
ceejayoz
The documents were likely classified in such a manner that the ambassador
would have need-to-know clearance to read it but not the folks they wished to
consult with.

------
Amorymeltzer
The document has

> TOP SECRET [blackbox] NOFORN

on it. That's crossed out and UNCLASSIFIED is inserted, but what's that black
box covering up? Is it another level of secret access so secret we can't know
the name?

~~~
andyjohnson0
On the basis of googling "top secret noforn filetype:pdf", it seems that the
convention is for the redacted text to be some kind of source classification
(eg. "SI" for Signals Intelligence or "COMINT" for Communication Interception.

I have no idea what it would be in the case of this report, but my guess would
be that it was redacted to avoid ambiguity given that "Unclassified" is
stamped next to it, rather than because the classification is itself secret.

~~~
dragonwriter
The classification is not secret, but the intelligence sources themselves
likely remain classified, including the identification of the kind of sources
supporting the information in the now-declassified executive summary.

Even _vague_ descriptions of intelligence sources are often treated as more
sensitive than the information derived from those sources.

------
codezero
As an exercise visit as many news outlets as you can and count how many times
they use the word torture in their articles.

~~~
jonlucc
I just quickly went to a few and the results are below with the sources below
that

CNN 3

BBC 2

Al Jazeera 5

FoxNews 2

NBC News 3

ABC News 1

[http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/cia-torture-
report/in...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/cia-torture-
report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-30401100](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30401100)
[http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/9/senate-
tortu...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/9/senate-torture-
report.html) [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/09/senate-panel-
rele...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/09/senate-panel-releases-
scathing-report-on-cia-interrogation-amid-warnings/)
[http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/doj-
stan...](http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/doj-stands-no-
charges-ruling-after-torture-report-n264711)
[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/torture-report-reveals-
cias-b...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/torture-report-reveals-cias-brutal-
interrogation-tactics/story?id=27457494)

~~~
codezero
bonus points for headlines :)

------
auston
Is there a difference in these documents?

[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf](http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf)

[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy2.pdf](http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy2.pdf)

[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf](http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf)

~~~
ilyanep
The first is the executive summary of the official study. The second appears
to be additional views added by individual senators on the committee. The
third is a rebuttal from the Republicans on the committee.

------
andy_ppp
An incredibly thoughtful and non provoking introduction to the document from
Dianne Feinstein. This is a good thing and anything that can help America step
back from her actions in future and take pause rather than extreme and counter
productive measures is a good thing.

I hope some day that just like the well tested evidence that torture doesn't
work it'll be shown that mass surveillance also gives next to nothing that
targeted data gathering wouldn't.

~~~
Fuzzwah
Just to clarify are you using the word "her" in this section:

"America step back from her actions in future"

To mean:

"America step back from the actions of the US government in future"

?

~~~
andy_ppp
Just to play devils advocate, so please don't take this personally...

There are varying levels of culpability that we all share right. It's
difficult to see that we are all part of the problem if we aren't engaged in
trying to change it. Your statement suggests that the American government
operate in a vacuum and certainly every day people aren't engaged it does seem
more and more that they can do as they wish.

I'm going to go donate something to
[http://www.rootstrikers.org/](http://www.rootstrikers.org/) now.

~~~
Fuzzwah
You've mistaken my question as holding some kind of opinion.

Reading your reply I can see why. I'm sorry I didn't word it better.

ps: I'm not American.

pps: I believe that American's, like anyone living in a democracy, are
ultimately responsible for the actions of their Government.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
Some other coverage of the same report:

[http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/release-of-
tor...](http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/release-of-torture-
report-underscores-need-for-accountability)

[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/09/live-
coverage-...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/09/live-coverage-
release-senate-torture-report/)

------
arca_vorago
First, I would like to comment on the fact that given the current state of
surveillance, I think a re-evaluation of oversight processes needs to be done.
If the CIA isn't properly reporting to the White House, the NSC, and is
avoiding oversight by congress, then who the fuck is managing these things? On
that same note, what kind of NSC would allow that kind of movement? One that
really knows whats going on and approves but doesn't want to be seen as
complicit is my guess. Otherwise, the director, or more precisely, the AD,
would be the main guy "in the know", but what kind of skeletons does he have
and who knows them? What is the real power structure here beyond the official
chain of command?

How rogue does the Company have to get before someone reigns it in? And with
the current state of surveillance, how could any congressmember practically
seek to do it? Between the Agency and the Company, they have dirt on them all.

My second comment is on torture itself. I'm guessing the main scapegoat is
going to be the contractors pulled in post 9/11\. Class 11: My Story Inside
the CIA's First Post-9/11 Spy Class, is a must read for anyone interested in
this factor. That being said though, as I have posited about the GOT in more
general terms, I have doubts about the actual intentions of these kinds of
programs in the first place.

I'll forget the pragmatic and philosophical discussion about torture
effectiveness for information extraction for a moment, and just come out and
say it.

This is how you create terrorists... on purpose.

Need a war? You need someone to fight. Don't have someone? Create them.

There's also the side ancillary benefit of the possibility of turning some of
the radicals into doubles, who then can be used for all kinds of fun stuff.
The leader of ISIS spent much time in camp Bucca. The guy responsible for the
Benghazi attack also spent time in one of these kinds of facilities. Is this
really the goal? Looking for good people to turn so they can be manipulated
from afar (and then probably killed so they don't talk).

Really and truly, I don't think we can have this discussion properly without
bringing JFK into this picture. I've spent a long time trying to understand
these big picture things, and my conclusion is not one that you want to hear.
Namely, that there was a slow, silent coup against the American government
that was fully completed at JFKs assassination. Also, please don't forget that
it was the JFK incident that led the Agency to develop the anti conspiracy
plan to make the phrase "conspiracy theory" anathema to public debate and
discourse.

~~~
pdkl95
Even if you ignore JFK, a good case can be made that the security agencies
(probably FVEY?) currently seem to have at least _de facto_ control basically
anywhere they want. Exercising that control got a lot easier - and less
obvious - as technology became available. Traditional informants and enforcers
sometimes get noticed, but JOIN...WHERE user.id=foo across phone location data
is very hard to discover.

The key part, I think, is that COINTELPRO ended in name only. Worse, as the
use of the internet increased, the number of times I've had to consider
"JTRIG-style disruption, paid corporate shill, or useful idiot" has increased
dramatically.

While a "silent coup" is one possibility, I have been liking how Dan Geer's
described[1] the high-level picture of our situation as a _Cold Civil War_.
Cold wars are fought by proxy, and there has been a lot of pointer-chasing to
trace in the modern political situation.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-
TGvYOBpI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI) (
[http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt](http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt)
)

------
pknerd
Hope the report will help Americans to find the answer of _Why they hate us?_

~~~
zghst
This response is asinine.

What do you say to the organizations that massacre entire villages and towns
in their own county, make regular suicide and car bombs to blow up crowded and
high traffic places (in M.E., Russia, China), dismember their young for
stealing bread or disobeying, killing colleagues for not being Muslim enough?

They have plenty of reasons to hate us, we are not like them, but it looks
like they do fine in spreading destruction and agony in their home as well.

------
patrickg_zill
Two thoughts:

1\. The CIA hacked the Senate's computers and performed other surveillance on
them. Since they were caught, it is likely that this did not shall we say,
endear the CIA to the Senate.

2\. Unless and until the people in the CIA that did these things, and the
bosses who approved these things, face jail time, loss of government pensions,
etc. I predict that nothing will change.

------
rsanek
Check out the comparison between the Hayden testimony and what this report
found -- from pg. 462 onward (~37 pages total) it's a point-by-point
refutation. Language in almost all of the examples includes "This testimony is
incongruent with CIA records" and even "This testimony is inaccurate".

------
fit2rule
This is long overdue, and pardon my jade, but there is nothing in here that is
at all a surprise. The only news in this release is that the government itself
is finally recognizing what civil society has known for years: as soon as you
put government and psychologists together, you have trouble.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Well, medical personnel in general-when you add them to the apparatus of
interrogation, bad things happen.

------
secfirstmd
Are Jim Mitchell & Bruce Jessen and their company "Mitchell Jessen &
Associates" those redacted but mentioned in the Torture Report?

[http://ow.ly/FClBo](http://ow.ly/FClBo)

------
snarfy
You'll get more accurate information through tricks and false friendships than
torture. There is no justification for torture. None. It's not even a good
tool regardless of the morality.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
>There is no justification for torture. None.

\- revenge

\- increasing the torturer's loyalty for the organization (how many torturers
are whistleblowers?)

\- showing your superiors how far you are willing to go in pursuit of
information

\- terrorizing the enemies you haven't captured yet

\- strengthening the connections with subordinate countries (Romania hosted
secret torture prisons and bribes where given to officials. Who there dares to
challenge the imposed economical partners or foreign policies? Or the visa
requirements still in place in a country that hosts US military bases on its
territory for that matter.)

~~~
jimktrains2
None of those are justifications.

~~~
zghst
I don't think torture has to be justified to those looking to employ it. It is
the most brutal method to rock someone's core, to break them as a person.

Because of the current technological progress, we cannot just hack into
someone's brain. The availability of methods for information extraction today
are slim, you have a lot of officers who lost people, had their own tortured,
and are looking demonstrate tenacious resolve in the face of an enemy.

I disagree with the use torture, it is sadistic. However in some context it is
not inconceivable to why some would use it.

------
sharkweek
I do not understand how torture can be an effective tool for extracting
accurate information.

If I am being tortured, I would likely be so quick to tell my captors whatever
they wanted to hear to make the pain stop.

~~~
mercurial
The French 10e division parachutiste arrested and interrogated around 24,000
suspects during the battle of Algiers, often using electrical torture, rape,
etc., of which an estimated 3,000 were summarily executed.

This effectively put an end to the FLN presence in Algiers. Which, I suppose,
gets to show that it can be effective in some circumstances, if you are
willing to show the appropriate degree of ruthlessness.

~~~
rasz_pl
French are all around great guys

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior)

~~~
mercurial
As the sinking of a boat and the accidental death of a crew member have little
to do with the effectiveness of torture, I can only conclude that you wish to
partake in a bout of gratuitous French bashing.

In this case, I suggest that you start by getting some better material. The
Rainbow Warrior is just a blip on the radar. You will find better attack
angles in our post-WWII colonial behaviour (for instance, the repression in
Algeria and Madagascar), our colonial wars or our African policy. Godspeed.

------
aaronbrethorst
The Republican rebuttal:
[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf](http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf)

and some commentary about it: [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/republicans-dismiss-
senate-tortur...](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/republicans-dismiss-senate-
torture-report-ahead-release)

------
EdSharkey
I hear some modest outrage in people's comments, but I sincerely doubt most of
you want to actually confront the leadership simply because they're aligned
with you politically on most other things.

Other than tossing out some words, I fear most of you are going to do nothing
and continue voting for the same ol' status quo crooks and cronies.

------
fny
"Of the 119 individuals found to have been detained by the CIA during the life
of the program, the committee found that at least 26 were wrongfully held."[0]

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm3Cr1dAnco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm3Cr1dAnco)

------
random_rr
This is shameful... I found this website trawling around
[http://rectalrehydration.com/](http://rectalrehydration.com/)

------
Fuzzwah
Reposted foreword:
[http://pastebin.com/ZJSBptaj](http://pastebin.com/ZJSBptaj)

Because gross pdf.

------
user24
Hmm, page 291 of pdf "Collected Communications". I bet that's something to do
with prism.

------
pknerd
I am sure CIA torture report has definitely shaken average Americans.

~~~
zghst
The average American reads "torture" and moves on. America is no longer a
society whose government is afraid of it, instead we prefer to be 'managed'
for the sake of convenience.

------
hawleyal
ITT: Shock, awe, denial, scapegoating, buck-passing, et al.

------
raquo
I hope we can all agree now that a country' ideology doesn't matter, what
matters is how the power is structured. And _that 's_ not pretty.

------
higherpurpose
Just remember folks - this is the agency Amazon _chooses_ to provide its
services to. Vote with your wallet.

------
jdimov
What is scarier: that US gov has been lying about this or that US gov
genuinely doesn't know what's going on within its agencies?

~~~
delecti
In all likelihood there's plenty of both going on.

------
shit_parade
Of related interest is the Op-Ed in the NY Times by ACLU executive director
Anthony D. Romero:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/opinion/pardon-bush-and-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/opinion/pardon-bush-and-those-who-
tortured.html)

It's saddening to read such a two-faced argument by the head of an
organization I supported with both time and money. When even the ACLU would
rather call for pardons instead of prosecution because they no longer believe
it politically viable I feel there is little left to say on the matters of
justice and law in my country.

I can only hope Romero is soon fired so the ACLU can return to it's core
mandate as written by them:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts,
legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and
liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee
everyone in this country. ~

Once a country abandons it's laws it is soon then abandoned by it's people.

------
koops
Falsehood right in the forward: "the largest attack against the American
homeland in our history". War of 1812?

~~~
ceejayoz
According to Wikipedia, the entire War of 1812 caused 2,200 American deaths
total, let alone in a single attack.

~~~
api
Per capita relative to population size it was much larger.

------
jstrate
Read almost half of it today and nothing really surprising. Still waiting for
the Taliban, Al Qaida, and IS interrogation program reports though.

~~~
Omniusaspirer
If we can't hold ourselves to a higher standard than religious terrorist
groups then something is very wrong with this country.

~~~
jstrate
Can you really not make a distinction between cold shower and televised
beheading/castration. I agree there is something very wrong with this country
if that is the case. I've spent enough Karma today.

~~~
DanBC
I ask you the same thing I asked Rayiner above: try it for yourself.

Take a letter size piece of paper and put it on the floor. Strip naked. Have a
"cold shower", then stand on that piece of paper for just two hours.

Bonus points if you manage to stay standing with a wet cloth bag on your head.
Extra points if you manage this after having been on reduced calories and no
sleep for 48 hours.

In your case nothing happens if you step off the paper.

~~~
thret
I don't know that you should really suggest this. I've had hypothermia, it is
quite unpleasant. And you don't know the state of his health, a myriad of bad
things could happen.

------
rjohnk
I'm surprised no one has brought up Homeland's past two episodes. It's fiction
to be sure, but I think the raw emotions can be seen in the episodes. I have
issues with people here being armchair ethics police.

Also, I have just skimmed the report, so may be in error, but is there any
context to those tortured? If they did not share with the CIA when they asked
nicely, why? Did the tortured gun down innocent civilians? Are they known to
have plans for a large attack? What would you do in that situation?

I refuse to make the jump to "America the Gestapo" I refuse to make black and
white "torture is wrong, always" OR "they got what's coming to them".

There is evil. There is good. We get into theological and moral implications
if I go any further so I'll stop there lest I get downvoted because I believe
in some old white guy with a beard.

~~~
GordonS
> If they did not share with the CIA when they asked nicely, why?

Maybe because they were innocent? Maybe because they just didn't know the
answers? But let's brutally torture them for years anyway... just in case?

> Did the tortured gun down innocent civilians?

According to the report, some of the detainees, including a mentally disabled
man, were _known_ to be innocent themselves.

Presumably there isn't any real evidence that any of them have actually done
anything. Otherwise they would surely be tried in a court, rather than being
brutally tortured in secret camps for years on end, with no legal counsel or
so much as a shred of humanity?

If I was tortured using the utterly _disgusting_ methods in this report, I
would quickly claim to have gunned down civilians, eaten babies, or indeed
whatever else I though they wanted me to say...

Honestly, reading parts of this report left me feeling nauseated. I don't
understand how anyone can even consider agreeing with what these sub-human
monsters have done, regardless of context. That they will get away with this,
and some even profit greatly from it, further sickens me.

