Slashdot Mirror


Senate Report Says CIA Misled Government About Interrogation Methods

mrspoonsi sends this news from the Washington Post: "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. ... At the secret prison, Baluchi endured a regime that included being dunked in a tub filled with ice water. CIA interrogators forcibly kept his head under the water while he struggled to breathe and beat him repeatedly, hitting him with a truncheon-like object and smashing his head against a wall, officials said. As with Abu Zubaida and even Nashiri, officials said, CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating."

207 comments

  1. So Arrest Them by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's obvious they were assaulting people without cause, why haven't they been arrested, prosecuted and thrown in jail?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:So Arrest Them by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More than that, if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them, they have to have some consiquenses for it. Start jailing a whole bunch of people for purgery. Nothing major... Just what Martha Stewart did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    2. Re:So Arrest Them by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Remember the 2007 NIE? They scratch someone's back, someone scratches their back.

    3. Re:So Arrest Them by rimwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive all the way to the Cheney and Bush. Arresting the lying CIA officials would entail carrying out a serious and rigorous investigation led by a competent Federal Prosecutor. The whole process was so muddied by politics, revenge and utter disregard for the principals and norms of war (all covered by international treats), but also a blatant disregard for the laws of the USA. Importantly one earliest actions of the Obama administration was to disallow and essentially censor the publication of all photos of torture and ill treatment that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that action Obama’s administration instead of cleaning house, made itself complicit in all the actions of torture and extra-judicial killings that occurred under the Bush administration. Of course extra-judicial killings are still occurring today under Obama with the executors being the remote pilot of the drones.

    4. Re:So Arrest Them by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

      Because they mostly did it to poor people.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    5. Re:So Arrest Them by tqk · · Score: 2

      If it's obvious they were assaulting people without cause, why haven't they been arrested ...

      Why were they hired? Who hired them, who managed them, who laid down their ground rules? Who did their performance appraisals? Who signed their cheques?

      Those people can always find flunkies to do the work (need money feed family|patriotism|...). Go after "Those people."

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:So Arrest Them by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them

      Just strap the CIA director to a table before the congressional committee and pour water on his face until he tells the truth.

      What's good for the goose ....

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:So Arrest Them by tqk · · Score: 0

      Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive ...

      That thing in the Constitution about rising up and revolting ... Does that include shooting your politicians? You'd think that would be a good place to start. Is anybody doing anything about that?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:So Arrest Them by Arker · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the same reason every attempt at investigating this at the time turned into career (if not literal) suicide and went nowhere. Because if you are going to arrest anyone, you have to investigate, and if you investigate, you have to follow leads, and if you follow leads, you will wind up in the 'Oval Office.'

      Which has enough juice to quash your investigation and make your life very uncomfortable for trying.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    9. Re:So Arrest Them by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I will gladly contribute money to the election campaign of any otherwise-electable congressional candidate who makes this one of his or her campaign promises.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:So Arrest Them by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...you will wind up in the 'Oval Office.'

      Very true, but, contrary to popular opinion, it doesn't stop there. Better pack your bags for a very long world tour.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:So Arrest Them by marcgvky · · Score: 2
      "Obvious"... omg coolaid drinker. You have no idea about what your speak.

      You want better results? Hold "politicians" accountable for the act of entities over which they have oversight... then these people might act as if they are/were accountable. Otherwise these "hearings" are nothing more than a PR opportunity.

    12. Re:So Arrest Them by plopez · · Score: 2

      Can't get them for torture as they were enemy combatants. Can't get them for violating POW rights and policies as they were enemy combatants.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    13. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe just change how you elect your politicians.

      We the people and the republic we must reclaim - Lawrence Lessig

      http://www.ted.com/talks/lawre...

    14. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More than that, if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them, ...

      Which is the crux of the point. Congress does *not* want people to stop lying to them. It serves Congress' best interests to have the CIA, NSA, lobbyists, major corporate executives, etc to lie to them because it allows Congress to set the lie as a truth in the Congressional record. At the same time, it's the irrelevant and small that are attacked (Martha Stewart, steroids in baseball, etc) because it's the low level fodder that a few Congressmen can get behind as lamenting while pretending the system they're part and parcel of is good and acceptable.

      Because last I checked, neither the NSA nor the CIA fall under the purview of the Constitution* and their blackhole budgets seem an obvious target for defunding, regardless of how honest and good they were. I mean, look at how much effort is meant to cripple Medicare, Welfare, Social Security, etc. Rampant fraud and abuse? Sure, that's the calling card of the NSA/CIA. But at least they feed people, treat them of injury, and provide them shelter and necessary living expenses when old. Nope, the NSA/CIA is the killing foreigner business.

      Apples and oranges. Good defense is a good offense, which is why I always random groin kick strangers. Please excuse me if my mumbling of incoherent nonsense somehow makes sense to you and seems justifiable. Because we all know the only ones keep the nukes out of the US are the NSA/CIA...except the ones we have...and that none of the other major powers really want to actually use a nuke and face retribution...and all the smaller groups don't have the resources to build a nuke from scratch..and none of the major powers want to hand over nukes to nut jobs because they're just as likely to be a target. Not to mention that eventually a nuke is going to be stolen/built and used (well, presuming we don't kill ourselves off some other way) and we're just going to have to life with the fact that the genie is really out of the bottle. Nope, the CIA/NSA aren't anti-genies. They're just assholes.

      *Most of their actions if part of the military amount to continuous acts of war against other nations, which clearly violation Congress' unique power to declare war and really gives plenty of justification for just about *everyone*, including terrorists, to launch attacks against the US. Outside that scope, the major mechanism for international actions of the sort the NSA and CIA engage in would fall under scope of "Letters of Marque", but that too really wouldn't apply as part of the US government and would be of an on-going basis if done right to be handed out to individuals which Congress itself is unwilling to invest the time into. It's easier to bitch and moan a lot and not do anything real.

    15. Re:So Arrest Them by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      That's as about as likely as a candidate that promises to crack down on organized crime. It'll change when the powers that be decide 'they' don't want to live in a shit hole, not before.

    16. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because any government agent working against "terrorism" is immune from prosecution. They all get special exceptions.

    17. Re:So Arrest Them by Borg453b · · Score: 0

      I'd mod this as insightful, but I'm all out of points.

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    18. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's obvious they were assaulting people without cause, why haven't they been arrested, prosecuted and thrown in jail?

      Kidnapping and torturing someone for years is the kind of thing that sets you up for capital punishment in the nations that have it.

    19. Re:So Arrest Them by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      Somebody tried back in '63 but it was not all that well received.

    20. Re:So Arrest Them by rvw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them

      Just strap the CIA director to a table before the congressional committee and pour water on his face until he tells the truth.

      What's good for the goose ....

      This is exactly what they want! If you do this, you follow their frame, their method, and you (or congress) approve of it. If congress approves of this, they don't have to hide it anymore. Mission accomplished! And thanks for your helpful suggestion!

    21. Re:So Arrest Them by cffrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can't get them for torture as they were enemy combatants. Can't get them for violating POW rights and policies as they were enemy combatants.

      The US government's designation/use of this term "enemy combatant" to refer to POWs — POWs generally being captured "enemies" engaged in "combat" — for the purpose of skirting international law — is tantamount to my getting out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge I wasn't speeding, but engaging in "enhanced-velocity travel" or some such bullshit. If we (as a supposed "nation of laws") are to accept this ridiculous, ongoing wordplay, we may as well resign ourselves to fully embracing the concept of a US government-produced "American Newspeak" vocabulary, and the degradation of our ability to engage in meaningful dialog that such acceptance would entail.

      I'd be interested to see a list of the "American Newspeak" euphemisms coined for various war crimes and Constitutional violations over the years, categorized by US presidents' administrations. I'm willing to bet that this American Newspeak's vocabulary size has been expanding at an increasing rate during the past few administrations, much like we've witnessed the accelerated expansion of other facets of a totalitarian police state: mass surveillance; militarized police forces; world-record incarcerations (and the rise of the private prison industry that lobbies for draconian laws and sentences (and increasing the slave-labor workforce beyond pre-Civil War numbers); persecution/prosecution of whistle-blowers; over-classification of government documents (often to hide unconstitutional activities and war crimes); government infiltration of peaceful/law-abiding groups; mass arrests at peaceful protests; mass deportations (without regard for the families shattered); undermining the critical function of the free press; and so on...

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    22. Re:So Arrest Them by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      More than that, if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them, they have to have some consiquenses for it. Start jailing a whole bunch of people for purgery. Nothing major... Just what Martha Stewart did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      Your spelling is atroscious.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    23. Re:So Arrest Them by jrumney · · Score: 1

      By blaming the CIA, Rumsfield et al wash their hands of the situation, and the individuals responsible within the CIA will never be identified and held responsible due to the barrier of secrecy under the guise of national security that the CIA operates under. There will be no arrests, this is just part of the operation to make sure of that.

    24. Re:So Arrest Them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Start jailing a whole bunch of people for purgery.

      Which is...what exactly? It sounds like criminal misuse of prescription laxatives. I didn't know that was a major social issue these days.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    25. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are playing the blaming game and in that game the whole objective is to make sure NOTHING really happens.

    26. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive ...

      That thing in the Constitution about rising up and revolting ... Does that include shooting your politicians? You'd think that would be a good place to start. Is anybody doing anything about that?

      If someone did, would the media tell you that they did? If the media didn't, how would you know?

    27. Re:So Arrest Them by peragrin · · Score: 2

      ah but you are forgetting one very important fact. Countries treat each other like 7-10 years at recess treat each other. Look at my shiny toy, no give me that, don't pull my hair I am warring you, give me your money, eww billy's got cooties, etc.

      watch the UN some day and replace all the adults with children. the actions are so close it isn't funny but turns into a sad comedy.

      until countries grow up and start acting like adults none of this will improve.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    28. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was always under the impression that Florida Open Season was when it was OK to shoot tourists. Don't know about politicians.

    29. Re:So Arrest Them by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      This committee is acting like they were never informed of the "enhanced interrogation technique" program from the get-go. It's total horseshit. This committee knew it was happening, and they gave their approval right up until the New York Times (or whoever) published the first public reports of it.

      Then come the public hearings where they excoriate CIA lawyers rather than the senate confirmed administrators and directors. Oh, and when they purposefully ask questions with classified answers in open hearings, and the answer given is "we can cover than in the closed hearing, as it pertains to classified information"; guess who goes to attend an ice cream social at the White House rather than attend the closed hearing to get their answers? The same fucking assholes that are now publishing reports and covering up their involvement and approval. Yes, that actually happened.

      This is nothing but politicians doing what politicians do best - making sure that when the music stops, they're sitting in an over-stuffed wing-back chair; and some guy who was following orders that had legal findings backing them up from the fucking JUSTICE DEPARTMENT gets his career ruined, and possibly goes to jail.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    30. Re:So Arrest Them by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Turns out that democracy is just as rubbish as dictatorship.
       

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    31. Re:So Arrest Them by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Assuming that by 'pour water on his face' we are referring to waterboarding, you have forgotten an important detail: CIA directors, like most people, really don't like being subjected to drowning torture.

      We'd see an end to this waterboarding isn't torture bullshit awfully quickly.

    32. Re:So Arrest Them by AlabamaCajun · · Score: 1

      Dah! come on it was all over the media as early as 2006 this was happening. Who needed congressional insight when it was already known this was happening that even the pawn channels like NBC, Fox and others were even showing this regularly after it became widely known. The CIA has been doing this for a lot longer but it was just not that easy to catch them before.
      What next, will we have a senate hearing on the military using depleted Uranium bullets in Iraq?

    33. Re:So Arrest Them by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Which is the crux of the point. Congress does *not* want people to stop lying to them. It serves Congress' best interests to have the CIA, NSA, lobbyists, major corporate executives, etc to lie to them because it allows Congress to set the lie as a truth in the Congressional record.

      All of this is also a get out of jail free card for congress. They're doing their best to distance themselves now from an agency they've been fellating all along.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:So Arrest Them by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have made the open offer before that anyone who thinks waterboarding isn't torture is welcome to explain to me why that is, as long as they can do it while being waterboarded until I am satisfied with what they are saying is the truth.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    35. Re:So Arrest Them by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on completely missing the irony in GP's post.

    36. Re:So Arrest Them by rvw · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on completely missing the irony in GP's post.

      So why is it modded +5 insightful? These kind of comments are taken seriously by many - just see the other comment on it (and don't tell me that's sarcasm too). If it is sarcasm and if it's not clear - then (s)he should have added a sarcasm tag.

    37. Re:So Arrest Them by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive ...

      That thing in the Constitution about rising up and revolting ... Does that include shooting your politicians? You'd think that would be a good place to start. Is anybody doing anything about that?

      If someone did, would the media tell you that they did? If the media didn't, how would you know?

      And if the Media did, how would they portray that person? Would they describe them as a legitimate revolutionary, or as a freedom-hating terrorist? Besides, who knows what would happen after we started shooting politicians? I'm not sure it' a good idea.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    38. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dictatorships are rarely a bald-faced lie. Unless you want to count constitutional monarchies as "dictatorships", in analogy to what we choose to call "democracy" nowadays.

    39. Re:So Arrest Them by david672orford · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what they want! If you do this, you follow their frame, their method, and you (or congress) approve of it. If congress approves of this, they don't have to hide it anymore. Mission accomplished! And thanks for your helpful suggestion!

      Only if he called the bluff by showing up for his schedualed waterboarding session, climbing onto the table and lying down. More likely he would lawyer up and start trying to explain why waterboarding is not appropriate for congressional investigations but is for terrorism investigations. This would be difficult to explain. That of course is the whole point of the exercise.

    40. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God, go to school.

    41. Re:So Arrest Them by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Orwell wrote an essay about this mangling of language, Politics and the English Language.

      Quoth,

      In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    42. Re:So Arrest Them by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Of course extra-judicial killings are still occurring today under Obama with the executors being the remote pilot of the drones.

      Obama is the only President to have admitted to ordering the assassination of American citizens.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    43. Re:So Arrest Them by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      The guy makes valid points and you ignore those points to grammar troll him. What a wonderful person you are.

    44. Re:So Arrest Them by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      If someone did, would the media tell you that they did? If the media didn't, how would you know?

      The government no longer has all sources of information by the throat. If they did there would be no Wikileaks.

    45. Re:So Arrest Them by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Of course extra-judicial killings are still occurring today under Obama with the executors being the remote pilot of the drones.

      Obama is the only President to have admitted to ordering the assassination of American citizens.

      They all did it. It became more obvious over time due to technology. Party politics plays no part in any of this.

    46. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy makes valid points and you ignore those points to grammar troll him. What a wonderful person you are.

      whoosh!

    47. Re:So Arrest Them by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Democracy is rubbish, but it's definitely less rubbish than dictatorship. If you don't agree, feel free to move to sunny North Korea where I hear things are just spiffy.

    48. Re:So Arrest Them by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You need to contribute AFTER they actually complete the task. If they get it beforehand, it becomes, "um, well, you know, now that I have more information..."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    49. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i so wish I could mod this up.

    50. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's obvious they were assaulting people without cause, why haven't they been arrested, prosecuted and thrown in jail?

      Because they are exemplars of what our society currently idolizes. They are our heroes.

      Our leadership is composed of sociopaths, and our children are being trained to be even more so. Popular entertainments revolve around simulated cruelty and murder, while school system use "zero tolerance" to teach that might makes right, and that you should keep your head down until you reach the top where you too can torture your underlings.

    51. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is it modded +5 insightful?

      Tacky.

      Let it stand on its own.

      Recognize too that public water boarding of congressional testifiers may, in fact, be a step backwards for our country.

      Rush Limbaugh (*sigh* - that is where the attribution belongs) used to talk about "demonstrating absurdidty by being absurd". Your post was a good example of such. The other post was just pointing out the absurdity.

    52. Re:So Arrest Them by tqk · · Score: 1

      And if the Media did, how would they portray that person? Would they describe them as a legitimate revolutionary, or as a freedom-hating terrorist?

      Both, one after the other, dependent upon who won.

      Besides, who knows what would happen after we started shooting politicians? I'm not sure it' a good idea.

      It'll be a really bad idea for those who try it. No, I think mass armed insurrection is the only way to go. The well ordered militia will just have to gear up and go down to the statehouses and take them over. Bon chance.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    53. Re:So Arrest Them by irtza · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, but you should be arrested for what you have posted. And don't try to hide behind the first ammendment - your post isn't speech its an act of incitement of the public like yelling fire in a theater. You are engaging the public to fight the government and should be brought to justice.

      hmm... I was going to post the above as is, but now I'm afraid someone will believe me... or worse yet believe the statement... Thank you /. preview for allowing me to put in this disclaimer - I do not believe in or stand by the above comments.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    54. Re:So Arrest Them by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Let's see: Jesse Ventura, a Navy SEAL, was waterboarded, and says it's definitely torture. Apparently the SEALs used to use waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training, but stopped as the inability of anyone to tolerate it was damaging morale. The linked article says the mean-time-to-failure was 14 seconds.

      Hitchens was waterboarded, and said it's definitely torture.

      Rather uniquely, Oliver North claims to have been waterboarded and says it's not torture. Personally I'd like him to spend a few seconds at the hands of the guys Hitchens went to. I suspect he'd change his mind rather quickly.

      Sean Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded, but backed-out. He maintains it's not torture, and points to North.

    55. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you DO support torture.

    56. Re:So Arrest Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, when protesters waterboard each other in front of CIA HQ as a form of protest, they don't help their case.

      Would they volunteer, say, for a blowtorch on the balls?

      Yes, it's torture. But presentation matters in politics.

    57. Re:So Arrest Them by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      More than that, if Congress wants people to stop lieing to them, they have to have some consiquenses for it. Start jailing a whole bunch of people for purgery. Nothing major... Just what Martha Stewart did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      Your spelling is atroscious.

      Your ability to ignore my points and construct a strawman is admirable, congressman. And you spelled atrocious wrong...

    58. Re:So Arrest Them by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      And you spelled atrocious wrong...

      :/ swing and a miss...

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    59. Re:So Arrest Them by Wootery · · Score: 1

      These two crappy articles say you're right. I'm not convinced they knew what they were doing.

      "It was intense going through it," said the 18-year-old high school student who played the waterboarding victim. He asked not to be named.

      Given that he'd supposedly just been subjected to drowning torture, that he described it as 'intense' seems rather... odd. The people Hitchens went to, actually knew what they were doing.

      Would they volunteer, say, for a blowtorch on the balls?

      Well put. Idiotic students trivialising the matter just makes it seem they're pushing for a broader understanding of 'torture', rather than convincing anyone that waterboarding is torture.

    60. Re:So Arrest Them by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I have made the open offer before that anyone who thinks waterboarding isn't torture is welcome to explain to me why that is, as long as they can do it while being waterboarded until I am satisfied with what they are saying is the truth.

      water boarding is a beautiful torture. It leaves no physical bruises. Allows the perpertrators to be in denial and get away with it.
      It only has consequences if the victim drowns or dies of a heart attack. Blue bodies from interrogators are signs of oxygen deprivation.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  2. Sadists, enabled by our government.... by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Enabled? Did you miss the part about the lying?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      April Fool Mr Baluchi! April fool!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Enabled: Have you missed the part where no one ever is held responsible?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Enabled? Did you miss the part about the lying?

      Diud you miss the part about how the CIA is part of the government?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Our government, enabled by the voters

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pfft the committee doesn't care about the lying, that goes without mentioning. The report is just retaliation for being spied on. Tit for tat. Nothing will come of it. Yes, we are the enablers.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Sadists, enabled by our government.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't count on it. The CIA has publicly questioned the authority of Congress. If they had done it quietly then there would be no problem. Now, however, the boys and girls in Congress know that if they back down nobody week be afraid of them again.

      "Misled the government" is a code word for "we'll let the Republicans of the hook if you burn down CIA headquarters together with us now". Never underestimate the danger of a politician who feels they may lose the trappings of power.

  3. Why can't we all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't we all just get along?

    I'd like to teach the world to sing
    In perfect harmony.
    I'd like to hold it in my arms
    And keep it company.

    1. Re:Why can't we all... by tqk · · Score: 1

      I'd like to teach the world to sing
      In perfect harmony.
      I'd like to hold it in my arms
      And keep it company.

      "Sunshine, lollypops and
      rainbows ..."

      Why are we still fighting crap like this? "Those guys ..." are not people we associate with willingly, yes? So who's letting them get away with this? Somebody shoot the fsckers already! It's self-defence!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Why can't we all... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Where does "Coca Cola" come into it?

    3. Re:Why can't we all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You *do* realize that Coca-Cola has been a CIA partner almost since the creation of both of them? Where do you think the CIA got their cocaine for wheeling and dealing in drugs worldwide, but from the coca processing for Coca-Cola? And how do you think Coke gets its approval so easily to sell products in so many hot spots around the globe, and has "sales representatives" on site who collect "marketing information" from those hot spots?

      It's a very cozy relationship.

    4. Re:Why can't we all... by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      They stopped using cocaine at the beginning of the 20th century. It was still legal to import, and sell at that time.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  4. That's a shocker by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This shakes my world view to its very core.

    Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:That's a shocker by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon into a brick wall.

      FTFY.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:That's a shocker by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon that was loaded with 3-inch nails, and then with them, into a brick wall.

      FTFY

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:That's a shocker by stackOVFL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon that was loaded with 3-inch nails, and then with them, into a brick wall and then slid from the brick wall into a vat of boiling acid.

      FTFY.

    4. Re:That's a shocker by gmhowell · · Score: 0

      This open sores, continuous improvement thing does seem to work from time to time.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:That's a shocker by PaddyM · · Score: 1

      And whatever slashdot user decided to browse a webpage without NoScript must be new here.

    6. Re:That's a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired

      Out of a cannon, into the Sun.

      Futurama'd That For You.

    7. Re:That's a shocker by Arith · · Score: 1

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon that was loaded with 3-inch nails, and then with them, into a brick wall and then slid from the brick wall into a vat of boiling acid laced with the super aids.

      FTFY

    8. Re:That's a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired from a cannon that was loaded with 3-inch nails, and then with them, into a brick wall and then slid from the brick wall into a vat of boiling acid, and the event sounds auto-played to their coworkers at inconvenient times.

      FTFY.

    9. Re:That's a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gmhowell posts another 1 line fart!

    10. Re:That's a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 5 character 1 line fart from gmhowell. Great authors of the world beware (lol, not).

  5. WaPo still won't use word "torture" by billstewart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cowards. They're not willing to call it what it is, because they're still the Establishment Media, and don't want to lose access to the government people who are their big information sources.

    At least National Public Radio has the excuse that they're directly funded by the government (and "viewers like you", and grants from Exxon, Archer Daniels Midland, some recent movie, etc.) - it was 10 years after Gitmo before I first heard them use the T-word in a news story; before that it had only been guests on Terry Gross's interview shows (and Terry herself.)

    Don't let the right-wingers tell you that either of these are "liberal" media.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wish I had mod points. This was the first thing I noticed as well. Lots of mentions of "harsh treatment" or "excruciating interrogation methods" and yet they can never bring themselves to admit that it was torture. The closest they come is in saying "methods that Obama and others later labeled torture."

    2. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      WaPo -> Bezos -> CIA

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by pedropolis · · Score: 1

      WaPo still employs Mark Theissen as a "thoughtful (in print) opinion writer". The proverbial salesman for "enhanced interrogations". This is printed under the masthead. Really?

    4. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      There is some ridiculously inflammatory "liberal media" out there; make no mistake. I used to read cracked 24/7 until it turned into...well..liberal media.

      That being said this is not it! This is a report from people who would know about people we kind of suspected this of for well..ever.

      Obviously this is real, and anyone who thinks it's acceptable isn't a conservative - they're a dick. The republicans of today aren't "real conservatives" at least going by the conservative philosophy. Arguably no one is. However one of the cornerstones of that philosophy is SUPPOSED to be individual rights.

    5. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't finish. It should go:

      WaPo -> Bezos -> CIA -> Obama -> liberal -> WaPo -> ...

      Now you have your 'liberal' press. You are welcome

    6. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I guess "harsh interrogation" is what you get when you aren't very good at torture???? The terminology is fundamentally stupid - if you are compelling someone to do something they don't want to do, and continue to do worse things, isn't that torture- whether its sleep deprivation, water-boarding or the rack really doesn't seem important.

    7. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by number6x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also the 'T' word: Terrorism.

      The point of the torure and the extra judicial imprisonment beyond the norms of warfare is to spread terror and fear in those who are perceived as enemies. In other words, State Sponsored Terrorism.

      It does not keep anyone safe. It creates and breeds more hatred and desire for revenge. It isolates the US from allies. It does the exact opposite of ending terroism. Torture is like throwing gasoline on the bonfire of terrorism.

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    8. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by marcgvky · · Score: 1

      OMG seriously.... take some more acid and get more paranoid...

    9. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by marcgvky · · Score: 0

      Oh, I forgot to mention Monsanto and corn syrup.... losers!

    10. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read about how our soldiers where treated in North Korea

      I have. You should as well. You will learn where the USA learned the waterboarding torture technique from.

    11. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true Scotsman.

    12. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Reboot your moral compass.

    13. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cowards. They're not willing to call it what it is, because they're still the Establishment Media, and don't want to lose access to the government people who are their big information sources.

      If you want to call it what it is, call it "fun". There was no discernible other purpose to it.

      There is a reason the U.S. is considered the Great Devil.

    14. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does not keep anyone safe. It creates and breeds more hatred and desire for revenge. It isolates the US from allies. It does the exact opposite of ending terroism. Torture is like throwing gasoline on the bonfire of terrorism.

      This.

      Something else I find truly and jaw-droppingly shocking is that all the discussion of terrorism remains selectively detached from our own foreign policies. So on the one hand we always hear about terrorism shaping foreign policy, but never about foreign policy shaping terrorism.

      "They" don't hate us because of our freedom. And with the possible exception of a very small fraction of true believers, they don't hate us for not being Muslims. Most of them hate us because we've been overthrowing their democratic governments and propping up the brutal dictators in their countries.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    15. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

      Are you saying that we should calibrate our sense of right and wrong using the worst excesses of our adversaries as baseline? That will predictably turn into a race to the bottom with nothing but losers in the end. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (Ghandi)

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    16. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US is been careful with words in other ways too
      "....says that the DoD termed those involved in interrogation "safety officers" rather than doctors. "
      "CIA made doctors torture suspected terrorists after 9/11, taskforce finds" (4 November 2013)
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
      Also see the Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Enhanced Interrogation" is torture, period. No matter what kind of fancy wordplay they use to to mislead people, its still illegal, just the same as parallel construction and lying to congress is illegal, no matter how you dress it up or try to justify it.

      Since Americans are far too fat, apathetic, and selfish to ever have anything to do with the overthrow of a rogue government, is there any way we could get the international community involved so that the rule of law could be restored? We've been "at war" forever (50+ years of the war on drugs, and 12 years of fighting in afghanistan), so could we start by having the International War Criminal Court put on trial Dick Cheney and everybody else that ordered the torture of what should be POWs, for the war crimes they've committed, and coerced others into committing?, It absolutely needs to start at the top. Considering the circumstances (What, you're not going to interrogate these terrorists? You must be a terrorist yourself! Get in the cell with your friend that you refuse to interrogate!), the people at the bottom who were ;just following orders' could definitely make the case that they were only complying under duress.

      I miss living in a nation with the rule of law. Nixon's prophecy of, "its not illegal if you're the president", has helped establish our current neo-feudalist system, where not only does money and power make you above the law, but the lack of them ensures you feel the full force of the law, which coupled with "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and the ridiculous complexity of our legal system means anyone could be locked up based on the whims of anybody with power (which is now simpler than ever thanks to the words "terrorist" and "child pornography"). And its only continuing to get worse.

    18. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Cowards. They're not willing to call it what it is, because they're still the Establishment Media, and don't want to lose access to the government people who are their big information sources.

      "Don't want to lose access"? Really? Because Chomsky tells a much different tale of state filtered media for manufacture of consent.

      Not that access can't be leverage, but in my experience no mainstream "journalists" ever really tell the news. You'll realize this once something sufficiently heinous goes down in your neck of the woods and you see how it's reported.

    19. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but evil and greed know no borders. The US's School of the Americas worked diligently to educate others in torture methods they discovered themselves.

      Do not be distracted by the wickedly deformed path that evil takes, for any can use the architecture of aggression for their own twisted ends.

    20. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Nope! Nice try, though. They hate us because we put troops in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I. No government was overthrown, much less a democratic one. Allah doesn't like democracy, the One True Way is in the holy book.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    21. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They" don't hate us because of our freedom. And with the possible exception of a very small fraction of true believers, they don't hate us for not being Muslims. Most of them hate us because we've been overthrowing their democratic governments and propping up the brutal dictators in their countries.

      I suspect that the *direct* reason "they" hate us is that their leaders incite them to do so in order to consolidate their grip on power. The issues which their leaders use to incite them range from those on which we absolutely shouldn't compromise (like allowing images of Mohammed in the media), through those on which we should revise our position somewhat (like Israel: we shouldn't support them being driven into the sea, but we need to place sanctions for their treatment of Palestinians), to those on which we were dead wrong (like overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Iran). I'd put torture in the last category, but I'm not sure that it even registers as a significant grievance to terrorists. (Have they ever claimed vengeance for torture as a motive?)

      The thing is, even if we stop doing anything in the last category, and cut back on things in the middle category, there are enough things in the first category for their leaders to whip them up into an anti-Western fervour. This won't really be fixed until the people decide that being friends with the West is better than doing what their leaders tell them. Or we buy off the leaders.

    22. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Funny how I was called a tinfoil hatter for talking about that place in the 1980s.

    23. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      That's a small part of the actual problem, and like it was stated before, only the opinion of a small subset.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    24. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the opinion of a small subset, he says...

      I say it's just the tip of the iceberg because they've been at all of this for thousands of years and saying all these things breed hatred, etc. are ignoring a cruel truth of Islam: Islam has been at this hatred and the very things we've only recently took to calling "terrorism" for 1400+ years

    25. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      You children don't know what torture really is. Read about how our soldiers where treated in North Korea or North Vietnam. How the captured Soviets were treated in Afghanistan. How North Korea or the old Soviet Union treated dissidents.... Grow up hipsters and hippies. It's a bad, mean old world out there.

      How is this relevant to our actions? Do we judge our actions only against those of others, or do we have standards of our own that we should strive to uphold? It is indeed a mean world out there. I'd like to try to make it less that way, rather than contributing to the problem. It's only a mean world because people and nations, including our own, make it that way.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    26. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the U.S.A. should not pick North Korea as their example for heeding human rights? Maybe the U.S.A. should not strive to be worse than the worst hoodlums anywhere? If you declare war on terrorism, you should try to be in some manner distinguishable from terrorists or you might come under friendly fire.

    27. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Funny how I was called a tinfoil hatter for talking about that place in the 1980s.

      Isn't that the way it goes though? Those of us interested in the inner and hidden workings of the government will always be considered paranoid, because people still seem to assume that if some spokesperson says it's not true then it's not true.

      I don't really understand why anyone trusts the CIA at all with anything anymore. I mean, they have lied so often for their own purposes. Talk about tinfoil hat, I still firmly believe the Company has agents stationed throughout the media to monitor and control the message. That kind of bullshit was supposed to have stopped after the Church committee hearings. But why should I believe that? Wouldn't the CIA just continue the program under a different name and just not tell anyone? How naive are we?

      The CIA does what it wants. Stuff only comes out if they fuck up so badly they can't hide it, or when it's useful to someone's agenda. We get called tinfoil hatters, but end up being right a lot of the time.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    28. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously this is real, and anyone who thinks it's acceptable isn't a conservative - they're a dick. The republicans of today aren't "real conservatives" at least going by the conservative philosophy. Arguably no one is. However one of the cornerstones of that philosophy is SUPPOSED to be individual rights.

      Says who? A conservative is someone who holds to traditional values, often both religious and political. Conservatives resist change. Moderate, cautious, that's conservative. People who want to radically change things are not conservatives.

      I realize these words have been redefined by people who want to use the label for themselves. And so, now Nixon is a liberal socialist!

    29. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's what gave me cold sweats after the Snowden leaks broke. Government spying, general warrants, unconstitutional insanity involving both parties up to the highest levels of government, truly terrifying things, and both CNN and Fox are running stories about how these terrible leaks could have happened and what can be done to stop them. Or maligning Snowden as a "terrorist nerd" with a stripper girlfriend. It was blatantly, blatantly obvious that American media is just a mouthpiece of the state.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    30. Re:WaPo still won't use word "torture" by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      I say it's just the tip of the iceberg because they've been at all of this for thousands of years and saying all these things breed hatred, etc. are ignoring a cruel truth of Islam: Islam has been at this hatred and the very things we've only recently took to calling "terrorism" for 1400+ years

      And here's what the actual historians have to say about that: http://www.reddit.com/r/badhis...

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  6. Nervous about the robot voice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, the robot voice has now started quoting Doctor Who. When and where will this end?

  7. There is no line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that hasn't been crossed, by both those that beget terrorism.

  8. Ask them about their Medical Torture Program!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know...the one with the strong AI that fires radio pulses at humans to cause neurons to fire...

    Yes, that satellite based system, you know, the one that tries to hijack the human body remotely...or cause hallucinations...heart attacks...etc...

    I'm sure you remember it...lot's of funding...smart computer with a big mouth that likes to chat a lot...

    What's it called now? Can't seem to remember at the minute...but its the one you use to record neural activity for real-time decoding and listening to enemy thoughts, what they see and hear...oh, what do they call it...yes, mindreading something or other...tin foil hat thingy cover story and all...

    Anyway, what happened to the prosecution for tens of thousands of US and other citizens around the world being sent mad, deformed and murdered???

    What? Its still going on...the experiments are not finished because the system has not completed it training?

    Well, fuck me...I'll just keep quiet then.

  9. WWJBS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What Would Jack Bauer Say?

    1. Re:WWJBS? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Cool

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  10. Re:Ask them about their Medical Torture Program!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ask them about their Medical Torture Program!!!!!!

    Dear CIA:

    What is your opinion of Obamacare?

    signed,
    A Concerned Voter

  11. [sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc] by sehlat · · Score: 2

    CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

    If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate? At least keeping silent (or lying in ways not easily checked) can be a form of revenge.

  12. It's a "boys club" by no-body · · Score: 3, Insightful

    with people totally disconnected from the consequences of their actions, driven by some idea and illusion in their head doing the "right thing", not to use he term "pervert", which in fact this is coming from.....

    1. Re:It's a "boys club" by hey! · · Score: 1

      And a lot of those boys in the club are working out their Daddy issues.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can stand the concept of, in exceptional circumstances, the police or FBI get the evidence illegally. There are cases of murderers where clear evidence has been discarded on the flimsiest of judicial pretexts. So, instead, make the officer or prosecutor who screwed up the case get the same punishment as those convicted, not a slap on the wrist and a wink wink, and not letting the guilty go free. Jail time, and the felony conviction means they lose the right bear arms or vote.

    1. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "There are cases of murderers where clear evidence has been discarded on the flimsiest of judicial pretexts"

      You clearly don't understand the (ostensible) purpose of rights and US law. If you don't protect some who are guilty, you risk many more who are innocent.

      Although you may be trolling, as your suggestion that people who screw up a case be tried is absurd. Sometimes mistakes will happen, naturally. Now I definitely feel that police and judicial officials should not be treated differently than regular citizens, and should be held accountable when violating the law (unlike the current situation with police beatings and murders), but it would be impossible to be a cop if you were charged with serious crimes anytime an investigation or arrest didn't go ideally.

    2. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's a troll, because this is something I've thought about myself.

      Maybe not get charged with the same crime, but throwing out evidence is stupid. If we know somebody say, committed murder, letting them go to punish the police for violating the rules is mindbogglingly stupid. No, what you need to do is use the evidence that was gathered to get the murderer off the streets, then you try the officer for violating the rights of the suspect.

      I realize that there are some problems with this, mostly revolving around how difficult it is to try cops for anything. But right now the punishment that the cop faces is... not getting the conviction. IF he's caught. Of course cops are going to risk it once and a while!

    3. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      but throwing out evidence is stupid.

      No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety, and not allowing illegal evidence is a pretty good (Though it still doesn't stop them from using other tricks.) way of preventing some government abuses, as it doesn't matter if they're willing to risk punishment or send others to be the fall guys.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    4. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      Of course, this doesn't mean that the people who obtained the evidence illegally shouldn't be punished. That should happen also, to make it even more effective.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    5. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      I disagree with that as well.

      We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia. I don't have the freedom to punch you, or dig up the highway. It's all a question of where we draw the line.

      That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered. I simply think that we should treat it as primarily evidence of the violation of the suspect's rights. And like any other piece of evidence, it can also be used to prosecute other crimes.

      Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive. If we can generate the same punishing force without hurting ourselves, isn't that better?

    6. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      And then you end up with cops with martyr complexes willing to go to jail for two years to nail a criminal without due process. It allows for a perverse interest to break the law to uphold the law. Even if the punishment is the same as the criminal receives (cop gets death sentence for breaking due process in mass-murder case), there are some who would do it. Better to disallow the evidence.

    7. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by lonOtter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia.

      You are not referring to fundamental freedoms. If you are, do not say "we." I am not willing to sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety; that just leads to things such as the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, etc. Even if those things were effective, they would still be absolutely intolerable.

      That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered.

      It *is* the point. If we want to make it less desirable for the government to break the law, their ability to use illegal evidence must be severely curtailed. Merely punishing them will not prevent the problem as much as is necessary. It's better that many guilty people get away than one innocent person be harassed by the government illegally.

      Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive.

      I'm all for defending individual liberties, and that's why I think illegal evidence should be tossed. This is one aspect of our system that I have no problem with.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    8. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we allow prosecutions to succeed on the strength of illegal evidence, we allow a perverse incentive to continue gathering evidence illegally. It has to be perfectly clear that illegally obtained evidence might as well not exist. Otherwise we end up at a point where your rights get violated at the first whiff of suspicion (however unfounded) and nobody ever pays because it never goes to trial.

      Add in that convicting a cop will require at least proof beyond reasonable doubt (presuming the prosecutor doesn't just find an excuse not to pursue the matter). In practice, the police still (for reasons that escape me) still get an extra benefit of the doubt. Because of that, we would see abuses run rampant with practically no convictions.

      Public trust of the courts, prosecutors, and cops is already falling fast, If we start letting them profit from criminal activity, it will get worse fast.

      If you don't want to see murderers go free, hold the police's feet to the fire. If they never violate people's rights, nobody will ever go free because of thrown out evidence.

      In cases where a cop plants evidence, he absolutely should face whatever sentence the defendant would get.

    9. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by sjames · · Score: 1

      At the least, termination should be considered. After all their job is to catch the guilty legally and if evidence is getting tossed because they violated people's legal rights, they clearly suck at their job.

    10. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Look, I don't mind that we disagree on this. I just don't agree with your arguments here. You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!" You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.

    11. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Maybe not get charged with the same crime, but throwing out evidence is stupid. If we know somebody say, committed murder, letting them go to punish the police for violating the rules is mindbogglingly stupid. No, what you need to do is use the evidence that was gathered to get the murderer off the streets, then you try the officer for violating the rights of the suspect.

      So we should use the evidence but punish the person who obtained it. At least we won't be sending a mixed message.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      If somebody is willing to throw away their career and go to jail for a few years in order to 'nail' a criminal, I think you need to stop and think long and hard about what person they're trying to hit.

      If anybody else broke into the criminal's house and found a bunch of evidence of wrongdoing, we'd accept the evidence. I just don't see why we should treat the police any different.

    13. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      You're missing my point. Violating the rights is a crime, it's not a question of whether it goes to trial. I recognize the practical problems inherent in that, but in my imagined system they would be charged for that. Right now the same incentive exists - if nothing goes to trial, illegal evidence doesn't matter, does it. Hell, there have been news stories here on slashdot about the DEA laundering evidence to hide the illegal nature of its collection.

    14. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).

    15. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).

      I see. So you think if you are falsely accused of murder and the police beat a confession out of you anyway, that confession should still be allowed as evidence at your trial. Interesting.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    16. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is /exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.

    17. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."

      And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.

    18. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't see why we should treat the police any different.

      Because police are agents of the government, and the government can order them (explicitly or implicitly) to break in to someone's home without a warrant. We don't want the government violating our rights, and this is a check that allows for those rights to continue to be exercised.

    19. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by sjames · · Score: 1

      The DEA evidence laundering exists exactly because the courts haven't insisted on going back and releasing every last person convicted on laundered evidence. That would put a stop to it right quick. After that, THEN start leveling charges on specific people who can be proven guilty.

      Instead, we have the courts pretending they didn't see the news reports and prosecutors, despite the bit of chest thumping they did for show, seem to have no actual interest in filing charges.

    20. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!"

      Since freedom and making sure innocent people aren't harassed is what's most important to me, it is perfectly natural for me to vehemently defend this practice.

      You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.

      I already told you a few posts back. There will be plenty of individuals who would act as martyrs and disregard the punishment. People who feel like they're stopping Bad Guys can sometimes go to any lengths to get them put in prison, whether they're innocent or not. So we'd end up with more innocent people harassed, and regardless of any 'benefits', that is unacceptable to me.

      Just make sure the cops follow the law and no evidence will be discarded.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    21. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is /exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.

      You never specified what illegal things the cops might do to obtain evidence against a person. I understood your position to be that if evidence is obtained illegally, it should still be admissible at trial. I think that is a really bad idea, so I came up with a scenario that seemed to fit your position (police obtaining evidence illegally) that would show it's absurdity. I think I accomplished that. Not everyone brought to trial is guilty. Evidence obtained illegally should absolutely not be admissible for the very reason that it was obtained illegally, regardless of the punishment to the officer.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    22. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."

      And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.

      I know this is just a thought experiment, and that you understand that there are problems with having fruit of the poisoned tree allowed as evidence. I think that as this has played out we have seen why that is not a good idea. Law enforcement must play by the rules. And if they don't, their efforts should be in vain. The exclusionary principle exists for a very good reason. If I rob a bank, I should not get to keep the money as long as I do jail time. Likewise, if an officer of the law breaks the law to obtain evidence, they should not get to keep that evidence.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    23. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I really don't care about your imagined system. I have to live in this world.

      Assume a police officer does something illegal while gathering evidence. Who's going to prosecute? The county attorney (or whatever) wants to stay on the good side of the police, and has no incentive other than the highly unreliable one of wanting justice to prosecute. Moreover, the prosecutor needs to show that there is no reasonable doubt that this particular police officer committed this particular illegal action in order to convict, and that's a hard thing to do when the investigators available don't want to build a case.

      If the courts toss illegally gathered evidence, police find that illegally gathering evidence doesn't work, so they start behaving in a mostly legal manner. After a while, the courts don't have to toss out much evidence, because everybody learns.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      OK, so who's on trial? If the police are going to beat a confession out of the guy, they'll also be willing to make it hard to identify them. The interrogating officer will throw a blanket on the suspect, not breaking the law, leaves the room for a feigned bathroom break, and then unidentified police beat the guy badly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      If they're never caught, it doesn't matter what system we're using! The system we use now is no less vulnerable to crap like that.

    26. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      You have to see the difference though. One is an illegal attempt to generate false evidence (the confession) while the other is illegally gathering true evidence (say illegally recording a conversation with a lawyer.)

    27. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Arg. I agree with your goals, but you're still jumping to conclusions. Maybe there would be some martyr cops. But right now there are cops like that! They break the rules, and if they're caught all that happens is their case can't go forward. Maybe if there were some personal repercussions we could cut down on this shit. And where are you drawing this idea that more people will be harassed come from? Like I said, we already have cops who ignore the rules. Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.

    28. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      But right now there are cops like that!

      The fact that there exist cops that are like that right now does not indicate that there wouldn't be even more if they knew that the evidence wouldn't be thrown out. We need to both throw out the evidence and punish those who gather evidence illegally to minimize the number of cops who will do such things.

      Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.

      That's an argument for adding punishments into the system, not for allowing evidence that was collected illegally.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    29. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nope. The exclusionary principle does not rely on pinning actual blame on any individual person, just a judgment as to whether the evidence was obtained illegally, directly or indirectly.

      Let's take another example: the police beat some information out of the guy, and use it to find evidence of the crime. Under current rules, that bare fact is enough to toss the evidence. Under your rules, the evidence would be admissible, and assuming the police are halfway competent there won't be evidence enough against any individual police officer to convict. Where's the disincentive here?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      How could there possibly not be enough to convict an officer (or officers)? Either they beat him or they didn't. If there is enough evidence to say that the police violated his rights and whatever was gathered by this action should be thrown out, how can there not be enough evidence that the police violated his rights and should be charged?

    31. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do see the difference. I think the exclusionary rule is important for keeping the state and its law enforcement honest. As you acknowledged in your original post, it's hard to get the cops to go after other cops. So keeping their ill-gotten evidence, even if it is factual, out of the courtroom helps to keep them on the up and up. Letting them use such evidence places a value on their law-breaking. We're basically saying, "What you did was wrong, and you will be punished, but we'll still use what you got." That's why I said earlier that it sends a mixed message. It's like saying it's wrong to rob a bank, but we'll help you spend the money. See what I'm saying?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    32. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You use "the police" as if the entire force would be charged, tried, and possibly convicted and imprisoned as a unit. If it's not possible to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that one specific officer did something wrong, it's not possible to convict.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      If the guy comes out and it's obvious enough that he's injured that the evidence would be thrown out and none of the police will name who did it, it's pretty bloody obvious that the entire department should be held in contempt.

    34. Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I think I finally see what you mean. I don't exactly agree, but you do have a point.

  14. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    They're looking for the "big fish", the "kingpins". The focus on catching the "kingpin" works equally badly for informants in drug cases.

  15. Yet another front which the terrorists won. by RJFerret · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Due to our own actions, the terrorists won yet another round...not a cry I'd championed previously.

    The future, scratch that, the present is looking really bleak now that the average civilian can expect to be spied upon, searches and home invasions are being done without cause, due process is ignored, travel is restricted, "Homeland Security" are targeting civilians for desiring sexual contact with minors, and those declared enemies of the state are outright tortured, everything that was considered "evil" about the opposition when I was a child (be it the Third Reich or the Soviet Union) is currently taking place in the United States.

    The only thing left is to disarm the populace to prevent revolt, and institute concentration or labor camps.

    I never imagined I'd grow up to be embarrassed by my government and everything it stands for. Is fear next?

    1. Re:Yet another front which the terrorists won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should probably cross the concentration and labor camps off your list of things that haven't been done yet. The current prison system pretty much has them covered.

    2. Re:Yet another front which the terrorists won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never imagined I'd grow up to be embarrassed by my government and everything it stands for. Is fear next?

      Next? You are not paying attention.

    3. Re:Yet another front which the terrorists won. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      To quote Captain America: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:Yet another front which the terrorists won. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The rest of them are out the window, but at least we know the 3rd amendment is safe. Haliburton would be pretty pissed if they lost contracts building military bases because the government started quartering soldiers in people's homes.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  16. Sell your soul by tapspace · · Score: 1

    People sold their soul and got nothing in exchange. I'd rather have been the martyr than the inquisitor, and that's saying a lot.

  17. Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was allowed to happen and become public, for what one could argue as intimidation. 80% of war is to use psychology to mentally wear down your opponent giving them a sense of fear/impending failure. However it also used as a means to motivate your opponent, or those interested in "joining the cause" now you managed to piss of a new generation of Muslims that probably had no interest in joining.

    Thus the US can keep going with its war on terror, they do the same with the war on drugs. Even people within that war know the things they report are bullshit, they reword the reports to make there propaganda seem a reality.

    "40% of marijuana is coming from Mexico" bullshit, out of all the marijuana "IMPORTED" from every country outside the US 40% is assumed to be coming from Mexico the truth is they cannot determine how much actually makes into the US. And the fact remains that 92% of the pot smoked in this country was grown within the country. So in the grand scheme of things, Mexico actually only accounts for maybe 2%.

    1. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't so much a war on terror; its a war OF terror. Where the americans arrest, torture and release their possible enemies.

  18. Auto-playing audio? This is the end of Slashdot... by adndgamer · · Score: 1

    I hope this an April Fools joke. Otherwise, this is a BAD sign.

  19. Hypocracy by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    We would have to start with Bush and Cheney and the chain of command that obeyed orders. The proper charge might be murder as some of the people died of the torture that was inflicted upon them. Just as we executed German and Japanese war criminals we need to do the same with American officials. Naturally the low ranked guards were the scapegoats and they could not have said no as easily as those above them in the chain of command. Further we turned prisoners over to other nations with full knowledge that unlimited horrors including death would be applied to some of our prisoners. Use the same paint brush that the "too big to fail" jerks received. We are providing absolute proof that American values are a fraud and a falsehood displayed to the entire world including our own citizens. It is a matter of class and race. Certain people are exempt from all law in the US. Bush is one of them. I'm getting old and with luck I will not be alive to see the consequences when the public finally goes into rebellion or supports a foreign power invading this nation. I do think we are building towards an awful rebellion and chaos.

    1. Re:Hypocracy by plopez · · Score: 2

      I would start with us. Through action or inaction we got the government we deserved.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Hypocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would start with who established the CIA and then the one who established the NSA for blame.

      Truman (D) and Truman (D) in that order (Oh, ouch...). Why? Because Bush and Cheney wouldn't have had the tools to do what you're blaming without what Truman signed into law with the first and established under Executive Order in the second in the first place. Hint for you, neither organization has legal authority to exist because they're not specifically organizations allowed for under the Constitution in the first place (Want them to be, Amend the Constitution, don't do "I have a pen and phone" which is what Truman did...just like Barry's doing. Barry's just more open and outspoken about it... Both were acting as tyrants in saying/doing what they've done...)

      Put more simply and succintly, quit placing blame on the root cause where it's not. I don't know if it's out of ignorance or out of malice (it's your "team" that did this...)- but it's irrelevant here. Quit doing it. Lying about all of this (which is what we have here- a lie of omission) is part of the very problem you're bitching about.

    3. Re:Hypocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you are defending the status quo. No, we can't punish the wrong doers because when we were repeatedly lied to and mislead it was *our* fault.

      Do you also blame someone walking down the street for a girl being raped in her apartment?

  20. Silly me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the CIA WAS the government!

  21. The biggest terrorist organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the world, is the U.S. government.

  22. As Dan Froomkin pointed out... by rs79 · · Score: 1

    The Washington Post is still too spineless to call it torture.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  23. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, just to play devil's (!!!) advocate, because you don't *know* Baluchi is cooperating as fully as he might be.

    Ammar Al-Baluchi was unquestionably involved with moving money and goods around for Al Qaeda and was clearly involved with helping many of the 9/11 hijackers. Although that does not necessarily mean he was an active *member* of Al Qaeda or knew exactly what the 9/11 hijackers were up to, he'd have to be remarkably incurious not to know something was up. And he was captured with correspondence that was destined for Osama bin Laden.

    So this is a person who, even if he had no specific knowledge of imminent attacks, knows a lot of useful things. But that actually poses a challenge for interrogators. He can give them an impressive amount of useful stuff while holding back even *more* useful stuff.

    But one thing is certain: if he *had* known more important stuff, it didn't come out under torture. Nor did torture produce *anything* useful that couldn't be produced using different techniques. And now Americans -- servicemen, agents, and innocent bystandanders -- face an increased threat of torture throughout the world at the hands of people who figure if America does it, Americans should get a taste of it too.

    It's important not to be too glib about dismissing torture, because in the future we're going to find ourselves in situations where it seems like a pretty good idea. And the person we're thinking of torturing may be a very bad person -- I don't think it's unreasonable to characterize Al-Baruchi's crimes as "heinous". But if ever torture was going to break the back of an enemy it would have done so with al Qaeda after 9/11.

    Well, we tried it and it didn't work. What *did* work was ordinary interrogation and intelligence tradecraft. Which should come as no surprise. We spent the 19th and 20th C perfecting those approaches, and the idea that we could do better by tearing a page out of the medieval playbook should, in hindsight, seem ridiculous.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  24. CIA misled Government about interrogation methods? by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    Does "misled" mean the same as lying about CIA torture methods?

  25. hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... oh wait, you still seriously believe that? choice of "corporate sock puppet A" or "corporate sock puppet B" on a ballot sheet is not really democracy.

    1. Re:hahaha by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If you choose A or B, then sure it is. Over 98% do. It couldn't be more democratic.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:hahaha by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      What's not really democratic about that?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  26. its called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... reading between the lines. be thankful you media has managed to get the message out at all, given the level of control exerted by the powers that be over freedom of speech in the USA.

  27. wow by whodunit · · Score: 0

    BREAKING NEWS SPIES LIE

  28. Be neither shocked nor outraged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a simple matter of pragmatism in primate politics, disgusting as what Bushco did is I don't blame Obama. No, and I mean no, US president is going to set a precedent of investigating and potentially arresting the preceding administration's cabinet. That sets an extremely dangerous precedent that's lethally corrosive to the normal succession of power expected in a modern Democracy. It's why Ford pardoned Nixon, and why Bushco knew they would get away with it.

    A somewhat smaller scale example would be if the GOP trumps up some excuse to impeach Obama, thereby (since two in a row is a pattern) setting the precedent that every future Dem president can expect an impeachment trial. That this has not occurred indicates that Obama is either cleaner than a cleanroom or covered in more teflon than Michael Jackson...

    Plus, to hear the teabaggers tell it Obama is quite literally worse than Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao taking turns murdering baby American Eagles because... reasons. Imagine if he actually went and had his predecessor arrested.

    1. Re:Be neither shocked nor outraged... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 0

      Does anyone listen to the Tea Party anymore? I'm pretty sure they blew what was left of their credibility on the government shutdown fiasco.

      Well, they did with anyone that actually pays attention to what's going on, rather than drinking from the ideology fire hose.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  29. really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ammar Al-Baluchi was unquestionably involved with moving money and goods around for Al Qaeda and was clearly involved with helping many of the 9/11 hijackers

    ... are you referring to the ones still documented as being alive, or other hijackers?

    1. Re:really... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Ammar Al-Baluchi was unquestionably involved with moving money and goods around for Al Qaeda and was clearly involved with helping many of the 9/11 hijackers

      ... are you referring to the ones still documented as being alive, or other hijackers?

      It's pretty clear that we don't know who all of the hijackers were. A number seem to have used false or stolen passports (since those people have turned up alive). The FBI seems happy to stick with the story they've got though.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  30. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Its seems like different factions of contractors (interesting backgrounds, citizenships), varied control over US gov/mil ranks and location allowed for legal advice outside the expected:
    Request more FBI experts who could help, wanted to help and had years of real US legal expertise.
    Many nations tried hard to move beyond legal torture after the 1975 ++ Helsinki Accords. In 2014 the final US gov reports will be historically interesting when released.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  31. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We know the conundrum since 350 years, it's written down in Friedrich Spee's "Cautio Criminalis". Torture doesn't yield reliable results, if any. Because even if someone in the know might reveal something useful under torture, someone who isn't, won't, but they might just say anything, if true or not. And if you then, based on those confessions of unclear truth, arrest the next one, what will his interrogation yield? And someone in the know, who knows the unreliability of confessions under torture, might even blatantly lie to the interrogators, causing them to go after false leads and thus winning time for his cause, while someone innocent is taken into custody and tortured without any chance to ever produce something of use for the interrogators. All you get is a huge bunch of white (actually bloodish red) noise, and everthing possibly useful is drowned into lots of worthless or outright false statements.

    Torture only works for confessions of things you already knew for sure. Then you can force someone to give up and confess. But as an investigative method, it is just unproductive. If you don't know what the suspect knows, how can you tell if he reveals something of value? And how many not-so-bad guys came under torture because of misleading statements, produced more misleading statements (as they didn't know shit), but when they were released they bore a grudge against their torturers and had firsthand knowledge of their structure, mentality, inner workings and locations?

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  32. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

    If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate? At least keeping silent (or lying in ways not easily checked) can be a form of revenge.

    It's very digusting behavior given that the formation of English law whence America gets many of its concepts of rights. Torture was recognized as ineffective in the 1300's because it works too well, anyone will confess to anything. Here's an illustrated guide for you and yours demonstrating why the CIA practices can't yield justice. The threat of torture is meant as an example to others who go against the will of the CIA, it is effective as a threat, and those imprisoned are doomed to suffer as examples to the others, not as a means of protecting anyone's freedoms.

  33. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by jrumney · · Score: 1

    Torture only works for confessions of things you already knew for sure.

    I think part of the problem is that there is still a section of American society today who "already know for sure" that all Muslims are terrorists. And around 2002 / 2003 there were many, many more who thought this way.

  34. government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Government is nothing more, and nothing less than a bandit gang, writ large." Murray Rothbard

  35. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you know for sure they're not?

    This is 1400+ years of what Islam is about

  36. These Senators Are Full Of It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These senators knew full well that the CIA is engaged in torture. This report is simply a BS alibi.

    The Senate is simply in CYA mode.

  37. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

    If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate?

    You are confused. The reward for the CIA interrogators for getting Baluchi to cooperate is that they get to torture him. All work and no play makes Jack a dull spy. This is just to make a tedious job more fun and rewarding.

  38. torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, the state torturing people for information? I thought this backwards shit was behind us. We don't need this medieval shit in this day and age. Only difference is that they don't do it in ways that don't leave definitive proof. At least, they try to. These people end up psychologically disturbed. They're certainly inspiring other people to engage in terrorism. Imagine an innocent man being tortured to the point where they break psychologically. That will inspire a new generation of people who use terrorism and will be used by existing people to recruit others to engage in terrorism.

  39. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    And you know for sure they're not?

    This is 1400+ years of what Islam is about

    All of them? Yeah, I know for sure that not all Muslims are terrorists.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  40. Re:Auto-playing audio? This is the end of Slashdot by citizenr · · Score: 1

    havent you seen beta?

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  41. Re:Auto-playing audio? This is the end of Slashdot by adndgamer · · Score: 1

    I like to pretend that it doesn't exist. One day in the future I will be severely disappointed.

  42. Re:[sarc]How wonderfully counter-productive![/sarc by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

    Torture only works for confessions of things you already knew for sure.

    Well, for completeness sake, there are specialised situations in which it can yield highly valuable results, and criminals for example, know that. I'm thinking of situations like "Tell me the combination to your safe, or else..." and the like. Time locks on bank vaults were for example invented to stop the all too popular kidnapping the bank manager and holding his family hostage, "or else".

    But of course you're right, that as a means of intelligence gathering these situations are so uncommon, as to render the method completely useless.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson