Slashdot Mirror


CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

mrspoonsi sends this news from the BBC: The CIA carried out "brutal" interrogations of terror suspects in the years after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., a U.S. Senate report has said. The summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report said the CIA misled Americans on the effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation." The interrogation was poorly managed and unreliable, the report said. President Obama has previously said that in his view the techniques amounted to torture. The Senate committee's report runs to more than 6,000 pages, drawing on huge quantities of evidence, but it remains classified and only a 480-page summary (PDF) is being released. Publication had been delayed amid disagreements in Washington over what should be made public. CIA Director John Brennan has posted a response.

61 of 772 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No shit.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they ALL knew about it. Including Pelosi who sat on the intelligence committee and was briefed by the CIA. She is denying knowledge but the CIA stated she was privy during briefings about the torture.

      Will she go to jail? Nope. Just like Sandy Burgler, er, I mean Sandy Berger.

      To make matters worse cronyism is much more worse during the Obama administration than the Bush administration. Keep an eye on the news and press releases and you'll see for yourself.

    2. Re:Really? by Locmar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of the techniques that have been revealed in this report include rape, beating, immersion in freezing water for long periods, forced holding of stress positions (including forcing people with broken legs and feet to stand for hours), extreme sleep deprivation. Victims of the CIA torture regime were often innocent, and some died. The US government in the past has had a legal remedy for the perpetrators of these torture methods: the death penalty.

    3. Re:Really? by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heh, you think you can't be tortured without leaving marks? How quaint and 12th century of you.

    4. Re:Really? by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You haven't read the report have you? It's brutal alright, with plenty of lasting effects. In any case, it's beside the point. What so-called "civilised" nation sanctions such things, in the 21st century? This is utterly shameful and there's no excuse. America cannot claim the moral high-ground or any respect until it stops acting this way.

    5. Re:Really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Waterboarding is regarded by many countries as torture. It simulates the feeling of drowning. Blasting people with sound is also widely considered to be torture, and is pretty brutal to experience.

      If anything the fact that they stuck to abuse that didn't leave scars, or purely mental torture, just goes to show that they knew it was wrong, and were hoping that the lack of evidence would allow them to continue denying it. Who would believe a (suspected) terrorist or bleeding heart human rights activist?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Really? by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This what happens when you use the wrong personnel for the job. Army and Marines aren't effective Gendarme, we do not have a true Gendarme Corps. We also apparently don't learn that torture is ineffective even against a prisoner that will not respond to positive overtures. If they won't talk, torturing them won't get them to tell you what you want to know, it'll get them to say anything to end the torture, and if they're committed to their cause, that will be lies that hurt you trying to investigate them.

      The "ticking time bomb" scenario has never been realised in the United States, to my knowledge. There haven't been situations when someone was caught after the plan was finalized and before it was put into play where we identified them as a player.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Really? by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Waterboarding was regarded by the US as torture and at least a couple of Japanese officers were tried and put to death over applying it to captured US soldiers in WW II. It's hard to express how much disgust and shame I felt when I learned that elements of the US government were using it. Even worse is that no one has been held accountable for it yet, one the the biggest failures of the Obama administration.

    8. Re:Really? by Locmar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The report cites at least two instances of "rectal exams conducted with 'excessive force'," in addition with the use of "rectal feeding" or "rectal rehydration" as a means of exerting "total control over the detainee." One can quibble over whether such practices constitute rape, but legally speaking when something is forcibly inserted into someone's anus without their consent, that can reasonably be considered rape.

    9. Re:Really? by Anguirel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I actually suspect that is exactly the failure he means, and that he is not a Republican just blaming everything on Obama. Everyone is allowed to criticize the President, but especially former supporters when he fails to live up to campaign promises or even his own initial acts in office. That Guantanamo Bay is still open and the prisoners are still there without any formal or official charges or trials is a massive failure, for example.

      This is another. The guy that ordered the torture not bothering to prosecute it? Understandable, if terrible. His successor failing to enforce the law and prosecute those responsible? A pretty big failure on that newer administration. If you're going to call it torture, press the case. Deeds, not words.

      I supported Obama initially -- lesser of two evils (particularly after Palin was selected as the running mate), and I hoped even if he was only a figure head his rhetoric would set the tone for everyone working in government, and he definitely talked a good talk. He has since failed to deliver on those speeches (which was expected), but has also changed his tone and simply adopted his predecessor's as his own (which was not expected). Just because I supported him in the past, and feel his opponents are worse, that doesn't mean I am incapable of seeing that he has had many failures during his term. That you would blindly assume anyone criticizing Obama is a Republican doesn't speak well of you, or politics in general. No one should be safe from blame.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    10. Re:Really? by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These guys DID have permanent damage. Prisoners have died.

      What should the standard of conduct be for the US government? "At least we didn't use pliers", that's our baseline? Maybe we call up Mubarak and ask him how much torture he did, then we can do even more torture just as long as it's slightly less than the other guys.

      This corrupts everything our country was founded on. From ignoring the constitution with perverted logic that it doesn't apply on military bases, ignoring international treaties which have the FULL weight of law in the US according to the constitution, and picking up random people in Afghanistan and detaining them indefinitely without any evidence to bring them to trial all because they're neighbor turned them in to get a cash reward, and so on.

      Al Qaeda WON the war here. They destroyed our constitution and turned us into the bad guys.

    11. Re:Really? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. This is what you get when you allow a corrupt government to continue operating in a corrupt manner, despite continuous and direct evidence of its corruption.

      Stop thinking the guys in the trenches bear primary responsibility for the commands of their political masters. Are the interrogators, lower courts, and lawyers guilty? You bet they are. But their crimes pale in comparison to the federal legislature, the supreme court, and the heads of the various TLA operations. That's the root of the problem -- corrupt leadership -- and as no one is in the least proposing to address it, all finger-pointing at the lower echelons is strictly in line with exactly what they want you to do: See to it that all blame falls on scapegoats, while those who bear the responsibility of authorizing these practices continue to operate as per usual. You watch. There will be exactly ZERO fallout at the level of those who made these choices. ZERO.

      While we're at it here, let's give Obama an attaboy for saying "fuck no" to the whole disgusting mess. He surely isn't perfect, but he got this exactly right.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He didn't. He said "er, umm... Let's not do that any more, OK?"

      "Fuck no" would have included timely investigation and prosecution.

      Much as we on the left would like to, there's basically nothing to give Obama an attaboy for.

    13. Re:Really? by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Waterboarding was regarded by the US as torture and at least a couple of Japanese officers were tried and put to death over applying it to captured US soldiers in WW II.

      -5,000, Lying Bastard

      Suggesting that what the Japanese did was equivalent to the modern usage of the word "waterboarding" is a bit like suggesting that the Nazis really did just give the Jews a nice shower.

  2. From Jack Brennan's response by alphatel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet, despite common ground with some of the findings of the Committee’s Study, we part ways with the Committee on some key points. Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qa’ida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day.

    Just when will the CIA get off its high horse of believing that this program, in its former form, or any newer form, produces value for the American citizen or state as a whole? They need to stop defending this indefensible stance that it's okay as long as the CIA is in charge of capturing, detaining, violating rights, and denying everything it does or has ever done.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they will lie about the "success" of what they did. Otherwise everybody would see them for what they are: Utterly primitive and vicious cavemen without even a shred of intact morality.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they will lie about the "success" of what they did.

      Does it matter it if was successful? If they could show that American lives were saved by torturing prisoners, would that make it okay?

    3. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they could show that American lives were saved by torturing prisoners, would that make it okay?

      If the prevailing attitude is "we as Americans will accept anything done to you to protect us", then in some people's minds, it may well be okay.

      Of course, if America decides that torturing other people is OK then America has pretty much lost any form of moral high ground, and should expect other countries to torture Americans with impunity.

      When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.

      So, hey, if a couple of your CIA agents or citizens end up getting offed or tortured, don't suddenly say that's unfair. Because it's kind of the bar you set.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When will people wake up and realize that the gov't (even though they suck at their job most of the time in the civil area) is there to protect its constituents at all times and with whatever force required. When the gov't fails to do that, that is when they have failed you. People want to be "nice" and live in a box.

      This is a fascinating comment. First, we are not "constituents" of the government. We are citizens of a nation, and the government works for us. Secondly, I think I disagree that the government's job is to protect the citizens with "whatever force is required". The uncertainty comes from what you mean by "protect citizens". I think that it's more protective of citizens to behave in a way that isn't morally reprehensible. The government completely and totally failed us when it began torturing people.

      The underlying implication of your comment, though, is the most curious of all: it appears that you think that the only legitimate role of government is to make war, and further that the government is better at that than at its civil duties. I disagree with both of those implications.

    5. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.

      This has been the main argument in favor of torture. "Do you think the terrorists treat their prisoners nicely? Then why should we be bound to any conventions we know they won't abide?" The argument has always been that "they" started it.

      The morality of any of these situations has to be asymmetrical, and "our side" always needs to be the kinder, more honest, and more fair side. As soon as you demonstrate your willingness to use the unethical or evil techniques of your enemy, you lose any distinction from them.

    6. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. Until 9/11, we (the West) had moral authority because we didn't torutre. That was part of the discourse: we held ourselves to a higher standard than the despots of the world despite the risk and cost it entailed. It was a sign of our strength that we were able to win without resorting to state-sanctioned torture.

      Our status as non-torturing states was essential to the legitimacy of our governments in leading the world: we set global standards not just because of economic wealth but because of our moral standing.

      Taking your example, if a CIA agent spying on a dictatorship was tortured, then we would have seen that as evidence that the dictatorship deserved to be overthrown. It would be evidence of the weakness and illegitimacy of the dictatorship that it resorted to such barbarity.

      The gloves of basic decency should never come off. There are hypothetical, us-or-them situations that can be imagined, but we can and should be able to win our wars without officially-sanctioned, legalized barbarity.

    7. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that the information was obtained by torture in no way indicates that the information could not have been obtained without torture.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you decide the morality of the situation is asymmetrical, don't expect the other guy to see your side of it.

      This has been the main argument in favor of torture. "Do you think the terrorists treat their prisoners nicely? Then why should we be bound to any conventions we know they won't abide?" The argument has always been that "they" started it.

      The morality of any of these situations has to be asymmetrical, and "our side" always needs to be the kinder, more honest, and more fair side. As soon as you demonstrate your willingness to use the unethical or evil techniques of your enemy, you lose any distinction from them.

      More than asymmetrical, it has to be utterly unambiguous.

      People will always give their side the benefit of the doubt and the good guy isn't always clear. Bin Laden killed 3k in an utterly indefensible act, the Iraq war killed 100k in a much more defensible act. In the west it's easy to consider Bil Laden's act as the greater evil. Afterall he explicitly tried to kill as many people as possible with the goal of starting a wider war. The Iraq war, even if it were a mistake, wasn't started with the objective of mass casualties.

      However, if you're from the middle east, and find it easier to identify with the dead Iraqis than the dead Americans, then you might consider the far greater number of Iraqi casualties to make that the worse crime.

      Or in Ukraine, where Russia is are using the NATO intervensions in Bosnia and Libya, and the US invasion of Iraq, as justifications for their own actions. It doesn't matter if they're right, it's incredibly easy to rationalize the acts of your side. Just to be certain that you're not one of the bad guys yourself you need to keep your actions way above reproach.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's really quite simple. Militants, unaffiliated with a true nation state, who deliberately kill innocent civilians, with the full intent of targeting and killing innocent civilians

      "It's really quite simple," eh? Okay, I'll try it out:

      You, cyberchondriac, are a "militant" and therefore a terrorist. You have deliberately killed innocent civilians You fully intend to target and kill more innocent civilians.

      "But I'm not a militant or a terrorist," you say, "I'm innocent!" Well, fucker, if you were so goddamn innocent then how did I decide you're a terrorist? What, you want some kind of "due process" to prove your innocence? Ha ha fuck you, you're a goddamn terrorists and terrorists don't get due process!

      I'm going to come in the dead of night with a military-style raid and "render" you to some third-world shithole where you can get tortured until my sadistic cronies get bored, then you can rot until you die. Or fuck it, maybe I'll just blow you up with a missile. Same difference, terrorist.

      I know I'm right because I've decided so, and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter what you say because you're a terrorist, and terrorists lie. And there's nothing you can do about it, because I've declared you to be a terrorist.

      Now, you little fascist shit, do you begin to see the goddamn problem with that logic?!?!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's more, I believe that there have been studies showing that a gentle hand will get better results than a firm first. If you can show the person that they have a lot to gain, rather than something to lose, and treat them nice they are far more likely to divulge information (be it by slipping up or by confessing). Plus, the propaganda probably makes us out to be hellspawn demons, so if we turn out to be quite pleasant people after we capture them it will make them question other things they've been told about what they are doing.

      Aggression puts people on the defensive, so they're more likely to fight against whatever it is you want to accomplish.

      Can't back these words right now, though, as the Google is flooded with posts about the CIA torture reveal and it's harder to look for relevant information.

    11. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by mean+pun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, it is simple! Good. So, let's run a testsuite over that simple algorithm of yours:

      Were the people who fought for the creation of the state Israel terrorists? Remember that at the time Israel was not a `true nation state', and this fight involved attacks on hotels, Palestinian farmers, and similar non-military targets.

      Were the people who fought for the creation of the USA terrorists?

      Were the people who fought for the independence of Ireland in the early 20th century terrorists? Remember that as far as the UK was concerned, Ireland was not a `true nation state'.

      Are the Palestinians who fight against past and future Israeli injustice and encroachment on their land terrorists? Remember that almost all Israelis are or have been in the army, and are reservists for a large part of their life. And like it or not, these Palestinians consider their land, and a lot of the land that is now Israel, as part of their own `true nation state'.

      Was the Saudi national who argued that the US military bases in his country were a form of occupation, and who founded an organisation to fight against this, was he a terrorist? I presume Saudi Arabia falls under your definition of `true nation state'. Hint: he was deeply involved with the immediate causes of the report we're discussing.

    12. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're free to think of the US as a piece of shit

      Don't worry, we do.

      It boils down to the fact that if America is willing to torture, tap the communications of everyone on the planet, bomb civilians, and treat the rights of everyone else as secondary to your security ... the rest of the world will happily decide that it is better that Americans die than we give up our rights. Because you have declared yourselves the enemy of every civilized nation on the planet.

      If America wishes to pursue a policy whereby "any means necessary" is the standard, then GO FUCK YOURSELVES. Americans deserve to die when they decide that the security and rights of everyone else is secondary.

      Your ability to lead is meaningless once you start crossing these lines.

      Fuck you.

    13. Re:From Jack Brennan's response by Hydian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is, were the Americans tortured with the intention that they should reveal knowledge they possessed about plots against the state of the captors? If that's the case then sure, it sucks, but it's war. We hate them, they hate us, and the gloves are off. If they are torturing certain Americans completely unrelated to the military, as a form of collective punishment, then no *fuck that* we are still on the high ground and we are good to go on dropping a few thousand more bombs on those barbarians.

      No, you're not. The justification for doing evil doesn't make it ok or even a little less evil. It is still just as evil. The attempt at justification simply makes you an even worse person because you aren't even enough of an adult to own up to your actions. Believe me, the other guys have their own justifications too...you just don't like theirs in the same way that they don't like yours.

  3. Re:Justice by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the US, the powerful can be the most evil scum and commit the most heinous crimes against humanity and will have nothing to fear from "the law" at all.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Re:It would be more accurate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The opinion that Nazis committed war crimes is not universal, either.

  5. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The entire Bush administration should be prosecuted for war crimes

  6. Re:Justice by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, it's pretty much SoP. The more rich and powerful you are, the less likely you'll ever be held accountable.

    A politician held accountable for crimes he authorized? Never gonna happen.

    Same goes for the crooks on Wall Street.

    I'm sure it's the same elsewhere -- the old boys network makes sure the people who can do the most damage are shielded from consequences.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. I prefer this memo. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer this memo:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/

    Part of being the "good guys" means NOT being the "bad guys".

    More people die in traffic accidents EVERY YEAR than the "terrorists" have ever killed here. So why give up a morally superior position to "fight" people who pose almost no threat to anyone outside their own countries?

    1. Re:I prefer this memo. by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >So why give up a morally superior position to "fight" people who pose almost no threat to anyone outside their own countries?

      Money.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:I prefer this memo. by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Traffic deaths aren't random, even if they aren't intentional. Nearly every traffic death can be traced to a specific and often avoidable cause. Addressing a minute fraction of those causes will have a dramatic effect on the number of people who die in the US every year.

      On the other hand, if your opponent's most successful attack ever can't be distinguished from year to year variations in the death rate of Americans, spending any significant energy fighting him is a waste. We could have a 9/11 attack every single day for hundreds of years and still not deplete the American population. This is an ant-bite of a threat and deserves an ant-bite appropriate response.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  8. Effectiveness doesn't matter by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if torturing prisoners was "effective," who cares? If something is immoral, good results will never make it moral.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  9. Senator John McCain by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored."

    From a Republican even.

    --
    The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  10. And who pays???? by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The taxpayer.. for all of it. The beatings, the reports, the politicians and bureaucrats dickering over minutia.
    Who doesn't pay? Those responsible for such atrocities. We increasingly live in a society where a few - IE military and intelligence brass, the rich, the police, and corporations and individuals with the money to play the game can do nearly anything with impunity.

    This meets the definition of tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power - and we live it every day, but most do not see it. The question is, is the natural state of being for humans - people abusing their power over others, or can it be changed and transcended?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  11. Oversight? by mveloso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where's the oversight? Oh, it was by the same people that oversee the NSA, never mind.

  12. Where are the war crimes prosecutions? by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, really.

  13. Re:Enlightening... by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Queue all the posts of "Why are you surprised! of course they were doing this!"

    I wish people would understand that this response is a standard rhetorical technique. You see it happen all the time in various scandals and cover-ups. Essentially the aim is to diffuse the response by delaying it until people can be persuaded not to care.

    A few years ago, if someone suggested that the CIA is torturing people, they'd be accused of being unpatriotic and paranoid. As the news starts to come up, defenders change their message to, "Hold on there. There are some unproven allegations, but you should wait until all the evidence is in before getting upset." They drag the whole thing out for years, and when the evidence is in, the defenders say, "Well we knew all of this years ago. Why are you upset now?!"

    Lots of things follow this pattern. CIA torture, NSA spying, unethical/illegal actions leading to the financial system meltdown, invading other countries, global climate change, and even Clinton sexually harassing White House interns. It's very often those same three steps: (a) Deny it happened; (b) Admit something happened, but ask people to wait before passing judgment; (d) Delay; and finally (e) Admit the whole thing, but claim that the time for a response has already passed.

    It's intentional, and people will keep doing it because it works.

  14. Re:Enlightening... by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real heros are the ones that stood up after they had started waterboarding and it just got to the point where they couldn't' handled it any more? No, they aren't heroes. Heroes are the ones that stand up, stop it BEFORE it got to that point. Or if it progressed to the point of no return, quit, and made it as public as they can regardless what their personal consequences are. Heroes don't get to abuse, and then just walk away when it gets too much and still get to be called heroes.

    I suppose that you'll also call them victims of terrorism for what they have to live with knowing what they've done too.

  15. Re:Really? .. it comes with the job by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I might too, but that doesn't make us right.

  16. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. It's good when the (R | D) team does it. It's only bad when the (D | R) team does it.

    Seriously though, wholesale prosecution of everyone in the executive since 2001 is exactly what should happen.

  17. Re:Really? .. it comes with the job by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see.

    Terrorizing is bad.

    So obviously the solution is more terrorizing.

  18. Re:Justice by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anarchy? The powerful are shielded in any form of government ever tried, from tribal warlords to kings and popes to dictators-for-life. That's what it means to be powerful - you get your way, over the protests of others. Power is fairly dilute in the US vs most systems in history, though the gradual accumulation of power in the executive over the past few decades really worries me in that regard.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  19. Re:Really? .. it comes with the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Torture is useless as an intelligence tool. It is also counterproductive for any reason other than a "sense of vengeance".

    Sure, it satisfies that, but then you lose the moral high ground. And that shit is actually important.

  20. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, but we're also the country that screams louder than any other country in history by magnitudes about how we are the land of the free, home of the brave, with liberty and justice for all.

  21. Re:Enlightening... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Heroes? They aren't heroes! They crawled back home in suburbia crying all the way to their office jobs and got a prescription for Prozac to deal with their PTSD while leaving the prisoners to be tortured and rot in Gitmo. Some heroes. A hero would have gotten a gun and stopped them from being tortured. A hero would have stood up on prime-time television and told the world what they saw in order to get it stopped. Being a hero means risking it all for doing something that believe so strongly in. Asking for a transfer to another division because you can't stand seeing someone tortured isn't not heroic.

  22. Re:Justice by mean+pun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question remains why nobody has been (and likely will be) prosecuted for these war crimes. Sure, a few underlings got a little punishment, but it has been very clear from the early days of the Obama administration that the guys where the buck stopped would never face any prosecution. The parts of the report that have now been published suggest the buck stopped at the CIA top, but from other sources we know that at least Cheney, Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld were so deeply involved they deserve at least some investigation. At least Cheney has been pretty open about his involvement.

    So why did this prosecution for war crimes never happen? The most charitable explanation I have been able to come up with is that Obama thought the unrest this would cause in the USA would be unacceptable, but I admit it is a weak explanation.

    Oh, and yes, the things described in the report were war crimes. Waterboarding is explicitly mentioned in a UN definition of torture, and after World War II some Japanese soldiers were tried and executed for waterboarding allied soldiers. And that's just the waterboarding.

  23. Re:Justice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you actually read TFA, you'd see that it also indicates that Bush had little to no knowledge of the specifics of the interrogations or their brutality

    Yeah, he didn't really strike me as the curious type. But Cheney claims to have known every single detail. I guess he gets off on that stuff.

    and in 2006, upon his learning of it, it was ramped down.

    "Say fellas? You think we can ramp down the shoving of pureed food up prisoners' asses a little bit? The screaming is starting to keep Laura awake at night and somebody keeps stealing the mashed peas out of the White House fridge. Now watch this drive"

    http://youtu.be/Z3p9y_OEAdc

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. America, you stink. by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Brit living in Australia, two of the world's most ardent allies of the USA , I say this: America, you stink. When a friend tells you you stink you'd better wise up and do something about it. Your actions are CAUSING the terrorism that you are seeking so vainly to suppress. The more you oppress, the more people turn against you. I know you have a bit of a thick skull and your thinking processes are limited (as a country, we understand you have trouble walking and chewing gum, but that's OK, intellectual disability we can accept and sympathise with - we are similarly afflicted, truth be told). It's the actions we have a problem with. But now even your friends and allies can see the terrorists' point of view, and have done for some time. Wake up, fix your stupid foreign policies and you know, maybe THAT will sort out terrorism. It's win-win.

  25. American Hypocrisy is unmatched by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We constantly try to convince ourselves and the world that we're supposed to be some sort of role model after which all others should strive to emulate.

    Time and time again, the evidence tends to show that we can actually be much worse than those countries we love to demonize.

    Can you imagine what would happen if another country ( pick one ) started a program like the one we run for snatching up Americans ( or American Allies ) suspected of ties to $scarylabel ?

    Perhaps building their own version of Guantanamo and holding them indefinitely without charges, trial or even notification to anyone they were being held at all ?

    Everyone here knows exactly what the reaction would be. Drone strikes, commando raids, hell we might even send a Battle Group or three and park them off your coast. Regime change, invasion, air strikes, sanctions, excuse for new war toys testing, etc. etc.

    As long as the country in question isn't a major power of course. We love to send in the troops to countries that cannot possibly defend themselves from our mighty war machine. Not so much into the countries that can. See any Russian or Chinese detainees in that lovely detention camp of ours ? Yeah . . .my point.
    Ever see a bully pick on someone who could kick their ass ? Me either.

    Wonder how our war-nuts would handle it if $evil_country started snatching our worldwide intelligence agents ( or just Americans and their Allies at random ) and subjecting them to the same tortu. . . . er. . . . enhanced interrogation techniques that we use. Would be hilarious to hear what insanity would spew forth from our Government about how . . . how . . . EVIL such a thing is. How DARE they do that to an American ?! Resolutions !! Declarations !!! OMGTEHHORROR !! ( Fox News would just implode I think ) :|

    To the rest of the world, I would like to apologize for the arrogance, hypocrisy and illogical ideology of our "elected" government. If you have any ideas on how to fix it, we're all ears.

  26. Re:Really? .. it comes with the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah but that's where international treaties and international law come in. If it is a war, then treat the prisoners like prisoners of war.
    Not following it because the enemy combatants have not signed it? CONGRATULATIONS, that is literally the Nazi justification for atrocities.

    Yes, godwinning, but treating "enemy combatants" inhumanely is ridiculously stupid, shortsighted, and loses the moral high ground.

  27. Re:It's allowed... by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally fighting fire with water or other fire retardants is the preferred method.

    It is in the very nature of evil that it "gets results". The entire point of morality is that there are things you will not do even if they are in your interest.

    As an American citizen, I do not in any way approve of the use of torture. I am willing to accept the higher risk of death by terrorism, assuming the risk even is higher, in return for the country behaving in a moral fashion. I am willing to trade my safety for doing what is right. No torture, no indefinite detention, no extra-judicial killings.

      If I knew a legal way to stop the US from using torture, I would.

    We have become the things we always claimed that we opposed in the world.

  28. Re:*yawn* by bledri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was 100% politics and had little to do with much else. Why else release such inflammatory information AGAIN?

    ...

    The really sad part though is that it is highly possible that the release of this report will cost Americans their lives. The world is a dangerous place, but it's stupid to poke the enemy or hand them such a public relations win as this will be. We will be lectured by Iran and North Korea for human rights abuses and you can bet ISIS will be happy to use this to recruit/conscript more help.

    (sarcasm)Oh Yea! That's great.. (/sarcasm)

    The really sad part is that people get so caught up in petty politics that they can't see that torturing people is immoral and ineffective and that maybe we should consider not fucking torturing people and hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other people are worse than us."

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  29. Re:As for the people who say "XXX kills more than. by bledri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    terrorists, stop being an idiot. Richard Reid tried to light a shoe bomb and didn't kill anyone, yet let at all of the trouble and hassle EVERYONE who flies has to go through now. It isn't always about death. It's also about our way of life. How much money do you think is being spent to find explosives on persons who fly?

    So stop saying "More people are killed by albino left-handed sharks than terrorists because that isn't the point."

    No, that's exactly the point. We've completely caved to fear and thrown what little moral standing we had in the world right out the window. We've spent well over a trillion dollars, killed thousands of people directly, tens of thousands indirectly and replaced an evil but fairly contained dictator with a sectarian battlefield. Because we're bad at math and suck at assessing threats. We are a nation cowards, armed to the teeth and afraid of shadows. We are the fucking boogieman.

    And before I get shit for it, no I don't think we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 and terrorists are asshats. But that doesn't justify overreacting and it doesn't justify holding people sans due process and torture.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  30. Re:On the other hand, the Jihadists perform by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's also beside the point.
    The people in Guantanamo has not been found guilty of beheadings. Do you really think it's the right thing to torture individuals for something other individuals of the same faith and complexion did at a later date? Can I torture you a little for what Jeffrey Dahmer did?

    If anything, torturing prisoners is used as a justification for what's done to hostages by others.

    No one has a right to condone inhuman behavior and then act offended when others respond with inhuman behavior. We reap what we sow.

  31. Re:Really? .. it comes with the job by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the blow back undoes any advantage you got. The enemy knows we torture and uses it as a propaganda tool. Ie, the US does a better job of recruiting for Al Qaeda than Al Qaeda does. Also our friends know we torture and then don't want to be around friends so much (not a problem for US because we think "friend" means "does what we ask with no questions"). And it means that all those other countries out there are saying "hey, if US can torture then we can torture too!", or "if US can violate Geneva convention, then we can too!" And when our soldiers get captured, and they will, the enemy will use the same techniques we use or worse.

    That's the main reason why so many in politics just wanted to cover all this up. They know it causes problems for the US, but it's ridiculous to pretend it doesn't exist or that anyone eventually freed from Guantanamo is lying when they claim to be tortured. If we don't want blowback from torture then we shouldn't do it.

    Remember these are all interrogation methods disallowed by the army. The army knows there would be blowback. But they're ok for the CIA?

    Another problem is that the interrogation techniques were not originally designed to get information. They were originally developed to get captured soldiers to admit to false confessions. Then the US used training for our soldiers so that they could attempt to resist such methods. Then ridiculously the CIA adopts those techniques and think that they would work to get useful intelligence. It's BS. If the CIA does know what it is doing then it is not using these enhanced interrogations to get information but for some other motivation (please the boss, please the political base, make it seem like we're doing something, finally have a suitable job for those who flunked the psych exam at Langley, etc).

    Now there's this idiotic justification I do hear, not from politicians but the fanboys of one party or the other. That we treat the prisoners better than so many other countries. Dumb. That's like saying you beat your wife less than the neighbor does. Really, do these morons think that the standard of conduct should be "don't be as bad as North Korea"?

  32. Re:Really? .. it comes with the job by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nah. You're confusing cause and effect. They just expect it from God because they'd do it.

  33. Re:On the other hand, the Jihadists perform by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... precise surgical removal of heads, on their captive, without applying any anesthesia ...

    Now which one is more BRUTAL ???

    Even if all the prisoners had been caught red-handed beheading people, that still wouldn't justify torturing them.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it