"Enhanced Interrogation" (torture)- when did it happen?

I've been flipping between CNN and FOX coverage and their approaches are radically "different". The folks at CNN seem intently focused on presumed illegal interrogation tactics and whether or not people should be prosecuted and never acknowledge the report only presents one side's biased interpretations. It's as if Eric Holder's DOJ investigation never happened; the investigation that failed to produce any actionable charges.

FOX has taken some pains to emphasize that the report is the sole property of Senate committee Dems and at least gives notice that the committee Repubs and the CIA have different opinions about the "facts".

Any semblance of truth might be gleaned if all three sources were to be considered with equal scrutiny but anyone suffering from BDS or saddled with moral equivalency issues won't do that.

It's disappointing that people are forgetting the national hysteria experienced after 9/11 and that "we, the people" essentially demanded that the perps be caught by "any means necessary" and make certain it doesn't happen again. At least the DOJ was consulted in order to establish legal guidelines before the festivities began. Mistake were made and no one is denying it but using 20/20 hindsight is a mistake, too.

Senator Feinstein has been generally regarded in high favor about national security issues. She, and the rest of us, should be really pissed that the CIA hacked her committee's computers but her report smacks of revenge.

Way to go DiFi, your legacy now gets to include the description "vindictive beotch".

To me, the whole thing stinks of a scorched earth policy by the Dems. They lost the senate and may lose the White House. Nothing like blowing holes in the ships hull just before handing the helm over to the new captain and crew.

Damn near the whole world knew this was going on. Why rehash it now? Spite, revenge, chronic "blame Bush" syndrome? A smoke screen for Gruber Gate? Whatever it is. It's dirty politics as usual.

Datsun1500 wrote: To me it's like the "Don't want to get shot? Don't rob a store." argument. Don't want to be tortured? Don't belong to a terrorist organization. It's pretty simple.

I agree, they are the same, but I think that's a BS argument. We shouldn't shoot people just because they robbed a store (ignoring whatever happened in the confrontation itself...robbing a store in itself is no excuse to go Judge Dredd on a guy). And likewise modern enlightened humans shouldn't torture other humans even if they flew planes into buildings.

The five/six rules of journalism 101 ... Who, What. When, Where, How and Why. Without this information, the reporting is flawed. Intentionally allowing the reader to jump to conclusions is classic disinformation.

It appears that a solid timeline of events has been purposely left out. ...why?

oldsaw wrote: Senator Feinstein has been generally regarded in high favor about national security issues. She, and the rest of us, should be really pissed that the CIA hacked her committee's computers but her report smacks of revenge. Way to go DiFi, your legacy now gets to include the description "vindictive beotch".

I'm not sure whose opinion on Feinstein you're referencing, but she's essentially a berking idiot like most of the rest of the "tenured" suits in DC. And the CIA didn't "hack" her committee, they created a network for her staff to view sensitive documents and they monitored that network closely. Too closely for some, but it was NOT "hacking." Ever logged into a government-network computer? EVERY single one, especially those handling sensitive info, have a "This is a USGOV Information System and use consents to monitoring" type of caveat immediately upon log-in or as part of the user agreement you sign to get access to said network. She made them set up a system so her staff could dig up dirt, they looked VERY closely, and she went apeE36 M3 in public (again, I didn't have time to read up on the specifics, so the part of how close is too close can be debated as I don't have an opinion on this specific incident yet, but as usual the "facts" were ignored by the media so they could sensationalize it).

Hell, the computer I'm using right now to make this post is logged and monitored, and it's an unclassified system.

Anyone who wants to paint this as a republican vs democrat issue has clearly not been paying attention.

Tim Baxter wrote: Anyone who wants to paint this as a republican vs democrat issue has clearly not been paying attention.

Or wants to derail the discussion...

The timing of the report's release I think is what makes it seem fishy from a Red vs Blue perspective.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: Anyone who wants to paint this as a republican vs democrat issue has clearly not been paying attention.

Or wants to derail the discussion...

Or is trying to boost their viewership ratings

> The timing of the report's release I think is what makes it seem fishy from a Red vs Blue perspective.

Well, if Red says "look at blue", it's because they don't want you thinking about what Red did.

And if Blue says "look at red" it's because they don't want you thinking about what Blue is doing now.

Now that I think about it, that's probably true of almost every issue.

I fully expect that these tactics are not only currently still being used, but they have been used actively for decades. And we only know about some of the tactics, I guarantee there are far worse things that have happened.

I heard word from the ground in Iraq.... Apparently since the release of this report, all our advisers have to do now is walk right into ISIS camps and apologize.. Then everyone drops their guns and they all celebrate.

I'm a pessimist; I think it was going on (on a limited scale) before 9/11 and continues to this day only it's gone 'underground', as the saying goes. I think Bush allowed it to be stepped up and as noted scaled it back.

Dates? I couldn't tell you.

I do think the report is a hatchet job. Everything was wunnerful up to OBL's killing, once that was done the CIA became a target which could be used for political climbing.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: Anyone who wants to paint this as a republican vs democrat issue has clearly not been paying attention.

Or wants to derail the discussion...

BS...

The report was released with the intent to reveal (again) morally questionable interrogation tactics that were approved and sanctioned by the US government (including high-ranking politicians who now falsely claim there was no notification).

If Tim, or anyone else, wants to believe the report's release wasn't politically motivated, so be it. But, we're talking about events that were publicly revealed and subsequently halted eight years ago.

SVrex's initial post posed a wide range of questions so it's hard to determine what discussion you're concerned about derailing.

There does seem to be a sentiment that this is being used for political purposes from people in that field. "Political football" is one reference I'm aware of.

oldsaw wrote: SVrex's initial post posed a wide range of questions so it's hard to determine what discussion you're concerned about derailing.

The discussion of "is/was it acceptable to torture people, and if not who should be held responsible and what can be done to prevent it from happening again?" which could be derailed to "how does this affect the game between the red and blue teams?"

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Depends on what you call torture......hell, they would have all sang like canaries after being forced to eat my Grandmother's cooking for just 5 minutes.

Hamburgers that might as well be charcoal? That is cruel and unusual punishment. I'd rather get water boarded.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: To me it's like the "Don't want to get shot? Don't rob a store." argument. Don't want to be tortured? Don't belong to a terrorist organization. It's pretty simple.

I agree, they are the same, but I think that's a BS argument. We shouldn't shoot people just because they robbed a store (ignoring whatever happened in the confrontation itself...robbing a store in itself is no excuse to go Judge Dredd on a guy). And likewise modern enlightened humans shouldn't torture other humans even if they flew planes into buildings.

yes but if you rob a store you are punished to prevent you from robbing a store again, which involves jail and maybe interrogation for info of anybody else involed to prevent them from doing it again

and on a larger scale:

if your organization carrys out acts of terrorism on a country then you should be punished to prevent it from happening again, which in some cases may involve torture to get information to help prevent other attacks

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Umm... I never asked if it was acceptable to torture people.

edizzle89 wrote: and on a larger scale: if your organization carrys out acts of terrorism on a country then you should be punished to prevent it from happening again, which in some cases may involve torture to get information to help prevent other attacks

This strategy has CLEARLY been working for the last 4 or so decades.

This report needed to come out. End of story. We, as a nation, needed to know what was done in our name. The people who did this need to be punished or at the very least named publicly. Anyone who giggles at the term rectal hydration needs to have it done to them in the manner and environment it was performed according to the report. Consider also that numerous innocent people were tortured by the CIA and then just let go. Airing this in public helps to keep this from happening to you or anyone you know.

The only politics this report has to do with is the fact that Republicans, and evidently the John Kerry in the White House, didn't want it published. I applaud Diane Feinstein for having the ovaries to do it. We need more transparency, not less.

slefain wrote: I fully expect that these tactics are not only currently still being used, but they have been used actively for decades. And we only know about some of the tactics, I guarantee there are far worse things that have happened.

I hope so

Transparency is a fool's pursuit. There Is no such thing.

The winners of that game are the people who are good enough at manipulating the circumstances and details to make it APPEAR like they have done no wrong.

SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Umm... I never asked if it was acceptable to torture people.

I hope I didn't suggest that you did.

edizzle89 wrote: yes but if you rob a store you are punished to prevent you from robbing a store again, which involves jail and maybe interrogation for info of anybody else involed to prevent them from doing it again and on a larger scale: if your organization carrys out acts of terrorism on a country then you should be punished to prevent it from happening again, which in some cases may involve torture to get information to help prevent other attacks

Not a good analogy, to make equivalence here the thief would have to be tortured as part of the interrogation (possibly before anyone even has a good idea if he's guilty or not). Would that be a fair, legal and humane thing to do? If not, then why with the terrorist?

SVreX wrote: Transparency is a fool's pursuit. There Is no such thing. The winners of that game are the people who are good enough at manipulating the circumstances and details to make it APPEAR like they have done no wrong.

But it's harder to manipulate the circumstances and details than to just have no transparency, in which case nobody know's what's going on at all and potentially horrible things are happening. Therefore I argue that there is value in transparency.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Because the terrorist is also not subject to the laws of our nation, nor benificiary of its rights and privileges. His goal is to inflict harm at any cost.

So, your example is still no good. The theif would have to not be capable of being tried fairly for his crimes, and desire causing harm to anyone- his captors, their children, their neighbors, whatever.

I don't offer that as a defense of torture. I offer it as a recognition that the problem has many facets which probably can not be resolved, and that your example is still flawed.