> Interrogation techniques such as slaps and "wallings" (slamming detainees
against a wall) were used in combination, frequently concurrent with sleep deprivation and nudity. Records do not support CIA representations that the CIA initially used an "an open, non-threatening approach," or that interrogations began with the "least coercive technique possible" and escalated to more coercive techniques only as necessary.
> The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with bubbles
rising through his open, full mouth." Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of near drownings.
> Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their
heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation.
> Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA
instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take "precedence" over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture.
> CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families— to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee's]
mother's throat."
The list goes on.
I have no words. This stuff would make Gestapo, KGB and Stasi proud. I can only hope more people read this report. Worse imaginable crimes are committed in the heat of passion or because of madness. Those are scary. What is more scary to me is cold institutionalized, calculated, torture, which is what this is.
Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already lost. Torture should be like rape. Anyone suggesting debating if rape is acceptable should be slapped on the head and considered an idiot. Torture should be the same in any civilized country. We are not only debating it, we have also done it, we have institutionalized it, and make no mistake, Fox and the like will also be debating its "benefits and how it saved Americans' lives".
> At DETENTION SITE COBALT, detainees were often held down, naked, on a tarp on the floor, with the tarp pulled up around them to form a makeshift tub, while cold or refrigerated water was poured on them. Others were hosed down repeatedly while they were shackled naked, in the standing sleep deprivation position. These same detainees were subsequently placed in rooms with temperatures ranging from 59 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
> two detainees that each had a broken foot were also subjected to walling, stress positions, and cramped confinement, despite the note in their interrogation
plans that these specific enhanced interrogation techniques were not requested because of the medical condition of the detainees.
> CIA records indicate that Majid Khan cooperated with the feedings and was permitted to infuse the fluids and nutrients himself. After approximately three weeks, the CIA developed a more aggressive treatment regimen "without unnecessary conversation." Majid Khan was then subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration, which included two bottles of Ensure. Later that same day, Majid Khan's "lunch tray," consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was "pureed" and rectally infused. Additional sessions of rectal feeding and hydration followed.
edit: And I mean those are just the emotive gut-wrenching things. Skimming the rest of it, it's filled to the brim with the CIA lying about the extent, efficacy and importance of the program. To me, that is the more worrying part. Anyone who's studied basic psychology gets taught Zimbardo and knows what happens when you run an unregulated prison. While disgusting it's not surprising.
But what is really surprising is the extent to which the CIA was willing to lie and obscure the truth even to their superiors.
A quote of a quote: "The Baltimore Sun reported that, former Battalion 3-16 member Jose Barrera said he was taught interrogation methods by U.S. instructors in 1983, used this technique: "The first thing we would say is that we know your mother, your younger brother. And better you cooperate, because if you don't, we're going to bring them in and rape them and torture them and kill them."
In summary, not only does the CIA torture, it exports the vast knowledge of torture that it has so that other people (usually horrid regimes) can torture just as effectively.
The USA has a long, disgusting, and utterly unforgiveable history of practicing and teaching torture. The latest "war on terror" was yet another excuse for the endless parade of terrorism which the CIA inflicts on people.
You say that this stuff would make the Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi proud. Of course it would; the CIA is one of their classmates, and always has been.
Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already lost.
It was, and I think his point is borne out in the fact that numerous films and TV shows have depicted torture that would formerly have been the preserve of pure villains to tools available to heroic protagonists in sufficiently urgent circumstances. Never do you see the efficacy of it questioned, or the deleterious effects on the administrator explored, or the scenario where it is erroneously applied to an innocent or where an intelligence asset is lost as a result. Deliberately or not, the fictional depiction of torture over the last decade or so has been almust uniformly ideological.
Fox and the like will also be debating its "benefits and how it saved Americans' lives"
the top headline on Fox news this morning was quoting some blowhard politician calling the release of the report 'unconscionable.' strange moral calculus in which the publication of a document is considered a more egregious offense than torturing people.
Let's not forget, not all the detainees were terrorists.
US promoted a reward program in middle east asking locals to turn in anyone with ties to terrorists. All they had to do was tell a name to US military, and collect reward for every name.
Many locals turned in thousands of innocent people just to collect a reward. These people were immediately arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay without any investigation. US did not even require any probably cause, evidence or investigation to detain and torture these people.
If CIA tortured George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in this way, I am sure they would confess to being an accomplice along with Osama Bin Laden in 9/11 attack.
Unfortunately, this US "war on terror" has created tens of thousands of more terrorists all over the world. It haven't made the US or World any safer, it has created a even bigger monster.
The saving grace is that we have a country that was able to admit that it did this. For me, that's hope that we're still in a position to learn from our wrongs, and that the checks-and-balances are still somewhat in-tact.
I'm in total agreement with your sentiment and those (so far) in this thread. But I want to question the pretext of the interrogations: the assumption that Americans will support any action that keeps America safe, the "safety first" assumption.
While the importance of safety is reflected in bulk of our public discretionary expenditures, Americans have other values. Americans value liberty. Americans value humanity. Many value these above safety (e.g. N.H. state motto). Sadly most people I know choose safety first and close their eyes to the corollaries, which leads us to where we are now.
> Torture should be like rape. Anyone suggesting debating if rape is acceptable should be slapped on the head and considered an idiot.
How do you know we haven't used rape as torture? We've already walked up to that line, with medically unnecssary anal rehydration acknowledged as a form of control.
So, we are debating the appropriateness of rape. And yes, that sickens me.
Some of these things are clearly off the deep end. But some of them, especially threats, seem like pretty basic/standard interrogation...
There are many techniques, but it seems like we have forgotten it is fundamentally manipulative and abusive. I mean, we are surprised to find that threats are used? What?
As much as I loathe the immorality and idiocy of these programs, there is no reason to lose all historical perspective.
> This stuff would make Gestapo, KGB and Stasi proud.
A big difference is that those groups tortured and killed many of their own subjects for their political dissidence. In this case, the CIA tortured (albeit counterproductively) to protect its citizens, and there was a free press to uncover and help stop these programs for the most part.
>Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already lost.<
Like most of what Zizek says, this doesn't survive even the slightest scrutiny. Not that I want to be seen as "pro-torture", but to dismiss it categorically, as Zizek does, is to fail to grapple with the more general ethical conundrum of collateral damage.
Harris discusses this quite effectively[0]. Basically boiling it down to (paraphrasing) "If you're against torture then you should be against any action that results in collateral damage."
* I would never support the use of these techniques against soldiers of a legitimate state or other criminal actors.
* The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks to me represent a completely different sort of threat than has ever been encountered - which legitimized the use of torture (though to be honest, the sorts of techniques outlined in the report don't really sound like what I would classify as "torture"; i.e., the infliction of unbearable pain with no expectation of actionable information being extracted.)
* If the techniques were in fact of no value (which the CIA disputes) then I would of course not support their continued use. I don't support the infliction of 'needless' pain or suffering. If they were providing useful information then I have no ethical or moral problem with them.
> I have no words. This stuff would make Gestapo, KGB and Stasi proud.
Godwin's Law? As far as I know there were no mass machine-gunnings, people hanged with piano wire or actually any people tortured to death. A lot of the techniques listed are pretty much what the US (and UK) army use on their own troops as part of escape and evasion training.
It seems to me like there are four key findings here:
(1) the CIA did some truly horrific stuff to detainees -- wallings, waterboardings, sleep deprivation, threatening their families, etc. (Specific quotes are in rdtsc's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8723834 ).
(2) the CIA systematically lied about and hid information about what they were doing from other parts of the government -- from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI, the State Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, US ambassadors in countries that housed detention facilities, etc.
(3) the CIA didn't provide its operatives with training in interrogation until months after the program started, didn't have facilities in place until just shortly before they took custody of their first prisoner, had very little oversight even within the CIA itself (see finding #12, page 17 of the pdf), and otherwise seemed to be flying by the seat of their pants. So they weren't even making decisions in a coherent, systematic fashion.
(4) all of this horrific, lied-about stuff... didn't even work. They weren't saving lives, and they had plenty of reason to know (before, during, and after) that the techniques wouldn't/weren't/didn't accomplish anything of value. So even firm believers in "the ends justify the means" don't have a leg to stand on here.
The Republicans have issued a rebuttal. I assume this means they support torture. I hope this dissuades some of their remaining voter base from continuing to support them.
Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture. Not sure that he has any credibility left after being caught on the record lying to congress, but whatever.
The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out. Obama's admission that "we tortured some folks" was hollow, and his promises regarding torture transparency have been refuted as lies. I assume that the White House supports torture, via its resistance to exposing torture. I hope this dissuades some of their voter base from continuing to support them.
Feinstein, though extremely undesirable due to her support of the NSA, has showed some balls here. In the months leading up to the release of this report, she claimed that the CIA was threatening her, so we'll see what happens. I would like it if the next big stink she makes is about the CIA's surveillance of the Senate committee.
The CIA itself has just been pinned on the record as having intentionally misled Congress (its only real oversight) for a period of nearly a decade. Additionally, the CIA has been pinned on the record as having attempted to cover up evidence that it tortured people, and then also spied on the people investigating the torture within the US government. I hope that this agency is drastically reduced by some sort of chemotherapy now that some of its crimes have come to light.
Just remember that this isn't over. Keep paying attention to who defends the CIA, and which media outlets place torture as a choice on the same level as other options. Keep paying attention to the way that the government tries to deny, scapegoat, and minimize this, and make sure to point it out wherever you see it. Finally, don't let them re-focus on the inevitable violent reprisals that will soon come. Releasing the report isn't the ultimate cause of violence against the US or its proxies, torturing people is.
Edit: It appears as though in one of the footnotes of the report there is an admission that one of the people who was tortured to death was an innocent man who was wrongly abducted.
The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out.
That's inaccurate. Kerry asked for a delay in its release; as Secretary of State, responsible for US embassies around the world, it's his job to draw attention to the risk factors. All reports I've read prior to the release said that both the President and Vice President were strongly in favor of publication. Ultimately the choice to classify or declassify rests with the President.
>"The Republicans have issued a rebuttal. I assume this means they support torture."
>"Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture."
>"The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out...I assume that the White House supports torture..."
Politics is a dirty, complex game. If you treat every news event as black and white like this, you will form many extremist positions very quickly. Obama, for example, banned torture via executive order when he took office. Did you cry that he was "against torture" when that came out?
> The Republicans have issued a rebuttal. I assume this means they support torture.
> Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture.
If I write, 'cryoshon eats babies,' and Jimbo replies, 'no he doesn't; he eats eggs, and besides he was starving,' then that doesn't mean that Jimbo supports baby-eating: it means that he doesn't believe that eating eggs is eating babies.
There is a minority report which rebuts this one, and the CIA itself have issued their own rebuttal. Now, those could be non-rebuttals entirely of the form, 'doesn't matter, it worked' or they could be rebuttals of the form, 'the worst stuff you mention never happened; the rest of it is unpleasant but legal, and effective.'
They could also be true, or false—as could this report.
Strong persecution and us-versus-them phrasing going on here. This is our government, our representatives, the people we elected and allow to perform these actions. We as a whole may not be as directly culpable, but we certainly are not clean of conscience. It evokes thoughts of "this happened on our watch". Even for those not residing in the USA, there is responsibility.
I think we should be a little more amazed that this report is available at all---an through internal channels at that. While we're all bashing the CIA for what they've done (and are right to do so), we should also appreciate that this is also at some level an instance of government working "properly": one branch of government audited another branch, found that there had been misconduct, and was able to publish a report showing what had been done wrong. This is not the end of the road---we still need to fix the problems and prevent them from happening again---but publicly acknowledging the problems is a massive first step.
Before we all jump on the bandwagon to paint the USA as the next major authoritarian regime, ask yourselves the question: would this report ever get published in North Korea, China, or the former USSR? Frankly, I can't imagine it. This report proves that the USA might not be better than any of those countries with regard to these events... but at least it appears that the USA has the guts to acknowledge publicly its mistakes.
In 2004 a whole layer of top CIA officials were forced out. Defense Secretary Colin Powell resigned. Dick Cheney purged the CIA of personnel who might have served as some counterbalancing force. Once the good and reasonable people were gone (fired, forced to resign etc.), the CIA ran amok. If we look honestly at what went wrong, it's pretty clear how to fix it. Fire all the people that lied to Congress and broke the law by employing prohibited techniques. Prosecute them to the fullest extent possible. Simultaneously, conduct an internal review of all the former CIA fired for political reasons and hire them back. These are the people America desperately needs to repair our broken system. The CIA is desperately in need of reform. The world is too dangerous and complicated a place to have the wrong people running our foreign policy. If they lied about torture, what else are they lying to Congress about? Clearly it isn't the solution to every problem but it would be the best possible, immediately actionable step. Bring back the good patriot Americans who were fired from their job with the intelligence agencies for political reasons. Get rid of and prosecute the bad apples.
Local and national news TV programs have been going on for days about how all of our embassies are on "High Alert" in anticipation of violence directed at them/us on the basis of what's in the report. I take that by itself as an admission that the government's conduct has been what should be considered unacceptable, and is probably only "lawful" in the most meaningless sense of the word (if at all).
Why do they insist on saying 'enhanced interrogation technique' instead of torture? Even when it obviously means torture: "Another senior CIA officer stated that COBALT was itself an enhanced interrogation technique."
When talking about a physical place. That is so blatant word replacement that I find it hard to take it seriously.
Dianne Feinstein deserves enormous credit. Fox News and Republicans are bashing her and by extension her party as traitorous as we speak. The argument that this report should be kept in secret because it endangers Americans' lives is abominable. As an American living abroad, I'm happy to see this released.
Still, I wonder about some of the side-effects of this. Instead of arresting and interrogating terrorists we kill them with drones as its less messy.
Fellow parents, how do you teach or plan to teach your kids about this? I was discussing this with my son last night, but I really couldn't explain to him the prejudice and fear that people use to justify these types of acts, or the "otherness" that the perpetrators try to construct around the victims in the media. It's just not something he's experienced yet. There's no way to put it into context.
> Reading them, it is easy to forget the context in which the program began - not that the context should serve as an excuse, but rather as a warning for the future.
From the section "The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:" on page 9 number 10 is interesting "#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques." I have assumed that's the case with many of their operations, are there more public accounts of them doing this?
Classification has become a tool to protect careers, not the nation. These people all acted individually towards whatever incentives they saw desirable. Money, power over helpless detainees, I don't know. Specific people did exactly what they wanted to do. And it's not like the whole CIA was on board, but the people who disagreed can get the fuck out of the room and let the adults play torture games.
CIA attorneys, discussing aspects of the campaign involving off-the-record
disclosures, cautioned against attributing the information to the CIA itself.
One senior attorney stated that the proposed press briefing was "minimally
acceptable, but only if not attributed to a CIA official." The CIA attorney
continued: "This should be attributed to an 'official knowledgeable' about
the program (or some similar obfuscation), but should not be attributed to a
CIA or intelligence official.
Another CIA attorney noted that the draft "makes the [legal] declaration I
just wrote about the secrecy of the interrogation program a work of fiction.."
CTC Legal urged that CIA leadership needed to "confront the inconsistency"
between CIA court declarations "about how critical it is to keep this
information secret" and the CIA "planning to reveal darn near the entire
program.
Reading the report leaves me slack-jawed considering my own history. My great uncle was an officer of the Geheime Feldpolizei, a secret state security organization developed to combat native resistance against Nazi occupation during WWII. His job was to infiltrate and destroy Maquis French and their supporters (the resistance). The means they used were mass betrayal, example executions, torture, even the wholesale destruction of entire villages.
In 1946 he was charged with Crimes Against Humanity and sentenced as a war criminal by an allied tribunal consisting mostly of official American personnel. He deserved exactly what he got. What he did was utterly unconscionable even in a time of war.
I cannot, however, imagine representatives of today's America having the same kind of tribunal against war criminals with the same kind of standing. It is now simply unimaginable in anything but lurid, obscene terms. Dark days indeed.
"most of them [CIA personnel] do not know that when the wpost/ny times
quotes 'senior intel official,' it's us... authorized and directed by opa [Office of Public Affairs]."
Of course everyone with half a brain knows this, it's funny 1) CIA personnel don't and 2) the WPost and NYT continue this practice of citing anonymous sources that are in reality public speakers, giving a carefully designed statement.
It's a shame the report is so partisan. The democrat and republican sides disagree on basic facts, such as whether torture worked in extracting information, and whether that information helped to save lives. Both sides accuse the other of cherry-picking to bolster their cause. Since the primary records are unavailable to us, there's no way to get a more trustworthy opinion on the program. The CIA's behavior is probably pretty horrible, but it's unwise to be very confident in that assessment.
Another interesting fact is that torture may work, or it may not, yet many people don't want torture to work. But think about it for a second: If torture worked, it would be an opportunity to save lives. Torturing one known criminal to extract information that could save dozens (or hundreds) of innocents is unsavory to say the least, but it's better than the alternative. (To reverse the situation, one wouldn't kill dozens of innocents to prevent the torture of a known criminal.) Simply ignoring the issue and saying, "Torture is always wrong," can lead to more death and suffering than thoughtfully considering the issue.
I'm not talking about some hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario. This can actually apply to real life. Consider collateral damage. In war, it is acceptable to accidentally kill innocent people. It is also acceptable to intentionally kill combatants. But torturing combatants to extract information that would reduce collateral damage is unacceptable. It's such a strange instance of moral blindness.
Note that this doesn't mean I would want torture to be legal even if it worked. It seems like there's a good case to be made for keeping torture illegal, since doing so would force a would-be torturer to be sure about the circumstances; so sure that they'd willingly to go to prison to save innocent people.
Edit: So far, both replies are attacking positions I do not endorse. I'm saying make torture illegal even if it works. I'm saying ticking time bomb scenarios are poor justifications for torture. But I'm also saying that torture may save lives in some circumstances. If we're willing to accept the horror of collateral damage, we should also be willing to reduce it using methods as horrific as torture.
The democrat and republican sides disagree on basic facts,
such as whether torture worked in extracting information,
That is not a 'basic fact' that any of the people involved in the report is qualified to determine from the records.
Whether torture 'works' is highly subjective. Why was certain information given? How correct was the information? How relevant was the information to preventing (further) criminal activity? And even if you could assess the upside, there is still the downside to compare to it.
Do you want to live in a country where hundreds of people may be detained for years without trial, without recourse, while being tortured, because one of them may at some point give up some information that may prevent some future criminal activity?
You say
Torturing one known criminal to extract information that could save dozens
(or hundreds) of innocents is unsavory to say the least, but it's better
than the alternative.
but that's a false dichotomy. In actual fact you would have to torture many criminals to extract information that saves lives. And the torturing, and having the ability to torture, has a cost. How do you quantify that cost and judge it less than the lives saved? Because if you allow torture, police will use it on every criminal. If you ever get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you will get tortured, because you may know something about other people that were there. And they won't believe you if you say you don't know them. And it could take a while to sort that out.
let's assume a group like Occupy started to gain enough traction that they became a serious threat to the status quo. that is to say, that the current power base started to shift to a form of politics outside the current two party flip flop system the USA has today.
How long do you think it would be before those 'subversive' groups, even as non-violent, would start to receive the same treatment?
There are few of us prepared to stick our heads above the parapet. Those that do, end up fucked. I.e. Snowden, Assange and Manning.
Sometimes I dream about a people's takeover, Fight Club style, where each man on the street reminds those in power who cooks their food, who washes their clothes, who takes care of their children. A subtle collective threat en-mass to fight the power.
Then I drift back off to sleep.
I am the People, the Mob
Carl Sandburg, 1878 - 1967
I am the people—the mob—the crowd—the mass.
Do you know that all the great work of the world is
done through me?
I am the workingman, the inventor, the maker of the
world’s food and clothes.
I am the audience that witnesses history. The Napoleons
come from me and the Lincolns. They die. And then I send
forth more Napoleons and Lincolns.
I am the seed ground. I am a prairie that will stand for
much plowing.
Terrible storms pass over me. I forget. The best of me is
sucked out and wasted. I forget. Everything but Death
comes to me and makes me work and give up what I have.
And I forget.
Sometimes I growl, shake myself and spatter a few red
drops for history to remember. Then—I forget.
When I, the People, learn to remember, when I, the
People, use the lessons of yesterday and no longer forget
who robbed me last year, who played me for a fool—then
there will be no speaker in all the world say the name:
“The People," with any fleck of a sneer in his voice or
any far-off smile of derision.
The mob—the crowd—the mass—will arrive then.
[+] [-] rdtsc|11 years ago|reply
> The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth." Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of near drownings.
> Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation.
> Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take "precedence" over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture.
> CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families— to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee's] mother's throat."
The list goes on.
I have no words. This stuff would make Gestapo, KGB and Stasi proud. I can only hope more people read this report. Worse imaginable crimes are committed in the heat of passion or because of madness. Those are scary. What is more scary to me is cold institutionalized, calculated, torture, which is what this is.
Not sure who said, maybe it was Slavoj Zizek, about how if we are even debating "is torture right or what advantages it might have" we have already lost. Torture should be like rape. Anyone suggesting debating if rape is acceptable should be slapped on the head and considered an idiot. Torture should be the same in any civilized country. We are not only debating it, we have also done it, we have institutionalized it, and make no mistake, Fox and the like will also be debating its "benefits and how it saved Americans' lives".
[+] [-] user24|11 years ago|reply
It sure does.
> At DETENTION SITE COBALT, detainees were often held down, naked, on a tarp on the floor, with the tarp pulled up around them to form a makeshift tub, while cold or refrigerated water was poured on them. Others were hosed down repeatedly while they were shackled naked, in the standing sleep deprivation position. These same detainees were subsequently placed in rooms with temperatures ranging from 59 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
> two detainees that each had a broken foot were also subjected to walling, stress positions, and cramped confinement, despite the note in their interrogation plans that these specific enhanced interrogation techniques were not requested because of the medical condition of the detainees.
> CIA records indicate that Majid Khan cooperated with the feedings and was permitted to infuse the fluids and nutrients himself. After approximately three weeks, the CIA developed a more aggressive treatment regimen "without unnecessary conversation." Majid Khan was then subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration, which included two bottles of Ensure. Later that same day, Majid Khan's "lunch tray," consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was "pureed" and rectally infused. Additional sessions of rectal feeding and hydration followed.
edit: And I mean those are just the emotive gut-wrenching things. Skimming the rest of it, it's filled to the brim with the CIA lying about the extent, efficacy and importance of the program. To me, that is the more worrying part. Anyone who's studied basic psychology gets taught Zimbardo and knows what happens when you run an unregulated prison. While disgusting it's not surprising.
But what is really surprising is the extent to which the CIA was willing to lie and obscure the truth even to their superiors.
[+] [-] cryoshon|11 years ago|reply
A quote of a quote: "The Baltimore Sun reported that, former Battalion 3-16 member Jose Barrera said he was taught interrogation methods by U.S. instructors in 1983, used this technique: "The first thing we would say is that we know your mother, your younger brother. And better you cooperate, because if you don't, we're going to bring them in and rape them and torture them and kill them."
In summary, not only does the CIA torture, it exports the vast knowledge of torture that it has so that other people (usually horrid regimes) can torture just as effectively.
The USA has a long, disgusting, and utterly unforgiveable history of practicing and teaching torture. The latest "war on terror" was yet another excuse for the endless parade of terrorism which the CIA inflicts on people.
You say that this stuff would make the Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi proud. Of course it would; the CIA is one of their classmates, and always has been.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
It was, and I think his point is borne out in the fact that numerous films and TV shows have depicted torture that would formerly have been the preserve of pure villains to tools available to heroic protagonists in sufficiently urgent circumstances. Never do you see the efficacy of it questioned, or the deleterious effects on the administrator explored, or the scenario where it is erroneously applied to an innocent or where an intelligence asset is lost as a result. Deliberately or not, the fictional depiction of torture over the last decade or so has been almust uniformly ideological.
Fox and the like will also be debating its "benefits and how it saved Americans' lives"
the top headline on Fox news this morning was quoting some blowhard politician calling the release of the report 'unconscionable.' strange moral calculus in which the publication of a document is considered a more egregious offense than torturing people.
[+] [-] RealGeek|11 years ago|reply
US promoted a reward program in middle east asking locals to turn in anyone with ties to terrorists. All they had to do was tell a name to US military, and collect reward for every name.
Many locals turned in thousands of innocent people just to collect a reward. These people were immediately arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay without any investigation. US did not even require any probably cause, evidence or investigation to detain and torture these people.
If CIA tortured George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in this way, I am sure they would confess to being an accomplice along with Osama Bin Laden in 9/11 attack.
Unfortunately, this US "war on terror" has created tens of thousands of more terrorists all over the world. It haven't made the US or World any safer, it has created a even bigger monster.
[+] [-] willscott|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quizotic|11 years ago|reply
While the importance of safety is reflected in bulk of our public discretionary expenditures, Americans have other values. Americans value liberty. Americans value humanity. Many value these above safety (e.g. N.H. state motto). Sadly most people I know choose safety first and close their eyes to the corollaries, which leads us to where we are now.
[+] [-] pkinsky|11 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, jokes about prison rape are socially acceptable & the US government refuses to do much of anything to stop it.
[+] [-] grecy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|11 years ago|reply
How do you know we haven't used rape as torture? We've already walked up to that line, with medically unnecssary anal rehydration acknowledged as a form of control.
So, we are debating the appropriateness of rape. And yes, that sickens me.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|11 years ago|reply
There are many techniques, but it seems like we have forgotten it is fundamentally manipulative and abusive. I mean, we are surprised to find that threats are used? What?
[+] [-] ck2|11 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/search?q=cia+$80+million
[+] [-] webXL|11 years ago|reply
> This stuff would make Gestapo, KGB and Stasi proud.
A big difference is that those groups tortured and killed many of their own subjects for their political dissidence. In this case, the CIA tortured (albeit counterproductively) to protect its citizens, and there was a free press to uncover and help stop these programs for the most part.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] maroonblazer|11 years ago|reply
Like most of what Zizek says, this doesn't survive even the slightest scrutiny. Not that I want to be seen as "pro-torture", but to dismiss it categorically, as Zizek does, is to fail to grapple with the more general ethical conundrum of collateral damage.
Harris discusses this quite effectively[0]. Basically boiling it down to (paraphrasing) "If you're against torture then you should be against any action that results in collateral damage."
[0]http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-a...
[+] [-] random_rr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabbo|11 years ago|reply
Based on these descriptions of techniques, I suspect that the CIA officers responsible for this have also read the same book.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jcromartie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clamprecht|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdimov|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosser-001|11 years ago|reply
* The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks to me represent a completely different sort of threat than has ever been encountered - which legitimized the use of torture (though to be honest, the sorts of techniques outlined in the report don't really sound like what I would classify as "torture"; i.e., the infliction of unbearable pain with no expectation of actionable information being extracted.)
* If the techniques were in fact of no value (which the CIA disputes) then I would of course not support their continued use. I don't support the infliction of 'needless' pain or suffering. If they were providing useful information then I have no ethical or moral problem with them.
[+] [-] gadders|11 years ago|reply
Godwin's Law? As far as I know there were no mass machine-gunnings, people hanged with piano wire or actually any people tortured to death. A lot of the techniques listed are pretty much what the US (and UK) army use on their own troops as part of escape and evasion training.
[+] [-] lotharbot|11 years ago|reply
(1) the CIA did some truly horrific stuff to detainees -- wallings, waterboardings, sleep deprivation, threatening their families, etc. (Specific quotes are in rdtsc's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8723834 ).
(2) the CIA systematically lied about and hid information about what they were doing from other parts of the government -- from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI, the State Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, US ambassadors in countries that housed detention facilities, etc.
(3) the CIA didn't provide its operatives with training in interrogation until months after the program started, didn't have facilities in place until just shortly before they took custody of their first prisoner, had very little oversight even within the CIA itself (see finding #12, page 17 of the pdf), and otherwise seemed to be flying by the seat of their pants. So they weren't even making decisions in a coherent, systematic fashion.
(4) all of this horrific, lied-about stuff... didn't even work. They weren't saving lives, and they had plenty of reason to know (before, during, and after) that the techniques wouldn't/weren't/didn't accomplish anything of value. So even firm believers in "the ends justify the means" don't have a leg to stand on here.
[+] [-] cryoshon|11 years ago|reply
The Republicans have issued a rebuttal. I assume this means they support torture. I hope this dissuades some of their remaining voter base from continuing to support them.
Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture. Not sure that he has any credibility left after being caught on the record lying to congress, but whatever.
The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out. Obama's admission that "we tortured some folks" was hollow, and his promises regarding torture transparency have been refuted as lies. I assume that the White House supports torture, via its resistance to exposing torture. I hope this dissuades some of their voter base from continuing to support them.
Feinstein, though extremely undesirable due to her support of the NSA, has showed some balls here. In the months leading up to the release of this report, she claimed that the CIA was threatening her, so we'll see what happens. I would like it if the next big stink she makes is about the CIA's surveillance of the Senate committee.
The CIA itself has just been pinned on the record as having intentionally misled Congress (its only real oversight) for a period of nearly a decade. Additionally, the CIA has been pinned on the record as having attempted to cover up evidence that it tortured people, and then also spied on the people investigating the torture within the US government. I hope that this agency is drastically reduced by some sort of chemotherapy now that some of its crimes have come to light.
Just remember that this isn't over. Keep paying attention to who defends the CIA, and which media outlets place torture as a choice on the same level as other options. Keep paying attention to the way that the government tries to deny, scapegoat, and minimize this, and make sure to point it out wherever you see it. Finally, don't let them re-focus on the inevitable violent reprisals that will soon come. Releasing the report isn't the ultimate cause of violence against the US or its proxies, torturing people is.
Edit: It appears as though in one of the footnotes of the report there is an admission that one of the people who was tortured to death was an innocent man who was wrongly abducted.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
That's inaccurate. Kerry asked for a delay in its release; as Secretary of State, responsible for US embassies around the world, it's his job to draw attention to the risk factors. All reports I've read prior to the release said that both the President and Vice President were strongly in favor of publication. Ultimately the choice to classify or declassify rests with the President.
[+] [-] sd8f9iu|11 years ago|reply
>"Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture."
>"The White House attempted to keep this report from coming out...I assume that the White House supports torture..."
Politics is a dirty, complex game. If you treat every news event as black and white like this, you will form many extremist positions very quickly. Obama, for example, banned torture via executive order when he took office. Did you cry that he was "against torture" when that came out?
[+] [-] wtbob|11 years ago|reply
> Clapper has issued a rebuttal, claiming that the report isn't neutral. I assume he also supports torture.
If I write, 'cryoshon eats babies,' and Jimbo replies, 'no he doesn't; he eats eggs, and besides he was starving,' then that doesn't mean that Jimbo supports baby-eating: it means that he doesn't believe that eating eggs is eating babies.
There is a minority report which rebuts this one, and the CIA itself have issued their own rebuttal. Now, those could be non-rebuttals entirely of the form, 'doesn't matter, it worked' or they could be rebuttals of the form, 'the worst stuff you mention never happened; the rest of it is unpleasant but legal, and effective.'
They could also be true, or false—as could this report.
[+] [-] kuhhk|11 years ago|reply
Stop assuming Republicans support torture.
McCain comments on the report: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/09/lv-mcc...
[+] [-] hawleyal|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] w1ntermute|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eslaught|11 years ago|reply
Before we all jump on the bandwagon to paint the USA as the next major authoritarian regime, ask yourselves the question: would this report ever get published in North Korea, China, or the former USSR? Frankly, I can't imagine it. This report proves that the USA might not be better than any of those countries with regard to these events... but at least it appears that the USA has the guts to acknowledge publicly its mistakes.
[+] [-] MisterMashable|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Loughla|11 years ago|reply
When talking about a physical place. That is so blatant word replacement that I find it hard to take it seriously.
[+] [-] pessimist|11 years ago|reply
Still, I wonder about some of the side-effects of this. Instead of arresting and interrogating terrorists we kill them with drones as its less messy.
[+] [-] debacle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwnna|11 years ago|reply
> Reading them, it is easy to forget the context in which the program began - not that the context should serve as an excuse, but rather as a warning for the future.
Well said.
[+] [-] icpmacdo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arh68|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProAm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickbauman|11 years ago|reply
In 1946 he was charged with Crimes Against Humanity and sentenced as a war criminal by an allied tribunal consisting mostly of official American personnel. He deserved exactly what he got. What he did was utterly unconscionable even in a time of war.
I cannot, however, imagine representatives of today's America having the same kind of tribunal against war criminals with the same kind of standing. It is now simply unimaginable in anything but lurid, obscene terms. Dark days indeed.
[+] [-] revelation|11 years ago|reply
"most of them [CIA personnel] do not know that when the wpost/ny times quotes 'senior intel official,' it's us... authorized and directed by opa [Office of Public Affairs]."
Of course everyone with half a brain knows this, it's funny 1) CIA personnel don't and 2) the WPost and NYT continue this practice of citing anonymous sources that are in reality public speakers, giving a carefully designed statement.
[+] [-] chroma|11 years ago|reply
Another interesting fact is that torture may work, or it may not, yet many people don't want torture to work. But think about it for a second: If torture worked, it would be an opportunity to save lives. Torturing one known criminal to extract information that could save dozens (or hundreds) of innocents is unsavory to say the least, but it's better than the alternative. (To reverse the situation, one wouldn't kill dozens of innocents to prevent the torture of a known criminal.) Simply ignoring the issue and saying, "Torture is always wrong," can lead to more death and suffering than thoughtfully considering the issue.
I'm not talking about some hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario. This can actually apply to real life. Consider collateral damage. In war, it is acceptable to accidentally kill innocent people. It is also acceptable to intentionally kill combatants. But torturing combatants to extract information that would reduce collateral damage is unacceptable. It's such a strange instance of moral blindness.
Note that this doesn't mean I would want torture to be legal even if it worked. It seems like there's a good case to be made for keeping torture illegal, since doing so would force a would-be torturer to be sure about the circumstances; so sure that they'd willingly to go to prison to save innocent people.
Edit: So far, both replies are attacking positions I do not endorse. I'm saying make torture illegal even if it works. I'm saying ticking time bomb scenarios are poor justifications for torture. But I'm also saying that torture may save lives in some circumstances. If we're willing to accept the horror of collateral damage, we should also be willing to reduce it using methods as horrific as torture.
[+] [-] Confusion|11 years ago|reply
Whether torture 'works' is highly subjective. Why was certain information given? How correct was the information? How relevant was the information to preventing (further) criminal activity? And even if you could assess the upside, there is still the downside to compare to it.
Do you want to live in a country where hundreds of people may be detained for years without trial, without recourse, while being tortured, because one of them may at some point give up some information that may prevent some future criminal activity?
You say
but that's a false dichotomy. In actual fact you would have to torture many criminals to extract information that saves lives. And the torturing, and having the ability to torture, has a cost. How do you quantify that cost and judge it less than the lives saved? Because if you allow torture, police will use it on every criminal. If you ever get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you will get tortured, because you may know something about other people that were there. And they won't believe you if you say you don't know them. And it could take a while to sort that out.[+] [-] junto|11 years ago|reply
How long do you think it would be before those 'subversive' groups, even as non-violent, would start to receive the same treatment?
There are few of us prepared to stick our heads above the parapet. Those that do, end up fucked. I.e. Snowden, Assange and Manning.
Sometimes I dream about a people's takeover, Fight Club style, where each man on the street reminds those in power who cooks their food, who washes their clothes, who takes care of their children. A subtle collective threat en-mass to fight the power.
Then I drift back off to sleep.
[+] [-] jgrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] binarymax|11 years ago|reply
I hate this bullshit language. Just use the real word: Torture.
[+] [-] sbierwagen|11 years ago|reply