Reuters: CIA tortured, misled, U.S. report finds, drawing calls for action

[Destino]

You and Larry have a lot of opinion without a lot of facts on what value they achieved. Ya have a lot of articles and such. I can promise ya one thing, someone knows the truth, and it's not either one of you

So you don't accept congress' report as factual nor the obvious truth that torture is abhorrent... because somewhere out there is someone with the real facts. The way these things usually go is that this mysterous keeper of the facts cannot share them because of national security, and around an around we go.

This is boring. Torture is obviously wrong and that is enough reason to oppose it.

What will you do if Mr. Secret Facts says that lighting children on fire in front of their uncooperative parents really yields terrific results? Will you support that? I mean American lives could be on the line, so what does it matter if we turn a few screaming children into ash? So long as the facts support it, of course.

Torture is wrong, the facts be damned. This isn't a question of effectiveness or benefit.

[skinsmarydu]

And as a former sailor, I would add that we SHOULDN'T do these things so they're NOT done to us. It's the Geneva Conventions. No torture.

[Larry]

You and Larry have a lot of opinion without a lot of facts on what value they achieved.  Ya have a lot of articles and such.  I can promise ya one thing, someone knows the truth, and it's not either one of you

Pointing out that "we have a bunch of articles and such" from people who have spent years studying this issue. And who have supported their positions using actual facts. For example, in this case, using the actual, documented, statements of the people who actually did it.

Whereas YOU don't even have THAT.

[chipwhich]

Pointing out that "we have a bunch of articles and such" from people who have spent years studying this issue. And who have supported their positions using actual facts. For example, in this case, using the actual, documented, statements of the people who actually did it.

Whereas YOU don't even have THAT.

 

Pointing out that if the CIA is getting useful information out of a particular type of torture, or doing something of value, it won't be in a report requested by congress.  Don't be naive.

So you don't accept congress' report as factual nor the obvious truth that torture is abhorrent... because somewhere out there is someone with the real facts. The these things usually go is that this mysterous keeper of the facts cannot share them because of national security, and around sn around we go.

 

You were told what they wanted you to know.  Nothing more.

[Burgold]

Pointing out that if the CIA is getting useful information out of a particular type of torture, or doing something of value, it won't be in a report requested by congress.  Don't be naive.

 

Possibly, and I've discussed this with colleagues.  However, we believe that while the names and methods may sometimes be withheld or held to a higher degree of classification, it's extremely unlikely that the CIA wouldn't keep a list of successes. Something that says, these interrogations led to the capture or death of these cell leaders, or the recovery or dismantling of said bomb.

 

It's further unlikely that Congress while they may not want to disseminate that info for intelligence reasons would outright lie about it when they say according to the 6,000,000 CIA records reviewed enhanced interrogation methods have had a zero percent effectiveness rate.

 

Heck, I find the zero suspicious myself.  I mean I figure there must be a statistical likelihood that some lie or wild guess during torture would turn out to be useful, but combing over 6,000,000 records, the CIA itself reported no successes.  The fact that that jibes with the research done independently by experts in the field over the past 30 years just adds credence that this tool is a very poor one.

[chipwhich]

It's further unlikely that Congress while they may not want to disseminate that info for intelligence reasons would outright lie about it when they say according to the 6,000,000 CIA records reviewed enhanced interrogation methods have had a zero percent effectiveness rate.

 

Well John Brennan disagrees with that analysis.  I can promise you he knows more than that report knows.

[Burgold]

Well John Brennan disagrees with that analysis.  I can promise you he knows more than that report knows.

Yeah, and I doubt we have the whole story.  On the other hand, with the Senate report we have quantifiable data and what the CIA itself documented about its own efforts.  With Brennon, you have an anecdotal report.  Now, I don't dismiss qualitative data.  I think it has a lot of value, but I always look at it carefully, especially when the person giving the report has a vested interest in selling a certain point of view. Brennan could be being a 100% straight with us... then again, he works in intelligence... his job is never to be 100% straight

[Larry]

Well John Brennan disagrees with that analysis.  I can promise you he knows more than that report knows.

He doesn't know everything. Therefore you have provided zero FACTS.

[chipwhich]

He doesn't know everything. Therefore you have provided zero FACTS.

 

You have provided zero facts.  John Brennan knows more than you do.  When the congressional staffers start poking around in the CIA knickers, the CIA doesn't just drop their knickers to the floor and bare all.  They provide what they want to provide.  And John Brennan knows he has a bunch of intelligence from a bunch of resources and he can't know for sure himself where all of the intelligence was obtained.

[Burgold]

Technically, Chip has submitted two facts. 

 

1) Brennan (publicly) disagrees with the Senate's findings and assessment.

2) Brennan knows more than we do.

 

I think both those statements are very likely to be factual.  I doubt they are determinative or that they are sufficient counterweight to other evidence not only from the Senate report, but that accumulated over the past thirty years... but they are facts.

[chipwhich]

Technically, Chip has submitted two facts. 

 

1) Brennan (publicly) disagrees with the Senate's findings and assessment.

2) Brennan knows more than we do.

 

I think both those statements are very likely to be factual.  I doubt they are determinative or that they are sufficient counterweight to other evidence not only from the Senate report, but that accumulated over the past thirty years... but they are facts.

 

I have openly said, what others in this thread refuse to acknowledge, that I don't have facts.  I do know that the HEAD of the CIA has said he disagrees with the Senate findings.  I also know the HEAD of the CIA knows more than the Senate report.  I can also assure you nothing was released to the Senate that the HEAD of the CIA didn't want released.  I also know that if the CIA has an effective tactic to pull information from a detainee, it's not going in a Senate report.

[Larry]

John Brennan knows more than you do.

And the Senate report knows more than you do.

(Vastly more than you do.)

However, we're all in chipwich land. In which waving your hand over a keyboard and performing the incantation "doesn't know everything" is all it takes to make things we don't like, vanish in a puff of smoke.

I don't have to address any thing he's said. I don;t even have to demonstrate that I even know who he is, or what he said.

All I have to do, is wave my hand over the keyboard, and perform the incantation. And suddenly my opinion Rules Over All.

----------

Y'know? I've decided I like this Universe. It's a lot more fun than that pesky reality. I can see why you created it.

Is there an incantation for magic cookies, here?

[Burgold]

 

I can also assure you nothing was released to the Senate that the HEAD of the CIA didn't want released. 

 

I actually hope this is not true to a point.  After all, we're talking about the US Senate, not some muckraking reporter (though the difference sometimes is hard to tell).  The Senate does have a role to fill as a check against abuses.  It can not fill that role if the CIA gets to pick and chose which pieces of intel to reveal.  Now, I understand that there are levels of clearance and some the Executive can and does block from scrutiny, but I would hope that the CIA was being largely cooperative and representative in this investigation.

 

If certain names and dates were blacked out. That's good.  If they are painting false pictures and thereby outright lying to the Senate it's a problem. More, I just can't believe that it would be in the CIA's best interest to present a picture that they are batting .0000 using the methods that they know were being scrutinized.

 

That's just not smart and these guys are very smart.  At least I hope so.

[Larry]

----------

Technically, Chip has submitted two facts. 

 

1) Brennan (publicly) disagrees with the Senate's findings and assessment.

2) Brennan knows more than we do.

 

I think both those statements are very likely to be factual.  I doubt they are determinative or that they are sufficient counterweight to other evidence not only from the Senate report, but that accumulated over the past thirty years... but they are facts.

I think you missed one.

3) Chip believes that asserting that someone doesn't know everything, means that it is unnecessary for him to address anything whatsoever that that person said.

[chipwhich]

And the Senate report knows more than you do.

 

I will clear it up for you.  There are two sides.  John Brennan and a Senate report.  I believe what John Brennan says.  You believe what the Senate report says.  How difficult is that for you to understand?  It's not in my imagination.  It's in the news.

[chipwhich]

More, I just can't believe that it would be in the CIA's best interest to present a picture that they are batting .0000 using the methods that they know were being scrutinized.

 

I think you may be oversimplifying what has occurred.  The Senate report was compiled based on a bunch of data that they reviewed and made a determination.  Someone at the CIA didn't say hey here is stuff that shows we hit at .0000  The head of the CIA is speaking based on actual knowledge he receives daily living and breathing life in the CIA.  He disagrees with the Senates conclusion.

[Larry]

So, chip.

Am I correctly reading your assertion that well, john Brennan

1) Knows that torturing people worked.

2) Has proof of this fact.

3) And chose to suppress this information.

4) But, he chose to release thousands of documents, from the people who actually ran, and participated in, this program, in which these people say exactly the opposite?

5) But that, after suppressing the information that proves it works, well, simply announcing that it works (without anything to back it up whatsoever), well, that, he's good with?

(I can see why you admire his notion of support vs declaration of opinion).

[Burgold]

Except the CIA turned over the 6,000,000 documents that led to that conclusion.  Does it ring true that they would intentionally pull in that vast number of records every single thing that pointed to success?

 

I agree with your overall point that the picture is complex and loaded with more grays than we are aware of, but from everything I read this Senate report was a pretty thorough and scholarly effort. It wasn't a rush job.  It wasn't done as an October surprise right before the mid-terms.  It was a careful, comprehensive, and diligent look.

 

It should be taken seriously.

[chipwhich]

So, chip.

Am I correctly reading your assertion that well, john Brennan

1) Knows that torturing people worked.

2) Has proof of this fact.

3) And chose to suppress this information.

4) But, he chose to release thousands of documents, from the people who actually ran, and participated in, this program, in which these people say exactly the opposite?

5) But that, after suppressing the information that proves it works, well, simply announcing that it works (without anything to back it up whatsoever), well, that, he's good with?

(I can see why you admire his notion of support vs declaration of opinion).

 

Why are you asking me?  Listen to John Brennan himself.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/john-brennan-defends-cia-after-torture-report/

 

Are you saying Mr. Brennan is lying?  Are you saying John Brennan isn't privy to the information in the reports the senate got?

It should be taken seriously.

 

The question remains, is John Brennan correct or is the senate report correct?

[skinsdomination09]

I love how people act surprised. This is war. This happens during war. This always will happen during war. Everybody wants the upper-hand. 

 

Maybe we should adopt a foreign policy that isn't so intrusive, so that we can focus on our own country?

 

Nah. Too simple.

 

By interfering in areas that already hate us, we are providing the very fuel they need to hate us for generations to come. And that won't end well.

 

 

The pompous overtones in this thread are too much. Get off of your high horses. 

[Burgold]

The most honest answer is I don't know, but I doubt there is anything incorrect in the Senate report because that would have been brought forth if there were any errors or mistakes made. There are too many vested in making this go away or simply in making Democrats look bad.

 

More, when I have to choose between quantitative data and qualitative data, I generally lean towards the quantitative.  I tend to trust all the hard data, and records written in the moment to be more accurate than a report being delivered after the fact at a time when the need to defend is felt. 

 

It's sort of like if you see a broken cookie jar on the kitchen floor and find your four year old in the kitchen with eating cookie and standing on a chair where the jar was kept and just heard the sister shout for him to stop... you kind of figure the four year old did it even if he says, the cat did it.

 

Sure, the four year old knows more.  He was there.  Do you blame the cat?

[Larry]

Why are you asking me?

I'm asking you, because I really doubt that John Brennan knows what your opinion, and your point, are.

[chipwhich]

I'm asking you, because I really doubt that John Brennan knows what your opinion, and your point, are.

 

I told you my opinion.  I side with John Brennan.  Once again, you don't have a point, you just play semantics.

[Larry]

I told you my opinion. I side with John Brennan.

Funny. I made five statements, asked you if you agreed with them, and as near as I can tell, your response is "why are you asking me?"

If it makes you feel better to invoke John Brennan, please feel free to tell us whether you believe he agrees with those five statements.

 

(Although, if you're going to invoke him, and claim you're telling me his opinion, then I'd really kinda appreciate it if you, you know, backed up your claim that he feels a certain way.)

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/angus-king-backs-cia-director-brennan-113567.html

Angus King backs CIA Director Brennan

 

Maine Sen. Angus King says there was no reason for CIA Director John Brennan to resign following the release of a report outlining brutal interrogation techniques by the agency after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

 

King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and supported the report’s release as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, did say future CIA leaders should come from outside the agency. Brennan has had a career in the CIA.

 

“As a general rule, it would probably be a good idea in the future to have leaders of the CIA come from outside of the CIA, just as we have a civilian in charge of the Pentagon,” King said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

 

But King said Brennan should stay on: “He still has the president’s confidence.”

 

The senator said having a leader from outside the CIA ranks would help Congress trust the agency in the future when conducting oversight.

 

King also praised Brennan for refusing to say outright that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA were effective.

 

“He stepped up in my mind,” King said. “For years, we’ve been hearing ‘it works, it works, it works.’ We’re still hearing it from the apologists. … John Brennan and the CIA official position is it’s unknowable whether it works. And that, I think, is a big change.”