Senate torture report

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Senate torture report

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

MariusLecter posted:

And it turns out that the family we sent tapes of their screaming retarded son being tortured got them to confess about that ticking bomb and saved all those people and the torturers got medals and we threw a parade. Remember?

"We will never know exactly how many lives torturing a few of the worst terrorists in the world saved." ~ What people actually believe.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 03:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 02:46

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

twodot posted:

I don't know why you think this is relevant to anything I've said (other than the posts where I said torture is bad, which you didn't quote).

They're evil; they didn't torture him to get information.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 03:58

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

They're evil; they didn't torture him to get information.

While I'm willing to entertain the notion that the CIA is abjectly evil from the top down, I think I made it pretty clear that all of my posts were made on the assumption that they aren't literally evil in the D&D sense. Even assuming my assumption is wrong (which is entirely possible), I still don't see what relevance your post have to mine.
edit:
Perhaps I should state this more directly, I believe two things: 1) The government believes it is justified in holding these people indefinitely, and 2) They believe their reasons for believing that are legitimate. I propose that 1) is true, but 2) is badly reasoned. Do you have an issue with that?

twodot fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Dec 17, 2014

# ? Dec 17, 2014 05:55

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

Rodnik posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/torture-report-poll_n_6316126.html

45 percent of Americans not only believe that torture was effective, but believe we should use more of it in the future.

The poll Washington Post did shows that 59% support it. It shows Christians supporting it more than non-Christians.

Millions of people considered Jesus suffering on the cross, and thought to themselves, "Yep, we should do that to people."

# ? Dec 17, 2014 11:47

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Dr Christmas posted:

The poll Washington Post did shows that 59% support it. It shows Christians supporting it more than non-Christians.

Millions of people considered Jesus suffering on the cross, and thought to themselves, "Yep, we should do that to people."

It's called Good Friday for a reason. :getin:

# ? Dec 17, 2014 11:53

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

twodot posted:

Perhaps I should state this more directly, I believe two things: 1) The government believes it is justified in holding these people indefinitely, and 2) They believe their reasons for believing that are legitimate. I propose that 1) is true, but 2) is badly reasoned. Do you have an issue with that?

Yes. You are wrong on point 1 and also quite probably evil.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 12:09

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

twodot posted:

Perhaps I should state this more directly, I believe two things: 1) The government believes it is justified in holding these people indefinitely, and 2) They believe their reasons for believing that are legitimate. I propose that 1) is true, but 2) is badly reasoned. Do you have an issue with that?

Under what circumstances is it acceptable to hold uncharged criminal suspects indefinitely?

# ? Dec 17, 2014 13:56

tehllama: Apr 30, 2009; Hook, swing.

Orange Devil posted:

Yes. You are wrong on point 1 and also quite probably evil.

I don't think he's says he believes it, he's saying he thinks the government believes it, because if, at least on some level, they aren't doing it out of some perceived need (no matter how wrong that may be or how immoral it may be) then they just tortured people with no rhyme or reason at all. The CIA being evil and his supposition are not mutually exclusive. Also claiming his point 1 is wrong is pretty stupid because someone in the government obviously believes indefinite detentions is justified or they wouldn't be happening. That says nothing as to whether or not they are justified (they're not, obviously). twodot is making the roundabout point that people who commit evil don't generally believe themselves to be evil.

That's a reasonable position and you're basically just reading what you want to read.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 14:10

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

The way I read his post it sounded like he was saying the government is right to believe indefinite detention is justified. If he wasn't saying that, then I rescind my statement on the probability of his evilness.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 14:20

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

Dr Christmas posted:

The poll Washington Post did shows that 59% support it. It shows Christians supporting it more than non-Christians.

Millions of people considered Jesus suffering on the cross, and thought to themselves, "Yep, we should do that to people."

Well it happened to that one guy and not only did it take away all of our sins like a Hoover vacuum but we got a new religion and a bunch of paid federal holidays along with it. Maybe we'll strike gold, frankincense, and mihr again?

# ? Dec 17, 2014 14:26

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

twodot posted:

Perhaps I should state this more directly, I believe two things: 1) The government believes it is justified in holding these people indefinitely, and 2) They believe their reasons for believing that are legitimate. I propose that 1) is true, but 2) is badly reasoned. Do you have an issue with that?

That doesn't absolve them from evil. #2 is basically what drives real world evil.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 17:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Orange Devil posted:

Yes. You are wrong on point 1 and also quite probably evil.

If I'm wrong on point 1, why do you think the government is holding those people? (Your later post suggests you are simply incapable of reading, I don't know what to make of your posts anymore)

Chomskyan posted:

Under what circumstances is it acceptable to hold uncharged criminal suspects indefinitely?

None. Which is why I said earlier there are no good reasons to hold uncharged people indefinitely:

twodot posted:

This is a bad reason to hold someone indefinitely without trial, but there simply doesn't exist any good reason to hold someone indefinitely without trial, so that doesn't seem remarkable.

What is confusing about this?

Shbobdb posted:

That doesn't absolve them from evil. #2 is basically what drives real world evil.

Right, this is why I never said anyone was absolved of anything, and which is why with I led with saying the government's inadmissible evidence is most likely evidence created from an evil act.

Seriously people, just read what I'm actually writing.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 17:27

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

If I'm wrong on point 1, why do you think the government is holding those people? (Your later post suggests you are simply incapable of reading, I don't know what to make of your posts anymore)

None. Which is why I said earlier there are no good reasons to hold uncharged people indefinitely:

What is confusing about this?

Right, this is why I never said anyone was absolved of anything, and which is why with I led with saying the government's inadmissible evidence is most likely evidence created from an evil act.

Seriously people, just read what I'm actually writing.

You're a little bit difficult to follow, every time you rephrase it it still sounds like you're saying the government is doing the right thing.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 17:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

You're a little bit difficult to follow, every time you rephrase it it still sounds like you're saying the government is doing the right thing.

Please quote anything I've said that said the government is doing the right thing instead of the government believes it is doing the right thing (which is what I've actually said). Keep in mind that I've said multiple times that we shouldn't torture people, that there are no good reasons to hold people without charge, and that the best benefit of the doubt I'm willing to give the government is that they aren't literal comic book super villains.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 17:44

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

Dr Christmas posted:

The poll Washington Post did shows that 59% support it. It shows Christians supporting it more than non-Christians.

It's those spanish speaking Christians. And they are probably all Democrat.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 18:06

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

Please quote anything I've said that said the government is doing the right thing instead of the government believes it is doing the right thing (which is what I've actually said). Keep in mind that I've said multiple times that we shouldn't torture people, that there are no good reasons to hold people without charge, and that the best benefit of the doubt I'm willing to give the government is that they aren't literal comic book super villains.

When you say stuff like:

twodot posted:

Perhaps I should state this more directly, I believe two things: 1) The government believes it is justified in holding these people indefinitely, and 2) They believe their reasons for believing that are legitimate. I propose that 1) is true, but 2) is badly reasoned. Do you have an issue with that?

It's confusing, because it sounds like you're saying you agree with the first one but not the second.

Because the alternative is that you're saying you believe that your belief that the government believes that they are justified, is true, which... frankly is much harder to parse than it needs to be.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 18:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

When you say stuff like:

It's confusing, because it sounds like you're saying you agree with the first one but not the second.

"agree with" doesn't make sense in this context, it can mean "Yes I agree you are factually correct" or "Yes, I agree with your goals/morals", and I'm explicitly saying that reality exists in a suboptimal way. I think both of the two sentences are true statements. The first one is basically tautological, the government only does things that it thinks is a good idea to do. The government seems to be acknowledging it's made a number of mistakes, but it's also doubling down on a number of other people (which are the people we were talking about). The second statement is basically "Is the government engaging in doublethink regarding how it gathers information?". I don't think it is, I think the government believes that torture is a just way to collect information. The government is wrong about this, but they believe it regardless.

You appear to saying the agreeing with "The government believes it is justified in holding these people indefinitely" implies agreeing with "the government is doing the right thing", which is just wrong. If I wanted to say the government is doing the right thing I wouldn't need to insert "believes" into my sentences. If I wanted to say the government were good guys, I would call them not-villains instead of not-super villains.
edit:
I suppose it might be more clear to say 1) is true, but they are mistaken, but part of the issue is they are mistaken primarily because of 2), because if they didn't gently caress up 2) they could have an actual trial and justice.

twodot fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 17, 2014

# ? Dec 17, 2014 19:00

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

Can't do that, would compromise national security.

Surely getting the people who compromised our national security by providing false intel obtained through barbaric methods that created enemies around the world could only help national security.

Just kidding, we'd be doomed without manly-man tough-as-nails Jack Bauer :swoon:

# ? Dec 17, 2014 19:07

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

VitalSigns posted:

Surely getting the people who compromised our national security by providing false intel obtained through barbaric methods that created enemies around the world could only help national security.

Just kidding, we'd be doomed without manly-man tough-as-nails Jack Bauer

That's why you need a bigger national security budget next year, duh.

# ? Dec 17, 2014 19:13

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Now that's looking forward!

# ? Dec 17, 2014 19:15

Quasimango: Mar 10, 2011; God damn you.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture

quote:

For the past eight months, there has been a furious battle raging behind closed doors at the White House, the C.I.A., and in Congress. The question has been whether the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence would be allowed to use pseudonyms as a means of identifying characters in the devastating report it released last week on the C.I.A.�s abusive interrogation and detention program. Ultimately, the committee was not allowed to, and now we know one reason why.

The NBC News investigative reporter Matthew Cole has pieced together a remarkable story revealing that a single senior officer, who is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.�a woman who he does not name�appears to have been a source of years� worth of terrible judgment, with tragic consequences for the United States. Her story runs through the entire report. She dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.

Had the Senate Intelligence Committee been permitted to use pseudonyms for the central characters in its report, as all previous congressional studies of intelligence failures, including the widely heralded Church Committee report in 1975, have done, it might not have taken a painstaking, and still somewhat cryptic, investigation after the fact in order for the American public to hold this senior official accountable. Many people who have worked with her over the years expressed shock to NBC that she has been entrusted with so much power. A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that �she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.�

Instead, however, she has been promoted to the rank of a general in the military, most recently working as the head of the C.I.A.�s global-jihad unit. In that perch, she oversees the targeting of terror suspects around the world. (She was also, in part, the model for the lead character in �Zero Dark Thirty.�)

According to sources in the law-enforcement community who I have interviewed over the years, and who I spoke to again this week, this woman�whose name the C.I.A. has asked the news media to withhold�had supervision over an underling at the agency who failed to share with the F.B.I. the news that two of the future 9/11 hijackers had entered the United States prior to the terrorist attacks. As I recount in my book �The Dark Side,� the C.I.A. got wind that one of these Al Qaeda operatives, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had obtained a multiple-entry visa into the United States eighteen months before 9/11. The agency also learned, months before the attacks, that another Al Qaeda operative, Nawaf al-Hazmi, had flown into Los Angeles. Yet the C.I.A. appears to have done nothing. It never alerted the F.B.I., which had the principle domestic authority for protecting the U.S. from terror attacks. Its agents had, in fact, been on the trail of at least one of the hijackers previously, but had no way of knowing that he had entered the United States. Nor did the C.I.A. alert the State Department, which kept a �TIPOFF� watch list for terror suspects.

Amazingly, perhaps, more than thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks, no one at the C.I.A. has ever been publicly held responsible for this failure. Evidently, the C.I.A. was adamant in its negotiations with the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee that the American public never learn the names of anyone directly involved in this failure.

As NBC recounts, this egregious chapter was apparently only the first in a long tale, in which the same C.I.A. official became a driving force in the use of waterboarding and other sadistic interrogation techniques that were later described by President Obama as �torture.� She personally partook in the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, at a black site in Poland. According to the Senate report, she sent a bubbly cable back to C.I.A. headquarters in 2003, anticipating the pain they planned to inflict on K.S.M. in an attempt to get him to confirm a report from another detainee, about a plot to use African-American Muslims training in Afghanistan for future terrorist attacks. �i love the Black American Muslim at AQ camps in Afghanuistan (sic). � Mukie (K.S.M.) is going to be hatin� life on this one,� she wrote, according to the report. But, as NBC notes, she misconstrued the intelligence gathered from the other detainee. Somehow, the C.I.A. mistakenly believed that African-American Muslim terrorists were already in the United States. The intelligence officials evidently pressed K.S.M. so hard to confirm this, under such physical duress, that he eventually did, even though it was false�leading U.S. officials on a wild-goose chase for black Muslim Al Qaeda operatives in Montana. According to the report, the same woman oversaw the extraction of this false lead, as well as the months-long rendition and gruesome interrogation of another detainee whose detention was a case of mistaken identity. Later, in 2007, she accompanied then C.I.A. director Michael Hayden to brief Congress, where she insisted forcefully that the torture program had been a tremendous and indispensable success.

Readers can speculate on how the pieces fit together, and who the personalities behind this program are. But without even pseudonyms, it is exceedingly hard to connect the dots. It seems entirely possible�though, again, one can only speculate�that the C.I.A. overcompensated for its pre-9/11 intelligence failures by employing overly harsh measures later. Once they�d made a choice that America had never officially made before�of sanctioning torture�it seems possible that they felt they had to defend its efficacy, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. If so, this would be worth learning. But without names, or even pseudonyms, it is almost impossible to piece together the puzzle, or hold anyone in the American government accountable. Evidently, that is exactly what the C.I.A. was fighting for during its eight-month-long redaction process, behind all those closed doors.

In case anyone was curious who she's talking about, it's Alfreda Frances Bikowsky.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 10:19

Comstar: Apr 20, 2007; Are you happy now?

Quasimango posted:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture
In case anyone was curious who she's talking about, it's Alfreda Frances Bikowsky.

Not the name I would think of when describing an evil Cobra Commander level Supervillain, but here we are.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 11:01

Weltlich: Feb 13, 2006; Grimey Drawer

Comstar posted:

Not the name I would think of when describing an evil Cobra Commander level Supervillain, but here we are.

But it certainly is a name I could see having popped up at a Nuremberg trial. I eagerly await the apologist response to her behavior, probably something along the lines of "but she got Bin Laden!" It seems more like she got OBL despite her actions.

She needs to stand trial for war crimes, and Hayden need to as well for supporting and enabling her.

Weltlich fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Dec 19, 2014

# ? Dec 19, 2014 13:58

Weltlich: Feb 13, 2006; Grimey Drawer

Double post courtesy of AwfulApp!

# ? Dec 19, 2014 14:03

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

""sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana""

I realize at this point it might seem trivial, but is the CIA allowed to do it's "work" in the U.S. now?

# ? Dec 19, 2014 14:15

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

spacetoaster posted:

""sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana""

I realize at this point it might seem trivial, but is the CIA allowed to do it's "work" in the U.S. now?

Well, when has the fact that they're not allowed to participate in domestic law enforcement operations ever stopped the CIA before?

# ? Dec 19, 2014 14:43

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

I've been trying to make sense of this and I've been thinking about unethical medical experiments in Germany last century.

You can look back and say "wow, that was really awful, but there were a few good things that came out of it. If we did the same thing but led the program with good people instead of bad people, we might be able to get the good without all of the bad."

Eight years later, you've got labs full of juvenile convicts with transplanted animal limbs and you find yourself saying "no really, we're not monsters!"

# ? Dec 19, 2014 15:36

duz: Jul 11, 2005; Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost

Cerebral Bore posted:

Well, when has the fact that they're not allowed to participate in domestic law enforcement operations ever stopped the CIA before?

Or obeying any laws, really.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 16:08

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

So none of the post-911 security increases were necessary besides firing that one lady which we didn't even do?

E:was she the person Zero Dark Thirty was based off of?

Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 19, 2014

# ? Dec 19, 2014 19:29

anonumos: Jul 14, 2005; Fuck it.

Miltank posted:

E:was she the person Zero Dark Thirty was based off of?

That has been repeated several times in the quotes people have posted. Also inspired portrayals in 2-3 other movies.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 19:36

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

anonumos posted:

That has been repeated several times in the quotes people have posted. Also inspired portrayals in 2-3 other movies.

Is she like Amanda Waller from Batman or something?

# ? Dec 19, 2014 19:38

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

spacetoaster posted:

""sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana""

I realize at this point it might seem trivial, but is the CIA allowed to do it's "work" in the U.S. now?

They spent like 15 years secretly drugging people in American brothels and prisons and ivy league schools, so yeah they pretty much do whatever they want and kill people who get in the way.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 19:47

Davethulhu: Aug 12, 2003; Morbid Hound

Radish posted:

Is she like Amanda Waller from Batman or something?

Yeah, if Amanda Waller was an incompetent sadist. Maybe Antimatter Earth Amanda Waller.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 19:56

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Jack Gladney posted:

They spent like 15 years secretly drugging people in American brothels and prisons and ivy league schools, so yeah they pretty much do whatever they want and kill people who get in the way.

Drugging them for a purpose, or just going "Hey, you know what this person needs? More drugs!"

what i'm looking for is a way to get the cia to inject me with secret free drugs

# ? Dec 19, 2014 19:59

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

Quasimango posted:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture
Amazingly, perhaps, more than thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks, no one at the C.I.A. has ever been publicly held responsible for this failure. Evidently, the C.I.A. was adamant in its negotiations with the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee that the American public never learn the names of anyone directly involved in this failure.

This is my favorite part of all. The idea that the President and SIC have to 'negotiate' with the CIA over anything, instead of just giving orders and having them followed. It's the most :magical:

line I've yet seen about this whole catastrofuck, and it really drives home how out of control the CIA are.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 20:03

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Davethulhu posted:

Yeah, if Amanda Waller was an incompetent sadist. Maybe Antimatter Earth Amanda Waller.

I always got the impression she was a barely restrained sadist that rationalized herself through thoughts of saving a net amount of lives and was competent since her methods were written to work when in actuality (as the CIA report shows little was gained through "enhanced interrogation") they probably wouldn't be.

I bet a lot of CIA high-ups would think they were Amanda Waller if they knew who she was.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Dec 19, 2014

# ? Dec 19, 2014 20:10

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Darth Walrus posted:

Drugging them for a purpose, or just going "Hey, you know what this person needs? More drugs!"

what i'm looking for is a way to get the cia to inject me with secret free drugs

Just to see what would happen. Sometimes it was just some lsd and everyone just had a good time and forgot, but sometimes they'd do poo poo like put you in a coma and pipe barbiturates into you for months while trying to brainwash you, or mainline speed into your right arm and benzos in your left until you had a stroke. They thought maybe somehow this would lead to mind control:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

It's been posted like five times now.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 20:18

Mightypeon: Oct 10, 2013; Putin apologist- assume all uncited claims are from Russia Today or directly from FSB.

key phrases: Poor plucky little Russia, Spheres of influence, The West is Worse, they was asking for it.

Mister Adequate posted:

This is my favorite part of all. The idea that the President and SIC have to 'negotiate' with the CIA over anything, instead of just giving orders and having them followed. It's the most line I've yet seen about this whole catastrofuck, and it really drives home how out of control the CIA are.

What was confusing for the Soviets is why the CIA didnt just take the whole nation over, as the Soviets regarded them as powerfull enough.
Some people in Moscow actually did think that this happened post Kennedy, the important people in Moscow thought that America is basically the same no matter who is in charge anyway.

They were also surprised that the Church commision didnt get shot, and that, after it did its job, didnt shoot anyone.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 21:12

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

Mightypeon posted:

Some people in Moscow actually did think that this happened post Kennedy, the important people in Moscow thought that America is basically the same no matter who is in charge anyway.

I mean, that is one of the basic tenets of classical realist theory in international relations - countries are rational actors w/r/t their national interests, and internal politics are just fluff. I don't really agree with that, and realism has developed into many more nuanced flavors today, but that theory isn't just a Soviet view of America.

# ? Dec 19, 2014 21:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 02:46

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

Mightypeon posted:

They were also surprised that the Church commision didnt get shot, and that, after it did its job, didnt shoot anyone.

As soon as the next administration came around the CIA was right back to business as usual with the Church Commission having accomplished exactly jack and poo poo so why would they have shot anybody?

# ? Dec 19, 2014 21:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Senate torture report

«‹›24 »