Senate torture report

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

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Ardennes posted:

So you're saying that popular American television programs have been used for right-wing to far-right propaganda for years?

Yes, absolutely:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/21/entertainment/la-ca-military-movies-20110821

The DoD realized a very long time ago that TV and movies are very effective promotional tools.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:29

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Salt Fish posted:

Has there been any indication that the Obama administration intends to materially punish any individual?

Do you think any of this information is new to them? There is a better chance of them pardoning all involved to make sure no one else can punish them.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 23:30

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Xandu posted:

I hate to sound like a neocon here, but what was the Senate's rationale for not actually interviewing anybody? Seems like an odd decision unless nobody at the CIA or in the White House/DoJ was willing to talk.

The way I heard it explained was that much of their work was concurrent with the DoJ's own investigation, and so no one was willing to talk to them for fear of self-incrimination.

I think it's a red herring anyway though, considering the committee was reviewing the CIA's own internal documents that included assessments and reports about the process and results.

e: beaten

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 00:22

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Jagchosis posted:

john yoo explained his strategy for appearing slick in interviews to me: government types are generally given a set of 2 or 3 talking points to repeat with different wording, and journalists (and stewart) know this, so if you anticipate what talking points the journos are expecting in advance just completely talk around it and talk about something that they don't expect, but make it sound like you're answering their question. please tell me if he deploys this strategy on CNN, or if he's refined it

On the News Hour today, their guest objected to the term "torture" so for the rest of the discussion both sides referred only to "EITs" (enhanced interrogation techniques). :cool:

Awesome work NPR.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 02:58

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Rhesus Pieces posted:

On top of Peter King claiming that nobody was permanently harmed under torture, either these people didn't bother reading even a summary of the summary or they figure they can just flat-out lie and "win the news cycle" among people who want to believe them.

Well yeah they assume that because it has proven to be true many times, especially with regards to national security issues.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 03:35

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Bel Shazar posted:

If they ask the hard questions nobody will come back to talk to them.

That would be a net good.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 07:37

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

I think that's the thing though: Not only is it an embarrassment to our country, but it wasn't even an effective tool, and it was KNOWN to be defective BEFORE 9/11 and prior to its instituted use.

This is not a productive line of debate because as pointed out above, it implicitly acknowledges that there could be circumstances under which torture is justified. It's taking the bait of the "saved thousands of lives!" line.

The only thing that matters is that what was done was illegal and the people who broke the law need to be held accountable.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 20:45

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

For those angry that Obama isn't prosecuting anyone, would you be ok if he did prosecute some people and they were all found innocent?

Is there a point to this question? Obviously no, most people would not be okay with that, but they would be a lot more okay with it than with no prosecutions at all. :rolleyes:

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 21:32

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

The reason I raise the question is because that's why the DoJ chose not to prosecute. They didn't think they could get convictions. Which, knowing the amount of defensive evidence the Bush administration left, I'd believe it.

That's the stated reason for why they didn't prosecute. Based on this report, I don't believe that reason. But even if you think it's a weak case, for the country's standing in the international community and just as a statement of moral condemnation, bringing charges is important.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 21:42

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

In your mind who should they charge then? The torturers themselves? The psychologists running the program? John Yoo? President Bush? Everyone involved from the person who blended the hummus on up?

Yes.

quote:

If you think the lack of indictments would sour international relations, imagine how our courts officially determining that this wasn't torture would go over.

I disagree but whatever, any argument on this point is purely my fiction versus your fiction. I think our government attempting to hold those accountable would be more respected than doing nothing at all.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 22:00

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

You realize they were told explicitly that what they were doing wasn't illegal and the DoJ wrote out the legal reasoning why it was legal right?

C'mon man, this is only 12 pages into the report, which I'm assuming you've read since you're so engaged in this debate.

quote:

CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been
approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.

Prior to mid-2004, the CIA routinely subjected detainees to nudity and dietary manipulation.
The CIA also used abdominal slaps and cold water dousing on several detainees during that
period. None of these techniques had been approved by the Department of Justice.
At least 17 detainees were subjected to CIA enhanced interrogation techniques without
authorization from CIA Headquarters. Additionally, multiple detainees were subjected to
techniques that were applied in ways that diverged from the specific authorization, or were
subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques by interrogators who had not been authorized to
use them. Although these incidents were recorded in CIA cables and, in at least some cases were
identified at the time by supervisors at CIA Headquarters as being inappropriate, corrective
action was rarely taken against the interrogators involved.

e: And this section is also relevant.

quote:

#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department ofJustice,
impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

From 2002 to 2007, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice relied
on CIA representations regarding: (1) the conditions of confinement for detainees, (2) the
applicationof the CIA's enhanced interrogationtechniques, (3) the physical effects of the
techniques on detainees, and (4) the effectiveness of the techniques. Those representations were
inaccurate in material respects.

The Department of Justice did not conduct independent analysis or verification of the
information it received from the CIA. The department warned, however, that if the facts
provided by the CIA were to change, its legal conclusions might not apply. When the CIA
determined that information it had provided to the Department of Justice was incorrect, the CIA
rarely informed the department.

Prior to the initiation of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program and throughout the life
of the program, the legal justifications for the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques relied on
the CIA's claim that the techniques were necessary to save lives. In late 2001 and early 2002,
senior attorneys at the CIA Office of General Counsel first examined the legal implications of
using coercive interrogation techniques. CIA attorneys stated that "a novel application of the
necessity defense" could be used "to avoid prosecution of U.S. officials who tortured to obtain
information thatsaved many lives."

Having reviewed information provided by the CIA, the OLC included the "necessity defense" in
its August 1, 2002, memorandum to the White House counsel on Standards of Conductfor
Interrogation. The OLC determined that "under the cunrrent circumstances, necessity or self defense
may justify interrogation methods that might violate" the criminal prohibition against
torture.

On the same day, a second OLC opinion approved, for the first time, the use of 10 specific
coercive interrogation techniques against Abu Zubaydah�subsequently referred to as the CIA's
"enhanced interrogation techniques." The OLC relied on inaccurate CIA representations about
Abu Zubaydah's status in al-Qa'ida and the interrogation team's "certain[ty]" that Abu
Zubaydah was withholding information about planned terrorist attacks. The CIA's
representations to the OLC about the techniques were also inconsistent with how the techniques
would later be applied.

In March 2005, the CIA submitted to the Department of Justice various examples of the
"effectiveness" of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques that were inaccurate. OLC
memoranda signed on May 30, 2005, and July 20, 2007, relied on these representations,
determining that the techniques were legal in part because they produced "specific, actionable
intelligence" and "substantial quantities of otherwise unavailable intelligence" that saved lives.

Papercut fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 11, 2014

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 22:48

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm not trying to argue that it was actually legal. Just that they were told it was legal enough. Which would make the court case all the worse for the Obama administration. That's my point, that the nature of the Bush administration's attempts at muddying the legal waters were sufficient to make any prosecution at best a pyrrhic victory.

Except that the report found that CIA heads misled the DoJ as to what was going on and CIA staff went beyond the boundaries set by the DoJ in the first place. Yes of course the criminals would attempt to defend themselves and would argue that they were just following orders, that's a truism and adds nothing to the discussion. That doesn't mean they've got a bulletproof case that would convince a jury, let alone that it's a reason not to attempt to prosecute them at all.

You're going to torturous lengths ( :haw:

) to make it seem as if Obama's hands were tied, when in fact ActusRhesus explanation is a far, far more compelling explanation for his actions.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 23:13

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

Right, so why are you punishing some poor med-tech (who threw up afterwards btw and only did it for god and country) for what the leadership of the CIA did? The med-tech didn't know the DoJ had been lied to. Etc etc.

ActusRhesus explanation and mine aren't exclusive. In fact, they work in concert. The right-wing blowup over a trial would help fuel the media circus that would get people talking about Dronsey and Friends.

How can you not see that Fox would love nothing more than to turn a trial into "Defenders of America versus Anti-American Academic Obama"? These brave Americans, at great person cost, did what had to be done to save America from Terrorists. Meanwhile Obama gets to stay in his comfy office, go on Colbert and kill Americans with the touch of a button. Its pure ratings bliss for the conservative talking heads. Expect to see a lot of Ollie North, someone else "unfairly" punished for "political" crimes.

He threw up? After murdering Gul Rahman? That must have really hurt when he got his bonus and promotion.

Sorry, I don't give a gently caress what Fox would be bloviating about during a trial. It's not a political question and there is no election calculus to be done.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 23:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:29

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

I'll be interested to see in a few years once people start talking about the investigation from the DoJ side. You may be right that this is all weak-willed political poo poo, but I just have a strong feeling that the CIA and Bush administration weren't so dumb as to not give themselves as many ways out as they can. And those real risks of "not guilty" combined with the political side were designed to make prosecution by future presidents a non-starter.

And I have a strong feeling that you will be defending the Obama administration's actions no matter what evidence or facts may exist in the public realm. It's fun having feelings.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 23:38

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