1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

CIA torture report

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by bigpern23, Dec 10, 2014.

  1. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    +1
     
  2. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    That's because no one is questioning whether we used those tactics or not. It's pretty universally accepted that we did.

    At issue, in both the report and the response, is whether those tactics worked or not.
     
  3. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    It's hard to know whether the tactics worked when CIA mysteriously misplaces video evidence, such as the water boarding torture of Abu Zubaydah, whom the CIA directors call an invaluable source of intel. He was so valuable, in fact, CIA drowned him while water boarding him and he had to be resuscitated after falling unconscious with lungs filled with water.

    The CIA directors also called Khalid Sheikh Mohammed an invaluable source of intel, saying their water boarding tactics were a success, though the report claims CIA operatives told the CIA inspector general that KSM "beat" the water boarding and responded better to less coercive techniques.
     
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    One side has an agenda to say they didn't, one side has an agenda to say they did.

    So it's all he-said, she-said.

    Problem is, the Times, Post, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN always give one side's saying much bigger play than the other's.
     
  5. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    What this story does expose, however, is that the "we should be better than them" side is basically saying we shouldn't engage in intelligence gathering and counter-intelligence. In fact, what they're basically saying is we shouldn't even have a CIA. After all, spying and such is just not right. "We're supposed to be better than that."
     
  6. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    There's little doubt in my mind that the tactics worked in identifying other top al-Qaida "operatives."

    The other stuff, i.e. "we prevented [this and that and some such attack]," by the very nature of intelligence gathering, is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
     
  7. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Reading John Brennan's summary response (I haven't had time to wade through the whole thing), IMO, supports the veracity of much of what the report states. He points out several areas of agreement, but he also notes specific areas of disagreement, which mostly strike me as CYA language parsing the report to exonerate CIA of misconduct.

    For instance, Brennan disagrees with the committee's "unqualified assertions that the interrogation program did not produce unique intelligence that led terrorist plots to be disrupted." He follows that by saying the agency takes no position on whether information obtained from detainees using enhanced interrogation methods could have been obtained through other means.

    That's pretty important. We were told enhanced interrogation techniques were used only as a last resort. If they were truly the last resort, we would know the information obtained (and I'm dubious as to whether any actionable intelligence was really gained by these methods) could not have been obtained any other way.

    Also, he disagrees CIA deliberately misled the White House or resisted internal or external oversight, but he acknowledges "there were instances where misrepresentations about the program that were used or approved by Agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise, or fell short of Agency tradecraft standards." In other words, "we didn't mean to mislead anyone, it was an accident, we swear!"

    It also should not be overlooked that he affirms his belief that torture (I can't stomach calling it "enhanced interrogation") is not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and impairs our ability to play a leadership role in the world. I would think the country's top spy would argue on behalf of torture if he truly believe it to be an effective way to gather intelligence and disrupt terrorist plots.
     
  8. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    No, we're saying we shouldn't fucking torture people. Yes, we should be better than that.
     
  9. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    When we start kidnapping people and beheading them on video, I'll worry that we're not better.

    For now, I'm not concerned that we're just as bad.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  10. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    EDIT: I withdraw my snarky comment. It wasn't constructive in any fashion.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  11. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    What about the more than 20 percent of detainees who weren't terrorists at all, but victims of mistaken identity? Shit happens?
     
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    We know why shit happened, don't we? On 9/11 we were only months removed from an administration that had spent eight years emasculating the CIA.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page