Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

intelligence.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 579 posts

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#101

Post by mikeash »

tosser-001 wrote: post #95
rdtsc wrote: post #25

> 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.…

* 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 i…

What is different about the 9/11 attacks that legitimizes the use of torture, when you would not support it against soldiers or other criminals?

Do keep in mind that 9/11 doesn't even register on the atrocity scale when compared to what's been done by "soldiers of a legitimate state." If you would endorse torture to prevent another 9/11, why wouldn't you also endorse torture to prevent, say, another Hiroshima?

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#102

Post by leroy_masochist »

sliverstorm wrote: post #57
rdtsc wrote: post #25

> 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.…

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?

I wouldn't say that any of these techniques are "basic/standard", and I used to work in the field.

You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them.

In my opinion the question is the extent to which it's OK to play with people's psychology through isolation and misinformation, while still giving them 3 hots and a cot. The important thing to note here is that you can still damage people this way if you take it too far; solitary makes people go crazy especially when they're being fed false info about what's going on outside the walls.

Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. We're not going to beat it out of them, but how far are we willing to go? Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#104

Post by at-fates-hands »

tdees40 wrote: post #77
willscott wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who has said sorry? Cheney? Bush? Rice? The people who put this system into place continue to defend it and have suffered no consequences.

Before you get on your Liberal high horse, you might want to check yourself. Extraordinary Rendition began under Clinton:

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/fact-sheet-extraordin...

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically,

Let me be perfectly clear when I say this. It shouldn't matter which party started this, ITS WRONG.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#105

Post by pmr_ »

nraynaud wrote: post #37
ProAm wrote: post #5

This is horrific. Just reading the findings and conclusions section is astounding. Embarrassing and shameful day for the USA.

I am not an American, but I have one specific positive point to say about that: generally the only way to get a country to acknowledge the horror it did is to invade it and trial the leaders (Germany WWII: trial, Iraq against kurds: trial, France Vichy: nothing substantial, France colonial wars: amnesty, USSR: nothing, Yugoslavia: trial, without real invasion). In this instance, nobody is in court (if we ignore Polan…

It is easy to forget that this is just a report and up to this point it hasn't had any real consequences yet. If this will ever lead to anything (be it criminal charges, convictions or change in policy) is still open.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#106

Post by ilyagr »

dragonwriter wrote: post #72
Loughla wrote: post #10

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.

> Why do they insist on saying 'enhanced interrogation technique' instead of torture? "Enhanced interrogation technique" is an uncontroversial, accurate factual description. "Torture" is a conclusion of law applied to the facts that, while there is overwhelming reason to accept that the conclusion is valid for the program as a whole, and many of the specific instances in particular, does not necessarily apply to all…

> "Enhanced interrogation technique" is an uncontroversial, accurate factual description.

Such language exists only to obscure the meaning. How exactly do you distinguish an "enhanced" interrogation technique from merely an interrogation technique? Is there any better criterion than saying that an interrogation technique is "enchanced" if it involves torture?

Orwell has a nice essay about this: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

UPDATED: I can't reference Orwell and start sentences with "In my opinion..." :)

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#107

Post by debacle »

tormeh wrote: post #100
debacle wrote: post #49

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.

I'm only joking, but wouldn't seeing a SAW movie with them and explaining that this kind of violence is perceived as justified against certain groups suffice?

That's not really a terribly awful idea. Would probably be incredibly useful for unknowing adults, as well.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#108

Post by sesutton »

dragonwriter wrote: post #72
Loughla wrote: post #10

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.

> Why do they insist on saying 'enhanced interrogation technique' instead of torture? "Enhanced interrogation technique" is an uncontroversial, accurate factual description. "Torture" is a conclusion of law applied to the facts that, while there is overwhelming reason to accept that the conclusion is valid for the program as a whole, and many of the specific instances in particular, does not necessarily apply to all…

"Torture" isn't just a crime it's also a word that's been around for centuries that is used to describe the kind of things described in the report. People who want to avoid it do so because its a powerful and emotive word. Describing it as "enhanced interrogation techniques" is just a euphemism to make it seem more palatable because everyone agrees "torture" is wrong but who even knows what an "enhanced interrogation technique" is?

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#109

Post by rqebmm »

tormeh wrote: post #75
rqebmm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been shown that torture is among the least effective way of extracting information from unwilling informants. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_...

What is the most effective? Anyway, that's really counter-intuitive. I mean, I guess I could deal with pain, but losing body parts, skin or eyes? I would talk pretty fast.

Basically, the most effective means is to create a rapport with the subject, and if treated with compassion and respect, eventually some will come around to their captor's side and reveal whatever information they have.

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

http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/suspect-interrogation...

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#110

Post by ad_hominem »

mikeyouse wrote: post #16
theandrewbailey wrote: post #9

If anyone has senators on the Intelligence Committee (like Feinstein D-CA), write or call your senator and tell them that they made the right choice. Members: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html

Not all members of the committee deserve your appreciation.. > The 6,000-page report was researched and written by Democratic staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee between 2009 and 2013 after committee Republicans chose not to participate. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/politics/q-and-a-about-...

Feinstein has chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee since 2009. Her job over the past 5 years in this role was supposed to be oversight of these intelligence agencies.

Fact is until this release she has been a staunch defender of the existing intelligence programs and the status quo among NSA, White House, and CIA. She's exactly the type of person you do not want chairing this committee. Unfortunately when Edward Snowden stepped up and did her job for her (without the privilege of legislative immunity), she called it "an act of treason."[1]

In my opinion if the CIA hadn't been caught spying on her committee's computers she wouldn't have released this report at all. It's an act of retribution in my cynical opinion.

That said, props to her for releasing the executive summary[2] of the report.

[1]: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/304573-sen-feinstein-snowd... [2]: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/02/x-things-keep-...

Post reply on HN