Live data from Hacker News

US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

intelligence.senate.gov

441–450 of 579 posts

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#441
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "saving grace". Saying sorry afterwards doesn't do anything for those wronged. Admission doesn't take away pain, humiliation and fear.

As you can see in the examples of China and Japan [0], a national apology can help ease tensions between peoples and countries and not apologizing can exacerbate already strained relations. Admitting wrong doing and offering solutions to prevent this from ever happening again are the first steps towards rebuilding what is undoubtedly going to be a much damaged world wide reputation. Even releasing this report was a s…

Necessary, but not sufficient.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and someone needs to be held accountable. The citizens of the United States need to be held accountable. Sorry, someone has to start looking at the root of the problem.

Yes. We can't just keep whining "come on, guys, you really ought to stop" to our leaders. This is happening in our names, and our hands are dirty. Stopping this is our own responsibility.

And how shall we proceed?

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#443
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.…

The torture techniques they're using/have used/pretended to have stopped using but definitely did not have been known and used for decades; read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation... . A quote of a quote: "The Baltimore Sun reported that, former Battalion 3-16 member Jose Barrera said he was taught interrogation methods by U.S. instructors in 1983, used this technique: "The first thing we wo…

Do we have figures about how many people have been tortured? Even if 1 is too much for me, many people think in terms of "It's ok because it's a remote risk".

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#444

I think we should be a little more amazed that this report is available at all---an through internal channels at that. While we're all bashing the CIA for what they've done (and are right to do so), we should also appreciate that this is also at some level an instance of government working "properly": one branch of government audited another branch, found that there had been misconduct, and was able to publish a repo…

Its something yes, but considering no one will be charged at all for well documented and extremely grave crimes well... Its hard to take solace in being a little better than a full on totalitarian regime.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#445
post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The torture techniques they're using/have used/pretended to have stopped using but definitely did not have been known and used for decades; read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation... . A quote of a quote: "The Baltimore Sun reported that, former Battalion 3-16 member Jose Barrera said he was taught interrogation methods by U.S. instructors in 1983, used this technique: "The first thing we wo…

Do we have figures about how many people have been tortured? Even if 1 is too much for me, many people think in terms of "It's ok because it's a remote risk".

39 people were subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques", according to this report.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being disingenuous here. It's like the difference between a police officer shooting an armed criminal on the street (which may be a matter of necessity, though recent examples highlight just how problematic such a standard can be) and beating them up in jail when they're already in a custodial situation and thus present no threat to the public. It's true that is the scale of awful behavior, the CIA's program w…

> You're being disingenuous here. It's like the difference between a police officer shooting an armed criminal on the street (which may be a matter of necessity, though recent examples highlight just how problematic such a standard can be) and beating them up in jail when they're already in a custodial situation and thus present no threat to the public. In war, we justify things a lot more morally ambiguous than a po…

> Those folks get killed in war in airstrikes that are totally consistent with international conventions.

The deaths caused by the aggressor of a war are not consistent with international conventions, they are, in the words of a judge in at the Nuremberg tribunals, the consequence of the ultimate war crime.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying we shouldn't engage in torture because it's "bad"? It's okay to blow these same people up in the battlefield, but god forbid we throw water on them and put them in a slightly cold room?

You're being disingenuous here. It's like the difference between a police officer shooting an armed criminal on the street (which may be a matter of necessity, though recent examples highlight just how problematic such a standard can be) and beating them up in jail when they're already in a custodial situation and thus present no threat to the public. It's true that is the scale of awful behavior, the CIA's program w…

rayiner isn't the one being disingenuous. CIA interrogation techniques are not the equivalent of the police beating up someone in a cell, the purpose is to gain valuable information. It isn't done for revenge or in situations where the stakes are anything less than the life and death of innocent people. Someone who has information on a literal ticking time bomb is the very definition of a threat to the public. So is someone who can reveal information about the plans of a warlord to subjugate a tribal village, or sell people into slavery or provide financial resources to known killers. If US intelligence isn't willing to hurt bad people before they can hurt innocent people, then what the hell is the point of any of it? You've drawn a very false equivalency.

The moral high ground is very valuable real estate indeed, and the US does hurt itself by doing things that reflect poorly in the eyes of the global public. But we're rightfully and pragmatically more concerned about artillery and soldiers occupying plain old fashioned military high ground. We interrogate to prevent people who openly wish us harm from gaining the power to turn their words into deeds. You can always earn cool points by pointing out historical atrocities, but in the end what matters is that we're still here, alive and prospering. Do you honestly believe that if the US government always behaved like perfect angels that N Korea or Cuba would suddenly listen to our moral lectures? That our behavior would somehow inspire them to change the fundamental cultural mores that come from decades of national poverty and the mindset that comes along with it? Because I don't think it will. Human rights violations will still exist even if we behave with moral perfection. Sometimes the best way to stop the bad guys isn't to set a good example, but instead to waterboard someone until he tells you where to send a SEAL team.

For better or worse, the US has the sanctioned role of providing security for the world. If that means we have to strip someone naked and throw them against a wall then so be it. It's unpleasant, but it sure as hell beats the alternatives.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#448
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. > This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion. there is no conversation to have. Only charges (of crimes against humanity which torture is) to bring in.

> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option. None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this. OTOH, torture is subject to a universal prohibition under international law independently of the status of the tortured person, whether a protected person under the any of the Geneva Conventions, a regular criminal suspect in a domestic court system, or an…

>> Geneva Convention states clearly - either POW status or suspect in the judicial system. There is no 3rd option.

>None of the Geneva Conventions actually say this.

One way or the other it is mentioned in various places through the Conventions. In particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention :

for internal conflict

" The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. "

for international:

"It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#449
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals are apparently considered unworthy of civil rights. Just witness how many people justify the recent high-profile police killings by pointing out that one victim had previously robbed a convenience store and another one was selling cigarettes on the black market. In many people's minds, "selling illegal cigarettes" equates to "OK to kill in the street." Given that, it's no wonder that prison conditions aren'…

> Just witness how many people justify the recent high-profile police killings by pointing out that one victim had previously robbed a convenience store and another one was selling cigarettes on the black market I haven't seen many people use Brown's robbing the convenience store (and assaulting the shopkeeper) to justify his shooting. It's his attacking the officer and trying to take the officer's gun that is typica…

Off-topic, but I have a hunch that the answer could be toxoplasmosis.

Re: US Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"rayiner" is a lawyer: it's called "legal argument".

To the contrary, you're not going to get much mileage in court attacking someone's weakest argument. On the internet, however, mocking someone's weakest argument is fair game.

It may be "fair game" in that you won't get hauled off by the Internet police, but it certainly doesn't work to convince people.
Post reply on HN