home

Heavy Redactions Coming for Torture Report

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:40:11 PM EST
Tags: torture, CIA (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Get ready for a heavily redacted CIA torture report. McClatchy reports they even took out synonyms.

“No covert CIA personnel or foreign countries are named in the report,” he said. “Only pseudonyms were used, precisely to protect this kind of information. Those pseudonyms were redacted (by the administration).”

...“Redactions are supposed to remove names or anything that could compromise sources and methods, not to undermine the source material so that it is impossible to understand..."

Sen. Feinstein now says the report will be delayed "until further notice" while they work this out.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Thursday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Heavy Redactions Coming for Torture Report | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Since the unlamented (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 04:10:02 AM EST
    but still celebrated GW Bush had clearly said before the nation and the world, "we don't torture", I'm sure the report will vindicate him if it is sufficiently cleansed and redacted.

    This will take some time, so we must be patient.

    Then we can move on.

    Apparently, we are (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    not to be too sanctimonious about people who commit war crimes (i.e, torture).   Maybe, a little sanctimonious, but not too much.  But, certainly, let's not overdo it.    The president's use of "folks" as a descriptor of people (and its pick-up by media talking heads) has been generic so its use in the context of torture was not unusual speak for him.  Although, I would agree that in this context it was trivializing and cavalier.    On the plus side, President Obama did use the word torture, rather than enhanced interrogation.  Even the Senate report stops short of using torture.  

    The concerning and disconcerting aspect of all this, to me, is what comes next: after recognition of torture the president rationalizes it and refuses to punish it.  "A lot of folks (once again) were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."  

    President Obama defends Brennan and claims his credibility is, of course, still in tact.  Since the president discontinued torture in 2009l, why does he defend past crimes? I have heard it said that he must protect the CIA and shield it, because he depends on the agency for his intelligence.   This, if true, would be the greatest concern---criticism of an agency would mean they would not do their national security job.  Then who is the traitor and who is the patriot?  

    Relying on the CIA (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 03:38:35 AM EST
    for intelligence is already --- shall we say --- risky.

    I saw an interview with a guy whose job it was to beat the living he!l out of a prisoner every day. He said he realized that maybe this was odd, but that he really looked forward to it - got some pleasure out of it.

    People can be programmed to accept anything, and can be trained to do anything. I got that lesson from WW2. The mistake was assuming or accepting that it is only Germans who could be so cruel. That is was a trait of only the German people that they could be so willfully ignorant of what its government was doing.

    We all can be trained.
    Fear, hunger, a desire to survive... all can be used against us by tyrants in government.

    I keep seeing the government - along with its lackeys in the media - poking us with one situation after another - just to keep us aware that they can embroil us in a conflict - even a nuclear conflict - if they choose to do so.

    Syria - WE MUST ACT! - then gone - is a good example.

    I is not isolationistic to suggest that we should be concentrating on the wellbeing of our own people before attempting to "improve" the lot of others. We could lead by example. If our economy was fair - if we had true universal healthcare provided equally to all - if we had good and clean trains - if we were devoting a major effort to rid ourselves of the dependance on fossil fuels - if we were really concerned with protecting our children, our weak, our indigent - we would all benefit.

    We would become a beacon - what we want to be.

    Instead, at present, I fear that we have become but one in a gang of thugs. The only difference being that Brennan and the like are "our" thugs.

    Parent

    Another possibilty... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:04:43 AM EST
    This, if true, would be the greatest concern---criticism of an agency would mean they would not do their national security job.  Then who is the traitor and who is the patriot?  

    There is one other looming possibility about the results of criticizing the "agency"...
    It has proven to be an exercise that is not especially good for ones prospects for longevity.


    Parent

    In today's NYTimes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    op-ed, Retired Major General Antonio Taguba presents a compelling argument regarding torture.   It is, in my view, required reading.  General Taguba paid a price for his integrity (forced retirement) and continues in bravery with this article.   He points to the fact that George Tenet, who presided over the "enhanced interrogation"  is now working with Brennan to "shape"  (and undermine) the CIA response to the Senate report.

    We used to be a country of the rule of law but no (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    more.  What have we become now that we've lowered the bar so extremely low that we allow an agency of our own government to propagandize their actions and attempt to delude the public into thinking their actions were more than honorable?  This disgusts me.

    Parent
    This report is meaningless (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    Mike Morrell said on Face the Nation Sunday...

    "In terms of process I think it's very important to note that not a single person who approved these programs or was involved in these programs was interviewed by the committee, not a single person.   Norah, if a reporter filed a story without doing a single interview I think they would be fired."

    This report is meaningless and simply a rehash of Democratic talking points with counter Republican talking points in the minority report.

    If the point was to bring everything to light and move on as a country this report fails in that purpose.  

    Time to move on.

    Time to move on... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    ...from what we've never faced as a country? From what we've never honestly dealt with?

    We are supposed to be better, the greatest nation on earth, and you think THIS means it's time to move on?

    Fail.

    Parent

    Oh, David - didn't you know that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    summed up the report the other day (bold is mine)?  

    President Barack Obama on Friday starkly criticised the CIA's past treatment of terror suspects, saying he could understand why the agency rushed to use controversial interrogation techniques in the aftermath of 9/11 but conceding: "We tortured some folks."

    In some of the most expansive and blunt remarks on the CIA's programme of rendition and detention he has made since coming to office, Obama said the country "crossed a line" as it struggled to react to the threat of further attacks by al-Qaida. However, he also said it was important "not to feel too sanctimonious", adding that he believed intelligence officials responsible for torturing detainees were working during a period of extraordinary stress and fear.

    Obama's comments come on the eve of the release of a widely-anticipated Senate report that will criticise the CIA for brutally abusing terrorist suspects in its custody in a covert programme that, the report is expected to conclude, did not yield any life-saving intelligence.

    I can't get that "we tortured some folks" comment, delivered so casually, out of my head.  And I'm having trouble comprehending that we're just supposed to understand that all of these trained professionals were acting out of the enormous fear engendered by 9/11, and we shouldn't be "too" sanctimonious about wanting to hold people accountable (what is "too" sanctimonious, anyway?).

    Maybe these were his first comments on what will become the "Pat the People on the Head" tour, otherwise known as the "No, no, it's raining on your leg, silly" tour.

    I could scream.

    Parent

    The focus should be on (2.33 / 3) (#12)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    the word "torture" instead of "folks."

    The substantive issue is that the President of the United States has admitted that the U.S. has engaged in torture and it was wrong and contraryto out values.

    Your focuse on "folks" was what the Republican on Bill Maher's panel focused on Mayer was surprised.

    With people here like Slado accepting torture because it was done to the right people, if you do oppose torture, the best approach is to oppose Slado's ideas.  

    Yet, you are again focusing on the  smaller issue....

    Parent

    Don't you dare try to (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    compare me to Slado or to some Republican on some show - as many times as I have spoken out against torture, and expressed my anger and horror that no one has been held accountable, don't you dare try to make it seem like I am focusing on the wrong thing.

    Some of us are capable of complex thought.  It's possible to focus on both the use of "folks" with the fact of torture, and consider the choice of words and what it means.

    Some of us are disturbed by the association of "folks" with "torture" because it appears to be an effort to make it sound like maybe it wasn't as big a deal as we sanctimonious "folks" are making it out to be.  

    I am repulsed and repelled and disgusted by the fact that we tortured, by the efforts to cover it up, by the deliberate efforts to twist and turn the law to make it possible for people to do it.  All of those feelings are exponentially increased by the lack of willingness to hold anyone accountable.  

    To say "we tortured some folks" is to slap a veneer of casualness on something dark and evil and wrong.  I am horrified by the effort to normalize what we did with lectures about us not being too sanctimonious about it - as if we're the ones in the wrong.

    I am not some Republican, and I am not Slado, proudly proclaiming that he's okay with what was done.  But I guess you just couldn't resist taking the shot, instead of considering what I've said about this in the past, and the totality of the comment I made.

    Parent

    You get bogged down (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 06:32:14 PM EST
    in the inelegant use of a word, as opposed to the broader picture that Obama has acknowledged torture and it was wrong.

    The Cheneys reacted predictably.  You nitpick and engage the debate on the margins....

    You can "how dare me"  all you like.  I never said you accepted torture.  

    Parent

    The "inelegant use of a word" (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:38:17 AM EST
    One that has been used many times by this president in situations where it really isn't appropriate.

    And chances are, that word is deliberately put there by speechwriters to appear more "folksy" and connected to the people.

    Funny - you are more upset at Anne about a word than you are at the person giving the orders to engage in torture.

    Parent

    No, the idea is to keep (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    the focus on torture, rather than nitpick the use of a word.

    The coming report will create more public debate about the issue.

    Too many accept Slado's idea that torture is acceptable in "appropriate" circumstances.   And Slado may be correct that a majority of Americans may agree with that assessment.

    If the debate gets sidetracked about the use of a word, then the debate is diluted and chances are diminished for actually cementing a consensus that torture is wrong.

    I don't think it was speechwriters.  The response came during an answer to a question.....

    Parent

    It is just another slam Obama moment (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 07:17:47 AM EST
    A certain consensus for some here that is identical to the ACA sucks too cuz.......Obama

    Parent
    So...you're okay with how he's handled (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:26:07 AM EST
    the whole issue, the additional redactions, the protection of and support for John Brennan, the fact that he put and end to the idea of holding anyone accountable?

    And do you think that Democrats who were appalled and upset and even outraged when the sordid details began to emerge during the Bush administration were somehow required to set aside those feelings and opinions and just unilaterally bless and approve and support whatever approach a Democratic president took?  

    I don't criticize him for saying we had to stop the torture, and I don't criticize him for his executive order ending the practices.  I do have a problem with his refusal to hold anyone accountable, his reluctance to be more open, his willingness to protect people like John Brennan and people currently or formerly in the CIA who were up to their necks in this.

    If MKS is serious about his insistence that our focus should be on the torture, doesn't he have to look at everyone involved - including Obama - through that lens?

    Do we want oversight, or do we want to protect those with significant roles in a shameful time in our history?  And what does it say about any president who seems more concerned about protecting people than holding them accountable?

    The following is the final section of an op-ed that appeared in the NYT on Tuesday; I think what it says is well worth considering:

    One of President Obama's greatest actions as president and commander in chief came on his second full day in office, when he signed an executive order banning torture. But he has allowed the C.I.A. to oversee the redaction process of this report, and is now apparently allowing Mr. Tenet to run a publicity campaign against it. The president should make sure that Mr. Brennan -- who is, after all, his employee -- spurns Mr. Tenet and accepts oversight.

    A failure of leadership took the country to the dark side. A strong presidential lead can ensure that we don't go back.



    Parent
    This is bizarre (1.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    You say:

    I don't criticize him for saying we had to stop the torture, and I don't criticize him for his executive order ending the practices.

    What an odd thing to say if you oppose torture.  Those are huge acts.   The rest is pfft.

    And, you can't bring yourself to agree with Obama on these two things?????

    I more than doubt your sincerity on torture.  If banning torture mattered to you, you would not react that way.  It does matter to me.  I have more of a direct interest in this than I think you have.

    To you, it is just a rhetorical game....

    Parent

    And down the rabbit hole we go... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    You're avoiding the issues that are the subject of Jeralyn's post and the article to which she linked, and continuing to harass me for failing to meet your standards for proving I'm opposed to torture.

    I am not the president of the United States.  I am not a member of Congress.  I am not in the CIA.  I am not in the Justice Department.  I am not in the military.  Words are all I have at my disposal for expressing my objection to torture.  I have been clear in my opposition to torture; I have never said - as some people have - that perhaps some methods are okay, or some methods aren't "really as bad" as they are made out to be.

    I approved of Obama's initial statements on his opposition to torture, and the executive order he signed shortly thereafter.  I approved of that position and that action.  

    Perhaps you decided to equate my comment that I didn't criticize him for these things as meaning I actually opposed his actions but decided to keep my mouth shut about it.  Which would truly be the odd thing, given my frequent and unequivocal expressions of my opposition to torture.

    What are you really after here?  Because it seems like you just want to focus on my sentence construction, and not on the subject of the post, and establish wholly ridiculous standards for how we're supposed to persuade people that torture is wrong, rather than questioning how withholding more information, protecting those who most need oversight and failing to hold people accountable is persuasive of an anti-torture position.

    Do you accept Obama's rationale that we engaged in torture out of fear, and his request that we not be too sanctimonious about it?  Do you accept the further redactions to the report?  Do you approve of Obama's support for John Brennan, and Brennan's collaboration with George Tenet in a review of the report?  

    Answer those questions, if you can, and maybe I'll decide you have more interest in oversight and accountability than you appear to based on what you have said here.

    In the meantime, please stop telling me what I think and what matters to me, and assuming things you are not qualified to assume.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    s/he is confusing a social interaction with conducting an interrogation or deposition.

    Gives one an idea of competence, don't you think? And temperament, too, maybe.

    But in any case, I see no answer to these questions:

    Do you accept Obama's rationale that we engaged in torture out of fear, and his request that we not be too sanctimonious about it?  Do you accept the further redactions to the report?  Do you approve of Obama's support for John Brennan, and Brennan's collaboration with George Tenet in a review of the report?  
    So here are my responses.

    1. Do you accept Obama's rationale that we engaged in torture out of fear, and his request that we not be too sanctimonious about it?

    Yes, probably, to part A, and not a chance to part B. I don't make excuses for capital punishment based on the Party of the Governor, and while we are demonstrably not a nation of laws rather than men, we should always strive to be.

    2. Do you approve of Obama's support for John Brennan, and Brennan's collaboration with George Tenet in a review of the report?  

    No to Parts A and B


    Parent

    "Words are all I have at my disposal" (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    No kidding.  Too many words.

    Since you wanted to compare yourself to the New York Times, let's actually compare what you wrote to the snippet you quote.

    The New York Times said:

     

    One of President Obama's greatest actions as president and commander in chief came on his second full day in office, when he signed an executive order banning torture.

    You write that you did not criticize him for taking that action.  See the difference?  Could you ever state the word "great" and "Obama" in the same sentence?  Nope. Not a chance. If you just read out loud the sentence from the New York Times that I quoted, you would spontaneousluy combust, so deep is your hatred of Obama.

    You grudgingly, as last resort, very tepidly state you agree with Obama's actions labeling and banning torture.  That was and is a big deal, Anne.  And you would recognize that if your head weren't stuck so far up....ahem, other places.

    As to redactions, it all depends.   Let's see the final version before you get on your soapbox to miss the forest for trees in your haste to critize.

    Parent

    Still ::crickets:: on those questions, I guess. (3.67 / 3) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    And, still assuming and presuming and parsing and putting words and thoughts into other people's mouths, while providing zero on the issues - including the issue that is the subject of Jeralyn's post.  I note you haven't invited her to get her head out of her a$$, or told her she's missing the forest for the trees, or compared her posting to that of Republicans and people like Slado.

    Armed with an arsenal of troll ratings, and a shiny shield of deflection, MKS once again charges into the breach in service to the Democratic cause.

    Jesus...just bite me, MKS.

    Parent

    I did give you a response on the (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    redactions.  Did you read it.  Of course not.  I guess it did not count if it did not chew up paragraph after paragraph.

    Hiding behind Jeralyn?  She did not come to the twisted conclusion that Obama was "enabling" torture that you did.  

    The NY Times and Jerlayn had a point....You went well beyond that and so twisted an anti-torture position into a pro-torture position.

    Parent

    Yah know what, Anne (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    I find it hilarious that after chaffing me about Olbermann, you get treated by MKS in the exact same manner, and you have the nerve to scream "FOUL!" when things don't go your way.

    This guy isn't worth your apparent anguish here, heck I don't even know that he knows what he's talking about.

    Ask yourself, "Is this the hill I want die on?". "Is this how I want people to think of me?"

    Self-awareness:  Now available in the H. sapiens sapiens upgrade pack.

    Parent

    "Obama gives great speeches" (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    "Obama thinks he's great."

    "Obama has a great need to be cool."

    "Obama has great self-confidence."

    We can play this game all day.

    Parent

    Total non sequitur (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:57:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Your challenge, not mine.

    Could you ever state the word "great" and "Obama" in the same sentence?  Nope. Not a chance

    Seems like you might want to be more careful with your words. (Hmm... seems to be a theme between Mr. Obama and his acolytes).

    Parent

    Can't help yourself on this one? (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    You are adding nothing of substance.....But time to help out your fellow anti-Obama person?

    You know what I meant.  But you just had to parachete in to lob a snotty response....

    Parent

    And by the way (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    It's not all ponies and unicorns as you would like it to be.

    What the Executive Order didn't rescind was Appendix M The United States Army Field Manual (AFM) on interrogation.

    That, plus the thousands of redactions of what HAS been released should tell you it's no time to be starry-eyed and full of Hosannas with regards to Mr. Obama.

    Parent

    The Executive order (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    was not ponies and unicorns.....

    You just have to trot out that barb from years ago....

    You trivialize a serious issue.

    Parent

    Shrug again (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    I notice you can't address my point about Appendix M, so I will leave you to your rambling.

    But it is ironic that you were so completely and deliberately obtuse about Anne's point and now you talk about "trivializing" a serious issue.  

    WEV.

    Parent

    I did (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    Do you consider solitary confinement which is routinely practiced in our prisons to be torture?

     

    Parent

    Leading question, counselor (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    Since you don't define "solitary confinement" and lump all types together, I will break it out for you, even though you are trying to get me in a "gotcha" question.

    For short-term solitary confinement, when used as a "time-out" for those who violate prison rules,  then nope, I don't consider that torture.

    For prolonged use and as long-term management strategy, then my answer is "probably. But as with anything this complex, anyone who understands nuance and has critical thinking skills can't absolutely say that in all cases, that solitary confinement should be abandoned.

    Parent

    You are the one who raised (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    solitary confinement as torture.....

    So, short term solitary confinement with the euphemistic label "time out" is okay but what the Army Field Manual--according to your article--allows, is not?  Or is "probably" torture.   Not so sure, now that you have been challenged?

    You are slicing it mighty thin.

    So your comment is just gratuitious nonsense.  Or do you care to explain how the Army Field Manual allows for the wrong kind of solitary confinement, making Obama's Executive Order banning toture just about unicorns?

    I see more than a little hypocrisy here.
     

    Parent

    Leading question?? (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:52:15 PM EST
    Leading questions are allowed in court; you do know that, right?

    Good grief....

    I think you meant to make another objection.....

    Parent

    Only on cross-exam or as to a witness (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    the court classifies as "hostile."

    Parent
    Ah... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    I wasn't aware that this blog -- albeit a legal blog -- had been repurposed as a courtroom. No wonder people are barking.

    Parent
    They're barking. That is for sure. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    But about the definition of "torture", I gather.

    Parent
    That was jb's lovely (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    contribution.

    Parent
    ::shrug:: (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    [new] That was jb's lovely (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:13:14 PM MDT

    contribution.

    Okay. I looked but I didn't see her barking out narrowly defined questions. I must have missed it, and I'm not interested enough to scour the thread keep to looking them.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:47:58 PM EST


    Parent
    As a former employee (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    in a proscutor's office who laughs at how stupid some criminals are, would you thus agree that solitary confinement is torture?

    That the solitary confinement discussed in the linked article is practiced all over this country and is torture?  Willing to go there?

    Didn't think so.

    You are not serious about this issue.  Just rhetoric.......  

    Parent

    Who's a former employee in a prosecutor's office? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    Just showing you really don't pay attention to facts, so you really can't be serious about this or any issue.

    But yes, I do love the karma of stupid criminals getting caught.

    Parent

    Do you agree that (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    solitary confinement is torture?

    You make the claim that torture is still allowed and cite an article that talks about solitary confinement.

    So, are you playing word games, or do you believe solitary confinement is torture?

    You are not being honest or sincere about torture.

    Parent

    Not all the time (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    Prolonged solitary confinement - yes.

    But as a function of someone breaking prison rules and being put in solitary for a few hours or few days, then nope, I don't consider that torture.

    Parent

    "the focus should be (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    on the word "torture" instead of "folks."     I agree that the president probably used "folks" in keeping with a common manner of his expression. And, I also agree that the focus should be on "torture."    Moreover, the president of the United States said that we engaged in torture--which has a legal meaning.  And, to his great credit, he issued an executive order halting this war crime.

    However, as far as the public goes, I believe that "enhanced interrogation" and "torture" have long been known to be interchangeable; euphemisms, the fodder for late-night comedians.  And, both have become sanitized. Perhaps, the "inelegant" coupling of torture and folks can contribute to the discussion.  Let's try filling in the blanks with real torture, aka, enhanced interrogation:  "We ----some folks."   For example,  'We drown some folks,"   "We raped some folks,"   "We hooked electrodes to the  genitals of some folks," We induced madness in some folks."    

    Parent

    Is anyone ignoring (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    The fact that we tortured?  It's been in the papers I read every day - did it go off the radar in your neck of the woods?

    Parent
    Sorry, I am missing your (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    point, or, more likely, I did not make my point very well.   It is not the fact that we tortured, but rather, the denial or avoidance of that fact (just enhanced interrogation),  Or, just semantics, but it works and we are OK with it.  Of course, the argument persists that torture brought about the capture of Osama bin Laden. which even if completely true, would seem to undermine that argument for torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario, given the time between 200l and 2011.  The carefully constructed minimization coming from your neck of the woods (DC) affects most necks of the woods.

    Parent
    Which I think was Anne's point (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    The carefully constructed minimization coming from your neck of the woods (DC) affects most necks of the woods.

    with the laissez-faire attitude taken with the word "folks" used in this context.

    Parent

    Which I think was my point (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    in an earlier comment above ("..I would agree that in this context it was trivializing and cavalier."  Tues, Aug 5, l:ll:48.   My surrounding thought was that the president's use of "folks" is common parlance for him. The president, however, did not deny or avoid the word "torture."    In other parts of the DC wood (example cited in link)  there remains denial and avoidance (if not acceptance). Even the Senate Report avoids the word "torture."  If graphic and specific descriptions along with "folks" drives the illegality and immorality home, it would not be all bad.  Unless you think otherwise.

    Parent
    I don't really understand why we're (4.40 / 5) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    singling out Obama as one of the good guys just because he can call what we did (not "what was done," because there's no agency in that phrasing at all) "torture," when he has been complicit in keeping the report as generic and uninformative as possible, and been the first line of defense in making sure no one is held accountable for the torture.

    I don't think I've ever see someone be so blase about the fact that we tortured people; he did all but tell us we just needed to get over it and move on.  Forward, not back.  Hold the sanctimony.  Next!

    My personal theory is that Democrats were in this thing up to their necks, and that's why we "can't" hold people accountable: too many bastions of the Democratic power structure would fall.  Doing what's right for the country mustn't take priority over protecting the delicate behinds of those who just let it all happen.

    I don't know how these people sleep at night, but I guess if the money's good enough and the power is rewarding enough, people can learn to ignore these inconvenient facts and eventually, the conscience stops pricking and a good night's sleep can be had by all.

    We have so much to be proud of, don't we?

    Parent

    Agreed Not America's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    proudest moment.  President Obama should not be singled out as one of the good guys just because he can call what we did what it was, "torture," but I believe, in this mess, it is relevant that the President of the United States acknowledges that we tortured. This statement is a critical contrast to the previous president, George W. Bush, who explicitly claimed in 2005 that "we do not torture."

    And, this is not just a gratutious poke at the previous administration for a favorable contrast to the present one.  Rather, it is an important legal distinction. A presidential assessment that surely has not gone unnoticed by Bush/Cheney et. al. as they contemplate their breathless escape from the Ritz and other European hotels through the kitchen exit with zealous prosecutors in chase.  The UN Conventions on serious war crimes do have non-applicability in international law to statutes of limitations (cf. Pinochet, Augusto).  

    Moreover, it is important that what we did was governmental-sponsored torture--cruel, inhuman and immoral.  And, impractical.  That needs to come into the public sphere supplanting the "we should do it, because it works." (and they deserve what they get) view that appears ascendant.

    Also, President Obama issued on his second day in office, an executive order ending torture.  But, after that, President Obama, the Nobel Peace Laureate, fails us  in the next steps.  After recognizing and acknowledging torture (in a cavalier manner)  he rationalizes it (they were under extraordinary stress and fear after 9/ll)  impedes discovery, and refuses to punish.  Indeed, he rewards Brennen and permits Tenet to orchestrate a "rebuttal."  to the Senate Report.    Not his proudest moment.

    Parent

    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    ...a national of laws where every man/woman is suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law, doesn't ignore grave crimes just because the perpetrators have really important positions or because it's politically inconvenient.

    It will be Obama's dark cloud, especially as more and more people continue to break the law in the government, we will all be able to look at the guy who didn't bother investigating war criminals in our own back yard.

    I hope someone at least investigates bombing and killing of civilians in hopes of hitting a big target with this administration.  And the OK'ing of killing Americans and spying on allied leaders instead of stupid Benghazi.

    There are real crimes that need investigating.

    And I totally understood the 'folks' comment, in that I use the word often here, in passing.  It's not a word I would every use to describe the victims of horrific crimes.  I mean, "Yeah, some folks in WWII we murdered in gas chambers, some other folks were executed... la.de.da.", just doesn't cut it in my book either.

    Parent

    You just made up (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:54:20 PM EST
    a whole bunch of facts to fit your narrative.

    How would you know the report is "generic?"  Have you seen it?

    Try learning the facts first before coming to a conclusion.

    Parent

    "Made up?" The fact is that (4.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:21:26 PM EST
    the president has approved the further redaction of more of the report, which renders it less specific and more, uh...generic.  And protects the CIA.

    The Obama administration and the Senate Intelligence Committee are sparring over the administration's deletions of fake names from the public version of a long-awaited report on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation methods on suspected terrorists, McClatchy has learned.

    The outcome of the debate could impact the clarity and narrative flow of the report, the product of the most intensive congressional investigation of CIA operations since lawmakers examined the agency's role in the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal of the Reagan presidency.

    "Redactions are supposed to remove names or anything that could compromise sources and methods, not to undermine the source material so that it is impossible to understand," Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the committee, said Sunday in a statement. "Try reading a novel with 15 percent of the words blacked out. It can't be done properly."

    [bold is mine]

    But perhaps these are facts you weren't aware of.  Oops!

    Focus!

    Parent

    Great job you are doing (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:11:33 AM EST
    opposing torture.....

    Parent
    What? So, now you think that (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:57:59 AM EST
    wanting a more thorough report, less redacted, more declassified is somehow an indication that I don't oppose torture?  

    Should we address your mail to "Upside Down World, USA?"

    Come on, MKS - we all know that the real problem is that you can't stand it when people criticize Obama.  Can't face the truth that your sarcastic "Great job you are doing opposing torture" should be directed at Obama, not me.

    I note that you have so far failed to address the redactions, failed to address the lack of accountability, failed to address the lack of transparency, failed to address the appalling and offensive call for us all to "understand" and be less sanctimonious about torture because those who ordered it, those who justified it, those who carried it out, were just so very scared.  They meant well, so let's move on, right?  Is that our standard now?

    He makes excuses for them, and you make excuses for him.  Classic enabling behavior, MKS, so who's really doing a better job of opposing torture - the person who isn't buying the excuses and justifications, or the person who's tying himself in knots to find some way for Obama to come out looking good?

    Parent

    Brevity and clarity (1.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:49:09 AM EST
    are helpful in being persuasive.  

    I would flip around your criticism:  Your focus is on criticizing Obama for anything you can--it trumps any purported interest you have in torture.  And, frankly, I doubt your sincerity on the issue of torture--you write about it in an odd way....just another rhetorical point to fill up paragraph after paragraph.

    And you are wrong in your approach.   By focusing on the lesser points, you lose the ability to hold interest on the main point.

    The best way to persuade people against torture and the Jack Bauer approach, is to not attack them frontally....

    Any consensus against torture in America is fragile....I would focus on the fundamentals--if that is what you are interested in.

    Parent

    I'm all for an honest (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    discussion of this matter but that's not what we're getting.

    The democrats on this committee are trying to point fingers and paint themselves in the best possible light.   As if Senator Feinstein and others didn't know exactly what was happening.

    The administration, congress, CIA and many others in government knew exactly what they were doing and the majority of Americans where all for it.

    If you view this as a dark tiem in our history that is the reality you need to come to grips with.   We as a country did this with much support from the public and in a bipartisan manner.    

    To be frank I'm not the least bothered by what we did considering who we did it too and what we did exactly but I can understand that this is an opinion and others can have one greatly different from mine.

    However what is not factual is that somehow only one party or part of government should be blamed.   There is a lot of blame to go around and this report does very little to bring that to light.

    Parent

    So that's what we have become ... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Erehwon on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    "To be frank I'm not the least bothered by what we did considering who we did it too ..."

    I am so speechless but I guess I shouldn't be!

    Parent

    Well, consider (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    the source.  He's not the only one, either among those who comment on this website, or other Americans elsewhere, who feel this way.
    Sad, isn't it?    :-(

    Parent
    And that, (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    "To be frank I'm not the least bothered by what we did considering who we did it too and what we did exactly but I can understand that this is an opinion and others can have one greatly different from mine."

    is why my retirement goal is the get the heck out of here. That attitude is pervasive across this not so great land. So much for that "shining city on the hill" hogwash.

    7 more years, if I'm still alive, and it's a small town somewhere in Europe, or perhaps a slow boat to China, I'll move next to door my sister in Nanjing.

    Parent

    "To be frank" (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    innocent people have been tortured.  One reason to not torture is to avoid torturing the innocent.

    What makes us the good guys is that we do not torture.  If we torture, even if we are torturing people whom we beleive guilty, then we adopt the same values as the terrorists.....

    Parent

    You seem to really hedge your bets (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 06:37:25 PM EST
    I re-read you post and was struck how tentative your support of "enhanced interrogation" is.

    On the one hand, you appear to tepidly accept our torture of prisoners.

    On the other hand, you tend to downplay that support and then imply it was okay because it wasn't just the Republicans who were in favor of it.

    If torture is okay, then why not be loud and proud and say the Republicans and Cheney were right?

    Parent

    Wow... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    ...it's the democrats fault that we can 'move past' republican war crimes ?

    Try again, this time how about blaming the actual criminals and their known destruction of actual evidence, instead of the investigators.

    You should be consulting, because there is literally nothing you can not spin to benefit republicans, even their own admitted crimes are somehow democrats fault.

    Did any republican commit a crime when they ordered other to tortured people and did the actual tortures commit a crime when they did it ?

    Apply your Hercules like spin and you just might figure out why you don't have any answers.

    Parent

    If these were "war crimes" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    Then they were government war crimes.

    Bush and Cheney drove this policy of course but it didn't happen in a vacuum.  Congress was informed and knew about this program.

    So do Pelosi and other democrats deserve to be thrown in jail for "war crimes" or just the evil Bush and Cheney?

    Because this has now turned into a partisan he said she said the real victim is the truth and any actual consequences.

    For perspective on this issue I like to remind people that we've done far worse things with drones and our actual military under this administration and the previous one.  

    I simply don't understand the partisan grandstanding by so many on this issue.  

    If you're against their use you've won.   This president put a stop to it and it's over.   A dark chapter in our history closed.  

    I'm just not sure what you wan the end game to be.   And why you want it.

    For me I regard what the CIA and our Military did to terrorists and their families with drones as a much bigger moral issue.

    I'd like to see some Senate reports about that program started by Bush and enhanced by Obama before getting so worked up about torture.

    Parent

    I Agree About Drones... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    ...and plenty of other stuff this admin has done in regards to the housing collapse and privacy.

    But that isn't what we are talking about, and if anything this investigation has proved, the CIA straight up lied and spied, crimes.  It's debatable who knew what, it isn't debatable who thunk it up.

    You can't hold people who knew and couldn't tell because of classification to the same degree as the people who ordered and carried it out, which is what you are spinning.

    I want any person who committed a war crime to stand trial and let them defend their actions, be it Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld, or Obama.  You know, like a nation of laws is suppose to do.

    So if you need to call that my end game, there it is.  But torturers should held accountable, even when it's politically inconvenient.

    Parent

    Good question; (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:16:24 AM EST
    So do Pelosi and other democrats deserve to be thrown in jail for "war crimes" or just the evil Bush and Cheney?

    For my part, I would answer "hell yes!".

    "Moving on", sanitizing or marginalizing all those who demeaned our country, and lied to us on top of it, and betrayed the people who put them in office on top of that, is, for me, the worst case scenario. And that is the one we have chosen to pursue.

    "Moving on" means that we will never be able to move on.

    Parent

    IMO... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:29:13 AM EST
    ...the law in which Congress can't speak of classified information to the public, even if it's illegal, should be changed.  Or at least have some sort of recourse to investigate such crimes without 'revealing' classified information.

    Seems like anything they don't want the public to know is classified, whether it actually qualifies and that needs to change.  Maybe a 3rd party should determine what is classified rather than the people with skin in the game.

    Parent

    So you accept Morell's opinion ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    ... as the final determiner of the value of the report?

    Does the same hold true for Benghazi?

    Parent

    Classic defelection (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    When you don't like the answer move to something else.

    Are you saying he's lying now, then or both times.

    You're post is as meaningless as this report.

    Parent

    No deflection at all (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:49:07 PM EST
    You cited Morell's opinion to support your claim that the torture report was worthless.  I asked if you accepted his opinion as the final word on your specious Benghazi claimed, too.

    Heh ... I'll take that as a "No", and I understand why.

    Parent

    No deflection at all (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    You cited Morell's opinion to support your claim that the torture report was worthless.  I asked if you accepted his opinion as the final word on your specious Benghazi claimed, too.

    Heh ... I'll take that as a "No", and I understand why.

    Parent

    Was there some period between, say (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    Operation Phoenix, feeding names to people like Pinochet, training Savak, the heydey of the School of the Americas, renditioning, and "enhanced interrogations" when the U.S stopped torturing people or asking others to do it for us?

    Parent
    Your original comment (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:52:22 PM EST
    was a classic deflection.

    You engage in the classic "They did it too."  This oldie but goodie goes at least back to Nixon when conservatives said "They all do it, Nixon just got caught."

    So, torture is wrong, right?  But you did say in your original post that you were okay with it because of whom we tortured.  Then the deflection of Defendants knew about it and did worse.

    Waterboarding is torture and torture is a violation of international law and wrong.  I hope you would agree with that statement, but you may not.

    Rather than defend torture, you deflect.

    Parent

    Heavy Redactions Coming for Torture Report | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment