- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Read this article by Scribt (J Swift) regarding an Interrogator
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:35 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:35 am
LINK
Yes, it will take 20 minutes to read but is well worth it.
To make a long story short, Feinstein is a giant piece of garbage and should be ashamed of herself.
Yes, it will take 20 minutes to read but is well worth it.
To make a long story short, Feinstein is a giant piece of garbage and should be ashamed of herself.
8
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:37 am to mtheob17
She did her duty... knocked the Gruber hearings off the airwaves.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:42 am to mtheob17
I don't have a ton of time to read it now, but I've read the first several pages, and it is pretty damn well written, in terms of grammar, word choice, etc. Gonna read it all.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:43 am to Meauxjeaux
BTW - how's this for treatment of your peers?
quote:
Feinstein required former CIA directors and deputy directors to sign nondisclosure agreements in order even to see the accusations made against them. Despite the fact that virtually all of the 500-plus-page report has been declassified for release, the Feinstein committee also imposed, as a condition of access to the report, severe restrictions on what those officials may say in their own defense. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, told The Weekly Standard: “Based on the nondisclosure agreement I signed, I cannot talk to you about the details of the Feinstein report, the Republican rebuttal, or the agency response—all as a condition of my being able to see it.”
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:43 am to mtheob17
Thanks Dianne, for the second time in her life, Michelle is proud to be and American.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 10:50 am to mtheob17
"I would submit that the immediate adoption of the entire CIA interrogation program by every combatant entity currently engaged in any war or battle in any corner of the world would be the greatest thing that ever happened to modern detention and prisoner/hostage/detainee well being. Were the Secretary-General of the United Nations to propose and enforce the adoption of the CIA interrogation program and conditions of confinement on every battlefield on earth, the number of lives improved and saved would qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize. There would be no more torture
–
yes, I mean actual torture. No detainee would ever be subjected to
any treatment more severe than that we inflict on our own American servicemen every month in SERE training. All prisoners and detainees would be adequately fed, clothed, housed, and given health and dental care. There would be no beheadings, no beatings, no cutting off of hands, fingers, ears, or noses. No starvation of prisoners. No slow deaths from disease and dysentery. No snuff films, or propaganda videos featuring staged confessions or abuse. No beating of the undersides of feet, or genital mutilation. There would be no rape, no sexual abuse, and no blackmail of families."
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:37 am to mtheob17
quote:Yes, it's a veritable desert:
And I would clearly differentiate between the early days of the program, when the training and infrastructure was in its infant stages – when the demand outpaced supply and the system raced to catch up to the challenge of implementing a multi-faceted special access program on the fly – and the mid-to-latter stages, [REDACTED]. I'll wager that there is little to be found in the Senate report from 2004 onwards – another test of which way the coin landed.
quote:PS I didn't copy the Muhammad Rahim ordeal because it's too long, but it's pretty stupid too.
Beginning in March 2004, and continuing until his rendition to U.S. military custody at Guantanamo Bay in September 2006, Majid Khan engaged in a series of hunger strikes and attempts at self-mutilation that required significant attention from CIA detention site personnel. In response to Majid Khan's hunger strikes, medical personnel implemented various techniques to provide fluids and nutrients, including the use of a nasogastric tube and the provision of intravenous fluids. CIA records indicate that Majid Khan cooperated with the feedings and was permitted to infuse the fluids and nutrients himself. After approximately three weeks, the CIA developed a more aggressive treatment regimen 'without unnecessary conversation.' Majid Khan was then subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration, which included two bottles of Ensure. Later that same day, Majid Khan's 'lunch tray,' consisting of hunmius, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was 'pureed' and rectally infused. Additional sessions ofrectal feeding and hydration followed.
The CIA interrogators at the detention site then requested to use the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques on Ghul.
...
Throughout this period, Ghul provided no actionable threat information, and as detailed later in this summary, much of his reporting on the al-Qa'ida presence in Shkai was repetitive of his reporting prior to the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Ghul also provided no other information of substance on UBL facilitator Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti. Nonetheless, on May 5, 2011, the CIA provided a document to the Committee entitled, "Detainee Reporting on Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti," which lists Hassan Ghul as a CIA detainee who was subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and who provided 'Tier One' information 'link[ing] Abu Ahmad to Bin Ladin.' [1308 [REDACTED] JAN 04]
For the remainder of 2004, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation techniques on three detainees — Janat Gul, Sharif al-Masri, and Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani — with individualized approval from the Department of Justice.
According to an August 26, 2004, cable, after a 47-hour session of standing sleep deprivation, Janat Gul was returned to his cell, allowed to remove his diaper, given a towel and a meal, and permitted to sleep. In October 2004, the CIA conducted a [REDACTED] source who had identified Gul as having knowledge of attack planning for the pre-election threat. [REDACTED] the CIA source admitted to fabricating the information. ... As described elsewhere in this summary, the CIA's justification for employing its enhanced interrogation techniques on Janat Gul — the first detainee to be subjected to the techniques following the May 2004 suspension — changed over time. After having initially cited Gul's knowledge of the pre-election threat, as reported by the CIA's source, the CIA began representing that its enhanced interrogation techniques were required for Gul to deny the existence of the threat, thereby disproving the credibility of the CIA source.
After entering CIA custody, Sharif al-Masri expressed his intent to cooperate with the CIA, indicating that he was frightened of interrogations because he had been tortured while being interrogated in [REDACTED]. The CIA nonetheless sought approval to use the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques against al-Masri because of his failure to provide information on the pre-election threat. After approximately a week of interrogating al-Masri using the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, including sleep deprivation that coincided with auditory hallucinations, CIA interrogators reported that al-Masri had been 'motivated to participate' at the time of his arrival. Despite al-Masri's repeated descriptions of torture in [REDACTED] the CIA transferred al-Masri back to that government's custody after approximately three months of CIA detention.
As in the case of Janat Gul and Sharif al-Masri, the CIA's requests for OLC advice on the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani were based on the fabricated reporting on the pre-election threat from the same CIA source.
CIA interrogators began using the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Faraj al-Libi on May 28, 2005, two days before the OLC issued its memorandum analyzing whether the techniques violated U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture.
...
The CIA intenogated Abu Faraj al-Libi for more than a month using the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. On a number of occasions, CIA interrogators appliedthe CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques to Abu Faraj al-Libi when he complained of a loss of hearing, repeatedly telling him to stop pretending he could not hear well. Although the interrogators indicated that they believed al-Libi's complaint was an interrogation resistance technique, Abu Faraj al-Libi was fitted for a hearing aid after his transfer to U.S. military custody at Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Despite the repeated and extensive use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Faraj al-Libi, CIA Headquarters continued to insist throughout the summer and fall of 2005 that Abu Faraj al-Libi was withholding information and pressed for the renewed use of the techniques. The use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques against Abu Faraj al-Libi was eventually discontinued because CIA officers stated that they had no intelligence to demonstrate that Abu Faraj al-Libi continued to withhold information, and because CIA medical officers expressed concern that additional use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques 'may come with unacceptable medical or psychological risks.'
In late 2005, during the period the U.S. Senate was debating the Detainee Treatment Act banning "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," the CIA subjected Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi to its enhanced interrogation techniques. A draft Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) stated that Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi provided "almost no information that could be used to locate former colleagues or disrupt attack plots" — the type of information sought by the CIA, and the CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques. Later, the statement that Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi provided "almost no information that could be used to locate former colleagues or disrupt attack plots" was deleted from the draft PDB.
But sure, aside from the torture based on a single fabricated tip from an unreliable source, the covering-up and massaging of information to oversight bodies, the Keystone Kops like disconnect between HQ and field officers about whether detainees were actually hiding anything, and the hummus enemas, it was totes professional after 2003.
This post was edited on 12/11/14 at 11:40 am
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:44 am to mtheob17
quote:What would you call the CIA operatives who hacked Senate computers, and reviewed and removed files?
Feinstein is a giant piece of garbage and should be ashamed of herself.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:46 am to Iosh
interesting 
Posted on 12/11/14 at 11:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
Two numbers ring a bell:
9/11
Do you want a similar event on our soil? The CIA is trying to prevent this and we threw our own agency under the bus. I don't have a right/wrong stance on interrogation methods, but I'd rather keep our people, homes and businesses safe vs. the latter.
The CIA hacking at Senate computers for what? Source?
Was it because of Feinstein's report?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:05 pm to mtheob17
quote:Don't know. But it is an unbelievable breach if it occurred. I really don't give a rat's arse one way or another about the water-boarding business. No laws were broken there. Folks can argue whether or not we should be doing it; whether it was effective, etc.
The CIA hacking at Senate computers for what? Source?
Was it because of Feinstein's report?
What is indisputable is any operative who hacked into Senate computers, and anyone who ordered it should be sent to prison.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 12:05 pm to mtheob17
Get your fear mongering out of here.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 12:01 am to NC_Tigah
I'm thinking Sharyl Atkinson would agree.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 1:32 am to NC_Tigah
Considering what this despicable person was doing to the CIA and its operatives, I can understand why the CIA was spying on her, she was doing a hatchet job.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 3:23 am to mtheob17
After reading the full / redacted article I think it is safe to say we know why Fienstein and her committee refused to interview any of the interrogators/CIA ops, because they would have made her and her committee look like utter fools.
This guy stated a fact, the reason we drone all the suspects now is that we are wasting time detaining them because we can't get anything out of the terrorist anymore since Obama signed an E.O. outlawing EIT's.
You notice the congress never passed a law outlawing EIT's, an E.O. can be revoked by the next president, and Obama and Holder never prosecuted anyone, because in so doing they would have to admit that actionable intelligence was found.
Proof being that Obama in his running for president continually stated that EIT's were torture and didn't bring forth any information.
This guys point is this:
" Go back and take a look at the difference between Candidate Obama's characterizations of the efficacy of the interrogation program versus President Obama's version. Candidate OBAMA REPEATEDLY stated that enhanced interrogation was not only immoral and un-American, but it didn't work. People will say anything to make it stop. Every leading interrorgator and intelligence professional will tell you that "torture" never works-it produces bad intelligence. That was candidate Obama."
President Obama told a slightly different story. During his 100-day press conference in April 2009, President Obama used an entirely different construct when responding to a question about shutting down the interrorgation program: "I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do--not because there might have been INFORMATION THAT WAS YIELDED by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that are consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are."
He went on to say, " But here's what I can tell you--that the public reports and public justifications for these techniques---which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques--doesn't answer the core question, which is: Could we have gotten the same information without resorting to these techniques ? And it doesn't answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques ?"
Finally this: "And so I will do whatever is required to keep American people safe, but I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are."
Note the difference-it's important. After being briefed by serious people using actual intelligence information gained from the EIT interrorgation program, President Obama knew that he could not continue with the "it never works" campaign rhetoric as President-to do so would have been insulting and objectionable to the National Security team who briefed him, and would be a lie. So..."we don't know if we could have collected the same information using standard techniques" became the talking point for every administration official on the subject of EIT's.
" I know. I know that we couldn't have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques-I used them thousands of times over two decades--and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees REDACTED NAMES to provide closely held information without the use of EIT's is laughable. There is zero chance. ZERO."
Then he goes on to say lets use the same construct as the President : But(" We don't know" ), he says the same could be said for us dropping the bombs on Japan, " we don't know" that we couldn't have won the war just as soon, and that would make it unnecessary and un-American in retrospect.
And while the operation to kill Bin Laden was a success, "we don't know" that the Pakistanis wouldn't have conducted an operation to kill him, thus we wouldn't have had to violate Pakistan's sovereign borders.
The facts are the President changed his campaign rhetoric after a 100 days in office, he knows this EIT program delivered actionable intelligence. As does this former interrorgator.
Great read, worth the 30 or so minutes it takes to read and totally undermines Fienstien and her butt buddies as political hacks of the worst kind.
If she had interviewed operatives like this her whole, pre conceived notions would have been blown up in her face.
That is why she interviewed no one, but rather crafted a narrative with facts to fit her assumptions. In other words as this guy notes, any government program in the past 75 years could be adjudged to be a horrible evil program or a great and clean program by using only documents and not interviewing people, he says flip a coin, and look for the good or bad and you can get what you want by using only documents.
In other words, I could flip a coin, if it's heads the pre conceived notion would be the program is a travesty, if it's tails the program is angelic in nature, and by using only documents, I could make that program look like either of the two pre conceived conditions I chose to make it look like.
Best read in years, this guy is very intelligent and makes Fienstien look like a fool.
This guy stated a fact, the reason we drone all the suspects now is that we are wasting time detaining them because we can't get anything out of the terrorist anymore since Obama signed an E.O. outlawing EIT's.
You notice the congress never passed a law outlawing EIT's, an E.O. can be revoked by the next president, and Obama and Holder never prosecuted anyone, because in so doing they would have to admit that actionable intelligence was found.
Proof being that Obama in his running for president continually stated that EIT's were torture and didn't bring forth any information.
This guys point is this:
" Go back and take a look at the difference between Candidate Obama's characterizations of the efficacy of the interrogation program versus President Obama's version. Candidate OBAMA REPEATEDLY stated that enhanced interrogation was not only immoral and un-American, but it didn't work. People will say anything to make it stop. Every leading interrorgator and intelligence professional will tell you that "torture" never works-it produces bad intelligence. That was candidate Obama."
President Obama told a slightly different story. During his 100-day press conference in April 2009, President Obama used an entirely different construct when responding to a question about shutting down the interrorgation program: "I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do--not because there might have been INFORMATION THAT WAS YIELDED by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that are consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are."
He went on to say, " But here's what I can tell you--that the public reports and public justifications for these techniques---which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques--doesn't answer the core question, which is: Could we have gotten the same information without resorting to these techniques ? And it doesn't answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques ?"
Finally this: "And so I will do whatever is required to keep American people safe, but I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are."
Note the difference-it's important. After being briefed by serious people using actual intelligence information gained from the EIT interrorgation program, President Obama knew that he could not continue with the "it never works" campaign rhetoric as President-to do so would have been insulting and objectionable to the National Security team who briefed him, and would be a lie. So..."we don't know if we could have collected the same information using standard techniques" became the talking point for every administration official on the subject of EIT's.
" I know. I know that we couldn't have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques-I used them thousands of times over two decades--and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees REDACTED NAMES to provide closely held information without the use of EIT's is laughable. There is zero chance. ZERO."
Then he goes on to say lets use the same construct as the President : But(" We don't know" ), he says the same could be said for us dropping the bombs on Japan, " we don't know" that we couldn't have won the war just as soon, and that would make it unnecessary and un-American in retrospect.
And while the operation to kill Bin Laden was a success, "we don't know" that the Pakistanis wouldn't have conducted an operation to kill him, thus we wouldn't have had to violate Pakistan's sovereign borders.
The facts are the President changed his campaign rhetoric after a 100 days in office, he knows this EIT program delivered actionable intelligence. As does this former interrorgator.
Great read, worth the 30 or so minutes it takes to read and totally undermines Fienstien and her butt buddies as political hacks of the worst kind.
If she had interviewed operatives like this her whole, pre conceived notions would have been blown up in her face.
That is why she interviewed no one, but rather crafted a narrative with facts to fit her assumptions. In other words as this guy notes, any government program in the past 75 years could be adjudged to be a horrible evil program or a great and clean program by using only documents and not interviewing people, he says flip a coin, and look for the good or bad and you can get what you want by using only documents.
In other words, I could flip a coin, if it's heads the pre conceived notion would be the program is a travesty, if it's tails the program is angelic in nature, and by using only documents, I could make that program look like either of the two pre conceived conditions I chose to make it look like.
Best read in years, this guy is very intelligent and makes Fienstien look like a fool.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 6:53 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:Meh, "despicable" is an overreach with Feinstein.
Considering what this despicable person was doing to the CIA and its operatives, I can understand why the CIA was spying on her
But the bottomline is the law.
What does the law say?
The law says Feinstein has the right to be "despicable".
The law says the CIA has no right whatsoever to spy on Congress. None! Ever!
Regarding interrogation, I don't personally oppose EITs as long as they are vetted techniques i.e., not illegal. Waterboarding absolutely met that standard. It was legal (the fact BHO has now changed the law notwithstanding). Apparently though, techniques were employed which exceeded waterboarding, and were likely illegal.
However, while I don't oppose EITs, I do oppose rogue "intelligence" bastards running amuck in our society. I do oppose spies playing JamesBond vs Spectre with innocent American lives instead of doing the job they are tasked to do. I oppose them gathering information on law abiding citizens. I oppose them harassing law abiding citizens. I oppose them stealing from law abiding citizens. I oppose the SOBs appearing before Congress and lying their asses off -- REPEATEDLY. I strongly oppose lawless people being held above the law.
So let's take a look at this:
quote:
In March, Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat senator who championed the release of the torture report, took to the Senate floor to give a truly extraordinary speech.
The California senator accused the CIA of spying on her staff as they tried to investigate the allegations that US spies had tortured detainees. Feinstein was describing in public a behind-the-scenes power struggle between the CIA and the senators charged with overseeing it.
Brennan laughed the allegations off. "We wouldn't do that," he said. "That's just beyond the scope of reason."
LINK
quote:
July 31, 2014 - The Central Intelligence Agency improperly and covertly hacked into computers used by Senate staffers to investigate the spy agency's Bush-era interrogation practices, according to an internal investigation.
CIA Director John Brennan has determined that employees "acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding" brokered between the CIA and its Senate overseers, according to agency spokesman Dean Boyd.
LINK
quote:So even though CIA personnel acted "beyond the scope of reason" by their own admission, they will not be prosecuted. Since when is f#*king admission of a crime not enough evidence to launch a criminal probe!!!
Feinstein's bombshell allegations, as well as the CIA's charge that her staff removed classified documents from a CIA facility in Virginia, were both referred to the Justice Department for further investigation. But earlier this month, the department said it did not have enough findings to launch a criminal probe into either matter.
LINK
quote:Seems as though "acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding" and "went beyond 'policy guidelines' and did 'abhorrent' things," are pseudonyms for WE BROKE THE LAW!
19.10 (14.10) Brennan is asked whether he agrees with Obama's statement that the US "tortured some folks".
He says some officers went beyond "policy guidelines" and did "abhorrent" things. But he won't use the word "torture".
LINK
Fortunately for CIA personnel who did break the law, they coincidently enjoy the good favor of perhaps the most corrupt DOJ in our nation's history. So they will not be prosecuted.
Could it be because they have the Sharyl Attkisson skeleton and others in the closet? Unfortunately, the US National Intelligence-DOJ cabal has developed into something Stasi-esque. It is a rats' nest that needs cleaning.
This post was edited on 12/12/14 at 7:21 am
Posted on 12/12/14 at 7:43 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
She did her duty... knocked the Gruber hearings off the airwaves
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.
America fell for their shite again. We continue to prove Gruber right.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 8:09 am to bamarep
quote:What folks don't seem to understand is CIA spying on the Senate (aka "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This") and "Gruber" are peas in the same pod.
She did her duty... knocked the Gruber hearings off the airwaves
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:04 am to NC_Tigah
I am far less concerned with CIA torturing foreign nationals than I am DOJ/IRS targeting American Citizens based on political affiliation.
Posted on 12/12/14 at 10:31 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:Wasn't it originally a 6,000 page report that was redacted down to a partially redacted 500 page "summary"?
Despite the fact that virtually all of the 500-plus-page report has been declassified for release,
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News