CIA chief John Brennan to face down pressure over torture report

[Ace Nova]

I haven't done ANYTHING you accuse me of, there, Sherlock.

NOT ONE.

All I did was ask you a simple question.

If you choose not to answer it, that's your prerogative.

I certainly would.

I certainly would torture that soulless son of a bitch.

Until I got my son back, the world would see NO mercy.

That's just me though.

To each, their own.

[Rustycage]

That's a hypothetical that is in no way similar to the details of this issue. It's an appeal to emotion and fear to justify horrible actions. Ya know....terrorism.

[Ace Nova]

That's a hypothetical that is in no way similar to the details of this issue. It's an appeal to emotion and fear to justify horrible actions. Ya know....terrorism.

On the state level, that's exactly how they feel. (As in, they are defending one of their own from being kidnapped).

Just sayin'

[Rustycage]

That's a hypothetical that is in no way similar to the details of this issue. It's an appeal to emotion and fear to justify horrible actions. Ya know....terrorism.

On the state level, that's exactly how they feel. (As in, they are defending one of their own from being kidnapped).

Just sayin'

Name one kidnapping that was prevented. Just one. Even the CIA director can't answer it.

Why don't we actually discuss reality here?

[Ace Nova]

That's a hypothetical that is in no way similar to the details of this issue. It's an appeal to emotion and fear to justify horrible actions. Ya know....terrorism.

On the state level, that's exactly how they feel. (As in, they are defending one of their own from being kidnapped).

Just sayin'

Name one kidnapping that was prevented. Just one. Even the CIA director can't answer it.

Why don't we actually discuss reality here?

Seriously, bro? Like really?

YOU, out of all people that I respect around here should know that at least someone was saved out of all that bullshit. Seriously, bro....you know I like you and all....but once in a while, just see things as they are, bro......

[Rustycage]

Name one.

Also, how can you classify them as clean cut nerds when there's evidence in the report that they REFUSED to vet interrogators that had a history of inappropriate interrogations, anger management issues and even admitted to sexual assault in their past.

I do see things as they are. Do you want to try it also?

Hey, since you like to fantasize, imagine that you are detained because you either look like one of their targets or are there because of bad intel. Now, they tell you they are going to rape and murder your wife and child if you do not give them some information.

What would Jack Bauer Do?

[Ace Nova]

Name one.

Also, how can you classify them as clean cut nerds when there's evidence in the report that they REFUSED to vet interrogators that had a history of inappropriate interrogations, anger management issues and even admitted to sexual assault in their past.

I do see things as they are. Do you want to try it also?

Hey, since you like to fantasize, imagine that you are detained because you either look like one of their targets or are there because of bad intel. Now, they tell you they are going to rape and murder your wife and child if you do not give them some information.

What would Jack Bauer Do?

When you hate those who you accuse, it's rather easy to find them guilty? No?

[Rustycage]

We are talking about the CIA here. An organization that has admitted to some pretty crazy stuff in their history. It's not like we're talking about your local church group.

When you hate those who you accuse, it's rather easy to find them guilty? No?

Does this question even make sense to you in the context of what you quoted?

[Ace Nova]

We are talking about the CIA here. An organization that has admitted to some pretty crazy stuff in their history. It's not like we're talking about your local church group.

When you hate those who you accuse, it's rather easy to find them guilty? No?

Does this question even make sense to you in the context of what you quoted?

Actually, No.

Although I may question the government from time to time....I certainly don't question the CIA in this case.

I just don't

As a matter of fact, I'm grateful they're on our side.

[Rustycage]

Then we can agree to disagree and the debate can end. You're cool with it.

[Ace Nova]

Then we can agree to disagree and the debate can end. You're cool with it.

And on your side too...whether you realize it or not.....

[Rustycage]

Then we can agree to disagree and the debate can end. You're cool with it.

And on your side too...whether you realize it or not.....

No, trust me. You're not.

[Ace Nova]

Then we can agree to disagree and the debate can end. You're cool with it.

And on your side too...whether you realize it or not.....

No, trust me. You're not.

[Rustycage]

—"I have no sympathy for them [the detainees]."

— "How nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3,000 Americans on 9/11?"

— "I'd do it again in a minute."

— The CIA did "a hell of a job and they deserve our gratitude."

— The end "absolutely" justified the means.

There is no better name for him than Dick.

[downzy]

Does producing intel make it more acceptable to torture prisoners?

If this is considered acceptable then the US has truly lost its way.

That question is extremely relative.

If torturing someone that has intel that could potentially save the lives of thousands of innocent people? I would say yes. If that person being tortured had any sort of morals, he/she wouldn't have to be tortured to begin with.

And not sure why this is such a shock to anyone. This has been going on for hundreds (or even thousands) of years....long before the U.S. was even a country.

Yes, but so too did slavery. Does that make slavery acceptable?

And the U.S. signed a UN treaty against torture in 1988. Doesn't it's international obligations mean anything anymore?

I consider myself a fairly practical individual, but I have a hard time believing the situation you describe above would ever happen. People who desire to kill thousands of people likely aren't going to break if you torture them.

They actually do and have "broken". From my understanding, that's exactly how Bin Laden was finally taken care of.

Where are you getting that information? According to the Senate report that was just released, torture was not responsible for obtaining information that led to bin Laden's discovery and death. (see here)

[Len Cnut]

And people wonder why muslim youth are easily radicalised.

[magisme]

And people wonder why muslim youth are easily radicalised.

What's that?! KK, hand me the hummus!

[Len Cnut]

And people wonder why muslim youth are easily radicalised.

What's that?! KK, hand me the hummus!

It'd take more than just the two of yous cochise

[downzy]

We are talking about the CIA here. An organization that has admitted to some pretty crazy stuff in their history. It's not like we're talking about your local church group.

When you hate those who you accuse, it's rather easy to find them guilty? No?

Does this question even make sense to you in the context of what you quoted?

Actually, No.

Although I may question the government from time to time....I certainly don't question the CIA in this case.

I just don't

As a matter of fact, I'm grateful they're on our side.

But isn't it a worthy exercise to question your spy agency from time to time? I mean, if more questions had been asked at the CIA way back in 2002 the U.S. might have avoided the clusterfuck that is Iraq.

Every governmental agency thinks it's doing what's best for the country, but that doesn't mean it's always right.

Love this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pncv_t1uBw

[Rustycage]

Did torture help lead to bin Laden?

(CNN) -- Did waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that were used on al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody eventually lead to the Navy SEAL operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan early in the morning of May 2, 2011?

The Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday has a simple answer to that: Hell, no!

According to the Senate report, the critical pieces of information that led to discovering the identity of the bin Laden courier, Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, (Ahmed the Kuwaiti) whose activities eventually pointed the CIA to bin Laden's hiding place in Pakistan, were provided by an al-Qaeda detainee before he was subjected to CIA coercive interrogation, and was based also upon information that was provided by detainees that were held in the custody of foreign governments. (The report is silent on the interesting question of whether any of these unnamed foreign governments obtained any of their information by using torture.)

Further critical information about the Kuwaiti was also provided by conventional intelligence techniques and was not elicited by the interrogations of any of the CIA detainees, according to the report.

Even worse for the CIA -- which has consistently defended the supposed utility of the interrogation program, including in the hunt for bin Laden -- a number of CIA prisoners who were subjected to coercive interrogations consistently provided misleading information designed to wave away CIA interrogators from the bin Laden courier who would eventually prove to be the key to finding al Qaeda's leader.

The Senate report provides the fullest accounting so far of the exact sequence of intelligence breaks that led the CIA to determine that the courier, the Kuwaiti, was likely to be living with bin Laden in Pakistan.

This reads more like a careful Agatha Christie detective story than a story about the efficacy of coercive interrogations, which some have characterized as torture.

The report points out that the courier was in touch with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks, and that it was SIGINT (signals intelligence) from phones and email traffic that made this link first in 2002, well before any CIA detainees made such a connection.

Indeed, in a fascinating footnote, the report makes the case that it was "voice cuts" of the courier that were first collected in 2002 that were matched eight years later to the Kuwaiti and were "geolocated" to an area of Pakistan in 2010 where he was traveling around. This was a crucial lead that helped prompt the CIA to examine the mysterious compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding.

In 2002, reports from four different detainees held by foreign governments provided important information about the courier's age, physical appearance and family, information that was also acquired prior to any information about the courier being obtained from CIA detainees. Detainees held by foreign governments also said that the courier was close to bin Laden.

It was Hassan Ghul, an al Qaeda operative captured in Iraqi Kurdistan, who provided the most detailed account of bin Laden's courier and his relationship to bin Laden in January 2004, before he entered CIA custody.

According to a CIA official cited in the report, Ghul, who was in Kurdish custody, "sang like a tweetie bird. He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset."

Ghul described the courier as bin Laden's "closest assistant" and "one of three individuals likely to be with" al Qaeda's leader. And he correctly surmised that bin Laden would have minimal security and "likely lived in a house with a family somewhere in Pakistan."

If there was good intelligence coming from sources that were not in CIA custody, the Senate report demonstrates that the detainees who were in CIA custody and were subjected to coercive interrogations made every effort to hide the significance of bin Laden's courier.

Five of the most senior al-Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, all of whom were subjected to some of the most intensive coercive interrogation techniques, variously said that the courier worked only with low level members of al Qaeda; that he was not a courier for bin Laden; that he wasn't close to al Qaeda's leader, and that he was focused only on his family following his marriage in 2002. None of this, of course, was true.

The CIA, of course, is not happy about the portrayal of its work in the Senate report, and in a rebuttal on its website on Tuesday the agency pushed back, saying that detainees "in combination with other streams of intelligence" played a role in finding bin Laden.

In particular the CIA cites a detainee, Ammar al-Baluchi, who was coercively interrogated and provided what it terms the first information indicating that the Kuwaiti was indeed bin Laden's courier, rather than just someone who was an ordinary member of al Qaeda.

The CIA rebuttal is not, however as persuasive as the very detailed history laid out in the Senate report, which is buttressed by copious source notes.

And, in any event, were interrogations of al Qaeda detainees really the key to how bin Laden ultimately was found? After all, it still took almost a decade after the first identification of the courier to find bin Laden.

Indeed, there were a number of key breaks that had little to do with the interrogations of al Qaeda detainees, which I discovered in the course of reporting my book "Manhunt."

A large break, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials, came in 2007, when a foreign intelligence service that they won't identify told the CIA that the Kuwaiti's real name was Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed.

It would still take three more years for the CIA to find Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed in Pakistan, a country with a population of 180 million. This involved painstaking work going through reams of phone conversations to try to locate him through his family and circle of associates.

In June 2010, the Kuwaiti and his brother both made changes in the way they communicated on cell phone, which suddenly opened up the possibility of the "geolocation" of both their phones, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials.

Finally, sometime in the late summer of 2010, the Kuwaiti received a call from an old friend in the Persian Gulf, a man whom U.S. intelligence officials were monitoring. "We've missed you. Where have you been?" asked the friend. The Kuwaiti responded elliptically. "I'm back with the people I was with before." There was a tense pause in the conversation as the friend mulled over that response. Likely realizing that the Kuwaiti was back in bin Laden's inner circle, the caller replied after some hesitation, "May God facilitate."

The CIA took this call as a confirmation that the Kuwaiti was still working with al Qaeda, a matter that officials were still not entirely sure about.

The National Security Agency was listening to this exchange and through geolocation technologies was able to zero in on the Kuwaiti's cell phone in northwestern Pakistan. But the Kuwaiti practiced rigorous operational security and was always careful to insert the battery in his phone and turn it on only when he was at least an hour's drive away from the Abbottabad compound where he and bin Laden were living. To find out where the Kuwaiti lived by monitoring his cell phone would only go so far.

In August 2010, a Pakistani "asset" working for the CIA tracked the Kuwaiti to the crowded city of Peshawar, where bin Laden had founded al Qaeda more than two decades earlier. In the years when bin Laden was residing in the Abbottabad compound, the Kuwaiti would regularly transit though Peshawar, as it is the gateway to the Pakistani tribal regions where al Qaeda had regrouped in the years after 9/11.

Once the CIA asset had identified the Kuwaiti's distinctive white Suzuki SUV with a spare tire on its back in Peshawar, the CIA was able to follow him as he drove home to Abbottabad, more than two hours' drive to the east.

The large compound where the Kuwaiti finally alighted immediately drew interest at the agency because it didn't have phone or Internet service, which implied its owners wanted to stay off the grid.

Soon, some CIA officials would come to believe that bin Laden himself was living there.

They were, of course, right.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[magisme]

I think it's dangerous to accept the premise that if it "works" it's acceptable.

[Len Cnut]

Bin Laden was caught using an age old practise in Pakistan, one which has often been described as the fulcrum upon which their society is balanced, namely bribery

The fact that he was hiding in Abbottabad is SOOOO fucking cheeky, he might as well've been hiding in Washington

And it weren't a compound, its just a normal house like most of the houses of the middle classes in Pakistan.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Rustycage]

I think it's dangerous to accept the premise that if it "works" it's acceptable.

And it didn't even work.

The only valuable intel, that the CIA claims was found through EIT's, was actually discovered before they started the EIT's. In fact, they faced more resistance through torture. It was totally counter-productive.

[Rustycage]

And it weren't a compound, its just a normal house like most of the houses of the middle classes in Pakistan.

They typically have 18 foot concrete walls topped with barbed wire, security gates and a 7 foot wall on a balcony?

[magisme]

I think it's dangerous to accept the premise that if it "works" it's acceptable.

And it didn't even work.

The only valuable intel, that the CIA claims was found through EIT's, was actually discovered before they started the EIT's. In fact, they faced more resistance through torture. It was totally counter-productive.

Oh, I'm 100% with you on that. What I'm saying is it's kind of like the death penalty. IMO these are moral issues, but once we let the other side turn it into an issue of pragmatism, we've lost our moral standing and failed to differentiate ourselves from the torturers in principle.