Those CIA Employees Don’t LOOK Pissed that Obama Released the Torture Memos
The Village has been out in force declaring that Obama’s decision to release the torture memos will hurt the morale of CIA’s employees.
But CIA’s employees sure greeted Obama warmly when he spoke at Langley yesterday. See also the beginning of the applause at the end of the Panetta introduction.
Now I realize these things are carefully stagecrafted. I realize the members of the clandestine service–the men and women being asked to push the limits in the name of national security–are probably not sitting in front of the camera at an Obama photo op.
But I’ve been re-reading the books that first exposed our torture program in the last few days, and it’s clear that opposition came not just from the FBI. It came, in some cases, from those at CIA who thought the torture ineffective, too much, dehumanizing to the interrogators. As Scott Horton describes,
CIA interrogators were not wild about the use of these techniques.
[snip]
But the rebellion included whistleblowers who went to the CIA’s inspector general, John L. Helgerson. He launched a probe which documented what was going on and concluded, correctly, that a number of the techniques then in use were potentially prosecutable as federal crimes. Bybee’s memo and those of his successor Steven G. Bradbury are designed to silence and override the dissenters, most notably the CIA inspector general, and thus put down the rebellion against torture at the CIA.
Now, I will grant you that some in the CIA are still defending the efficacy of the torture. Others are no doubt worried they will be prosecuted.
But some will be grateful that Obama is forcing the CIA out of the torture business.
I think most (if not all) of the CIA is grateful to be out of the torture business. The only ones who seemed really supportive of torture seemed to be the political appointees.
Boxturtle (Who’s done more damage to CIA Morale: BushCo or Obama?)
One might wonder how many short-term employees the CIA picked up during the Bush years, hired for specific roles and perhaps no longer in employ of CIA…has CIA been deliberately tainted by people who had no respect for it?
Contractors, lots of contractors. No doubt right from Cheney’s rolodex…
On today’s http://www.democracynow.org – see excerpt below:
Hi Marcy. I’ve made that same point in various comments as well, and we just need to repeat repeat repeat for as long as this zombie lie is out there. A few at the upper levels of CIA may need to change their underpants more frequently these days but it’s overwhelmingly likely that the rank and file is largely as repulsed as the rest of us. For the media to constantly suggest there is some kind of widespread fear that they “won’t be able to do their jobs” is simply not true. Anyone claiming that should be expected to offer proof instead of saying, well it’s classified so we can’t give any details. If you can’t back it up, don’t make the argument. If your supporting evidence is too sensitive for public disclosure, tough noogies. In a democracy we debate and decide policy based on facts and evidence – not dark, sinister and amorphous nightmares.
Thanks for this, Marcy.
Could they be cheering that Obama will protect them now and forever?
If some CIA agents refused to torture detainees in the face of an order and others CIA agents agreed to torture detainees under order, is Obama’s declaration of torture immunity for CIA agent interrogators consistent with the rule of law, and/or good policy and/or political expediency? Is the same true for contract interrogators? Does anyone know a CIA agent who would be willing to offer an opinion?
During Rachel’s report she reported that CIA who had been ordered to do the torturing had been calling asking whether they needed to continue. (so great that Emptywheel is getting a bit of spotlight for her work)
Rachel , Shuster and Matthews hammered home how many times these people had been waterboarded. One guest on Matthews last night asked “do you acutally think this is all that was done”
Matthews has been pissed off about this “torturing” for a long time
Matthews brings up Steve Cambone’s trip after visting Gitmo and then going to Abu Gharib. Matthews brings up Cambone’s trip two times during this segment
Worth watching ew/all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30314607
Leen, Thanks. I watched that too. This morning on sarcastic Right-Wing-Joe Matthews sat across from Andrew Card and stuffed that same fact down his throat when Card and Joe hopped on the “all the good that was done weith torture” Republican talking point. He smacked down Card on the “few bad apples” narrative re: Abu Grhaib and there was no response from Joe or Card. Is Card as dumb as his seems?
Cre gan, T-bag this.
Judging from his remarks on Fox last evening, I suspect that our former VP is getting nervous… He sure wants to show evidence that it “worked.”
I just have to wonder how loud the screams would be if it were OUR warriors who were tortured? That was why we joined that treaty in the first place — to help ensure humane treatment of ALL detainees.
Great work, Marcy!!
I kept flipping back and forth to the long Faux interview with Cheney. I thought he was going to have a cardiac arrest right on the program. Really heavy breathing…freaky.
Ew/all will the CIA even be tempted to release the reports that Cheney wants declassified? Does he still have any legal rights to make such a demand?
The Cheney video at Fox. EW/All did you watch this?
http://www.foxnews.com/
Speaking of CIA employees and ex-employees, is anyone trying to get Kirakou to address some of the “holes” in his stories about waterboarding?
Like the people who decided for some reason to hire him as staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for instance?
Big Dan is hammering home the truth today about the lies, blackmail, conspiracy and treason – with plenty of links and video:
http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/
plunger,
The Amy Goodman Democracy Now video on your link is excellent. Thanks for the link.
Your comment might be appreciated by Christy over at her AM post.
The CIA is not only named after George HW Bush, he literally owns the place. He is the Shadow Government leader under David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.
Watch how the Stanford Financial ponzi scheme melts away with no charges being filed, and keep in mind that both AIG and Stanford were laundering a shitload of money for the CIA’s (Poppy’s) drug operations. Stanford will get off scott-free, as putting him on the witness stand would reveal who he was really working for.
Once you wrap your head around the fact that they are ALL criminals and can ALL blackmail each other, it begins to make more sense.
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/3820
Let’s not forget about those CIA personnel who have been traumatized via administering torture. Their fellow CIA peers know who they are. They know, better than anyone else, who and how many CIA folks are now disabled due to PTSD symptoms incurred in the course of duty. Even some who apparently believed torture would work found that “it worked” alright – via mentally torturing the captors!
Torture destroys human personalities. On both sides of the torture chamber. If the aim is to destroy personalities and lives, it has worked all too well. And that itself proves it was torture!
Exactly.
The RW meme about CIA employees works because of the secrecy of CIA employees. The RW media can hide behind anonymous sources and say “some CIA employees…” and because very few people who work at or for the Agency will actually admit that. So it makes perfect sense for the RW to try to hoodwink the American public with this false meme because they are counting on the fact that you can probably count on one hand the number of current CIA employees that will willingly defend the administration on the record.
Fred Hiatt actually credits EW in the lead editorial in today’s WaPo.
Naturally, he needs to balance this gesture by publishing a real beauty of a hack piece by Marc Thiessen, The CIA’s Questioning Worked.
Nice.
holy crap! maybe the fundies are correct and these are end times indeed
Hey Marcie, you really punched shame-us Cheney’s buttons! Last night BBC reported (and gave a clip) of Cheney’s interview on Fox (where else??) in defense of torturing. Cheney said he had asked CIA to release the reports of the great success in gaining info achieved by the ‘techniques’, but so far CIA has not done that.
In that report BBC also gave your numbers and showed a pic of a memo page with 2 lines highlighted, print too small to read. If they gave you credit I missed it.
Marcie, how about landing another blow on shame-us? Here at your diary, ‘John McCain on Torture’, at comment # 99 by burqa is the finest example of why humane interrogation works and why brutality does not. It’s about a real-life experience on Guadacanal in WWII and the Marine who wrote the book on successful interrogation, Major Sherwood (Pappy) Moran. [in contrast to 5-deferment Cheney’s version created from his perverted imagination].
The original story is in the archives of Leatherneck magazine, Feb, 2007, entitled, ‘The Gold Standard’ written by James B. Wilkinson. I went to the archives, found it, could only read a short paragraph summary because $$$$required to read entire 5 pages.
There is an article in The Atlantic, dated June, 2005 entitled ‘Truth Extraction’ by Stephen Budiansky also about Pappy Moran’s successful humane interrogations of Japanese prisoners during WWII.
I still think your commenter, burqa, gives the best description.
Rebuttal to shame-us Cheney’s self-defense on Fox last night deserves your fine writing and analytical skills, Marcie. (not my pathetic attempts).
Hit ‘em again, Marcie!!
OT As a hypothetical, let’s assume – on the basis of Jane’s waddling into an Espionage Case and offering to exercise Scale-Tipping partisan influence – that Israel/AIPAC controls Harman’s vote.
And, If she, as a member of the Gang of 8, sided with Bush and Gonzo on Domestic Spying – wouldn’t that say that Bush’s Partner in Wire-tapping US was Israel?
Wouldn’t that make Harman an Agent Provocateur – a Spy – too?
At the moment, it appears that Jane Harman very likely exercised the Decisive Influence that Subverted the Rule of Law and ‘legitimized’ Bush’s Dictatorial Powers to Act, in Bad Faith, Above the Law…
As a Stooge for Israel.
If Harman was willing to Influence an Israeli Espionage Case, then what are the chances that she ‘revealed’ the Secret Domestic Spying Operation to Israel, too?
Except for a few, small, meaningless window-dressing acts of Faux-patriotism, all of Harman’s Actions appear to have Advanced Israel’s Agenda in Collusion with Bush to Control US.
From Act 2, Scene 2 of Shakespeare’s Henry V:
BEDFORD
‘Fore God, his grace is bold, to trust these traitors.
EXETER
They shall be apprehended by and by.
WESTMORELAND
How smooth and even they do bear themselves!
As if allegiance in their bosoms sat,
Crowned with faith and constant loyalty.
BEDFORD
The king hath note of all that they intend,
By interception which they dream not of.
EXETER
Nay, but the man that was his bedfellow,
Whom he hath dull’d and cloy’d with gracious favours,
That he should, for a foreign purse, so sell
His sovereign’s life to death and treachery.
—
In America, that Sovereign is US!
The play’s the thing to catch the king…
Enjoyed your analysis…
Or Queen
I believe I have read that the CIA has been looking for someone who is believed to be undermining National Security by feeding classified intelligence to Israel for a very long time.
What wiretapping investigation was shut down during the Clinton administration?
Harman is not a “stooge” . Maybe a queenpin. Only time will tell if they re-open this investigation.
If you have never watched Carl Cameron’s four part report on wiretapping soon after 9/11. Well worth it
http://www.informationclearing…..le5133.htm
I posted that this AM at Christy’s.
Did you read Rosen’s lawsuit against AIPAC? It is a threat cloaked in a libel suit. It adds an interesting layer.
Has anyone in this administration been guilty of violating the DC Blackmail Statute?
District of Columbia blackmail statute. D.C. Code § 22-3852 provides that:
a) A person commits the offense of blackmail, if, with intent to obtain property of another or to cause another to do or refrain from doing any act, that person threatens:
1) To accuse any person of a crime;
2) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or
3) To impair the reputation of any person, including a deceased person.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4178
I’m so glad this was recorded and posted! I saw it live but wasn’t at home. No news channels later reporting on the visit mentioned the long, enthusiastic applause welcoming Pres. Obama.
Hellzapoppin’ this morning.
1) Rahm didn’t mean what he said about not prosecuting over torture
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..hp?ref=fp1
http://tinyurl.com/d7papd
2) NYT confirms Harman asked them to spike wiretap story
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..hp?ref=fp2
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..nyt_harman
_said_shed_have_more_pull_with_white_hou.php?ref=fp2
3) 20 criminal investigations are on-going in bailout cases
http://www.latimes.com/news/la…..,0,3530748
http://tinyurl.com/cakhjf
And now my oatmeal’s cold, and I haven’t even begun to read this new article on CIA employees and the memos.
Instead of repeating my question at comment #5, I’ll quote the Salon article:
How do we know?
It may not be an “either-or” question. It could be both.
The character’s name was Price for a reason…
When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again – Stalag 17
These are probably the people they bussed over from the campaign headquarters. Actually, it doesn’t mean anything. I don’t like Barak Obama, but if he came to my office or school, etc. I would applaud him very warmly.
That is one difference between the left and right.
In fact today, on MSNBC, made me laugh pretty hard, the talking head says, referring to Republicans, “Here we have these big problems and they are trying to tear the President down.”
Apparently, he was asleep for the last 6 years when the country had big problems and the opposition were ONLY trying to tear the President down.
But, that is in their degraded nature, so there’s no sense fretting about it.
Cleanup in Aisle 34. Where’s freep, on break?
an encore appearance. same one that said marcy’s work was crap and that she made up the numbers.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake……ent-148999
they’re a ‘golf clapper’.
comparing bush the last six years, after he had two years under his belt to obama’s past three months a=nd one cabinet meeting. yep, cregan, made me laugh too.
Yesterday it at least looked as though it might become a discussion. Not now.
a two way one way kind of one. missles missing both targets cuz one isn’t worth hitting and the other isn’t a viable target. lol.
35 – Some people walk into someone else’s house, call them a liar, don’t apologize when they are shown to be wrong, then lie themselves about a long list of things, then go off on cranky-old-man-chasing-kids-off-his-lawn rants on non-sequitors, but I guess that probably is the “difference between the right and the left” All that warmth.
Oh darn it. To quote that great man who outs CIA agents and who is currently evading multiple subpoenas, I guess now I’ve gone and “just ruined” those techniques too. *g*
Mornin’, Mary. *wave and a grin*
it’s in your ‘degraded nature’ to ruin it, mary…
but is he talking about creationism’s degrading nature or evolution’s degrading nature or dna’s degrading nature or societal degrading nature or a condescensionist’s way of degrading nature….oh, i bet it’s the condescensionist kind.
cregan – this site thrives on insight and critical thinking skills. It’s not the opinion food fight that you seem to think it is.
Try answering this puzzle, given to me by an 83-year old Italian Doctor who spoke very little english, to check your reading, reasoning and understanding skills:
I’ve got some dogs, and you’ve got some dogs.
If I give you one of my dogs, then you will have twice as many dogs as I do.
On the other hand, if you give me one of your dogs, then we will each have the same number of dogs.
How many dogs do we each start out with?
Oh good grief. I can’t believe I’m trying to solve a dog puzzle … Does the “as I do” refer to conditions _before_ the Italian Doctor gives one of his dogs or _afterwards_? One seems impossible; the other seems tricky. Are we allowed to have negative dogs?
Let’s see, joking as the level of discourse.
I understand that it will be very difficult to express any kind of dissenting viewpoint here.
I first made quite a reasoned point that you cannot make any point from Obama getting applause because most people would be warm and welcoming to any President. I myself would be even though I am not an Obama fan.
Apparently, because it disagrees with the prevailing viewpoint, it deserves jokes and ridicule.
I then went on to point out the hypocracy of a news talking head complaining about the opposition being critical of the President when that was all that happened for the last 8 years. (I was generous with 6 years because I allowed for the short time the naysayers were supportive after 9/11–but the first months were full of lots of critique).
The degraded nature was referring to news talking heads.
To me, discussion involves listening to a viewpoint and giving reasoned responses. Not snide, sarcastic jokes that belittle someone’s opinions.
But, I understand it. They do the same thing on right wing blogs.
Yesterday, I commented on a far fetched number that didn’t gibe with common sense and didn’t gibe with the testimony of the two individuals directly involved. I brought up the point that it might give a reasonable person pause before continuing to run off full steam ahead in one direction.
you didn’t watch it, it wasn’t ‘applause’ they cheered. cheered.happy cheering. not ‘golf claps’.
you didn’t read the memos which are the source for the numbers you claim were ‘upped’.
your ‘their degraded nature’ came right after ‘the opposition’ so naturally it was joined.i make that mistake often enough.
you came in the door ’snide’ and expected reasoned discussion?
and you didn’t ‘comment’ yesterday, you slammed, ranted and and tried to discredit without even reading the material involved. i don’t know what kind of discourse you expected with that offering, but i think you got exactly what i would have expected if were i you.
what you listed as wanting is not what you gave. try that and you might hear a different discourse.your party doesn’t matter here, backing up what you say does. and not everyone here is a democrat.
Radio free will–I am not sure what you are seeing, but I don’t see quite as much critical thinking and insight. I see, “Faux News” and other kinds of quite uncritical thinking.
I see lots of speculation that the CIA employees were traumatized, etc.
Your reply was simply a joke. Most of the replies to my post were jokes. Not much insight or critical thinking there either.
I am waiting to see the insight and critical thinking–and actual reasoned discussion.
What we “see” is to some degree a result of who we are. I believe you when you say that you don’t see critical thinking or insight on this page. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t any, however. The map is only as accurate as the map maker.
Ianapsychologist, but your style of interaction ‘looks’ like a textbook case of ‘projection.’
This happens, imvho, when someone, anyone, operates within a ‘rigid belief system’ – an ideology – that they subscribe to Loyally, and as a result they ‘project’ the negative of their beliefs on to ‘others.’
In order to project the negative of their beliefs on others, they ‘employ’ their thinking and reasoning – not critically – but with Bias – like Rush Limbaugh – to support their own side only. Iow, you have subordinated your thought-processes to Slinging Mud in the Service of your Ideology, to Shout Louder, and not in pursuit of a Truth you might find Inconvenient to your Belief System.
If you were honestly trying to solve problems based on the actual facts, you would have asked a clarifying question, like behindthefall at 44, which then makes the problem being ‘looked at’ clearer to understanding, and more malleable to work by the group, and therefore closer to resolution.
That’s how we roll here. We ‘bump’ notions around and around until it’s set-up to be put away – and that takes patience and an open mind.
You’re not even trying – you’re too busy being your own echo chamber for what You Believe is True. At a site like this, you’re just playing with yourself in your own projected world.
Starting from the same initial condition:
I’ve got some dogs and you’ve got some dogs – two independent scenarios are posed:
I could give you one of mine, and as a result you have twice as many, or
You could give me one of yours, and as a result we have the same
The Doctor related that he used real dogs with his kids to teach them to ‘work out their answers.’ Hopefully, we can use proxies for the dogs to solve the same problem.
Neil, again, that is an opinion. I don’t see much insight there. Somebody who agrees with you smacked down someone you don’t agree with. Happens the other way around, too, and the right wing guy jumps for joy just like you. But, what have we gained?
Radio Free, I wish I had the time to waste on dog stories like you. But, they are entertaining. I am only guessing that your tactic is to chase away anyone who doesn’t agree with you. That doesn’t appear to be very open minded and inquiring and probing and seeking all viewpoints.
@ cregan Please, some of us are trying to learn and think.
Gre gan, I addressed that comment to Leen in response to a comment she addressed to me. You seem to have time to comment on other people’s conversations but when someone engages you (radiofreewill), you say you don’t have time.
Neil, you are right, that comment would have been just fine to Leen, except you couldn’t resist the impulse to add “Cregan, t-bag this” (as if I had anything to do with tea parties).
That seems to me to be a comment directed toward me. So, I commented on it. Even so, you didn’t address the substance of the comment: if each side is jumping for joy over the smackdowns of the other side, What have we gained? How does that advance any human understanding?
Then one that started “Leen,” was to Leen. The one that started “Cre gan,” was to you. I’m not interested in our conversation anymore. Thanks for playing.
Well, Radio, you are saying you bounce around jokes and ridicule in order to arrive at some reasoned position?
Yes, I saw the video, and there was cheering. But again, I would have cheered to see the President of the US, even though I disagree with him. I would be excited to see him, just at the CIA people were. Additionally, you don’t know who stage managed that was. YOu can speculate, but you don’t know.
I don’t listen to Limbaugh, so please drop it.
I am glad to see you dropped your dog stories, though they were enjoyable.
Yesterday, I brought up a legitimate point and document that would make the reasonable person stop to think. Personally, I don’t care about the memo and the IG, etc. Beauruexcrats (sp) make mistakes, and the figure is not believable and is contradicted by the two individuals involved themselves. To me, that is a very legitimate point.
ok, cregan, you don’t even see that you are skinning yourself alive with every comment..my empathetic side can’t stand it so here’s where it went wrong.another rule of discourse around here that you broke is that you didn’t provide a link for what you are saying.
a point isn’t legitimate until you link to the document from ‘whence it came’… you didn’t do that. until then, it’s your ‘opinion’, not a ‘legitimate point’. so, provide a link and see if anyone wants to engage in a ‘discourse’.
i find it curious that you would so cavalierly dismiss official memos, without even reading them. they aren’t ‘accounting logs’ that can be transposed incorrectly and go unnoticed. i don’t think you fully understand what those memos are and how widespread the areas and departments are and the personnel involved. this is not a ‘bureaucratic glitch’.
i am fascinated with what influenced the latter numbers by the red cross, if accurate. and the conditions under which they were noted. but i would not weigh a red cross memo, years after the fact, to the series of unbelievably arrogant multi-departmental orders and confirmation of processes in the memos. sorry.i’m thinking if i were drowned 6 times a day for a month and more than that, and i were still in the custody of the criminals who tortured me, i’d be saying they are ‘oh so nice’, too. ‘they only tortured me a little’.
As was pointed out yesterday the “two people who were involved themselves” were those who were tortured. And in contrast to your false claim that Marcy made up the numbers of “applications” of water to the two detainees, it was in the actual Memo.
So you prefer to take the word of a detainee, one whose recollections might be distorted from the actual events of water boarding dozens of times repeatedly vs. the number sent to the OLC from the CIA interrogators.
Fair enough. I asked you yesterday if you would then accept that this discrepancy needs to be resolved by an investigation since in the latter case they far exceeded the amounts allowed by the initial “legitimizing OLC opinions”. You didn’t respond.
Good Grief !
*note* to TrollsRUS … please send us some intellectually challenging Trolls instead of
these intellectually challenged ones !
Will.not.engage.further.
If you engaged with reason and argument instead of jokes, you might find you could learn something.
As I said, I know it will be difficult here because contrary opinions are not well accepted. Dissent is not well accepted. I looked over this thread and the other one from yesterday. Very, very, very few dissenting opinions. And I can see why; ridicule, jokes, etc.
I posted a very simple observation that the clapping could mean something else. And, how the news talking heads are quite biased and forgetful.
The post actually did not merit any kind of response, other than I don’t agree or I agree. There was nothing more to it. But, it received the typical mocking response given in both left and right wing blogs. They are both very guilty of it: if you don’t agree with us, you will have a rough time. We don’t tolerate dissent.
And, further, if you still think you can dissent, we will just label it flim flam, Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, Hannity or Obermann.
I have a tough skin and I think dissent is patriotic.
I once came across another blog that had a very different attitude. There, people of differing opinions posted back and forth questioning, dissecting and trading opinions, information and the like. Eventually on most issues, all sides modified their positions and came to some general understanding and all learned. Everyone was made to feel safe to voice their view.
I think this country has had enough of the “shout them down” attitude that prevails today. This is what Obama meant by change. You can engage those of differing views and extend a hand.
“I once came across another blog that had a very different attitude.”
Could you show us where that blog is … better yet, go on ahead, we’ll meet you there in a bit !
Must.not.give.in.to.temptation.
passive-aggressive
no, you came in throwing things and now say ‘don’t hit me’…
like a chick in a bar flirting to make her boyfriend mad and starting a brawl, ‘it’s not my fault they were fighting, i was just having fun. he started it. why does this always happen to meeeee?’
passive-aggressive.
and provide links and quotes, it might change your narrative.
Another great joke. I am still waiting for insight and critical thinking. I know you all can do it, and I mean that sincerely.
The blog was the San Jose Mercury News blog. Still a great blog. But, don’t go there if you can’t tolerate opinions and positions different from your own. No matter what your position and side, you will for sure hear them.
Since there is some interest in my radio listening habits, here is some information.
I am a big NPR fan. It is the station on my car radio generally and I listen to it every day. I truly enjoy it very much. I also listen to music of different types on the radio. I love Car Talk and All Things Considered most. Sometimes, I listen to Dennis Miller. I used to listen to Al Franken when he was on.
I provided lots of quotes yesterday and it didn’t make any difference, still lots of jokes, etc. NO, it is the difference of opinion which appears to make the difference. I guarantee that if I had said something in agreement with the thread yesterday that had no quotes of links or facts, I would have cheered and roundly accepted.
you didn’t provide a link to back up anything you said. and it was stated in a ranting poo-throwing tone. you are acting like you were reading a poem about daisies and we ripped their heads off while you innocently drank a glass of milk. not so.
i now think you were intending to be inflammatory and confrontational, and, no, you didn’t provide a link to the source of your ‘quotes’ that weren’t ‘quotes’ to back up your opinions/accusations. and you still haven’t provided it. so, i am beginning to think that discourse about it isn’t what you are after. it was something else entirely, that has to do with you. if you resolve it, feel free to try for discourse again.
make sure to provide a link if you do, everyone else does.
bbl.
BTW Cregan…what was your “source” for the assertion that the numbers of water boarding events were derived from some redacted section of the Memos? Or did you just make that up?
Denying facts is neither Dissent nor Patriotic.
The Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency watched the Torture Tapes and Counted Abu Zubaydah being Waterboarded 83 times.
Watched film, counted 83, and put it in his official report.
The same thing, presumably, for KSM – the 183 comes from CIA records (watching Tapes and other records) of KSM being Waterboarded.
The victims of the Torture, which is known to have the side-effect of Memory Loss, told the ICRC that they were Waterboarded less than the number of times on the Tapes and in the records.
Given that only one instance of Waterboarding is a War Crime, why are you quibbling over 183 vs 5?
You seem to be saying that 5 instances of a War Crime are okay compared to 183, which doesn’t seem ‘believable‘ to you – Despite the 183 instances of Waterboarding contained in the CIA’s own records.
By the way, I’m not making any jokes or belittling you in any way – you’re ’seeing’ that on your own.
So, cregan, was the Waterboarding of Zubaydah and KSM a War Crime – Yes or No? The ICRC, the legal guardians of the Geneva Conventions, says it was. Does it really matter that it was 5 or 183?
Why will you not accept that the CIA IG’s numbers in his report – counted from Tape – are True?
Could it be that You don’t ‘believe‘ that ‘your side’ has Monsters that would serially pin down another human being and ‘kill’ him with water, only to resuscitate him – over and over, again?
Is your sight, and clear thinking, blocked by your Ideology?
Are your Beliefs more True than the Truth of the Facts?
before we were so rudely interupted……….
My father was in the first group of Americans to come to Stalag 17. He knew The camps taught him new meanings of humanity and community and gave him a good dose of skepticism to patriotism.
The Russian POW, an entire half of the camp was filled with Russians who died unfeed like flies because their government had not signed the Geneva Conventions. The Red Cross never saw the tin-lined isolation “hole” in the ground on the “parade” grounds.
He died in 2004 ashamed of his torturing country.
You didn’t provide any link to a document where the IG says he watched the film and got the number from the film. Can you do so?
I am telling you that when it comes down to it, the KSM and Z version of events is much more likely to turn out to be true. In my judgment, their word on this is far more likely to be true for the many reasons I stated.
Aside from that, I really don’t believe you can waterboard someone 30 times in a day. Try to work it out yourself. Question what you read, don’t just accept it at face value.
The Red Cross report is widely known and SOME people here were familiar with it. I assume that anyone purporting to be an expert in the CIA interrogations would have read it a week before the memos came out. It describes in tremendous detail exactly what happened. About 40 pages worth. I did say that it was posted on the New York Review of Books. You can go there and read it if you want, as others involved in the issue already have.
a little OT
Juan Cole (Informed Comment), has an interesting post up last night making the point that the Harman matter is really linked to pushing for war with Iran. Common objective of Israeli intelligence efforts and some factions in the Bush Administration. Don’t know if Cole is correct, but respect his insight, and recommend reading into his slightly different angle. He is suggesting adding to the story “Iran” whenever whatever the Harman phone calls and acts were about, when the assumption is made it was Bush Wiretapping policy and practice.
And yes, a good many of us are going back and reviewing books based on the partial picture that was available a few months ago as a way to gain insight and interpret some of Obama’s moves. Last night I spent a couple of quality hours reviewing Tim Shorrock’s “Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.” Indeed I have seen Evidence that in the last months Obama’s people have been terminating contracts, and bringing back functions “in house” — perhaps they have done that with any interriogation they are still doing. In fact, if I wanted to make certain that Cheney and his boys were not still calling shots in intelligence (or other things for that matter) this is where I would start, simply because so many of those contracts went out on a no bid basis, and to “friends and family” as it were. If Panetta has been terminating contracts, right and left over the past weeks, you can see why Cheney would be going a bit nuts. There was huge anger and distrust at CIA of outsourcing in recent years — outsourcing that frequently took highly experienced officers out to private intelligence contractors, and then returned them to CIA at a much higher rate of pay, just doing their old job at their old desk. If the new regime has ended and started to reverse the “privatization” of intelligence collection and analysis, I can well imagine that employees would not only cheer Obama, but they would have dropped rose pedals for him to walk on during his visit.
cregan – check out Nell’s excellent comment, #24, on this link:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake……effective/
The source report is there, along with the highlighted section:
”In January 2003, [Office of Inspector General] OIG initiated a special review of the CIA terrorist detention and interrogation program. This review was intended to evaluate CIA detention and interrogation activities, and was not initiated in response to an allegation of wrongdoing. During the course of the special review, OIG was notified of the existence of videotapes of the interrogations of detainees. OIG arranged with the NCS to review the videotapes at the overseas location where they were stored.
OIG reviewed the videotapes at an overseas covert NCS facility in May 2003. After reviewing the videotapes, OIG did not take custody of the videotapes and they remained in the custody of NCS. Nor did OIG make or retain a copy of the videotapes for its files. At the conclusion of the special review in May 2004, OIG notified DOJ and other relevant oversight authorities of the review’s findings.”
So, do you still believe ”the KSM and Z version of events is much more likely to turn out to be true. In my judgment, their word on this is far more likely to be true for the many reasons I stated.”
Tapes or beliefs?
41 – I guess a t-shirt with “Degredation and Ruination” might be taken the wrong way.
ha.
depends how big your ‘boobs’ are, doesn’t it!!
rofl
70 – all the information on the documents and links has been pointed out to cregan, but there’s still been no retraction of the lie and slander that cregan started with here – she came her to call Marcy a liar for saying that that DOJ memos revealed 266 waterboardings. Per cregan:
Oh yeah – and this:
After being given information on the IG’s report, on the exact location in the memos of the quoted language on the number of waterboarding, on the lack of inconsistency between those reports on the ICRC statements, etc. cregan has continued with: This 266 was totally fabricated as “showing through the redaction.”
Then tacked on this later in reference to 9/11 ” You might not care about 3,000, but what if it were 300,000? ”
Nothing to do with “dissent” or even just being a specious airhead, not a troll even- just a a nasty piece of work who wallows in that kind of evil filth.
Remember that there was a major purge at the CIA of overt dissident under Porter Goss. There are probably a lot of people there that shut up, knowing that Goss, and then Mukasey, would toss them out or reassign them if they spoke out. And if they revealed classified info to the media then they could face prosecution. How ironic that people who would oppose these acts, revealed by Obama as illegal (but he won’t prosecute), likely faced criminal charges themselves for opposing the illegal acts.
The source for the redacted comment was the NY times article first mentioning it. It appears they were wrong. The article is posted on MSNBC if you want to check it.
So much for further assumtive baloney.
Here is some further. There is no link to the IG report itself in the link Radio posted. And, just going by his post, it is his speculation that the IG took the figures by counting while watching tapes. Maybe, but he is only saying the IG saw the tapes and wrote the report. I don’t see any direct quote saying that he counted the times as he was watching the tapes for that he watched all the tapes all the way through or anything specific.
Like cinnamon, who jumped to some false conclusion that I made up the redaction thing, this is also a false jumped to conclusion.
Not so with my feeling on the Red Cross report. First, why don’t you read it? it is posted on the New York Review of Books. When you read the entire thing, you will see how thorough it is. They interviewed ALL 14 high value detainees. It is the most complete picture of what happened from the detainees themselves. Not some desk jockey writing a report.
They said directly what I said here in quotes. It is plain what they mean and requires no speculation. No speculation.
Anyway, to suggest that someone who was waterboarded 30 times a day for 5 days straight would forget it, is quite unrealistic. Very far fetched. And, please also explain how you could even water board someone 30 times in a day?
Because of the contrary testimony of KSM and the unreality of doing it 30 times in a day, I say I suspect there is some error or other trouble with the IG report regarding the definition of “uses,” etc.
You say the IG report says it plainly, it does. I say the Red Cross report says it plainly, and it does. I come down on the side of the guy who was really there. And, KSM’s statements and Z’s statements on this fit in with the rest of the Red Cross report.
So,
Logical alignment with the other parts of the report
Logical alignment with the other 14’s experience
Direct statements of direct personal experience
They were actually there
The Red Cross believes them
No evidence that any of the 14 forgot or minimized their experiences
The detail of what they say happened
They both have no reason to minimize the number of times
The IG report number is not believable by common sense
The IG was not there
Uncertainly as to how he got the number
No link to the actual IG report
Those are all the reasons I believe the 183 number and 83 number are suspect. On top of that, it is odd that both numbers end in “3″ (going by the numbers in the link provided). It may very well be that the correct number is 18 and 8, and that the memo or report contains an error. THAT would align with the Red Cross report and the statements of both men and bring all into coodination.
That last IS speculation. Both, again, use of it aligns the data very well.
But, of course, it doesn’t make for a dramatic story of world class “journalism.”
no link
Yes, I would have no problem with an investigation to sort it all out.
I have 5 dogs, and the doctor has 4. I don’t believe I tried to prove I could solve that either.
To pile on, it was very irritating that cregan came in, was aggravated, and wrote “blogs like this”. Scott Horton is the only one I know who does anything like this. It is not fair to judge EW by what some sky-is-falling commenters on Kos or DU may have written about internment camps or anything else.
You might be excited to see the president, but if you thought that he was putting in danger, legal or otherwise, people you knew, or making the country less safe, you would be minimally polite to him.