Ex-CIA Directors [under Democratic and Republican administrations]: Interrogations Saved Lives. Blast Democratic report - many false conclusions, politically driven

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2014 4:27 AM GMT
    Views are this partisan report was issued to 1) Attempt to embarrass the Bush administration, and 2) Provide cover to Democrats who were briefed and supported the programs.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644

    The Senate Intelligence investigators never spoke to us—the leaders of the agency whose policies they are now assailing for partisan reasons.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

    Excerpts:

    The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

    ...

    What is wrong with the committee’s report?

    First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:

    • It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.

    • It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.

    • It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.

    A powerful example of the interrogation program’s importance is the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, known as KSM, the 9/11 mastermind. We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program.

    ...see the rebuttal in the link for many more problems with the report
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2014 5:34 AM GMT
    Hogwash
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2014 5:45 AM GMT
    Sharkspeare saidHogwash

    Very insightful comment. I'm totally impressed. Fact is there are two sides. I believe non-partisan patriots who have built careers protecting the US over some Democratic politicians trying to cover their asses and displaying anger and resentment at their soon to be lost control over the committee.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 10, 2014 7:01 AM GMT
    Did the report address the hacking of congress by the CIA? That I would want to hear about. Its a separation of powers issue.
    We cannot have rogue parts of the government spy for self serving reasons.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Dec 10, 2014 7:05 AM GMT
    we'll start to hear some real good propaganda bullshit from the Republicans for a while lol
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 10, 2014 7:09 AM GMT
    well here

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-improperly-hacking-senate-computers-sea/?page=all

    Apparently they hacked into Senate Computers at least 3 times to delete information that was damning of the CIA.

    Probably not Brennan but someone needs to go to jail for this. If a any other citizen did this it would mean a long prison sentence.
    Because they are "CIA" they get to apologize.

    Brennan a Obama admin appointee has lied several times to Congress.

    Maybe its time for a whole reset , someone from outside .

    Because from a rundown of the report it seems the CIA lied to everyone, Congress, the inspector general, justice department and the white house.

    So it seems to be more of a rogue department than a sanctioned set of policy from the top.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2014 7:33 AM GMT
    musclmed saidDid the report address the hacking of congress by the CIA? That I would want to hear about. Its a separation of powers issue.
    We cannot have rogue parts of the government spy for self serving reasons.

    That does not justify providing a false report on enhanced interrogations. If anything, it provides motivation for the Democrats who produced this report.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2014 3:32 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidwe'll start to hear some real good propaganda bullshit from the Republicans for a while lol


    "we'll start to hear some real good propaganda bullshit from the Republicans for a while lol "

    2 True.

    But it won't last long. John McCain will win this argument.

    And FOX is clearly backing away quickly.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 10, 2014 5:14 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    musclmed saidDid the report address the hacking of congress by the CIA? That I would want to hear about. Its a separation of powers issue.
    We cannot have rogue parts of the government spy for self serving reasons.

    That does not justify providing a false report on enhanced interrogations. If anything, it provides motivation for the Democrats who produced this report.


    On this one , the fact that they broke into the Congress to try to stop the report unfortunately leads credence to the report.

    Why the CIA director still has his job is beyond me. I am thinking the administration prefers a neutered CIA chief, just like Sec of defense.

    The whole government needs to start over.

    I would say though, if this were a Republican administration we would be having impeachment hearings. People seem to forget Obama has been in charge for 6 years.

    As for torture , one thing Obama is doing right instead of capturing them and torturing them he drones them. Which is ultimately what they deserve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2014 5:49 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    socalfitness said
    musclmed saidDid the report address the hacking of congress by the CIA? That I would want to hear about. Its a separation of powers issue.
    We cannot have rogue parts of the government spy for self serving reasons.

    That does not justify providing a false report on enhanced interrogations. If anything, it provides motivation for the Democrats who produced this report.


    On this one , the fact that they broke into the Congress to try to stop the report unfortunately leads credence to the report.

    Why the CIA director still has his job is beyond me. I am thinking the administration prefers a neutered CIA chief, just like Sec of defense.

    The whole government needs to start over.

    I would say though, if this were a Republican administration we would be having impeachment hearings. People seem to forget Obama has been in charge for 6 years.

    As for torture , one thing Obama is doing right instead of capturing them and torturing them he drones them. Which is ultimately what they deserve.

    I'm not justifying any spying on Congress, but I don't think it follows that such activity gives credence to the Senate Democrats' conclusions on enhanced interrogations. The rebuttal I referenced was signed off by several directors and deputy directors. To me there are two separate situations: 1) enhanced interrogations and the reports and rebuttals, and 2) spying on Congress.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Dec 11, 2014 3:24 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    musclmed said
    socalfitness said
    musclmed saidDid the report address the hacking of congress by the CIA? That I would want to hear about. Its a separation of powers issue.
    We cannot have rogue parts of the government spy for self serving reasons.

    That does not justify providing a false report on enhanced interrogations. If anything, it provides motivation for the Democrats who produced this report.


    On this one , the fact that they broke into the Congress to try to stop the report unfortunately leads credence to the report.

    Why the CIA director still has his job is beyond me. I am thinking the administration prefers a neutered CIA chief, just like Sec of defense.

    The whole government needs to start over.

    I would say though, if this were a Republican administration we would be having impeachment hearings. People seem to forget Obama has been in charge for 6 years.

    As for torture , one thing Obama is doing right instead of capturing them and torturing them he drones them. Which is ultimately what they deserve.

    I'm not justifying any spying on Congress, but I don't think it follows that such activity gives credence to the Senate Democrats' conclusions on enhanced interrogations. The rebuttal I referenced was signed off by several directors and deputy directors. To me there are two separate situations: 1) enhanced interrogations and the reports and rebuttals, and 2) spying on Congress.


    Have you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2014 5:07 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidHave you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?

    DOJ lawyers have reviewed evidence and determined otherwise.

    A key conclusion of the report was that the same information could have been obtained by other means. Pure conjecture and not asserted the information could have been obtained in a timely manner.

    There are different opinions as to whether water-boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, Broadway show tunes is torture, McCain having one opinion. Still an opinion despite his experience.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Dec 12, 2014 4:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy saidHave you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?

    DOJ lawyers have reviewed evidence and determined otherwise.

    A key conclusion of the report was that the same information could have been obtained by other means. Pure conjecture and not asserted the information could have been obtained in a timely manner.

    There are different opinions as to whether water-boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, Broadway show tunes is torture, McCain having one opinion. Still an opinion despite his experience.


    Dead wrong, again. DOJ lawyers have not reviewed the report - at all - and "determined otherwise."

    CIA officers were advised NOT to talk to the Select Cmte as they were under investigation by the DOJ's investigative prosecutor, and HE determined there would be no prosecutions...months ago, based on nothing to do with the as the unfinished, and unpublished, Senate report.

    I guess the details are getting a bit too intricate for you to follow properly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2014 5:01 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy saidHave you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?

    DOJ lawyers have reviewed evidence and determined otherwise.

    A key conclusion of the report was that the same information could have been obtained by other means. Pure conjecture and not asserted the information could have been obtained in a timely manner.

    There are different opinions as to whether water-boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, Broadway show tunes is torture, McCain having one opinion. Still an opinion despite his experience.


    Dead wrong, again. DOJ lawyers have not reviewed the report - at all - and "determined otherwise."

    CIA officers were advised NOT to talk to the Select Cmte as they were under investigation by the DOJ's investigative prosecutor, and HE determined there would be no prosecutions...months ago, based on nothing to do with the as the unfinished, and unpublished, Senate report.

    I guess the details are getting a bit too intricate for you to follow properly.

    If I was going to be snide like you, I would suggest you have a reading and comprehension issue. I did not say they reviewed the report. I said they reviewed evidence (not processed by Senate Democratic staffers).
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Dec 12, 2014 7:52 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy said
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy saidHave you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?

    DOJ lawyers have reviewed evidence and determined otherwise.

    A key conclusion of the report was that the same information could have been obtained by other means. Pure conjecture and not asserted the information could have been obtained in a timely manner.

    There are different opinions as to whether water-boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, Broadway show tunes is torture, McCain having one opinion. Still an opinion despite his experience.


    Dead wrong, again. DOJ lawyers have not reviewed the report - at all - and "determined otherwise."

    CIA officers were advised NOT to talk to the Select Cmte as they were under investigation by the DOJ's investigative prosecutor, and HE determined there would be no prosecutions...months ago, based on nothing to do with the as the unfinished, and unpublished, Senate report.

    I guess the details are getting a bit too intricate for you to follow properly.

    If I was going to be snide like you, I would suggest you have a reading and comprehension issue. I did not say they reviewed the report. I said they reviewed evidence (not processed by Senate Democratic staffers).


    "Evidence" is another technical term that seems to be beyond you. Just stop "talking".
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Dec 12, 2014 7:58 PM GMT
    Read "The War Hero and the Chicken Hawk" in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/opinion/the-war-hero-and-the-chicken-hawk.html?ref=opinion

    And read the first few "Readers' Chonce" in the comments. There are at least a few Americans who think that these interrogation practices have brought shame and dishonor on us, and that facing the truth is the way home.

    We have become a nation that fears, and fear leads to horrendous acts. This isn't America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2014 8:05 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy said
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy saidHave you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?

    DOJ lawyers have reviewed evidence and determined otherwise.

    A key conclusion of the report was that the same information could have been obtained by other means. Pure conjecture and not asserted the information could have been obtained in a timely manner.

    There are different opinions as to whether water-boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, Broadway show tunes is torture, McCain having one opinion. Still an opinion despite his experience.


    Dead wrong, again. DOJ lawyers have not reviewed the report - at all - and "determined otherwise."

    CIA officers were advised NOT to talk to the Select Cmte as they were under investigation by the DOJ's investigative prosecutor, and HE determined there would be no prosecutions...months ago, based on nothing to do with the as the unfinished, and unpublished, Senate report.

    I guess the details are getting a bit too intricate for you to follow properly.

    If I was going to be snide like you, I would suggest you have a reading and comprehension issue. I did not say they reviewed the report. I said they reviewed evidence (not processed by Senate Democratic staffers).


    "Evidence" is another technical term that seems to be beyond you. Just stop "talking".

    There are a number of legal experts who have made the same statement. I've learned to take with a grain of salt the anonymous self-proclaimed experts on the web. Most experts I have come in contact with are logical and don't need to resort to pathetic attempts at sniping and insulting. Given that and your reading and comprehension failure noted above, the "evidence" suggests you are nothing more than a poser with self-exaggerated credentials. Done with you.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Dec 12, 2014 8:13 PM GMT
    tazzari saidRead "The War Hero and the Chicken Hawk" in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/opinion/the-war-hero-and-the-chicken-hawk.html?ref=opinion

    And read the first few "Readers' Chonce" in the comments. There are at least a few Americans who think that these interrogation practices have brought shame and dishonor on us, and that facing the truth is the way home.

    We have become a nation that fears, and fear leads to horrendous acts. This isn't America.


    "This isn't America". Well, yes, I agree, but only up to a point?

    We forget (sometimes) that we were founded by Puritans. In his landmark "A Religious History of the American People" - the one book I always suggest non-Americans read when they want to understand our country - Sydney Ahlstrom called Purtianism "nothing more than anti-Catholicism, that then turned into fundamentalist anti-black, and just about anti-everything non-Puritan." They were not the "freedom-loving" adventurists our myth makes them. They didn't leave England in search of freedom; they were basically thrown out because the majority of English didn't want to live according to their narrow-minded theocratism.

    Purtiansim loved to tell others how to live. I think there is a part of that that somehow remains essentially "American". Sadly.

    Regrettably, the readers' comments above I think suggest two things: 1) That there are indeed still Americans who learned not to confuse true patriotism with the cheap jingoism of "my country right or wrong"; and 2) We have become the clear minority.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Dec 12, 2014 8:16 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy said
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy said
    socalfitness said
    WrestlerBoy saidHave you READ the Senate report, or the 600-page Exec Summary? It is FULL of substantiating CIA DOCUMENTS, EMAILS AND CABLES that would stand up in any court of law as evidence in support of the report's conclusions.

    The former directors and others from the CIA are making "assertions", almost all of which are rebutted by the EVIDENCE in the 36,000 footnotes of the report. An "assertion" is not a fact.

    Hayden has repeatedly said that the Select Cmte did not "interview one CIA officer". HE was the DIRECTOR, and he testified numerous times; what's he, if he isn't an "officer" of CIA?

    And as far as "partisanship" is concerned... John McCain's a real dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, is he, who wouldn't know anything about...torture?

    DOJ lawyers have reviewed evidence and determined otherwise.

    A key conclusion of the report was that the same information could have been obtained by other means. Pure conjecture and not asserted the information could have been obtained in a timely manner.

    There are different opinions as to whether water-boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, Broadway show tunes is torture, McCain having one opinion. Still an opinion despite his experience.


    Dead wrong, again. DOJ lawyers have not reviewed the report - at all - and "determined otherwise."

    CIA officers were advised NOT to talk to the Select Cmte as they were under investigation by the DOJ's investigative prosecutor, and HE determined there would be no prosecutions...months ago, based on nothing to do with the as the unfinished, and unpublished, Senate report.

    I guess the details are getting a bit too intricate for you to follow properly.

    If I was going to be snide like you, I would suggest you have a reading and comprehension issue. I did not say they reviewed the report. I said they reviewed evidence (not processed by Senate Democratic staffers).


    "Evidence" is another technical term that seems to be beyond you. Just stop "talking".

    There are a number of legal experts who have made the same statement. I've learned to take with a grain of salt the anonymous self-proclaimed experts on the web. Most experts I have come in contact with are logical and don't need to resort to pathetic attempts at sniping and insulting. Given that and your reading and comprehension failure noted above, the "evidence" suggests you are nothing more than a poser with self-exaggerated credentials. Done with you.


    I'm crushed.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 12, 2014 8:28 PM GMT
    Just reading between the lines, does it seem that the CIA kept what they were doing from the top brass?

    And doesnt that negate the argument for years that BUSH II spearheaded these thing?

    In addition with such a scathing report against the CIA, I am surprised it didn't come with legislation to neuter the department or redraw the agency .

    For me the big issue is the CIA spying on the Congress, the prisoners well they could have been easily executed on the battlefield. Which Obama seems to have taken up as his policy.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Dec 12, 2014 8:37 PM GMT
    musclmed saidJust reading between the lines, does it seem that the CIA kept what they were doing from the top brass?

    And doesnt that negate the argument for years that BUSH II spearheaded these thing.


    Yes. The basic parameters are: CIA lied (repeatedly) to the DOJ, Congress, and the White house itself (although all reports are clear that Bush II was told about specific practices in 2006, and was "uncomfortable" with what he heard).

    This is why I am not understanding the partisan take. I just don't see how it is a partisan issue when an agency on government is lying - repeatedly - to the Justice Dept., the Congress, and the Executive itself.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Dec 14, 2014 9:52 PM GMT
    1) Bush doesn't need any help from the Democrats to be embarrassed. As surveyed by Gallup, his approval rating when he left was 34% (at one point in his presidency he dipped as low as 25%).

    2) The enhanced interrogation included forcing prisoners to stand on broken limbs, sleep deprivation up to 180 hours (even while standing), arms shackled above their head. One prisoner even died from "anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal

    How can someone find these kind of practices acceptable?

    I don't care what information, if any, was collected as a result—it is morally wrong. We have laws preventing law enforcement from doing this to citizens. Why should our moral compass stop working at the edges of our borders?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2014 2:28 AM GMT
    Waterboarding - no permanent damage but 3 minutes of panic

    The gist of discussions I've had with liberal friends:

    Friend: I don't like Bush and Cheney and waterboarding is torture. I'm against it.

    Me: You have a family member in the bay area. Suppose a terrorist is caught and brags there is a dirty nuclear bomb in the bay area that will go off soon. There is not enough time to evacuate the city. Would you be in favor of waterboarding, inflicting 3 minutes of panic on the terrorist for the possibility of saving your family member?

    Friend, trying to avoid the question: Well that's hypothetical and I don't believe in hypothetical questions.

    Me: That dodge doesn't work. Hypothetical refers to any plan or policy governing future response to a situation. So would you be in favor of inflicting 3 minutes of panic to get information that could save your family member.

    Friend: Well put that way, yes definitely, in a minute.

    Me: Well if it's good enough for your family member, how about members of other families?

    Friend: I suppose so, but I still don't like Bush and Cheney.

    Me: You are free to dislike whomever you want.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Dec 15, 2014 2:42 AM GMT
    Well, this liberal would answer "no" to your hypothetical question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
    creature saidWell, this liberal would answer "no" to your hypothetical question.

    So you would be willing to sacrifice your mother, father, brother, or sister (or all of them) to avoid the terrorist experiencing 3 minutes of panic.