home

Heavy Redactions Coming for Torture Report

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

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

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

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

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

< Monday Night Open Thread | Thursday Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


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

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

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

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

    Then we can move on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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


    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Time to move on.

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

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

    Fail.

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I could scream.

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No to Parts A and B


    Parent

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

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

    The New York Times said:

     

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Jesus...just bite me, MKS.

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    "Obama has a great need to be cool."

    "Obama has great self-confidence."

    We can play this game all day.

    Parent

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


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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    You trivialize a serious issue.

    Parent

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

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

    WEV.

    Parent

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

     

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    You are slicing it mighty thin.

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

    I see more than a little hypocrisy here.
     

    Parent

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

    Good grief....

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    contribution.

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

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


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

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

    Didn't think so.

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    You are not being honest or sincere about torture.