CIA Program: Reckless or Tightly Governed?

(CBS)  The report detailing the CIA's secret interrogation program shows the detention of terror suspects was governed by a strictly kept set of rules, a New York Times analysis finds.

While most of the attention rests on reports of interrogators' possibly criminal techniques, such as mock executions and an inmate's family, the report reveals a tightly regulated system that proponents say was designed to keep the program safe and legal.

But critics say the newly released documents only show that the pattern of reckless disregard for human rights extended well beyond low-level interrogators into the upper reaches of the Bush administration.

According to the documents, doctors and lawyers were highly involved with setting up the program's parameters and monitored prisoner treatment throughout, including interrogation sessions. Rules governed how time detainees could be exposed to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, from enforced nudity to waterboarding.

The prisoner treatment at secret detention facilities began with putting them in diapers, shaving their heads and face, stripping and photographing them before starting a sleep deprivation program.

Read more about the CIA secret interrogation program:

CIA Probe Angers Those on Right and Left
2 Administrations, 2 Views of CIA Report
Inside the CIA's Haphazard Interrogations
CIA Threatened to Kill Suspect's Children
Did CIA Violate Torture Law?
10 Things About the CIA's Bad Day
Holder Taps Prosecutor to Probe CIA Abuses
Unplugged: Uncovering CIA Interrogations
New Unit Will Question Key Terror Suspects
Expert: CIA Techniques Were Torture

The documents show interrogations were supposed to begin with the "least coercive" measures before moving on to harsher treatment, which culminated in waterboarding, or simulated drowning.

Throughout the program, lawyers in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office kept close tabs, receiving psychological reports on inmates and refining guidelines for interrogation techniques.

Now, current Attorney General Eric Holder is considering whether to prosecute interrogators who overstepped the bounds and engaged in what is now regarded as torture.

Proponents of the program say the tightly controlled practices show the program wasn't a haphazard effort at interrogation.

"Elaborate care went into figuring out the precise gradations of coercion," David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer for both the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations told the New York Times. "Yes, it's jarring. But it shows how both the lawyers and the nonlawyers tried to do the right thing."

But critics say they only prove how endemic the disregard for human rights was.

"They show how deeply rooted this new culture of mistreatment became," Tom Parker, policy director for counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International, told the Times.

[hungry1968-16]

by ClarkeGrissom August 26, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
How many of the 9/11 hijackers were tortured? None. They all died with the 1000's of people they murdered. How many terrorists or al queada operatives did we torture that aided them? Again the answer is...none. Because torture, because torture as defined by the US Code wasn't used as an EIT to get them to provide information. How many terrorists have we killed or attacks have been averted, and therefore American et. al. lived saved due to the intelligence gathered? Many. You actually think they bothered to use EIT's on all the enemy combatants held in Guantanamo? 550+? You're misinformed.







In your bizarre post from 5:15, you justified torture because 3,000 people were killed on 9/11, even though the "killers" were dead, you STILL think that we should have tortured SOMEONE anyway, whether they were involved or not?

That's like saying, "Some hispanic kid just shot someone, so let's round up ALL HISPANIC KIDS, and torture them to make ourselves feel better!"

And you think that you can define or redefine torture, or call torture "enhanced interrogation techniques", but EVERYONE that has EVER been subjected to water boarding will tell you that -- YES -- it IS torture. They have NO QUESTION in their mind, and I have no reason to doubt what they say.

How many attacks were averted because we tortured someone? NONE. Everyone that I've seen talking about it, says that ALL of the information we got, we got BEFORE we tortured them. And when we DID start torturing them, they either shut up, or gave bogus information that later was proven to be untrue.

Do I think that they used torture on the whole 550+ that were released? No. But they DID use it on ANYONE that wouldn't start talking right away.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/26/eveningnews/main5267194.shtml

"Those detainees who did not immediately provide information on threats and other terror suspects went straight to harsh interrogations."



http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/082409/olcremand/2004olc97.pdf

(page 4)

[hungry1968-16]

by ClarkeGrissom August 26, 2009 5:15 PM EDT
Just like 3000 people died on 9/11/01 of 'man made disaster'? selective memory is a b!tch isnt it?

The report states one death... in Afghanistan...at the hands of contractor. Read and fact check first before you look well...dumb, maybe that's your problem? lol.






One died in Afghanistan, and two died in Iraq. And whether they died at the hands of a CIA agent, or at the hands of a contractor acting on the orders of the CIA, it's STILL "killing a human being through torture".

Fighting evil, with evil, only assures that "evil" wins. We do not torture - we are above that.




Now tell me how many of the 9/11 hijackers you think that we tortured? The Bush regime released 550+ prisoners that were held amd tortured in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Are we normally in the practice of releasing guilty terrorists, or did we actually torture innocent people?

[ClarkeGrissom]

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were tortured? None. They all died with the 1000's of people they murdered. How many terrorists or al queada operatives did we torture that aided them? Again the answer is...none. Because torture, because torture as defined by the US Code wasn't used as an EIT to get them to provide information. How many terrorists have we killed or attacks have been averted, and therefore American et. al. lived saved due to the intelligence gathered? Many. You actually think they bothered to use EIT's on all the enemy combatants held in Guantanamo? 550+? You're misinformed.

[credibility2]

This CIA item and that of Bernanke getting reappointed by the president (his term wasn't up until 2010, so what was his rush?) were conveniently timed to distract people from sinking their teeth into the really bad economic news about the deficit, which this administration miscalculated by some two trillion dollars. That bit of news was also revealed yesterday, but also conveniently buried in the lesser important news items of the day so as not to embarrass the president. It would also put more pressure on him not to pursue his grandiose health care "reform", since we don't have the money to pay for its lofty provisions. I guess the kids running the candy store also ran out of dried beans and digits to count.

[hungry1968-16]

by the_majesty August 26, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
3 died from natural causes.







A heart attack is a natural cause.

A heart attack brought on by the stress that water boarding places on the body, or by repeated electric shocks, isn't considered to be "natural causes".

At least not by anyone with the ability to think. Maybe that's your problem?

[ClarkeGrissom]

Just like 3000 people died on 9/11/01 of 'man made disaster'? selective memory is a b!tch isnt it?

The report states one death... in Afghanistan...at the hands of contractor. Read and fact check first before you look well...dumb, maybe that's your problem? lol.

[brianbwb-2009]

ClarkeGrissom

Selective memory on your part, how many Iraqis were among the perpetrators? None. You war-mongers love to scream "9/11", as if Iraq had anything to do with it, but then clam up when challenged to show proof that they were.

Obviously the 3,000 dead Americans mean nothing at all to you, other than as an excuse to pursue your penchant for mass murder against people who had nothing to do with it.

Check your own facts, then show how Iraqis were involved in the attack for which you blame them, as justification for your enjoyment of torturing people.

[woeisme1]

by the_majesty August 26, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
These were ruthless killers.
The CIA was trying to get information
that could save thousands of
American lives. You can't do that
by saying please and thanks.
No prisoners were physically
harmed. This is all a political
stunt by the Obama tyrants.
I hope it backfires.
-----------------------------

You mean like your lies about healthcare reform are gonna backfire (and are already actually)?

[the_majesty]

woeisme1 ... I am a man of truth and honor.
As such, my word is beyond reproach.
Time will tell about health care reform.
Most of the American people are against ObamaCare.
We saw that at the town hall meetings.

[ToolMangler1]

by the_majesty August 26, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
"Most of the American people are against ObamaCare.
We saw that at the town hall meetings."


Yes they are since that is the Republican version that Palin is touting.

Since there is 'NO BILL' that has been passed "By the house and Senate", anyting that the president wants to do will be attacked by the GOP so that Obama will not be re-elected and then the GOP will present the same reforms under a different name so 'They' get the credit for it.

I am sick and tired of my healthcare and life being made a political football. (FIX IT NOW!!!!!!!!) I would like to be healthy til I die of 'natural causes'. (at the age of 135) ;)

[woeisme1]

I meant to comment yesterday on Obama's plan to involve the WH in interrogations.

That is just wrong Obama. That is a hugh mistake. The WH has absolutely no business doing the CIA's job.

I support you but this is a very danegerous precedent and should be reconsidered for all the reasons I indicated in my e-mail.

Not good at all. I hope Americans express their concerns about this to Obama directly, like I did. I am just very very opposed to this.

[jamer32539]

As much as I dislike what the CIA did to prisoners, I do respect the outcome. No one can argue that since 911 we have been kept safe from another attack. After 911, the entire nation was demanding that the government do whatever is necessary to prevent another attack from happening. No one cared how, just prevent it. Now that the way it was done comes out, everyone is up in arms as to how the information was gained.

President Obama stated that the past is the past and we as an administration and as a nation must move forward and the CIA tapes would remain sealed.. Now the Attorney General released the CIA tapes anyway. Why?

1- Obama lied to the American people in the first place and had no intention of keeping them sealed.
2- The Attorney General does whatever he wants to do regardless of what the President says. (Who works for who?)
3- It is a convenient smoke screen to divert our attention off of the health care debate.

[ToolMangler1]

The CIA quit protecting America the moment they became a tool for political purposes and started behaving like the people they are suppose to "give the President and the Military information about) IE. Spying on Americans (in America), torturing and killing the opposition themselves and not letting the Military handle it. The CIA is supposed to be a research and archival agency, not a Military entity outside the view of the Government of the USA.
(posted earlier)



The moment an agency oversteps its bounds and gets away with it, it puts America one more step closer to "Big Brother" in 'all' its Orwellian 'Gorey' Status. I would rather give up another Tower (with me in it) than let America lose anymore of our 'Perception of Justice' or behave as the Mid Eastern countries do, (No honor, because they are dealing with us 'infidels')....

There is a scripture that covers my feelings, "What does it profit a man (Nation) to gain the whole world and lose his/its own soul/reason for being"..... (my apologies to GOD for my rearrangement of his words.)

[hungry1968-16]

by the_majesty August 26, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
These were ruthless killers.
The CIA was trying to get information
that could save thousands of
American lives. You can't do that
by saying please and thanks.
No prisoners were physically
harmed. This is all a political
stunt by the Obama tyrants.
I hope it backfires.






550 out of the 725+ prisoners were released by the Bush regime, without EVER being charged with a crime, because they NEVER COMMITTED a crime.

Last I checked, you have to actually KILL SOMEONE to be considered a "ruthless killer", don't you?

By the way, at least 3 DIED from torture, so how in the hell can you say, "no one was physically harmed"?

[the_majesty]

3 died from natural causes.

[brianbwb-2009]

To the_majesty

Right, one froze to death in a sub tropical country. Son, all death is natural, the cause in these cases still remains the responsibility of the US, they were in US custody at the time.

Play with words all you want, US and international law is solidly against you.

[ClarkeGrissom]

What James Bond do? Man just think if everytime he took out the bad guy, or hung a Spectre dude off a building by his necktie to get him to talk he would prosecuted for torture. The 'he was a clumsy chap' defense wouldn't work very well with our DoJ.

Like Bond, all this is fiction, there won't be any prosecutions because there wasn't any torture as defined by the US Code...and Obama Administration has changed nothing! Haha, the army field manual that is now the Obama Administration official playbook for interogating prisoners highlights 8 of 10 techniques employed previously, the funny thing is that all this previous alledged torture was done on high value targets after 9/11 in 2002-2003. The Obama Administration has JUST made it policy to use the Army Field Manual starting this week and going forward...I guess with Afghanistan heating up they got some interogating they're planning to do? Hmmm? Will the same nutcases be screaming about sending their man to the Hague?

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 August 26, 2009 2:11 PM EDT

The only thing Hungry should "get" is lost







If I were you, I would want me to get lost too.

Then you could post your silly nonsense ad nauseum with no one EVER calling you on your simple minded BS, and making you look like a fool.

But sorry, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.

[woeisme1]

notblue....not all of your facts are right. Reading a little more will help that.

[brianbwb-2009]

To notblue

If you do not understand what good bringing people who committed treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity to justice would be for the country, I offer this.

If one American is allowed to so blatantly abrogate the constitution, then the constitution itself is meaningless, get ready for roving gangs of anarchy-motivated thugs to pay you and yours a visit.

I doubt your small cache of weapons will stop a couple hundred people from pillaging in your area.

When another country decides to follow the precedents set by Bush, and kidnap innocent Americans for torture, and detention without charges, you can try to explain how it was OK for Bush to do it, but not OK to them.

The intelligence community needs to have boundaries set, and must be punished for exceeding those, otherwise you and yours may be the next victims.

Any president so ordering the minions of the intelligence community to exceed those boundaries is just as pesponsible for the crimes as those who physically committed them.

Remember, they are supposed to work for us, not above us, and not against us.

If you are so quick to dismiss these crimes as something that happened five years ago, go then and tell the Americans who lost soldiers because of Bush's lies that the death of their loved ones is of no importance because it happened five years ago.

Then you can go tell the millions of harmed Iraqis, who are innocent of any attacks on us, the same thing.