Inside the fight to reveal the CIA's torture secrets | Hacker News Reader

Inside the fight to reveal the CIA's torture secrets

theguardian.com

80 pointssecfirstmd29 comments

When President Obama entered office, one of his first acts was to sign an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. That order was disobeyed.

Congress published a report describing crimes against humanity committed there, in great detail, naming names. No one who was named has been punished.

The CIA has exhibited a pattern of committing crimes against humanity, interfering with attempts at oversight by the White House and by Congress, and destroying evidence. One is left with the impression that it is not, in fact, loyal to the Washington DC government in any meaningful sense, but in fact exists only to protect itself while providing cover for sadists and other war criminals. The president's and congress' failure to take strong action, to outside observers, does not look like any sort of policy decision; it looks like weakness and cowardice, from a government whose de facto power falls far short of its de jure power.

There's also something like the anthropic principle at play here. Any type of borderline policies that involved mild torture would likely be carried out by the CIA. And they serve at the direction of the President. The CIA didn't initiated these policies, they just fulfilled them.

Also it's not like every CIA employee supports torture. It's hard to say but this scandal represents a fraction of what the CIA does everyday, that truly serves the best interests of the American people.

They are easy to demonize by default.

>Also it's not like every CIA employee supports torture.

I feel like if you work for an organization that tortures people as a matter of policy, instead of against it, then yes you support torture, at least implicitly.

Most interesting to me was that the "junior CIA officer" who ran the most infamous black site ("the Salt Pit") appears to be incredibly financially successful in the 15 years since, presumably via continued government service [1]. Just one of his multiple homes was apparently purchased for $1.3mil in the Virginia suburbs outside CIA headquarters. Whether he made this money as a blue badger or a green badger [2], it's still pretty surprising to see what appears to be a career public servant raking in much more money than is ever advertised on the CIA careers page.

To those who are aware of what goes on in these circles: did this guy actually get rich working for the CIA? Is this commonplace in a post-9/11, contractor-focused world? Or did this just inherit money from a rich uncle and his sub-100k CIA salary is completely misrepresented by these articles?

[1] https://theintercept.com/2014/12/15/charmed-life-cia-torture... [2] http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fedblog/2007/07/green-ba...

The CIA is one of the US' greatest assets. It's not going to be "exposed" and go away. Sure, many of it's atrocities might come to light and the public will be mildly upset. But the CIA isn't going anywhere.

All the basic human rights the USA enjoys has been won by popular struggle. The abolishment of slavery, civil rights, freedom of speech, women's rights etc. Similar things where said during these struggles for example, slaves are "one of the US's greatest assets" and that slavery was "not going anywhere".

I see no reason why the popular struggle to improve human rights will not continue.

You provide a good counterpoint, but I think slavery was nowhere near an asset that the CIA is and has been to the United States (whether this has been a good thing for humanity and human rights as a whole is another question).

The CIA has overthrown and installed numerous governments. It has forced ideologies and laws upon people all across the world. It has turned many countries into mere puppets for decades at a time. [1]

Again, the CIA is by no means a humanitarian organization. It has overlooked countless basic human rights to achieve its goals. It has unarguably shaped the course of the history since at least the 1950s, and continues to do so. But we're not going to have a civil war over the CIA.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Hi...

I am aware of the activities and achievements of the CIA. I think you underestimate slavery's importance to the US becoming a global agricultural and industrial power. That's not really the point I want to make, but rather that I think we could have a popular revolt against the CIA on a moral basis if the populace were better educated and informed. Sure propaganda has been enormously successful thus far but there's nothing preventing that from being overcome eventually.

Maybe not soon,it may take long but still. The horror of slavery in the US persisted for centuries but it still was eventually overcome. Same with women's rights, it took centuries to overcome, eventually making substantial progress by the 60's-70's.

Pedantic: From 1619 (first slaves in Virginia Territory) until 1865 is indeed (two) centuries. But it wasn't the USA until 1776, so just about 90 years.

> The CIA has overthrown and installed numerous governments

And it has come at the cost of half the world hating our guts, many refusing to do business with us and constant erosion of trusting United States institutions and companies.

There are many debts to counter and credits the CIA has gained. It would be very difficult to do the math, but just having a few more stable democracies would likely have made us all richer by enabling greater trade.

Torture may "go somewhere" but the CIA is staying right where it is.

    who wants
    the world to remain
    as it is
    does not want
    that it
    remains

-- Erich Fried, "Status Quo"

"Enhanced interrogation" was not "torture". Before starting the program, the CIA asked the Justice Department to take the definition of torture from the Geneva Convention, and design guidelines to exclude any such behavior from the Enhanced Interrogation program. So, to call it "torture" in the headline, only exaggerates the description of the program and demonstrates a bias in the reporting.

> was not "torture"

You might want to catch up and actually read the torture report. They went well beyond anything the Justice Department authorized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...

The Bush/CIA enhanced interrogation program specifically defined torture, and kept the terms of the program outside this definition. This was done at the highest levels of the Justice Department, CIA, and military.

The laws against torture define torture in a specific way. So while a lay person may use the word torture one way ("Listening to my wife prattle on about soap is torture"), use of a legally defined word requires precision. Since torture is legally defined, and no one participating in the enhanced interrogation was prosecuted for breaking this law, after being extensively investigated, one can reasonably conclude no torture took place.

> The Bush/CIA enhanced interrogation program specifically defined torture

Yes, I'm very familiar with that attempt to circumvent the spirit of the law and the well-known definition of several words. John Yoo et al were very creative in their interpretations and new definitions.

> done at the highest levels

Which is why they need to be prosecuted.

> So while a lay person may use the word torture one way ("Listening to my wife prattle on about soap is torture")

You know that we aren't discussing that kind of metaphorical or hyperbolic use.

(side note: it might be a good idea to listen to one's wife instead of calling her interests "torture")

> Since torture is legally defined

Did you even read my list? You should really read the torture report because that "definition" doesn't match what was done by the CIA to their prisoners.

> no one participating in the enhanced interrogation was prosecuted for breaking this law

Yes, that's the problem. Is there any particular reason you don't want the criminals at the CIA to be prosecuted?

> extensively investigated

You mean the investigation that documented how the CIA tortured its prisoners? The one the CIA wanted to suppress?

> one can reasonably conclude no torture took place.

Even if we were to assume your delusional version of the facts, this is a fallacy. Not being prosecuted does not imply no crime took place, as prosecutors choose which cases to pursue. In reality, though, you seem to have a lot of conative dissonance that is causing you to rationalize what you wish the world was like with the contradictory facts of reality.

I strongly suggest actually reading the torture report, and doing more research on the topic, because the rest of the world doesn't really have problems with the definition of "torture". What the CIA did defiantly counts, and the people involve - all the way up to the people that issued the orders - need to be prosecuted for their crimes. History will not look kindly on us as a country that allows people to get away with barbaric acts like torture.

The Guardian is a British newspaper. In the UK we still consider it torture. I think the UK has basically always reported it like this - we do not see eye to eye on this topic.

Crucially, the CIA's aggressive covering up says something about the perceived risk of the public and legislature knowing fully about this.

Pretty sure most normal people and countries consider it torture.

Perhaps that reporting here in the UK was influenced by some of the horrors in our own recent history - such as the military use of the "Five Techniques" against UK citizens during the NI troubles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques

And collusion with Libyan torturers more recently

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/09/dispatches-still-no-just...

We do see eye to eye, it's considered torture in the US too.

Indeed, though 59% of Americans surveyed recently were ok with the application of torture following 9/11[0], sadly enough. I am one of the 31% who considers it torture and I always have.

[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-p...

The Nazis also defined Jews as subhuman, and made discrimination, expropriation, imprisonment, and even killing of them legal. Similar things happened in the US with segregation, Jim Crow laws, eugenics, slavery, the "War on Drugs", and now with torture and the "War on Terror".

None of the above made what happened anything less than a perversion of justice and an ass-covering redefinition of words. They can do it, and they can often do it legally, but that doesn't excuse any of it, and most people aren't fooled.

I'm so glad we've come a long way on this.

Shortly after 9/11, I came out against this "enhanced interrogation" and said it's torture. I was down-voted to oblivion, which makes me sad.

Now this guy is doing the opposite and being down-voted to oblivion, which makes me happy.

Shortly after 9/11... I was down-voted to oblivion...

Just out of curiosity, what forum was this?

Words are not defined by treaties, they are defined by their use. People who have a bias against brutalising prisoners tend to call waterboarding, et al, torture, regardless of what a treaty says.

Aside from that, you're misrepresenting how the torture was designed. The way they defanged the Geneva Convention was not by making sure their interrogations were not torturous, but by interpreting it such that the victims were not subject to the protections of the convention.

Additionally, the convention doesn't define torture. So there's that.

But yes, the Guardian is known for being biased against torture.

To be honest I believe a lot of people are biased against torture.

Clearly not enough (or enough of the right ones I guess).

Just because you think John Yoo's opinion is due process doesn't mean that anyone else has to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com