A nonpartisan, independent review concludes U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11 | Hacker News Reader

A nonpartisan, independent review concludes U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11

detaineetaskforce.org

43 pointsdenzil_correa18 comments

From the "no shit, Sherlock" files?

I mean, I don't mean to be flippant - or perhaps I do, it's late - but I genuinely didn't think there was still that much debate on this.

It's not like the Bush administration denies that they engaged in torture, they merely play semantic games by redefining the torture they engaged in as not-torture. Now we have some distance and are able to remind ourselves that this not-torture is actually, ya know, torture, then there's not really much left to debate is there?

That is actually a question, because I'd love to hear responses from folks who haven't internalized that the US did indeed engage in torture - and I am not attacking you for it if that's the case. I've possibly been laboring under a wildly inaccurate assumption.

"I genuinely didn't think there was still that much debate on this"

You'd be surprised. Many people will deny anything happens until CNN/NBC/Fox/Insert-Big-Media-Company-Here tells them otherwise. Because of that, we need more things like this, more sources of information we can point to and say "do you believe us now?"

Also, any time an official refuses to look into the past, in this case because it's not productive to "look backward", that's a pretty sure sign that somebody is hiding something (and this report proves it). No educated person on the planet truthfully believes that knowing and understanding the past is unproductive. Not one.

As Obama said, it is not productive to look back at our behavior. I mean, how horrible, what if we look back at what we did and analyze ourselves. "God" forbid, we might feel guilty or responsible. Heck, we might even learn not to repeat our mistakes, or worse prevent them in the future and who would want that to happen.

Surely no sane person would wish to inflict such pain upon themselves.

> "God" forbid, we might feel guilty or responsible.

If it's anything like previous immoral incidents give it 30-50 years. After all guilty parties have died off and any claims of restitution undeliverable. Look at slavery, the gov't only recently apologised for that act.

Some further reading:

"Report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners" prepared by the European Parliament (2009) [1].

"Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition" by the Open Society Justice Initiative (Feb 2013) [2]

[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/final_rep... [PDF]

[2] http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/globalizing-to...

Quite impressive and disturbing. I am glad to see the report. What I'd really like to see, though, are some indictments.

It's been over 10 years since we've had an impeachment. I'd say we're overdue.

You can sign up for a free .epub or .mobi version of this report to be available at the end of April.

http://detaineetaskforce.org/report/ebook/

The report is interesting, but what will be even more interesting is whether or not the US will have the strength to draw conclusions from this report and to hold those responsible accountable.

It won't be interesting, as the answer is clear already: absolutely not.

Unless you mean in like a hundred years, when all participants are dead.

The Obama Administration has not only refused to hold anybody accountable, but they've openly admitted some of the techniques were useful.

Enhanced interrogation is an official tool of the US Government at this point. Torture didn't go away, it got repackaged. To hold one group accountable is to burn the whole thing down. They won't do it.

Does anyone really think the blacksites are going away? In my observation, these types of things only change when there's large public uproar about it, and the American public is largely asleep at the wheel.

Much of the torture that occurred in Guantánamo, Afghanistan and Iraq was never explicitly authorized. But the authorization of the CIA’s techniques depended on setting aside the traditional legal rules that protected captives. And as retired Marine generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar have said, “any degree of ‘flexibility’ about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone — the rare exception fast becoming the rule.” (p12, abridged version)

What are these conversations normally like? Sort of a "Do what you can to get any information out of the suspect as I turn around and plug my ears." ?

I hate how they say this stuff isn't authorized from some high level.

"...Lawyers provided novel, if not acrobatic interpretations to allow the mistreatment of prisoners." (p13, abridged version)

> Sort of a "Do what you can to get any information out of the suspect as I turn around and plug my ears." ?

I would imagine so. There has to be a non-verbal or symbolic channel of communicating that then provides official deniability.

As an example take discrimination and at-will employment. Let's say the owners want to fire a gay guy. They can't fire him officially because of various discriminatory laws so they maybe invent a non-verbal or a code word 'restructuring' so they lay him off due to restructuring.

In general part of operating in large bureaucratic institution is to learn:

* what rules can be broken (break them if you like but don't force the management to make an official statement on it and don't ask permission on paper)

* what rules should be broken ("you need to torture this guy and it is illegal so we'll just use a euphemism -- 'interrogation' you know what I mean, I know you know what I mean, but we can never write that down in an email")

* what rules cannot be broken, official and un-official (some things are never tolerated what these are have to be discovered carefully as these might not all be written down, say who can disagree with the boss during a requirement meeting... it is not written down but if you are part of the wrong group, you won't fare well)

A frequent method of torture by US forces is to threaten to turn a captive over to allied domestic Police or Army forces. It is useful to look at the relevant UN conventions to understand what the legal definition of torture actually is.

For people questioning "Why" this investigation was conducted, here's a statement from the task force

    The events examined in this report are unprecedented in U.S. history. In the course of the 
    nation’s many previous conflicts, there is little doubt that some U.S. personnel committed brutal 
    acts against captives, as have armies and governments throughout history. 
    But there is no evidence there had ever before been the kind of considered and detailed 
    discussions that occurred after September 11, directly involving a president and his top 
    advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some 
    detainees in our custody.

Where is the big surprise? Is called Guantanamo... and Egypt/Libia/Siria's secret jails. Everybody knows that.

Not only did it happen, but it has been made official policy, relabeled as enhanced interrogation. There are very few in Congress or the White House willing to denounce it at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com