After examining 20 case studies, the investigators found that torture “regularly resulted in fabricated information”, said committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, in a statement summarizing the findings. She called the torture program “a stain on our values and on our history”.

“During the brutal interrogations the CIA was often unaware the information was fabricated.” She told the Senate the torture program was “morally, legally and administratively misguided” and “far more brutal than people were led to believe”.

At least 17 detainees were tortured without the approval from CIA headquarters that ex-director George Tenet assured the DOJ would occur. And at least 26 of the CIA’s estimated 119 detainees, the committee found, were “wrongfully held.”

rickyp wrote:We debated this at length some time ago. It would be interesting to look at that debate in light of the Senate report...

The CIA members at the time are also protesting the conclusions

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:We debated this at length some time ago. It would be interesting to look at that debate in light of the Senate report...

It would be helpful. Although most media haven't mentioned that the minority members of the committee (i.e. Republicans) do not agree with the report. The CIA members at the time are also protesting the conclusions and that they were not adequately consulted.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the report. (In general, I'm anti torture, although there are times ...) I am posting because it is important that we understand the context. On the one hand it is an exhaustive study. On the other hand, it is the Democratic Party's view as the Democrats still hold the Senate (but won't in a month). My sense is that most media are reporting it as an independent and non-biased study. It's not quite that.

Now that he leads the CIA, Brennan has returned to his original conclusion: The truth is on his agency’s side. In a statement responding to the public release of the report’s official summary Tuesday, Brennan defended his agency — and the fruits of severe interrogation practices.

Enhanced interrogation techniques “did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives, Brennan said, citing an unreleased internal CIA review.

“The intelligence gained from the program,” he added, “was critical to our understanding of al Qaeda and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/j ... z3LW2ldDMl

rickyp wrote:ray

The CIA members at the time are also protesting the conclusions

They would would't they?

Ray Jay wrote: Personally, I'd like to know the truth and have our policies based on that after rationale and fair discourse. However, this seems to be just one more political document. I wish I were wrong.

I have participated in two extensive investigations into intelligence failures, once when Aldrich Ames was discovered to be spying for Russia after he had done substantial damage to our human intelligence collection capability and another following the 9/11 attacks. In both cases we were very critical of the practices of the intelligence agencies. In both cases we avoided partisan pressure to blame the opposing party. In both cases Congress made statutory changes and the agencies changed their policies. It didn't make things perfect, but it did make them better.

In both of these efforts the committee staff examined documents and interviewed all of the individuals involved. The Senate's Intelligence Committee staff chose to interview no one. Their rationale - that some officers were under investigation and could not be made available – is not persuasive. Most officers were never under investigation and for those who were, the process ended by 2012.

Fairness should dictate that the examination of documents alone do not eliminate the need for interviews conducted by the investigators. Isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them. . .

The worse (sic) consequence of a partisan report can be seen in this disturbing fact: It contains no recommendations. This is perhaps the most significant missed opportunity, because no one would claim the program was perfect or without its problems. But equally, no one with real experience would claim it was the completely ineffective and superfluous effort this report alleges.

Our intelligence personnel – who are once again on the front lines fighting the Islamic State – need recommended guidance from their board of governors: The U.S. Congress. Remarkably this report contains none.

However, the issue for me is that the media is portraying the report as the final say as if it were completed by an independent panel of experts who have no agenda of their own

Udall said a never-released internal CIA report begun under the agency's previous director, Leon Panetta, in fact supported many of the Senate's findings. But, he said, the CIA sought to bury it -- even taking the inflammatory step of spying on Senate staffers to find out how they gained access to it. That surveillance was the subject of a CIA inspector general report that found the agency had acted improperly.

An acknowledge by part of the US government.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

An acknowledge by part of the US government.

Yes, the Democratic part.

The partisan nature of the divide over the Senate report undoubtedly means it will not come close to ending the debate over the C.I.A. program. But one notable exception to the Democrat-Republican split, for many years and again on Tuesday, was Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who repeatedly called for the Senate report to be made public. His experience being tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam has made him perhaps the most outspoken foe of torture in Congress.

Mr. McCain praised the report his fellow Republicans were lambasting, saying the C.I.A.’s conduct “stained our national honor” and had done “much harm and little practical good

rickyp wrote:

The partisan nature of the divide over the Senate report undoubtedly means it will not come close to ending the debate over the C.I.A. program. But one notable exception to the Democrat-Republican split, for many years and again on Tuesday, was Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who repeatedly called for the Senate report to be made public. His experience being tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam has made him perhaps the most outspoken foe of torture in Congress.

Mr. McCain praised the report his fellow Republicans were lambasting, saying the C.I.A.’s conduct “stained our national honor” and had done “much harm and little practical good

I think McCain will get the last word.

rickyp wrote:Hayden ?

A look at then-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden's testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 12, 2007, compared with the extensive summary on the CIA's interrogation and detention program, released on Tuesday

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... testimony/