# So tell me again why we are releasing this CIA "torture" report?



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 8, 2014)

Okay so I'll let my dislike for the current administration show for a minute as I say again, I never imagined we would truly have a president who I genuinely believe hates this country.

If how I am feeling these days, is how the anti Bush 1 and 2 folks felt, no wonder they are always so angry and bitter.  F-me. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impe...eport-creates-fear-violence/story?id=27432670


----------



## Grunt (Dec 8, 2014)

To cause some inflammation and stir things up a little. 

To put it simply...to stir the pot.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2014)

Agoge said:


> To cause some inflammation and stir things up a little.
> 
> To put it simply...to stir the pot.


Yep, have to keep the base energised, and keeps attention away from other areas.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 8, 2014)

I guess he remembered that promise about "transparency" he made a while back :-"
This is a dumb move.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 8, 2014)

I'll play Advocate for a second. Is this Obama's fault or the CIA's for doing it in the first place?


----------



## Brill (Dec 8, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> I'll play Advocate for a second. Is this Obama's fault or the CIA's for doing it in the first place?



His fault for declassifying the report, which, by declassifying, will increase the personal safety risk to every American (and other Westerners too probably) overseas.

How is this NOT political payback for the mid-terms???


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 8, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> I'll play Advocate for a second. Is this Obama's fault or the CIA's for doing it in the first place?


Guess that depends on where you fall on the whole torture...errr..."Enhanced interrogation" debate. I know where I fall.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 8, 2014)

lindy said:


> His fault for declassifying the report, which, by declassifying, will increase the personal safety risk to every American (and other Westerners too probably) overseas.
> 
> How is this NOT political payback for the mid-terms???



Forgive my ignorance here but is the president who declassifies information? Not being snarky, I looked it up and was a bit confused.


----------



## pardus (Dec 8, 2014)

SpitfireV said:


> I'll play Advocate for a second. Is this Obama's fault or the CIA's for doing it in the first place?



Doing what? Waterboarding? It's a non issue that was made an issue by liberals. Waterboarding is not fucking torture. 
Also, so what if they did do more, even if they did things that truly are torture, they were authorized so who it's not the CIA's fault/problem. 
If they stepped over the line? Well, that's another kettle of fish.


----------



## CDG (Dec 8, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Forgive my ignorance here but is the president who declassifies information? Not being snarky, I looked it up and was a bit confused.



I was wondering the same thing.  I thought that was handled by someone else.  I found an Executive Order on it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information 

That being said, I do believe the President probably played a large role in this.  Even if he's not the one actually doing the de-classification, I believe he likely used plenty of pressure in order to make it happen.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 8, 2014)

This article claims that Feinstein and her buddies on the senate intelligence committee were behind the urge to release the report.  It also says that the administration welcomed the report, but also wanted to redact really big parts of it.  John Kerry (surprise!) warned of the foreign policy implications.  Obama has put the CIA in charge of redacting the report.

It really looks like Feinstein was the main thrust behind the report, and is breaking ranks with the administration.  Division within the ranks, perhaps?


----------



## Brill (Dec 8, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Forgive my ignorance here but is the president who declassifies information? Not being snarky, I looked it up and was a bit confused.



Per EO 13526, yes, but the authority is delegated.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2014)

The President as CinC can declassify anything he wants.


----------



## Red-Dot (Dec 8, 2014)

This POTUS should have his slogan as: "Ineptness, Idiocy, Lunacy, Change and Hope for the modern day Liberal"


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 8, 2014)

"So tell me again why we are releasing this CIA "torture" report?"

Because, our politicians like to play games against each other and can't comprehend the world outside of the political "bubble" they live in......


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 8, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This article claims that Feinstein and her buddies on the senate intelligence committee were behind the urge to release the report.  It also says that the administration welcomed the report, but also wanted to redact really big parts of it.  John Kerry (surprise!) *warned of the foreign policy implications*.  Obama has put the CIA in charge of redacting the report.
> 
> It really looks like Feinstein was the main thrust behind the report, and is breaking ranks with the administration.  Division within the ranks, perhaps?



Because releasing the details of when/where/how we collect intel is gonna be awesome for foreign policy!


----------



## Avnius (Dec 8, 2014)

The President has some loose lips people. I don't know why they let people with no military background whatsoever run our defense at all. But let's hope there is some sort of altruistic benefit to the releasing of such information (which I doubt after Neptune Spear) rather than politics and personal gain.


----------



## Red-Dot (Dec 9, 2014)

Here is a novel idea. Before you can serve as POTUS or any form of Defense Dept/Intel Dept leadership role you have to have served in the armed forces.


----------



## Lefty375 (Dec 9, 2014)

Red-Dot said:


> Here is a novel idea. Before you can serve as POTUS or any form of Defense Dept/Intel Dept leadership role you have to have served in the armed forces.



I have to go back to work very soon so maybe I can type out a long response later, but this is clearly a bad idea. Just because you decided to join the armed forces (which you weren't forced into doing) doesn't make you any more ready to be POTUS than someone who is a biologist. The one thing I think is terrible about some MIL guys is thinking just because we serve, it makes us any smarter at developing complicated foreign policy. Some of the stuff I read on a site I won't name directly, but writes articles on foreign policy from a SOF viewpoint are quite terrible, and some of the authors are 15-20 year vets of SOF.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 9, 2014)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dd1268-7f15-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html

Good column about it.


----------



## CPL B USMC (Dec 9, 2014)

This is horrible. Our interrogation methods are probably not anywhere close to those used on us upon capture. They are executing our POWs! I also find it really had to believe that our interrogation tactics led to no valuable intel. What a load of BS.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2014)

NYT has the first story about the report.  Pretty damning so far but nothing really crazy.  This is definitely not Church Report 2.0

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/1...ing-over-interrogation-program.html?referrer=

Sorry for the mobile version but I'm on my phone


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 9, 2014)

1:  does anyone believe for one minute that the exact techniques would not be used again if there were another attack on US soil?
(Although with this administration who knows, he might must order that we just ask nicely)

2:  who in their right mind would want to work for the CIA anymore?  They seem to be the punching bag for administration after administration. 

3:  I am reminded of this quote from "A Few Good Men". 
*Col. Jessup*: You fuckin' people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son."


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 9, 2014)

I thought it was about transparency in government.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 9, 2014)

Gypsy said:


> I thought it was about transparency in government.



Nice words, were't they. I suppose it could happen at some point; but this has nothing to do with transparency. This, at least to me, smacks of a misbehaving, petulant child who did not get his way.

What ever happened to his old, "let's have a beer" diplomacy?


----------



## CQB (Dec 9, 2014)

Mentioned by an obscure senate backbencher in the US is the circumstances it was done in, post 9/11. This says a lot IMO. We all know what occurred after the event. World wide US SF went everywhere looking for any & every threat. There was internally at CIA, so I'm led to believe, quite a debate about the downstream result, so here we are. 
I'm reading Cheneys biography currently & one passage which struck me was the kidnapping of William Buckley (no not William F.) who was CIA station chief in Beirut. 
The bad guys sent a vid of a drooling & incoherent man who had been tortured which Cheney saw and which affected him deeply. So as you can imaging, a whole reconfiguring took place in Beirut as a result. I'd say the VP had quite an input into the program. I'm pointing these points out as a reason, not necessarily an excuse.


----------



## HOLLiS (Dec 9, 2014)

Gypsy said:


> I thought it was about transparency in government.




A friend who was in the News business told me the worse time is when there is no news.   They would have to go out and find it.    One commentator stated that news service when down when it went to a 24hr/day 7 days a week service.   Then we have good old partisan politics in the media.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 9, 2014)

1.  I think the only reason this was released is to take the heat of the current administration for well, everything.
2.  I await with baited breath international condemnation from countries with an outstanding human rights record like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 9, 2014)

SOWT said:


> The President as CinC can declassify anything he wants.



What's really funny (Actually sad) is when it comes down to it, if he had to process, I don't think he'd pass an SSBI, let alone a YW.....or even a NAC. :-"


----------



## Brill (Dec 9, 2014)

Centermass said:


> What's really funny (Actually sad) is when it comes down to it, if he had to process, I don't think he'd pass an SSBI, let alone a YW.....or even a NAC. :-"



Gotta be an American to get a clearance.


----------



## Brill (Dec 9, 2014)

CIA's response was pretty much a "go fuck yourself".

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/cia-response/?hpt=hp_t1

In the response, CIA director John Brennan writes, "the Agency disagrees with the Study's *unqualified* assertions that the overall detention and interrogation program did not produce unique intelligence that led terrorist plots to be disrupted, terrorists to be captured, or lives to be saved."


----------



## JBS (Dec 9, 2014)

The report is total horseshit and so is its timed political hackery release date.  

This has nothing to do with saving lives or protecting the civilized world and everything to do with calculated political chess moves.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2014)

Can you explain why the timing is problematic?  I'm legitimately curious.  

For one, we don't have any elections for another two years so this will be gone from everyone's collective conscience by then.  The only thing I can really think of is a partisan attempt to slash the agency's budget, but I don't think that's even an issue until 2015.  So....what is it?


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Can you explain why the timing is problematic?  I'm legitimately curious.
> 
> For one, we don't have any elections for another two years so this will be gone from everyone's collective conscience by then.  The only thing I can really think of is a partisan attempt to slash the agency's budget, but I don't think that's even an issue until 2015.  So....what is it?


Gruber was being grilled by a House Committee.
This pushed that story off the lead.
Pure politics.


----------



## pardus (Dec 9, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Can you explain why the timing is problematic?  I'm legitimately curious.
> 
> For one, we don't have any elections for another two years so this will be gone from everyone's collective conscience by then.  The only thing I can really think of is a partisan attempt to slash the agency's budget, but I don't think that's even an issue until 2015.  So....what is it?



My .02c...

This is like publishing a report about the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo before the end of WWII.
I get that some people want to hear about it, but is that in the best interests of the country while we are still engaged in this conflict, and will give meaningful support to our enemies during a time of war?

Personally I blame Pres Obama in this case only for setting the framework for this to happen, that was a naive, shortsighted, stupid, liberal ideological move. That said, his administration is trying to fight/discourage this (via Kerry). Feinstien is the problem here, she is a vindictive, traitorous bitch looking for another headline and another bullet point for her liberal tell all book I'm waiting for her to release once she's out of office.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Gruber was being grilled by a House Committee.
> This pushed that story off the lead.
> Pure politics.


But that still doesn't make any sense.  The Gruber story is Obama's mess, with little or no repercussions for Feinstein, and the White House has shown that it really did not want this report being released right now.  It doesn't benefit them at all.



pardus said:


> My .02c...
> 
> This is like publishing a report about the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo before the end of WWII.
> I get that some people want to hear about it, but is that in the best interests of the country while we are still engaged in this conflict, and will give meaningful support to our enemies during a time of war?
> ...



I can buy the first and third parts, but looking at the highlighted section I'm curious as to why you think that.  I know you're not an Obama fan in general (hell, I'm not either these days), but it really seems like he has been trying to reign in the CIA for some time.  To me that says that he's been actively establishing framework against so-called torture for some time.  Or did you mean something else?


----------



## Scotth (Dec 9, 2014)

If this was about politics the report would have been released prior to the elections, not post elections.

Gruber was a nothing story beyond a d-bag talking out of his 4th point of contact.

If this was Obama driving the issue it would have been released prior to 2010.  6 year later this was about the Feinstein crusade and she banged plenty of heads with the administration over this report.

One side of me says we needed an accounting for the torture because it was wrong and isn't a great source of intel.  You torture someone enough they will tell you their Mom was on the grassy knoll and killed Kennedy.  On the other hand this report does nothing good for us internationally and just gives people an excuse to retaliate against our people.

It's a no win either way.


----------



## pardus (Dec 9, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> But that still doesn't make any sense.  The Gruber story is Obama's mess, with little or no repercussions for Feinstein, and the White House has shown that it really did not want this report being released right now.  It doesn't benefit them at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I can buy the first and third parts, but looking at the highlighted section I'm curious as to why you think that.  I know you're not an Obama fan in general (hell, I'm not either these days), but it really seems like he has been trying to reign in the CIA for some time.  To me that says that he's been actively establishing framework against so-called torture for some time.  Or did you mean something else?



What I meant was (I will caveat by saying i'm ignorant to this subject outside this thread, and I'm going off what's written in this thread and even then I haven't read it all because I'm not that interested to be honest...) that I read that the POTUS gave the authorization to release info like this (though not this specifically) in broad strokes.
I think he/his administration is trying to stop/delay this stupid report being released, which I applaud. I also think it's ironic that you say he's been trying to rein in the CIA, when he is _the _POTUS in modern times who has has them killing bad guys at a faster pace than anyone since Johnson/Nixon. I applaud him for that too.
Now I will bow to this being an ignorant and uninformed view, but it's all I've got and at this point in time, and all I want to give to the story.
I don't like Obama, true, but I don't want to lie and slander him either. I despise both sides when they do that and I'm not part of either.


----------



## pardus (Dec 9, 2014)

Scotth said:


> One side of me says we needed an accounting for the torture because it was wrong and isn't a great source of intel.  You torture someone enough they will tell you their Mom was on the grassy knoll and killed Kennedy.  On the other hand this report does nothing good for us internationally and just gives people an excuse to retaliate against our people.
> 
> It's a no win either way.



Tell me what torture happened?


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2014)

pardus said:


> Tell me what torture happened?


Most of the report was fairly tame, but there was also incredibly bizarre stuff like this







They basically raped this dude.

There's also a few instances of the report detailing agency incompotence or improper vetting


----------



## pardus (Dec 10, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Most of the report was fairly tame, but there was also incredibly bizarre stuff like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*If true*, that is really bad, and yeah torture, minor torture (in the scale of medieval torture, which is my template ), but horribly psychologically damaging and unforgivable.
Still from a culture of hazing that often manifests in a sexual manner, and one that forgives child rape, I'm not surprised, sickened, but not surprised.

After the shit I've gone through in this country, The next time a govt official tries to vett me for worthiness, I'm going to smash his nose into his face.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 10, 2014)

Scotth said:


> If this was about politics the report would have been released prior to the elections, not post elections.
> 
> Gruber was a nothing story beyond a d-bag talking out of his 4th point of contact.
> 
> ...



'IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, WE NEED NATIONAL DISCLOSURE"

And unless you know the ins and outs about enhanced interrogations and intelligence techniques, you haven't got a clue Scott.

Yeah, it is ABOUT FUCKING POLITICS. and yeah, it is about Gruber.

Yup. When it came to healthcare, everything was done behind closed doors and hid. and once finally, manufactured and rolled out, we finally starting learning as a nation what it really entailed. And when questioned, one minute, it's not a "Tax" then, when scrutinized after going before the supreme court...."Oh, your honors, it is a tax" Gee, how convenient. Meaning = "We can change it to suit the outcome and hide the truth"

Gruber made lots of money helping draft the legislation, all the while knowing the "Cadillac tax" on high-end health plans was envisioned to charge insurance companies rather than consumers, and knowing enrollees would get hit with higher prices in the end, as a result.

Transparent when it comes to agenda. Secretive when it comes to agenda, except for National Security. This administration has disclosed more classified information (Or info that should have remained that way) to the detriment of our nation, than any other in my lifetime.

January 2017 can't get here soon enough.

I'm glad that those who demonize and now condemn that, with which, they so fervently supported back after 9/11, have washed their hands of it all and can sleep at night.

As far as I'm concerned, Feinstein and the rest can go fuck themselves.


----------



## AWP (Dec 10, 2014)

CNN's take on this mess....What a trainwreck. Points 1 and 8 (mock executions and hummus enemas) bothered me the most until I read the report (which probably 99% of Americans won't). The mock executions jumped out at me because that IS a war crime, but how did that make it into the report?

The Committee, which presumably has lawyers on staff, used gossip.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

Page 56:



> Inspector General records of the interview of a senior CIA debriefer indicated that, "[d]uring the two weeks of interrogation training, *she heard stories of* [COBALT] detainees
> being 'hung for days on end,' not beingfed, mock assassinations, and at least one case of a detainee being repeatedly choked.



A single source rumor made it into the report? No one's bothered to figure out the context of this damning information? Her "testimony" wouldn't fly in court and it wouldn't even pass muster in a 7th Grade classroom, but the Senate Committee allowed that in as fact?

Vermin...


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 10, 2014)

I'm just still trying to figure out the answer to one question: *Exactly what did the United States gain by this action (the release of this report)?  *


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 10, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> CNN's take on this mess....What a trainwreck. Points 1 and 8 (mock executions and hummus enemas) bothered me the most until I read the report (which probably 99% of Americans won't). The mock executions jumped out at me because that IS a war crime, but how did that make it into the report?
> 
> The Committee, which presumably has lawyers on staff, used gossip.
> 
> ...


CIA Debriefer- Would that be considered an intel MOS in the Army?


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 10, 2014)

There is no way anyone should be sticking up for this release.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 10, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> There is no way anyone should be sticking up for this release.


It really seems like there are three main arguments in the public sphere right now:

1. The material in the report is incredibly damning and its release was very important

2. The material in the report is incredibly damning but it should not have been released

3.  The material in the report does not matter for [reasons given] and should not have been released.

I think every SS poster falls either falls into camp #2 or #3.

Personally, while I feel like the CIA's actions outlined in this report make it seem like a complete shitshow, I don't believe that releasing this report helps anything.  What would help is having a chief executive with enough spine to say "Yo, this was fucked up." and bring people up on charges.  Nobody went to jail as a result of the Church Committee, nothing of substance has been done since the revelation of the NSA's activities (at least the we in the public sphere know about).  I would start with that assclown John Yoo, and whoever failed to vet those dudes listed in the report.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 10, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It really seems like there are three main arguments in the public sphere right now:
> 
> 1. The material in the report is incredibly damning and its release was very important
> 
> ...


How do you know everything in the report is accurate?
Former CIA Chief was on TV this morning claiming they over 700 pieces of "Actionable Intel".
Some items seem legit (like cramming food up the guys ass), but others lack evidence, and no one interviewed had 1st hand knowledge


----------



## Gunz (Dec 10, 2014)

After 9-11 _everybody--_including Liberals--wanted revenge. Everybody wanted blood. Everybody wanted to find the terrorist cocksuckers that did this. I got no problem with rectal feeding. At least we fed the sonofabitch. I do have a problem with the release of this information, not because it shocks me because nothing related to war can shock me...but because it might get some of our people killed in retaliatory attacks and there's no excuse for that.

It was fuckin war.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 10, 2014)

SOWT said:


> How do you know everything in the report is accurate?
> Former CIA Chief was on TV this morning claiming they over 700 pieces of "Actionable Intel".
> Some items seem legit (like cramming food up the guys ass), but others lack evidence, and no one interviewed had 1st hand knowledge


I admit that we have no way of verifying whether or not this stuff is true.  Unless one was there, there is no way to verify.  However, the sheer amount of material presented here, as well as the CIA's actual acknowledgement of unspecified mistakes (seen here: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports...ormer_Detention_and_Interrogation_Program.pdf) lends credence to the notion that things were seriously fucked up.

EDIT: I haven't read the entire CIA response yet, but the BLUF is pretty telling so far.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 10, 2014)

SOWT said:


> How do you know everything in the report is accurate?
> Former CIA Chief was on TV this morning claiming they over 700 pieces of "Actionable Intel".
> Some items seem legit (like cramming food up the guys ass), but others lack evidence, and no one interviewed had 1st hand knowledge


 
Sometimes the appearance of accuracy is more important than accuracy itself... just ask any major news network.


----------



## Brill (Dec 10, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Most of the report was fairly tame, but there was also incredibly bizarre stuff like this
> 
> They basically raped this dude.
> 
> There's also a few instances of the report detailing agency incompotence or improper vetting



Is there ANYTHING in that report that is actually positive or praiseworthy?  If not, then the entire document MUST be discounted as biased CIA bashing and nothing more.


----------



## Rapid (Dec 10, 2014)

"Afghan President Asraf Ghani has said the CIA's brutal interrogation programme "violated all accepted norms of human rights in the world"."


----------



## Centermass (Dec 10, 2014)

Just another reason why this whole idea of releasing a so called "Report" not collaborated with anyone about, condemning methods that haven't been used in 8 yrs, and no punitive actions to be taken by anyone is tantamount to dumbshit in the 1st degree. Don't worry about the possible repercussions, backlash or anything else that may show itself in response you fucking dumbass.

Feinstein needs to have this hanging in her office from now on, staring at her constantly. Idiot.

McCain as well.


----------



## Brill (Dec 10, 2014)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...torture-reports-one-glaring-weakness/?hpid=z3


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 10, 2014)

lindy said:


> Is there ANYTHING in that report that is actually positive or praiseworthy?  If not, then the entire document MUST be discounted as biased CIA bashing and nothing more.


There might be, but the full report is nearly 6,000 pages long, and the declassified portion is somewhere in the neighborhood of 550 pages.  It's a long read.  The news media, being who they are, report on the negative stuff because that stuff sells.  Yeah, it's kind of a lame practice, but it does not mean that we ought to reject the report wholesale.  The things that the report points out, which have been corroborated by the CIA itself, should be enough to give one pause.  It should also serve as a reminder of what happens when we let fear dictate policy.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 10, 2014)

Centermass said:


> 'IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, WE NEED NATIONAL DISCLOSURE"
> 
> And unless you know the ins and outs about enhanced interrogations and intelligence techniques, you haven't got a clue Scott.
> 
> ...



First of all don't try to imply that I said, 'IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, WE NEED NATIONAL DISCLOSURE".  I said I had mixed feeling about the release.

Second, assuming it was all about knocking the Gruber story off the front page, tells us all what we missed yesterday and what was the "Big Discovery" from Gruber hearing?

Gruber didn't write the law or help write the law.  He did economic modeling to predict outcomes.

OMG the super duper secret squirrel Cadillac Insurance Tax plan that no one ever heard of because of the lack of transparency?  Funny a post from 2009 about that very thing.
http://ourfuture.org/files/documents/WatsonWyatt_2009_final.pdf

You might want to take the blinders off for your own sides actions on transparency.  Remember back in the lead up to the 2010 election when House Republicans promised to post all legislation online 72 hours before a vote, because they were all about transparency unlike Obama?  Do you have that online link to that House government funding bill they are planning on voting on tomorrow?


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 10, 2014)

Scotth said:


> You might want to take the blinders off for your own sides actions on transparency.  Remember back in the lead up to the 2010 election when House Republicans promised to post all legislation online 72 hours before a vote, because they were all about transparency unlike Obama?  Do you have that online link to that House government funding bill they are planning on voting on tomorrow?




Well, if you want to be picky about it, "your side" set the precedent on that.  When in Rome, and what not.  Frankly, I don't think that there's two sides in the manner that people think.  Republican, Democrat, all paid by the highest bidder.  The only other side is the unwashed, unelected masses (in other words, us).  

Remember when San Fran Nan promised to drain the swamp of corruption when she became Speaker of the House?  Or do you try to forget that one?  The corruption has run deep for a while.  I'm surprised the Repubs have only now abandoned the 72 hour promise when the Dems didn't care about it to begin with.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 11, 2014)

Scotth said:


> First of all don't try to imply that I said, 'IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, WE NEED NATIONAL DISCLOSURE".  I said I had mixed feeling about the release.
> 
> Second, assuming it was all about knocking the Gruber story off the front page, tells us all what we missed yesterday and what was the "Big Discovery" from Gruber hearing?
> 
> ...


I remember a Presidential Candidate from Illinois saying laws would be posted on the internet for 10 days prior to signing, how long was ACA posted for???

As far as Gruber, what we learned is the people writing the law lied and obfuscated the facts to hide the true cost to the taxpayer.  We also learned that Gruber won't discuss his salary, saying we need to talk to his lawyer to find out how much he made, which begs the question: What could be incriminating about a pay check?


----------



## Gunz (Dec 11, 2014)

lindy said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...torture-reports-one-glaring-weakness/?hpid=z3


 
_"A more honest report would have squarely faced the arguments made by former CIA officials that key members of Congress were informed about interrogation practices and, far from objecting, condoned the very CIA activities we now judge to have been wrong."_

Like I said, e_verybody _wanted blood and didn't care how they got it, even liberals.

This is historical hindsight. If you want to find heinous "criminal" acts perpetrated by our government (or any other government for that matter) you need only go back in time. How is the rectal feeding of a few terrorists any more atrocious than firebombing entire cities? It's too freaking easy to point fingers at the past, and too unfair to judge desperate actions of war by the civilized standards and political slants of a new day.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 11, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> Well, if you want to be picky about it, "your side" set the precedent on that.  When in Rome, and what not.  Frankly, I don't think that there's two sides in the manner that people think.  Republican, Democrat, all paid by the highest bidder.  The only other side is the unwashed, unelected masses (in other words, us).
> 
> Remember when San Fran Nan promised to drain the swamp of corruption when she became Speaker of the House?  Or do you try to forget that one?  The corruption has run deep for a while.  I'm surprised the Repubs have only now abandoned the 72 hour promise when the Dems didn't care about it to begin with.



Whole heartily agree that both parties hands are just as dirty as the other on a whole set of issues.  Money corrupts both sides.  Both sides are going to vote to pass increased contribution limits for big donor which is disappointing to say the least.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 11, 2014)

SOWT said:


> I remember a Presidential Candidate from Illinois saying laws would be posted on the internet for 10 days prior to signing, how long was ACA posted for???
> 
> As far as Gruber, what we learned is the people writing the law lied and obfuscated the facts to hide the true cost to the taxpayer.  We also learned that Gruber won't discuss his salary, saying we need to talk to his lawyer to find out how much he made, which begs the question: What could be incriminating about a pay check?



Can you cite that first comment, I have never heard of such a promise?

As far as the second point, come on.  Has there ever been a law that has received even a fraction of the scrutiny that the ACA received?  It took a year to pass and has been under severe scrutiny for 5 years now.  The CBO has scored the law every year since before it was passed.  People knew exactly what was going on or they had the ability to find out what was going on.

If your concerned about Gruber's consulting contracts then subpoena them.  The government got the records, but even then you subpoena them and that gets you what?


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Dec 11, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Has there ever been a law that has received even a fraction of the scrutiny that the ACA received?



I would rank the DMCA right up there with it.  I don't believe it was scrutinized as much politically since it meant bigger gov't, but I think it was scrutinized more by the general public than the ACA.


----------



## pardus (Dec 11, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Can you cite that first comment, I have never heard of such a promise?



It was 5 days...

I knew all those promises he was making as Senator were all BS, I'm still stunned that anyone fell for his empty and ultimately false rhetoric. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/update_on_sunlight_before_signing



> February 06, 2009
> 03:39 PM EST
> As we've noted on the blog, the President has signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. We've also published the DTV Delay Act of 2009.
> Since a few questions have come in, we want to update you on the President's campaign commitment to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting non-emergency legislation online for five days before signing it. This policy will be implemented in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.
> The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 11, 2014)

SOWT said:


> I remember a Presidential Candidate from Illinois saying laws would be posted on the internet for 10 days prior to signing, how long was ACA posted for???





Scotth said:


> Can you cite that first comment, I have never heard of such a promise?



There's probably a lot of things you never heard him say Scott or remember. And just because you didn't doesn't mean he never did. I heard him say it as well during his campaign. He also promised all of the proceedings would not only be open, but televised to the public on C-Span. I just did a scrub search and found it.

From Back In 2009 No Less



Scotth said:


> As far as the second point, come on.  Has there ever been a law that has received even a fraction of the scrutiny that the ACA received?



Wanna know why? Because most Americans with a just a modicum of common sense knew the pack of lies that would be needed to sell everyone this tainted bill of goods. Like your health plan? You can keep it. Like your doctor? You can keep your doctor. Wanna sign up? Go to our sooper dooper website for your next surprise.......



Scotth said:


> People knew exactly what was going on or they had the ability to find out what was going on.



Let me refresh your memory Scott. The hearings were closed. They not only went on behind closed doors, but those doors were also closed with the minority party locked out.

Gruber wasn't paid for nothing. And the fact is he made the comments he did, is for the very reason we are here today with this ungodly mess. 

And no, WE DIDN'T KNOW. We had a hunch, that was all. And that was it was going to boil down to a single payer system, which we were promised it would not. Hell, even Harry and Barney admitted that was the end goal and it was never about obamacare.

So keep defending this apologetic administration who continues to weaken the American Landscape from within and in the eyes of the world. It's a damn shame.

As for the condemnation of the CIA, it was politics, aka Political Theater, first by Feinstein and now by her ass kissing colleague from CA, Congresswoman Jackie Speier.. she can go fuck herself too as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 11, 2014)

pardus said:


> It was 5 days...
> 
> I knew all those promises he was making as Senator were all BS, I'm still stunned that anyone fell for his empty and ultimately false rhetoric.
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/update_on_sunlight_before_signing



Thanks


----------



## CBA (Dec 11, 2014)

I heard on the radio yesterday (Bill Bennet, I think) that the timing was due to the fact that once January comes around, the Democrats would not have the authority to release the report and the Republicans wouldn't release it. So yes, political in nature, but not necessarily because of Gruber. 

I did enjoy watching Trey Gowdy grill Gruber, though.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 11, 2014)

CBA said:


> I heard on the radio yesterday (Bill Bennet, I think) that the timing was due to the fact that once January comes around, the Democrats would not have the authority to release the report and the Republicans wouldn't release it. So yes, political in nature, but not necessarily because of Gruber.
> 
> I did enjoy watching Trey Gowdy grill Gruber, though.


It's possible, but unlikely.  Yes the republicans would gain one more seat on the committee as per the rules, but it's important to note that the committee voted to release the report back in April, on a vote of 11-3.  The vote to approve the report was considerably tighter, at 9-6, but the release vote had strong bipartisan support so I don't think that another Republican member would have changed anything.

http://opensocietypolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SSCI-CIA-Torture-Report-FAQ.pdf

By the way, thanks for that explanation.  I actually had to go and read the rules of procedure for the committee and learned quite a bit from it.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 11, 2014)

CBA said:


> I heard on the radio yesterday (Bill Bennet, I think) that the timing was due to the fact that once January comes around, the Democrats would not have the authority to release the report and the Republicans wouldn't release it. So yes, political in nature, but not necessarily because of Gruber.
> 
> I did enjoy watching Trey Gowdy grill Gruber, though.



Exactly


----------



## TH15 (Dec 11, 2014)




----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 11, 2014)

Always liked Scheuer....


----------



## Gypsy (Dec 11, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Feinstein needs to have this hanging in her office from now on, staring at her constantly. Idiot.
> 
> McCain as well.



Maybe someone should send it to them... :-"


----------



## Muppet (Dec 15, 2014)

F.M.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 15, 2014)

^^^

The boot in the crotch is a nice touch.


----------



## Florida173 (Dec 16, 2014)

Has this been brought up? The conclusions of the 600 page report are contested by some of the Senate Republicans. They wrote a 160 page minority opinion that refutes most of the premises of the other report. A much better read.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 16, 2014)

Florida173 said:


> Has this been brought up? The conclusions of the 600 page report are contested by some of the Senate Republicans. They wrote a 160 page minority opinion that refutes most of the premises of the other report. A much better read.
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy3.pdf


Damnit!  So much to reeeeeeeeead.
Politico sums it up pretty well http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-senators-defend-cia-alternate-report-113434.html


----------



## Brill (Dec 16, 2014)

Now it's a "he said, she said" that's worse than the Bill Cosby fiasco.  At least Cosby will be able to confront his accusers and be judged by his peers.  EITs just have the whackos on youtube and some Senator from California saying government is all bad.


----------



## Etype (Dec 16, 2014)

Back when we used to win wars, no politician would dare disclose what the OSS, or 1 SSF was doing.  Now, we call treason heroism.


----------



## Florida173 (Dec 18, 2014)

The interview with one of the men who interrogated KSM.  Living down here in Tampa.. I'll have to shake his hand one day if I see him around bad monkey.  Although I'm thinking that he's probably gonna lay low for a bit, especially after being thrown under the bus.


----------



## pardus (May 27, 2015)

The Senate Democrats are lowlife scum for releasing this "report"  IMO.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 16, 2016)

DuffleBlog and The Onion were going to run a similar story last year but thought it too preposterous,  even for them.

This is just so amazing - 

"We accidentally deleted our only copy"  

Doh-Kay! 

_ The CIA’s internal watchdog has accidentally deleted its only copy of the controversial “torture report” outlining the agency's use of enhanced interrogations techniques, the latest wrinkle in the saga over the report’s publication._

CIA watchdog 'accidentally' deletes copy of report on interrogation methods | Fox News


----------



## Gunz (May 16, 2016)

Good. Hopefully it's beyond recovery. We were at war. Bad shit happens. Show me a war where we haven't used excessive methods. Is it effective? Arguable. Still, this shit needs to get buried.


----------



## Gunz (May 16, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> "So tell me again why we are releasing this CIA "torture" report?"
> 
> Because, our politicians like to play games against each other and can't comprehend the world outside of the political "bubble" they live in......



QFT


----------



## Frank S. (May 16, 2016)

This is kind of old, by now. Still, you'll recall the double whammy suffered by the Japanese porn industry in recent years.
First, when "my pet goat" exploded in Central Asia, giving prominence and legitimacy to theses countries' porn brand, and then when "disaster porn" failed in Japan: videos emulating the 2011 Tsunami with JAV idols rolling around swirling, bubbling vats of shit and piss.
Bukkake remained solid, but something had to be done not just to reclaim, but to increase market share.
So evidently, they tried a reboot, which continues today, with torture porn, BDSM, etc.
The White House honored the special relationship by leaking the report, since the porn industry relies heavily on world news item: we all need the ability to claim we buy smut just for the articles, do we not?

This, by the way, is Anoosheh (probably not her real name), the biggest Afghan porn star at the moment:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 16, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Good. Hopefully it's beyond recovery. We were at war. Bad shit happens. Show me a war where we haven't used excessive methods. Is it effective? Arguable. Still, this shit needs to get buried.



What happens in boys town stays in boys town!


----------



## Gunz (May 16, 2016)

The first rule of Fightclub is...


----------



## Frank S. (May 16, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The first rule of Fightclub is...



... If it moves, fuck it.
If it doesn't move, and has no pulse, fuck it then sew on your purple wings.


----------



## Frank S. (May 16, 2016)

Frank S. said:


> JAV idols rolling around swirling, bubbling vats of shit and piss.



Have you hugged a turd today?

Maybe not, but probably in the past week. And fo sho', you will vote one in next November and spend the following 4 to 8 years trying to flush it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 23, 2016)

Thought this was a pretty interesting article about interrogation techniques.  Makes me wonder if Hans Landa (Inglourious Basterds) was based on him.

FBI gets an unexpected lesson in interrogation from a former Nazi


----------

