In general, I applaud the torture report and the spirit of transparency demonstrated by self-questioning U.S,. motives and results of such horrid actions by the CIA and their contractors.. But…
1. Critics seem to have a point when they question why the report does not contain a “defense” of the actions taken by the CIA, et al. That looks like partisan politics, which is Dick Cheney’s challenge. Why didn’t the report include testimony or evidence countering the charges?
2. When one opponent pointed out that, scurrilous tough the U.S. torture was, that if it were applied as a standard universally, the U.S. actions would actually raise the level of treatment of such prisoners by many other nations. We know that is true. Why was that perspective absent in the report?
3. Most un-nerving to me is the question: If the level of mistreatment of prisoners by US intelligence agencies is so venal, then why is not the killing and maiming of militants and innocents by armed forces, in direct and clandestine combat, including by drones and bombing, not equally or more greatly condemned?
Apple Pressings 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 11, 2014 at 12:08
Tony Bielat
I agree with your three points, Chuck. But check this out … it cracked me up:
http://www.mysite.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=promo1&utm_campaign=%20sale
December 11, 2014 at 12:15
Tony Bielat
Chuck … sorry I can’t get the link in my previous post to work. It was a cartoon … out front of the George W. Bush Presidential Library is an elaborate fountain of a terrorist being waterboarded. You have to see it to appreciate it.
December 11, 2014 at 12:16
applewoody
Love it!
December 11, 2014 at 15:15
Ed Kelly
Good balance, Chuck…
Sent from my iPad
>
December 13, 2014 at 13:10
sauraandlimon
A short response to your first point: I am convinced that the reason was simply that there is no evidence that proves that coercive interrogation works. This is why no defense of the CIA’s operations was included in the report: because its authors, after looking into the matter for years, just couldn’t find ANY evidence that “enhanced interrogation techniques” produced intelligence that traditional approaches didn’t. Abu Zubaydah talked to FBI agents long before the CIA came along with its brutal methods. The report is clear about that, and FBI agents involved in the interrogation of Zubaydah, for example agent Ali Soufan, confirm that. Former CIA and FBI agents have often said aggressive interrogation tactics have produced no useful intelligence (see http://thinkprogress.org/report/why-enhanced-interrogation-failed ). And there is no evidence that links “enhanced interrogation” to the location of Osama bin Laden.
So the report doesn’t defend the use of these methods because they have been proven to be ineffective. If you look a the facts, there simply is no way of defending the techniques without ignoring the facts.
December 13, 2014 at 14:03
applewoody
I agree, except have impression report authors did not attempt to capture the other view, not that such “evidence” world prove compelling.