5 ms·

"Enhanced interrogation" was not "torture". Before starting the program, the CIA asked the Justice Department to take the definition of torture from the Geneva

"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.

sammorrowdrums 10y ago
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.
- arethuza 10y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques
  - secfirstmd 10y ago
    And collusion with Libyan torturers more recently https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/09/dispatches-still-no-justice-uks-role-rendition-and-torture https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/09/dispatches-still-no-just...
- secfirstmd 10y ago
  Pretty sure most normal people and countries consider it torture.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  We do see eye to eye, it's considered torture in the US too.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    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-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-p...
pdkl95 10y ago
> 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_report_on_CIA_torture#Examples_of_torture_and_abuse_of_prisoners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
- joshuaheard 10y ago
  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.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > 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.
pessimizer 10y ago
Just because you think John Yoo's opinion is due process doesn't mean that anyone else has to.
parenthephobia 10y ago
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.
- Moru 10y ago
  To be honest I believe a lot of people are biased against torture.
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    Clearly not enough (or enough of the right ones I guess).
pmoriarty 10y ago
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.
philovivero 10y ago
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.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Shortly after 9/11... I was down-voted to oblivion... Just out of curiosity, what forum was this?

sammorrowdrums 10y ago

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.

arethuza 10y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques
- secfirstmd 10y ago
  And collusion with Libyan torturers more recently https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/09/dispatches-still-no-justice-uks-role-rendition-and-torture https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/09/dispatches-still-no-just...
secfirstmd 10y ago
Pretty sure most normal people and countries consider it torture.
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
We do see eye to eye, it's considered torture in the US too.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  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-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-p...

pdkl95 10y ago

> 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_report_on_CIA_torture#Examples_of_torture_and_abuse_of_prisoners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...

joshuaheard 10y ago
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.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > 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.

pessimizer 10y ago

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

parenthephobia 10y ago

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.

Moru 10y ago
To be honest I believe a lot of people are biased against torture.
- soylentcola 10y ago
  Clearly not enough (or enough of the right ones I guess).

pmoriarty 10y ago

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.

philovivero 10y ago

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.

jessaustin 10y ago
Shortly after 9/11... I was down-voted to oblivion... Just out of curiosity, what forum was this?