4 ms·

Where's that quote from? I can't find it in the report. What I did find, on page 101 is this: "Over the course ofthe CIA program, at least 39 detainees were

Where's that quote from? I can't find it in the report. What I did find, on page 101 is this: "Over the course ofthe CIA program, at least 39 detainees were subjected to one or more of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.CIA records indicate that there were at least 17 CIA detainees who were subjected to one or more CIA enhanced interrogation techniques without CIA Headquarters approval. This count includes detainees who were approved for the use of some techniques, but were subjected to unapproved techniques, as well as detainees for whom interrogators had no approvals to use any of the techniques" This passage indicates that those 17 tortured outside the approval process are accounted for. I don't see anything showing there were others outside the 39.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
at least 39 detainees I don't see anything showing there were others outside the 39 Rather than give my honest opinion here, which would no doubt end up in a kindly word by dang, may I just ask you to run a basic boolean check over your posts before hitting 'reply'. edit - the part you have such difficulty locating is from the exact same section you quoted, just a little further on, page 104.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Your snark aside, "at least 39" doesn't indicate there are more than 39. Also, the bit you quoted from page 104 is in reference to a list of the 17 tortured without authorization. So it also doesn't indicate there were more than 39 total
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    It starts with: This list does not include examples in which CIA inten-ogators were authorized to use the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, but then implemented the techniques in a manner that diverged from the authorization. How can it be referring to the 17 where no authorization was sought, when it specifically states it is talking about authorized interrogations? And in common meaning, if you say 'at least 39', you are giving a low-end estimate, not a known total.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      The list starts on page 101 and is prefaced by this: "The 17 detainees who were subjected to techniques without the approval of CIA Headquarters were: (...)", and then it lists them by name. Then there's the part you're quoting, which is quite clearly stating that the list of 17 isn't counting cases where EIT was authorized, but the techniques were not implemented as authorized. This isn't surprising since the list of 17 is of people who weren't authorized for EIT at all. If they were authorized, they're not listed as being unauthorized, even if the techniques used went beyond the authorization. It's really very simple if you read the document. There's no question that section you quoted is referring to the list of 17.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

at least 39 detainees I don't see anything showing there were others outside the 39 Rather than give my honest opinion here, which would no doubt end up in a kindly word by dang, may I just ask you to run a basic boolean check over your posts before hitting 'reply'. edit - the part you have such difficulty locating is from the exact same section you quoted, just a little further on, page 104.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Your snark aside, "at least 39" doesn't indicate there are more than 39. Also, the bit you quoted from page 104 is in reference to a list of the 17 tortured without authorization. So it also doesn't indicate there were more than 39 total
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  It starts with: This list does not include examples in which CIA inten-ogators were authorized to use the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, but then implemented the techniques in a manner that diverged from the authorization. How can it be referring to the 17 where no authorization was sought, when it specifically states it is talking about authorized interrogations? And in common meaning, if you say 'at least 39', you are giving a low-end estimate, not a known total.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    The list starts on page 101 and is prefaced by this: "The 17 detainees who were subjected to techniques without the approval of CIA Headquarters were: (...)", and then it lists them by name. Then there's the part you're quoting, which is quite clearly stating that the list of 17 isn't counting cases where EIT was authorized, but the techniques were not implemented as authorized. This isn't surprising since the list of 17 is of people who weren't authorized for EIT at all. If they were authorized, they're not listed as being unauthorized, even if the techniques used went beyond the authorization. It's really very simple if you read the document. There's no question that section you quoted is referring to the list of 17.