CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 09, 2014 08:37 AM UTC

Tensions High As CIA Torture Report Nears Release

  • 32 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).

UPDATE #3: Republicans angrily pushing back against the Intelligence Committee's report, MSNBC:

GOP members of the committee who withdrew their support for its investigation released their own 167-page “minority views” response to the Democratic report, arguing that the detention and interrogation program “saved lives and played a vital role in weakening al Qa-ida.”

The dissenting committee members – Sens. Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, Jim Risch, Daniel Coats, Marco Rubio and Tom Coburn – are just some of the many Republican lawmakers up in arms over the comprehensive review of controversial CIA interrogation techniques, which they warned would lead to violent reprisals that would endanger American personnel and jeopardize intelligence interests.

“I cannot think of a greater disservice to our men and women serving in the military and in our intelligence field than to hand terror groups like ISIL another recruiting tool and excuse to target them,” Republican Sen. John Cornyn said in statement issued Tuesday. “Due to the political calculations of some, the American people and our allies across the globe are less safe today than they were before.”

The CIA and it supporters also went on the offensive Tuesday, with the publication of a pro-interrogation op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, as well as the creation of a website, “CIA Saved Lives,” by former agency officials.

—–

UPDATE #2: Here's the report.

—–

UPDATE: Sen. Mark Udall via Twitter responds to today's report:

Udall's full statement:

Mark Udall, who led efforts to hold the White House, CIA and intelligence agencies accountable to the American people, welcomed the declassification today of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's exhaustive study of the CIA's brutal, ineffective and misguided detention and interrogation program.

The Senate Intelligence Committee released the executive summary of the report today following months of negotiations with the White House and CIA — a process Udall fought to keep moving forward. Udall also had threatened to take any step necessary to get the truth out if negotiators for the committee and executive branch could not reach an accord that kept faith with the important transparency the report represents.

"The release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program is an historic victory for our nation, the Constitution, and our system of checks and balances. This study ensures that the truth about the CIA’s brutal torture program finally comes out and that the agency can learn from its repeated missteps and start to restore its integrity," Udall said. "My goal from day one has been holding the CIA accountable, shedding light on this dark chapter of our history, and ensuring neither the CIA nor any future administration would make these grievous mistakes ever again. The report released today achieves those goals and affirms that we are a nation that does not hide from its past, but learns from it.

"We can protect our national security without compromising who we are as Americans. This landmark study — and the millions of pages of agency documents and testimony it is based upon — shows that torture is not effective and does not make us safer."

Udall has been the leading proponent of swiftly declassifying the Senate Intelligence Committee's exhaustive study on the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Following the Senate Intelligence Committee's vote this spring to declassify the study, Udall called on the White House to speed declassification of the study and prevent the CIA from interfering with its public release.

Udall also has aggressively pushed back on intelligence officials and anonymous leaks that have sought to discredit the Senate Intelligence Committee's study and prevent the truth about the CIA's brutal torture program from coming out.

—–

CNN:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques to be released Tuesday concludes that the CIA tortured detainees and that torture did not yield actionable intelligence, Sen. Angus King said Tuesday.

"Did we torture people? Yes. Did it work? No," King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, said on CNN's "New Day".

King, who is a member of the committee, called the extensive report "chilling" and said it will show the world that the U.S. is repudiating those practices used in the post-9/11 era under President George W. Bush's tenure.

"This is not America. This is not who we are," King said. "What was done diminished our stature and enflamed [Islamist extremists], terrorists around the world."

The report is being released over cries from other lawmakers and intelligence officials who say the report could endanger American personnel abroad.

Last Friday, Esquire published an interview with outgoing Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, who says Americans will be "disgusted" with this report–and also vows that if today's release doesn't satisfy him, he could use other options to ensure the report's findings are fully disclosed. Sen. Udall's long fight against excesses committed by the U.S. government in the name of fighting terrorism, in both the U.S. House and Senate, are likely to go down as his defining legacy:

[Scott Raab]: Is there any reason not to do that? Not do what Mike Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers? What is the tightrope there? You got a $40 million 6,300-page report, right?

[Mark Udall]: Yes.

SR: And all the pressure’s on you right now to—

MU: I have made it clear over the last couple of weeks—if the report is not declassified in a way that’s transparent and shines a bright light on what we did, then I will consider using all and any options.

SR: I’ve heard this before.

MU: And right now, we are at the point where I’m still optimistic that the White House, working with a committee, is going to do the right thing, which is to declassify the report in a way that’s understandable and transparent. And so I’m working through what we call regular order here in Washington. But if, in my opinion, the report is either—obviously, if it’s not released, then I’m gonna use every power I have, because it’s too important. It’s too historic. And we can’t afford to repeat the mistakes to let this slide.

We'll update this post as developments warrant.

Tweet
Share

Comments

32 thoughts on “Tensions High As CIA Torture Report Nears Release”

    1. It's torture . . . 

      . . . I mean, it's gotta' be torture for Cheney . . . 

      . . . having his previously hidden war crimes, crimes against humanity being exposed to the light of day.  

      . . . nothing worse for a criminal than being found out. 

    2. We can't use that as an excuse trash our constitution.  We can't say we have to keep lying and covering up for fear of making bad people mad. We are obligated to obey our laws and uphold our values even if that means taking risks for them. What about all that strutting you righties do about being proud to be an American and honoring those willing to die for their country?

      In this case there is no evidence that torture made us safer and much that it did just what you said; cost American lives by fueling terrorist recruiting. Throughout history torture has been a technique to get compliance, not accurate information. It's for occasions such as when Henry VIII wanted to get rid of Anne Boleyn and used torture to get various young gentlemen of the court, including her own brother, to "confess"' to having had sex with her, regardless of the truth. It's for when a king thinks a lord is getting too powerful and represents a threat to get others to claim they heard said lord plotting treason, regardless of the truth. It's to get people to confess to being witches or point to others as witches, regardless of the truth. It's to get journalists to confess to being spies, regardless of the truth.

      It is impossible that a technique specifically designed to get people to say whatever the torturer needs them to say, regardless of the truth, to also be a reliable technique for uncovering the truth.

      It never made us safer and, after all this time, those who claim it did have not offered a single documented example of saving lives in a ticking time bomb situation or getting information leading to the breaking up of a plot or capture of a terrorist leader by means of torture and torture alone. In fact they have done everything they can to destroy any  documentation connected with the torture program. Still, solid evidence exits that there are many more reliable, effective methods for obtaining accurate actionable information and that torture is among the least reliable. Period. But here's the kicker. Even if it worked, which it doesn't, we would still be honor bound to reject it as Americans. We would be honor bound to accept the risks, including a possible terrorist attack.

      If doing the right thing now and making sure this never happens again carries any degree of danger we have to accept it. Aren't you TPers supposed to be super brave patriots willing to stand up for America? Well what do you think that means? It means we are proud to take risks to defend our bedrock principles. It means we don't surrender what it means to be an American when defending it gets scary.  Do you want us to be patriots or cowards?

      1. M probably has one of those little printed Constitutions in his pocket to whip out all the time, as he is ignoring it, like Hannity and those other fools.

        2. Too many errors to apologize for each one. Didn't have time to edit. but the worst is exits instead of exists. Hope it was all somewhat intelligible. 

      2. You're wrong. The truth is we'll never know how many lives have been saved by standing up to terrorism, but I for one want terrorists to be so afraid of what is going to happen to them if they attack the United States that they think twice. I want there to be deep, dark holes for terrorists that we'll never know about. That makes me feel safe.

        Our constitutional rights are for Americans, not our enemies. They will not grant us rights if the situation is reversed.

        1. Than you, sir, are a coward.  The United States holds itself to a higher moral standard than our enemies, and we often live up to that standard.  We will even sacrifice lives to maintain that standard.  This sometimes necessitates not employing tactics that we as a society find reprehensible such as sodomizing individuals in order to cause shame and humiliation.  To condone these tactics is to spit on the grave of every American who has suffered the brutality of torture at the hands of our enemies.  

          There are those of us who find terrorists cowering in deep, dark holes and plunge into those holes not because we are unafraid, but because we judge that it is more important to do so than to be unafraid.  Than there are those who huddle in the dark and would sacrifice every sacredly held value and belief to maintain the allusion of staying safe.  One can clearly tell which cloth you are cut from. 

           

        2. This was about torture.  Standing up to terrorism is quite possible without torture. The evidences strongly suggests torture is a really ineffective way of standing up to terrorism.Torture is illegal and contrary to our constitution and values. We manage to stand up to all kinds of crimes without torture. Torture also removes the possibility of ever bringing anyone to trial as evidence and confessions obtained under duress are worthless in any legitimate court of law.

          Cute trick trying to turn this into a discussion of whether we should stand up to terrorism but it's a discussion about torture. You're ineffective attempt to make it a discussion of something else is more proof that, as usual, you've got nothing when it comes to the actual subject. In this case that's the legality, constitutionality, morality and efficacy of torture.  Want to give that discussion a try?

        3. You don't understand our constitution.You don't have to be a citizen to be subject to our laws while here and to have the same rights in our system of justice. We can't, for instance, throw a French national suspected of murder into prison without a trial.  Also we have a history of prosecuting both foreign nationals and Americans for the crime of torture, including water torture (now known as water boarding), in both military and civilian courts of law going back over 100 years.  As usual, you speak without knowing WTF you're talking about.

        4. By your logic, modster, we should be able to put all street criminals in deep dark holes without trials so little trembling modster can feel safe. If that's what it takes for you, you  need to move to some nice safe police state. you will never feel safe in the land of the free.

        5. Straw man:  it's not a question of what rights non-Americans have under our Constitution.  It is a question of whether American officials may, legally or morally, torture suspects.

          1. 100 years of precedent says no. Americans were prosecuted in American military courts for the "water torture" during the Spanish American War. Japanese were prosecuted for it in American military courts back in WWII. An American Sheriff was prosecuted for it in the civilian justice system in Texas in the 70s. So clearly, torture is  a crime under both American civilian and military law.

            The specific form of torture once called water torture, now called water boarding (Cheney probably changed the name because you can't very well claim something called water torture isn't torture?) is indeed criminal under American law, both civilian and military. People have been successfully prosecuted and sentenced for it.

            One thing I've noticed? At first there was the pretense that the enhanced interrogation techniques, including renamed water torture, were legal because they were not torture. So even the supporters of those techniques were tacitly admitting that torture is not legal. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such lengths to claim that the techniques used were not torture.  Now that pretense seems to have been tossed aside in favor of the modster argument that torture is OK when we're scared. No American court, military or civilian has ever rule that to be the case

            And just to put that fear in perspective, modster is far more likely to be killed in a car crash, struck by lightening or killed in one of the many ordinary criminal ways than to be killed in a foreign terrorist attack on American soil. So he must be a very, very frightened little human to demand torture be employed for his protection from such an unlikely occurrence. I wonder if he ever leaves his mom's basement at all?

        6. The teenager down the street drives too fast, and I'm afraid he's going to kill one of the little ones riding their bikes.  Is it ok if I torture him?

    4. You people are unbelievable.  Your 2008 presidential nominee has (correctly and appropriately) been a vocal opponent of torture because (a) it doesn't work in getting reliable information, and (b) it gives the other guys the excuse to respond in kind.  There were a lot of things to dislike about McCain (his running mate selection jumps to the top of the list) but he was right on the money on this subject.

      Nevertheless, you people would rather follow a pack of chicken hawks like Bush, Jr. and Cheney when it comes to this stuff rather than someone like McCain.  Who actually knows something about torture……

  3. Wondering if anything from this report this will ever be taught in future JeffCo or DougCo AP classes???

    or, as our Senator Elect might someday say, "…  there is no report …"

  4. It's amazing that it's so hard for the right (and some libhawks) to get this.  Torture is easy to spot if you simply replace the victim with someone you care about.  Let's try this:

    I would be fine if a captive American soldier (sailor, airman, marine) were:

    (1) Fed hummus through his ass.

    (2) Kept awake, pinned to the ceiling, for a week.

    (3) Made to believe through pretty much actual drowning, the he was drowning.

    (4) Killed "accidentally" while being interrogated (oopsie)

    (5) Engaged in a little Russian roulette by his captor

    This needs to see the light of day.  We need to see, admit, and own what was done in our name.

  5. Not to worry this will all be swept under the rug by the outfit that hates and fears government excess and overreach.  It is all so typical that a bunch of paranoid assholes who fear government tyranny will embrace torture (I'm looking at you Moldy).  I guess government is only terrible when it tries to give all Americans access to affordable health care.  And we let these idiots control Congress.  There is no hope for America now or maybe there is that people like Udall ran against the Sidney Sheldons of the world.

    2. As Secretary of State, John Kerry has to walk a fine line in our relations with other nations.  Our high moral standard is often thrown out the window due to the real politick of international relations.  It's not that he considers the report to be inaccurate in it's exposure of vile activities, it's that he has to run around kissing a lot of foreign ass to placate the bastards with whom we work that enabled the CIA to conduct these vile activities.  Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. will need a lot of assurances. 

      1. He just asked for a delay. He isn't asking for the information to remain secret. I think he's wrong. Modster doesn't know, as usual, WTF he's talking about.

        1. Oh he knows.  He's just a cowardly fuck who has to deny the truth about what happened because don't you know.  Republicans are always the good guys in his world even when they torture other human beings.  He's not an American.  He's a Republican.  What a coward.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

169 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!