CIA accused of 'testing torture techniques' on detainees...

[MobBoss]

Let me guess. You just searched for the word "bias" and completely overlooked the context of each one? I never claimed to have not used the word in this forum. I claimed I don't think I ever complained about it as you so frequently do:

No, actually, I read each and every one to make sure it was in context. Some are more so than others of course, but they are indeed examples of you complaining about bias in this forum, which you denied you ever do.

I am not whining that bias is a negative thing, especially in a commentary instead of a news story. I am merely pointing it out where it obviously exists.

Oh please. You indeed complain about bias in those comments. My search was in no ways exhaustive, nor did it take long to find those examples. Give a break man, its embarassing.

Which brings us back to this quote from Nature magazine:

That is a statement of undeniable fact!

No, its not. In fact the CIA refutes any such 'experimentation' at all, and the reports this assumption was based on were so heavily redacted as to be guesswork used to ascertain the allegation.

The independent report did state that the CIA participated in experimentation and research on detainees! It isn't "biased" in the least.

How can a such a report make that determination when all the facts arent known to it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh please. You indeed complain about bias in those comments.

"Oh please". You apparently don't even know what the word "complain" means if you think those are examples! You just apparently keep confusing "bias" for "propaganda" and "deliberate lying", which I have indeed complained a lot about!

No, its not. In fact the CIA refutes any such 'experimentation' at all, and the reports this assumption was based on were so heavily redacted as to be guesswork used to ascertain the allegation.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the statement from the Nature artice is factually accurate and not "biased" in the least. Do you deny the report did state that conclusion?

How can a such a report make that determination when all the facts arent known to it?

But the report still stated that conclusion regardless of whether it is true or not! And Nature magazine impartially reported that fact in a completely factual and totally unbiased statement!

 

[MobBoss]

"Oh please". You apparently don't even know what the word "complain" means if you think those are examples! You just apparently keep confusing "bias" for "propaganda" and "deliberate lying", which I have indeed complained a lot about!

You have often used them all in the same context when referring to foxnews. And get over yourself, of course I know what 'complain' means. I see people do it every day around here. And those comments I linked are indeed complaints about bias, something you denied you ever did. The level to which you will deny the obvious is simply astounding.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the statement from the Nature artice is factually accurate and not "biased" in the least. Do you deny the report did state that conclusion?

Rofl, the report stating that conclusion isnt proof that its accurate or even factual. Wow.

But the report still stated that conclusion regardless of whether it is true or not!

Listen to yourself here. Stated it whether it was true or not. Amazing.

And Nature magazine impartially reported that fact in a completely factual and totally unbiased statement!

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Ayn Rand]

He has provided evidence and an argument. If you want to argue against those it is on your shoulders to do so. Demanding evidence and argument from someone who has provided both is facile.

Really? Because the report mentioned gave evidence about enhanced interrogations that were lawfully conducted:

Analogous to the BSCT in Guantanamo Bay, the Army has a number of psychologists in operational positions (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), mostly within Special Operations, where they provide direct support to military operations. They do not function as mental health providers, and one of their core missions is to support interrogations.
[...]
Major General Fay's recent investigation at Abu Ghraib [...] found that enlisted medics had witnessed obvious episodes of detainee abuse, apparently without reporting them to superiors.
[...]
Our basic findings for Iraq are identical to those presented for Afghanistan. The Army has a number of psychologists in operational positions (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), mostly within Special Operations, where they provide direct support to military operations. They do not function as mental health providers and one of their core missions is to support interrogations.

From this, an interpretation was made:

Now you either have to argue that both your government and the APA lied and are unreliable sources, or admit that medics were accomplices to the torture of prisoners, in violation of a principle (and legislative precedent) which indeed had stood since it was defended by the US government during the Nuremberg trials that torture occurred and the "precedent of the Nuremberg trials

So the facts and the interpretation are the issue at point here, are they not?

 

[tonberry]

The logic being if it happened before roughly 40 years ago, its a foregone conclusion its happening now?

No, the logic is more: if the CIA have done something before and now we got a prominent human rights group throwing similar accusations and the story is reporting in a respectable newspaper (I don't know the LATimes but I'm guessing it's not a silly newspaper where journalists can write whatever they want without checking their sources) then there is something to talk about and the defendant better say something more than "it's not true".

 

[ColdClimate]

the lastest:

Complaint on CIA medical experimentation filed by human rights groups

- June 09, 2010

A collection of activist groups today filed an official complaint related to allegations that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) medical personnel participated in research and human experimentation on detainees abroad during the Bush administration.

On Monday, the Massachusetts-based group Physicians for Human Rights group detailed its allegations that this work breached accepted ethics standards.

Today, PHR filed a complaint with the Office for Human Research Protections, saying that the CIA medical workers “likely violated federal regulations governing human subject research.” OHRP is the US government’s overseer of human subjects protections in research and investigates reports of abuse at 17 federal agencies where research is conducted, including the CIA. PHR was joined in the complaint by a coalition of advocacy groups including Amnesty International USA, Psychologists for Social Responsibility and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

On a conference call on Wednesday with reporters, Stephen Soldz, the president-elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, argued that, if the Obama administration fails to aggressively investigate the charges, all US human subjects research will be at risk.

“If [public] trust erodes, fewer people will be willing to participate in biomedical research,” he said, “and we will all lose the benefits of that research.”

PHR is also calling on the Obama Administration to investigate whether the alleged behaviour of the CIA physicians, psychologists and physicians’ assistants constitutes a war crime under the War Crimes Act.

The White House and the Department of Justice have not responded to the report.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano has denied the report’s claims. “The CIA did not, as part of its past detention programme, conduct human subject research on any detainee or group of detainees,” he said (Associated Press).

The OHRP has in past wielded the stick of suspended National Institutes of Health research funding, as in this case at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, 11 years ago, and this suspension at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, in 2001.

Asked how OHRP could discipline an agency like the CIA, without NIH grants, Nathaniel Raymond, the PHR report’s lead author, responded: “There is a buffet of options available to OHRP.” They include, he said, referring its findings to other agencies like the Department of Justice, and suspending funding to an agency.

“It is essential that OHRP address this,” Raymond added. “Where there are holes in OHRP’s response, this coalition is going to make sure that those holes are filled.”

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I honestly took this granted.

The methods of humiliation and inflicting psychological stress seen in Abu Ghraib were described just like that in "torture hand-outs" created by the CIA well before 9/11. And of course those hand-outs took "research" to be developed.

And that the new waive of torture after 9/11 is enhanced by further scientific studies is a surprise? Oh come on people. Don't be naive. Of course it is. As an governmental apparatus as advanced and well-financed as the American one you don't just torture like you feel like. You do it on the grounds of scientific evidence in order to enhance the effect. What the hell is the big surprise about that?

 

[innonimatu]

Really? Because the report mentioned gave evidence about enhanced interrogations that were lawfully conducted:

"enhanced interrogations"? Do you believe that anyone still doesn't know that is a codeword for torture?

From this, an interpretation was made:

And I'm sure that you would interpret that the sky is green, if your belief system required it. Quite a flexible mind you have! I, however, don't have the time to argue with your kind.

If it makes you happy, I'll add one small thing: if psychiatrists were not medics (and I'd boot them all from the medical profession), the released portions of the report couldn't be said to contain damning admissions (which I quoted), only suspicious attempts at whitewashing scattered through the text (which I'm not bothering to quote).
But they are.

 

[Perfection]

Less than 40 years ago the US governmnet was testing horrible things on its minority citizens. I call this a fair bit of improvement since then.

 

[bathsheba666]

I guess you prefer the media with the absence of 'if' or 'maybe' type words.

So this would be like the intelligence reports about the presence of WMD in Iraq ?


I don't see where we assume that the CIA gave up being the bad guy 40 years ago.

There are too many left wing corpses in central and south america to attest to that.

 

[Ayn Rand]

"enhanced interrogations"? Do you believe that anyone still doesn't know that is a codeword for torture?

I am inclined to agree with you. However, your argument does not objectively prove anything.

And I'm sure that you would interpret that the sky is green, if your belief system required it. Quite a flexible mind you have! I, however, don't have the time to argue with your kind.

This kind of comment makes me question those who claim the CIA techniques are torture. Exploding in indignation when someone asks you for a proof, when you claim to have an obvious proof, makes it look like you don't really have one.

If it makes you happy, I'll add one small thing: if psychiatrists were not medics (and I'd boot them all from the medical profession), the released portions of the report couldn't be said to contain damning admissions (which I quoted), only suspicious attempts at whitewashing scattered through the text (which I'm not bothering to quote).
But they are.

The sections you quoted were not damning admissions. I don't consider them to be comprehensive evidence, and it is clear that the authors were not engaging in an act of confession.

So long as neither side can provide facts to back up their position, then this issue stays in the grey area - and if it stays in the grey area, then I assume that the final conclusion will have to default back to the side of the American government, along the lines of erring on the side of caution.

Edit: I think it is a shame that some very real legal and moral issues seem to be getting buried here - issues such as: was there enough oversight; what was the quality of evidence/proof against the suspects; what have the psychological effects to the detainees been; what were the alternatives; was the independence of the judiciary compromised. A more sophisticated and nuanced approach is surely better than emotional overreaction isn't it?

 

[amadeus]

Seriously, is there any previously-unassailable moral provision that the Bush administration hasn't questioned? The no-experimenting-on-human-beings-without-consent thing came from the goddamn Nuremberg Trials!

It's only wrong when your country loses.

 

[nonconformist]

So? credible, quoteable, serious journals can still be biased. I mean, when an article speaks to something as being fact, when it hasnt been substantiated beyond all doubt is presicely bias in reporting. Regardless of what you think of the publication in question.

Yeah, you never went to university, did you?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You have often used them all in the same context when referring to foxnews.

Yes, I have used them when referring to Fox News and other sources, including MSNBC! Once again, I do not deny that!

Once again, I don't think I have ever "complained" about the inherent bias at Fox News in this forum. It is to be quite expected from being an obvious shill of the Republican Party and even the far-right.

What I have "complained" about many times, and what was clearly shown with your own citations of my previous posts, is that I deplore their use of propaganda and deliberately lying, two characteristics you are still apparently confusing with "bias".

Furthermore, this mischaracterization appears to even be deliberate on your part so that you can condone and support these practices by Fox News, and other conservative sources which use these techniques, by trying to claim that the other media sources do it as well. Once again, "bias" is not synonymous with "propaganda". The former is to be expected in any commentary, while the latter has no place whatsoever in any media source which claims to be responsible journalists.

Wow. Just wow.

No, Not "wow, just wow".

The Nature sentence in question clearly stated a fact, not an opinion. The study they cited clearly stated that conclusion (which you don't like for quite obvious reasons), and Nature magazine merely reported on the fact that they did so in a completely unbiased manner.

You apparently don't even know what the word "bias" means if you continue to assert that sentence was "biased" in any way.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, you never went to university, did you?

I went to college, yes, probably before you were born.

Once again, I don't think I have ever "complained" about the inherent bias at Fox News in this forum.

Laughable, and also pitiful since I just gave more than a few examples of you doing precisely that.

It is to be quite expected from being an obvious shill of the Republican Party and even the far-right.

Rofl, and as such, its quite expected for you to complain about it, which you have many times.

What I have "complained" about many times, and what was clearly shown with your own citations of my previous posts, is that I deplore their use of propaganda and deliberately lying, two characteristics you are still apparently confusing with "bias".

Actually, I showed where you have complained about both and quite clearly.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Laughable, and also pitiful since I just gave more than a few examples of you doing precisely that.

Yet another absurd attempt to try to discredit someone who disagrees with you instead of addressing the issues?

Actually, I showed where you have complained about both and quite clearly.

Actually, you have done nothing of the sort.

And where is your response that the sentence from the Nature article wasn't "biased" in any manner, shape, or form? Decided to drop that subject?

 

[Voyhkah]

Is anyone here denying that waterboarding was used? There is huge amounts of evidence for that.

 

[Ayn Rand]

yet another absurd attempt to try to discredit someone who disagrees with you instead of addressing the issues?

Actually, you ahve done nothing of the sort.

And where is your response that the sentence from the Nature article wasn't "biased" in any manner, shape, or form? Decided to drop that subject?

Do you actually have some objective facts proving this issue one way or the other? I for one have not made up my mind and cannot get out of the grey area between interrogation and torture. As you seem so certain I would really like to see the cause for the certainty.

 

[nonconformist]

I went to college, yes, probably before you were born.

And I assume this college never taught you to make literary reviews and peer reviews?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you actually have some objective facts proving this issue one way or the other?

You do realize that has nothing to do with my post, right? That I do not claim to be omniscient, nor do I even try to insinuate that I have any inside knowledge regarding the operations of the CIA. I only know what little has been reported by the press regarding this particular topic.

That discussion was actually about the false claim that a sentence in Nature magazine was "biased".

I for one have not made up my mind and cannot get out of the grey area between interrogation and torture.

It seems pretty clear to me. The police, other legitimate law enforcement agencies, and virtually all militaries of civilized countries interrogate people. The US government under GWB and many of their allies deliberately tortured people. The evidence is overwhelming and they finally even admitted to doing so.

As you seem so certain I would really like to see the cause for the certainty.

I don't think you actually understand what it was I have posted in this thread. I suggest you go back and take another closer look.