Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations | Hacker News Reader

Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations

washingtonpost.com

29 pointspavornyoh19 comments

> during a five-year probe of the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation methods

"Harsh interrogation methods", the latest euphemism for "torture except it doesn't count as torture when a Western nation does it".

That's very cynical. In reality, that probe was examining things that might be too harsh to be legal, but not necessarily extreme enough to fall under the category of torture.

One example is verbal threats. Those aren't really "torture" (using the most common definition), but they shouldn't necessarily be legal.

They were also investigating waterboarding, even though it wasn't considered torture in the US at the time. The Obama Administration now officially classifies it as torture, but it's good that waterboarding was examined before that reclassification was officially made.

There is a terrible injustice here, though, and it doesn't have to do with definitions. It's that the aforementioned probe supposedly found no wrongdoing and led to zero criminal trials.

No. The resulting report of that probe details many instances of torture.

> At least one prisoner was "diagnosed with chronic hemorrhoids, an anal fissure and symptomatic rectal prolapse," symptoms normally associated with a violent rape.

> One prisoner was placed in a box the size of a coffin for over 11 days and was also placed for 29 hours in a box 21 inches (53 cm) wide, 2.5 feet (76 cm) deep and 2.5 feet (76 cm) high.

> One detainee was subjected to "ice water baths" and 66 hours of standing sleep deprivation. He was later released as the CIA had mistaken his identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...

That has nothing to do with what I said. I never denied that the probe found torture. In fact, at the end of my comment, I lamented that no one was held accountable for all the torture the report found. That's why I used the word "supposedly" -- because no one was accused of a crime. You misunderstood what I said (or you didn't read it).

My comment was that the probe investigated a spectrum of crimes, including things that were less than torture. That's a good thing. There are many acts that are unacceptable (threatening someone's family was my example) even though they aren't defined as torture by anyone.

I thought you were taking issue with the parent's comment that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for torture. We're on the same page then.

Waterboarding was always considered to be torture, the only time it wasn't "legally" considered such in the US was because of one person, John Woo, who redefined torture while working at the DoJ. This was in 2002 and all of his memos were fully disregarded by 2004.

This was a government lawyer who openly admitted his belief that the president could crush the testicles of a child of someone suspected of a crime and it wouldn't be torture.

Waterboarding was always considered torture before and after John Woo, and just because he muddied the legal definition in the US for a brief period of time, every competent person on the planet was aware that waterboarding is torture.

I think you've mixed up some names. John Yoo is the Bush administration lawyer who co-wrote the Torture Memo. John Woo is a Hong Kong film director.

The most sickening part is that Yoo is currently a professor in UC Berkeley School of Law. Out of all US institutions, you'd think Berkeley would avoid hiring somebody who justifies torture.

I can understand the need for compartmentalization, but why send the false information at all? Why not just send the real cable to the select few who need it, and not send anything on the regular channel?

In a word, counter-intelligence.

If the recipients of fake information are properly logged then it becomes much easier to track down leakers. If only one group of people received a piece information and then a leak includes fake information that was only given to a particular group then it gives a pretty strong indication that the leak originated from that department.

Perhaps, but there's an important difference between changing minor details to trace leaks versus "We are not at war with Eurasia."

Silence speaks volumes. I imagine they don't relish sending out eyewash cables, and use them them to misdirect conversations that are already happening at the agency. If the conversation never began, or was held behind closed doors, there would be no need for such an unwieldy tools.

Breaking news: spooks lie to and distrust everyone.

The actual spooks were terrified by that program. People who do espionage take things like reputation and honor very seriously. They understand the implications of that program for people in the field. The problem is that 99% of the people at cia/nsa/state are not anywhere near the field, nor do they every talk to field people. That program was a decision make by armchair spies with no appreciation of history, no respect for the profession.

Source?

Start with "see no evil" by Bob Baer

Thanks!

In short: Why did they have to go with external torturers from sear schools rather than their own professional interrogators?

I always assumed that this is how sensitive compartmented information worked?

And that old yarn about lying to Congress — well... http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com