MKUKTRA was real and its methods and results continue to play a key part in our intelligence services' activities. Some people just don't want to hear how rotten and untrustworthy their society's key institutions have become I suppose.
Here's one paragraph that I found particularly unpleasant from the article:
"After he was stripped naked, interrogators 'lined up' one-by-one to slam Baluchi's head into plywood - and, on occasion, concrete - walls over and over again, until they became 'fatigued,' whereupon another would take their place, in sessions lasting up to two hours. A CIA operative interviewed by the Inspector General claimed this method was 'meant more for 'sensation' than to hurt the detainee,' and 'simply made a big noise.'"
It troubles me for a few reasons:
- It seems unlikely that decision-makers approving 'enhanced' interrogation would be aware of the methods used -- because as illustrated here, they're a disgrace -- and so it implies that the site operated without accountability
- It's documented[1] that no useful intelligence was gathered as a result of these actions
- It's (presumably?) taxpayer funds that pay for this, so there should be transparency so that citizens can debate and decide whether they support it
- It seems to imply an organizational structure that allows -- or provides for -- some people without any moral or sympathetic core to be employed in the (largely senseless) hurt of other human beings
To me, those aren't behaviours that should be acceptable in a 21st century organization, regardless of location. So that's what I don't like about the article -- but I do appreciate the ability to read it.
(from reading more about the publisher, it may indeed have some problems - whether financial censorship makes sense probably depends on the weight of evidence and reasoning behind that)
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-d...