Yes, there was a “separate OIG Report of Investigation.” That doesn’t mean there were multiple sources.

Nice job trying to change the subject. Who cares how many sources there were? You said this:

The CIA reports of violations weren’t from whistleblowers. They were usually to an immediate superior

Where is your evidence to support that claim? You have none.

The problem we have is that you want absolute proof the CIA is “innocent.”

The problem we have is that you repeatedly pretend to know things that you don’t know. Which mind-reading technique are you using to determine what I “want?” What statement did I make indicating that I expect “absolute proof” of anything? I’m simply enjoying your spectacular demonstration of making statements that are supposedly backed by proof and then failing to show an iota of proof.

I consider the fact that the detainees were transferred out of CIA custody to be reasonable proof that the CIA was no longer using harsh interrogation on them

You’re stating an opinion, because all you have on this point is your opinion. Trouble is, what you did originally is adopt the pretense that you knew this for a fact, and that this fact was documented in “various reports.” Even though it’s not. You’ve demonstrated your willingness to make worthless claims and then spin like a top in a pathetic attempt to pretend that they are something other than worthless.

I’m done.

What’s “done” is your credibility.

The problem we have is that you want absolute proof the CIA is “innocent.” Even if they had videotapes of what they did, you want proof that they hadn’t been hiding more videotapes elsewhere. And you somehow expect that proof (assuming something could ever prove that) made public.

I consider the fact that the detainees were transferred out of CIA custody to be reasonable proof that the CIA was no longer using harsh interrogation on them — assuming they ever used it on those particular detainees. That you think it’s reasonable to believe the CIA could have continued anyway has already been stated. I’m sure it happens that way in the movies, but we’re not going to agree on that one.

You can have the final word. I’m done.

It’s only natural that they would have contacted the boss that they’re usually in touch with

It’s only natural that you would still be spinning like a top. You said this:

The CIA reports of violations weren’t from whistleblowers. They were usually to an immediate superior.

One more in a long list of phony claims. You’ve presented this much evidence that anyone ever made a report “to an immediate superior:” none. So now you’re backpedaling into a different claim, about “the boss that they’re usually in touch with.” What’s that supposed to mean? Those words are so vague that they’re meaningless. And OIG said he “received information that some employees were concerned.” How does that support any of your claims? How does that support a claim about “the boss that they’re usually in touch with?”

you’d be very wrong to say definitely that it was directly to the DDO

Where did I say anything about “directly to the DDO?” I didn’t. I don’t know exactly how the whistleblowers blew the whistle, but I know there’s no evidence indicating that they went through their “immediate” superiors. Trouble is, this started with you saying this: “they reported this to their superiors.” And then you claimed further that this meant “an immediate superior.” Those are your claims. When are you going to back them up?

The “separate OIG Report of Investigation” doesn’t mean there was a different source besides this one. This wasn’t that big an operation that we could expect that many independent reports.

Huh? What? This is what OIG said:

These incidents are the subject of a separate OIG Report of Investigation

Which of the simple English words “separate OIG Report” do you have trouble understanding? Then again, I realize you’re using the magic GOP dictionary, where “separate” means something other than “separate.”

The passage you cited was about abuses that were not the main focus of the OIG report we’re discussing. They were the focus of a “separate OIG Report.”

My guess is that it was determined in the review, which I think was started by the report from the “newly arrived TDY officers.”

And where is your evidence that the “newly arrived TDY officers” made a report to “an immediate superior?”

By the main focus of the report, I assume you mean the waterboard being applied more times than the guidelines allow.

What you “assume” is wrong, and one of many indications that you’re ignorant about basic facts. The CIA IG found lots of problems other than “the waterboard being applied more times than the guidelines allow.”

Or, they didn’t count, and the OIG viewed the videotapes. … If it’s the latter, your previous question “Why should anyone think that any stated limits (regarding CIA or DoD) reflect actual limits that were actually followed?” is then answered.

A better example of circular, fallacious reasoning would be hard to find. If OIG viewed a tape showing 183 waterboardings, how does that demonstrate that another tape with another 183 waterboardings was not destroyed before they had a chance to see it?

I made a factual statement that Hoffer’s clients had been transferred to DoD custody in 2002

Trouble is, that’s not the only “factual statement” you made. You also made a “factual statement” that CIA conducted no interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02. And you claimed that this “factual statement” was supported by “various reports.” Trouble is, it’s not.

You insist we must be willing to consider that the CIA may still have been using harsh techniques after that point, when they no longer had custody. Well, I’m not willing to consider that.

The issue it not whether or not you’re “willing to consider that.” The issue is that you claimed to have proof that CIA conducted no interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02. So how come you still haven’t shown us the proof?

Those incidents aren’t even the ones that are the main focus of this IG report. The incidents that are the main focus of this IG report were not reported “to an immediate superior.” Why did you make that claim? As usual, you are inventing your own facts.

It’s only natural that they would have contacted the boss that they’re usually in touch with, as that’s with whom they’ve got the secure communications channel. That doesn’t sound like the definition of a “whistleblower” to me.

You’d be right to say that it’s not certain. But you’d be very wrong to say definitely that it was directly to the DDO. How many agents in the field have direct line to the DDO?

The “separate OIG Report of Investigation” doesn’t mean there was a different source besides this one. This wasn’t that big an operation that we could expect that many independent reports.

By the main focus of the report, I assume you mean the waterboard being applied more times than the guidelines allow. The unclas IG report doesn’t say who reported that. My guess is that it was determined in the review, which I think was started by the report from the “newly arrived TDY officers.”

I can see two ways it could have happened: Either they counted the number of water pourings as they were doing it. Or, they didn’t count, and the OIG viewed the videotapes. If it’s the former, then you need to realize they could have lied but chose not to. If it’s the latter, your previous question “Why should anyone think that any stated limits (regarding CIA or DoD) reflect actual limits that were actually followed?” is then answered.

I only wish the controversial group of GTMO attorneys had as high integrity as our CIA.

I made a factual statement that Hoffer’s clients had been transferred to DoD custody in 2002, and there are references for that. You insist we must be willing to consider that the CIA may still have been using harsh techniques after that point, when they no longer had custody. Well, I’m not willing to consider that. It’s out of the bounds of reason.

newly arrived TDY officers [redacted] who had learned of these incidents reported them to Headquarters

From the same paragraph:

These incidents are the subject of a separate OIG Report of Investigation

Those incidents aren’t even the ones that are the main focus of this IG report. The incidents that are the main focus of this IG report were not reported “to an immediate superior.” Why did you make that claim? As usual, you are inventing your own facts.

I’ll concede that may or may not be an “immediate superior.” I don’t care. It’s still not the definition of a whistleblower.

You’ve made it clear that your “definition of a whistleblower” is highly elastic, and that you’re making it up as you go along. Because you just got done saying that “the term ‘whistleblower’ generally implies that they’re going outside the usual chain of command.” Guess what: if I am reporting to someone other than my “immediate superior,” then I am indeed “going outside the usual chain of command.”

If you want to believe they let the detainees in DoD custody be interrogated by visiting authorities

It’s not a question of what I “want to believe.” It’s that you have repeatedly made a factual claim, and you have repeatedly asserted that your claim is supported by evidence, and meanwhile you have presented this much evidence to support your claim: none.

If you’re trying to prove that you don’t intend to be taken seriously, that’s a perfect way to accomplish your goal.

GTMO is a DoD facility run by the Navy. If you want to believe they let the detainees in DoD custody be interrogated by visiting authorities without a military escort present then be my guest.

The CIA reports of violations weren’t from whistleblowers. They were usually to an immediate superior. The term “whistleblower” generally implies that they’re going outside the usual chain of command

I guess you still insist on ignoring what the CIA IG report actually says. See the pdf, pp. 6-7:

In January 2003, the DDO [Deputy Director of Operations] informed OIG that he had received allegations that Agency personnel had used unauthorized techniques with a detainee … Separately, OIG received information that some employees were concerned that certain covert Agency activities at an overseas detention and interrogation site might involve violations of human rights.

When DDO informed OIG, DDO was going to “an immediate superior?” Really? Because OIG is part of “the usual chain of command?” And when “some employees” expressed concern to OIG, they were also going to “an immediate superior?” Really?

Your willingness to invent your own reality is quite spectacular. Keep up the good work.

there is an enormous amount of information available

You’ve cited this many words to support your claim that CIA conducted no interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02: zero. What are you waiting for?

But barring some weird plot, I think it’s safe to say that they do exist, and ridiculous to speculate that they don’t.

The term “various reports” means more than just the items I mentioned. You may have noticed that there is an enormous amount of information available that comes directly or indirectly from the U.S. military or CIA documents. Even the ICRC leaks don’t lend any credit to the conspiracy theory. There’s enough out there that your viewpoint isn’t merely wrong, it’s in comic book territory.

The GTMO SOP manual has been made public. And, iirc, it probably says guards have to be around whenever a detainee is interrogated. The guards aren’t allowed to let detainees be slapped around without it being reported.

The CIA reports of violations weren’t from whistleblowers. They were usually to an immediate superior. The term “whistleblower” generally implies that they’re going outside the usual chain of command, if not outside the organization itself, which is not what happened here.

we don’t really “know” that the U.S. military didn’t loan detainees to the CIA

Then why did you specifically claim otherwise? And it’s not just that you claimed otherwise. It’s that you said there are “various reports” which prove your claim. But of course there are no such “reports,” as you now finally admit.

They were reported by other CIA personnel, which were then investigated by the IG.

Indeed. There were whistleblowers. So you should explain why you said this:

how do we know the CIA exceeded those limits? Because they reported this to their superiors

You implied that the torturers themselves were the ones who voluntarily “reported this to their superiors.” That’s false. Why did you say that?

But putting it the way you do, we don’t really “know” that the U.S. military didn’t loan detainees to the CIA, the New York City Fire Department, or aliens from outer space, to do with as they pleased. There are procedures for transferring custody, but I’m not looking them up. The only basis for doing so is to “disprove” your theory that the CIA might possibly have nabbed detainees from military custody, and I don’t care if you want to believe that or not. You’ve already confused the DoD with the CIA too often.

Saying “we don’t really know what happened” is misleading. The redacted portions of the IG report are available to senior politicians of both parties.

They were not “caught” by the CIA IG. They were reported by other CIA personnel, which were then investigated by the IG. (If only the GTMO lawyers were as diligent in maintaining the integrity of their colleagues.)

Your link describes the unauthorized methods in later pages. The excesses and abuses in the declassified sections were generally the types of things you’d expect in a war: roughness and illegally making threats.

once detainees were in DoD custody, they weren’t subjected to harsh techniques by the CIA.

Really? How do you know?

That’s just the way things work.

In other words, even though you’ve been telling us that this claim is supported by “various reports,” you are empty-handed when it comes to supporting this claim with proof, and the best you can do is say “that’s just the way things work.” Really? Why? Because you say so?

Here’s something else about “the way things work:” random claims from random internet commenters don’t have a lot of credibility unless they’re supported by proof. You’ve done a great job of pretending that your claims are backed by proof even though you have none.

I’m done digging up links for this thread.

What “links?” You’ve provided this many links to support your claim that “once detainees were in DoD custody, they weren’t subjected to harsh techniques by the CIA:” zero.

how do we know the CIA exceeded those limits? Because they reported this to their superiors.

Wrong. We know CIA exceeded those limits because they were caught doing so by the CIA IG. CIA IG launched their investigation because they heard “allegations that Agency personnel had used unauthorized interrogation techniques with a detainee” (pdf, p. 6). And we still don’t know what really happened, because the CIA IG report is heavily redacted, and the CIA videotapes were destroyed.

Yet again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I already said I’m done digging up links for this thread. You’re doing a good enough job finding ones that make my point for me anyway. But if you want to believe the CIA was nabbing the DoD’s techniques then go right ahead.

We know that CIA exceeded the “limits” they expressed to OLC in 2002. Why should anyone think that any stated limits (regarding CIA or DoD) reflect actual limits that were actually followed?

And just how do we know the CIA exceeded those limits? Because they reported this to their superiors.

the DoD did have some rough treatment, but it was never in the same class as what the CIA did.

When are you going to show us the report which substantiates your claim that CIA conducted no interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02?

your link suggests the four hour limit may only have been used on two GTMO detainees

Where does it say “the four hour limit may only have been used on two GTMO detainees?”

Here, you have the limits.

We know that CIA exceeded the “limits” they expressed to OLC in 2002. Why should anyone think that any stated limits (regarding CIA or DoD) reflect actual limits that were actually followed?

It really makes my point, not yours.

I’ve said all along that the DoD did have some rough treatment, but it was never in the same class as what the CIA did.

If you’ll remember, I had said, “It’s highly unlikely (and you can see this by various reports) that Hoffer’s clients ever had less than four hours of sleep per night, and not very likely that it was limited even to that amount.”

If you read your link, it says the DoD approved limiting a detainee’s sleep to four hours. Furthermore, your link suggests the four hour limit may only have been used on two GTMO detainees (none of whom were Hoffer’s clients). Waterboarding was discussed but never approved by the DoD.

You then critized me for saying this without supplying you with full references for those “various reports” (even though it’s only a blog comment), and now you say you had it all the time. You insisted that we don’t know with 100.0% certainty that Hoffer’s clients did not also have to sit through 180 hours of sleep deprivation. Here, you have the limits.

If you want another reference, use that one.

I also know that the CIA doesn’t yank prisoners currently held in DoD custody to interrogate them using extreme methods not permitted under DoD rules. The DoD would not allow it.

You are still trying to claim that Hoffer’s clients could not possibly have experienced “extreme methods” in Gitmo because they were allegedly in DoD custody, not CIA custody, and the DoD “would not allow” extreme methods. Really? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

I see you don’t know how to find this information on your own, so I’ll help you. On 11/20/08, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a 263-page report called “INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY” (pdf). The report was approved by the entire committee, including all GOP senators on the committee (McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr, Vitter, and Collins). The report says this:

On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody. …

Members of the President’s Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed.…

In July 2002, the Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel solicited information from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) on SERE techniques for use during interrogations. That solicitation, prompted by requests from Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, reflected the view that abusive tactics similar to those used by our enemies should be considered for use against detainees in U.S. custody. …

Conclusions on GTMO’s Request for Ageressive Techniques … GTMO Staff Judge Advocate Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver’s legal review justifying the October 11, 2002 GTMO request was profoundly in error and legally insufficient. Leaders at GTMO, including Major General Dunlavey’s successor, Major General Geoffrey Miller, ignored warnings from DoD’s Criminal Investigative Task Force and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation that the techniques were potentially unlawful and that their use would strengthen detainee resistance. …

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there.

In particular, I call your attention to section VIII (p. 141 in the pdf), which is entitled “New Interrogation Policy Developed for GTMO.” This section describes in detail how senior DoD officials participated in approving abuse at Gitmo, including sleep deprivation and waterboarding (see p. 156).

So I’m still waiting for you to explain why you said this:

those particular CIA interrogators were *not* at GTMO. (Others were, but not for this kind of extreme interrogation.) … they didn’t do this kind of interrogation at GTMO.

The senate report shows explicitly that all the techniques approved for use by the CIA were also approved by DoD officials for use at Gitmo. So why have you been persistently claiming otherwise? And why have you failed to show an iota of proof to back your wacky claims? Why are you claiming “they didn’t do this kind of interrogation at GTMO” when the senate report says otherwise? What do you know that those 11 GOP senators do not?

You’re confusing the article’s talk of military interrogation with the topic of CIA interrogation. They’re two different things.

Uh, no. They’re not “two different things.” I just proved they’re not. Your claim that “the DoD would not allow … extreme methods,” and therefore “extreme methods” could not possibly have been used on Hoffer’s clients at Gitmo, is yet another instance of you doing this.

I haven’t heard any of this stuff from the radio.

Then how come you’re refusing to tell us where you heard “this stuff?” You have repeatedly asserted that your claims are supported by “various reports.” Meanwhile, you’ve cited this many words from those reports: zero. Why is that?

There is a prominent example of a detainee interrogated very roughly by the CIA while in a DoD facility. That’s the one who was killed in Abu Ghraib. But that example makes my point because he was never logged into DoD custody, and was therefore not a DoD detainee.

I said “your quickness to entertain,” by which I meant how you’ll throw this conspiracy theory out there. Then you’ll take statements by “11 GOP senators” as though they support a broader part of your worldview. They don’t. You’re confusing the article’s talk of military interrogation with the topic of CIA interrogation. They’re two different things.

Senator McCain, who was one of those 11 GOP senators, opposes waterboarding and the DoD’s use of rough treatment, but not necessarily the other methods when used by the CIA. That’s why he opposed the bill that was intended to force the CIA to use the Army interrogation manual.

So, what you say you “blame the U.S. for,” and is “supported by 11 GOP senators” was not in fact supported by 11 GOP senators. Even today, President Obama’s order to have his non-DoD interrogators stick to the Army field manual can be revised by him at any time he decides a new threat warrants a change.

BTW: I haven’t heard any of this stuff from the radio.

Had you asked what color the sky was today I’d have said in a flat, emphatic, unqualified statement that it was blue. I’d have done so without consulting a spectrometer.

That’s because you know what color the sky is. Trouble is, you don’t know whether or not CIA conducted interrogations at Gitmo. Why are you pretending to know things you don’t actually know?

there may very well be a 0.001% chance that the CIA was using its rough interrogation techniques in GTMO.

And when are you going to cite the text which supports your estimate? And I mean text from an official report, not text you heard from Rush, Sean and Bill.

your quickness to entertain greater things to blame the U.S. for that aren’t contained in any of the thousands of pages of reports and testimony.

Where did I “blame the U.S. for [things] that aren’t contained in any of the thousands of pages of reports and testimony?” You’ll answer this question at roughly the same moment you’ll answer all the other questions you’ve been ducking: i.e., never.

Unlike you, I back my assertions with evidence. And here’s what I “blame the U.S. for:” that “senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques.” And this finding is indeed well-documented, and supported by 11 GOP senators. One of the many things you haven’t told us is what makes you smarter than them.

I’d have done so without consulting a spectrometer.

I’ll gladly contrast that to your quickness to entertain greater things to blame the U.S. for that aren’t contained in any of the thousands of pages of reports and testimony.

But if you want me to express less confidence, I will grudgingly admit that there may very well be a 0.001% chance that the CIA was using its rough interrogation techniques in GTMO.

It’s a odd image. As you should know, the DoD did have its own list of harsh techniques in GTMO. It would have been funny to see the CIA drag one of the Algerian Six from his ordeal of “four hour standing” and telling the troops that they’re not being mean enough.

The onus is on you to explain how the CIA might have gotten their hands on them for rough interrogation there.

Wrong. There is no such “onus” on me, because I never claimed to know for sure that Hoffer’s clients were tortured by CIA. You, on the other hand, have indeed claimed to know for sure that they were not.

Therefore the onus is indeed on you to demonstrate why you are claiming to know things that you don’t actually know.

For example, you said this:

It’s also not true that her clients were “routinely tortured” in GTMO.

And this:

all that stuff about the CIA’s harsh interrogation program didn’t apply to Hoffer’s clients.

And this:

the CIA didn’t have custody of Hoffer’s clients after January 2002

And this:

those particular CIA interrogators were *not* at GTMO. (Others were, but not for this kind of extreme interrogation.) … they didn’t do this kind of interrogation at GTMO.

And this:

I don’t need to back up my statements about the CIA not using rough interrogation at GTMO.

And this:

the CIA’s harsh interrogation was limited to the high-value detainees at the black sites

Those are all flat, emphatic, unqualified statements. Not ‘I think,’ or ‘I imagine,’ or ‘I heard,’ or ‘I suppose.’ On the contrary; you are making those claims as if they are clearly established, incontrovertible facts. And you have repeatedly asserted that your claims are supported by “various reports.” Meanwhile, you’ve cited this many words from those “reports,” in support of your claims: zero.

What you are doing is taking opinion and speculation that you heard on talk radio and presenting it as if it is fact. There’s a word to describe someone who pretends to not know the difference between opinion and fact: hack.

The only “documentation” you’ve got that DoD hands detainees over to another agency is the “Camp No” conspiracy theory. That story is three months old. The rest of the press didn’t buy it.

Hickman isn’t lying. He just doesn’t know anything. He admits it.

the CIA’s harsh interrogation began only after Hoffer’s clients arrived at GTMO in DoD custody

When are you going to show us the text to support your claim that CIA did no interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02? So far you’ve posted this many comments in this thread which fail to provide that information: 22. Do you intend to make it 44? 88? I certainly hope so, because that would establish even more clearly that your claims are pure wind. If you have any proof to support that claim, why are you working so hard at keeping it hidden? Is it in the form of classified information that you have sworn never to share with anyone? Do you have a special unredacted version of the CIA IG report that no one outside the government has ever seen?

if you have any evidence (or even an inkling of a rumor) that the CIA was nabbing people out of DoD custody then you’ll have a stop-the-presses item worthy of sending to Scott Horton

Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman already believes that CIA (or someone) was committing torture at Gitmo, and he’s already talked to Horton, so there’s no need for me to do so. But of course you know better than Hickman, because you were there. Right? Then again, maybe your idea of supporting the troops is to call this one a liar, even though you don’t have a shred of evidence to support your implied claim that he’s lying.

If you’ve read the IG report then you should have known that the CIA’s harsh interrogation began only after Hoffer’s clients arrived at GTMO in DoD custody.

On the other hand, if you have any evidence (or even an inkling of a rumor) that the CIA was nabbing people out of DoD custody then you’ll have a stop-the-presses item worthy of sending to Scott Horton.

Thiessen tells a different version of the story told in the Washington Post.

Thiessen has a history of telling stories that require a belief in time travel. So you should explain why anyone who does not believe in time travel should take him seriously.

I’ve already mentioned the Fay and OIG reports.

Yes, of course you’ve mentioned them. You just haven’t told us where they support the long list of wacky claims you made. Where do they establish that there were no CIA interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02? The Fay report is here (pdf), and the CIA IG report is here (pdf). When are you going to cite the relevant text? Sometime this century?

Have you actually read those actual reports? I have, and therefore I know they don’t contain what you claim they contain. And if you were doing something other than blowing pure smoke, you would have cited the text long ago.

I don’t really know why you insist on not recognizing the differences. You already seemed pretty happy to harp on the DoD methods.

Thiessen tells a different version of the story told in the Washington Post.

Basically, the “torture doesn’t work” narrative has two flaws in it (really more, but I only have time for two). One is that they say it doesn’t work because you don’t know whether or not they’re telling the truth. That leaves you in a hole when science finally perfects the lie detector. You would then need to make the uncomfortable decisions.

Flaw two is that the CIA used questions for which they already knew the answers. They dropped the harsh methods after he was opening up with truthful answers, and that’s when they started the real interrogations.

I don’t know why you think I’d be impressed by moral statements from eleven politicians.

No one cares whether or not you’re “impressed” by what 11 GOP senators said. What matters is that you refuse to accept their conclusions, and you also haven’t lifted a finger to demonstrate why you are correct and they are not. Which means that anyone reading your assertions is presented with a tough choice. Should they believe thoroughly documented findings that were approved by 100% of the GOP senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee? Or should they believe unsubstantiated assertions by a random internet commenter?

Quite a quandary, isn’t it?

It’s one thing to say we should never torture a terrorist even if it means losing another three thousand lives. It’s quite another to say we shouldn’t slap a terrorist even if it means losing three thousand lives.

You seem to be claiming that torture saved lives. Let us know when you’re ready to show proof that doesn’t require a belief in time travel. And let us know when you’re ready to deal with the evidence that torture has endangered us.

You seem to think that torture is effective. It’s not (see here, here, here, here, and here and here).

Torture is actually effective at one thing: eliciting false confessions. And false confessions (produced under torture) were indeed used to sell the war. So it’s not entirely correct to say that the torture wasn’t helpful.

I don’t need to back up my statements about the CIA not using rough interrogation at GTMO.

You only need to back up your statements if you’re interested in convincing anyone that they’re something other than fabrications you picked up from talk radio. When are you going to present the mysterious “reports” which support your claims? You suggested that such proof can be easily found. So what’s taking you so long? What are you waiting for? There’s no time like the present.

And the key point that you still refuse to address, even though 11 GOP senators finally had to admit it, is that our “authorized methods” included abuse.

I don’t know why you think I’d be impressed by moral statements from eleven politicians.

If you thought that was so good a case then you wouldn’t have felt the need to wander back to the Dilawar story. You’d sound more serious if you had focused on the harsh methods you claim to dislike that had been authorized for interrogation. Everyone agrees peroneal strikes were never allowed.

The “when abuse is authorized, ‘obvious crimes’ become much more likely” line is almost a good one. It might work better if we weren’t at war. Suppose none of those really harsh measures were ever permitted, but they retained the lesser ones like forced standing or the belly slap. Aren’t those still abusive? Would you allow another building to fall because you don’t want to slap a terrorist with an open hand?

It’s one thing to say we should never torture a terrorist even if it means losing another three thousand lives. It’s quite another to say we shouldn’t slap a terrorist even if it means losing three thousand lives.

I don’t need to back up my statements about the CIA not using rough interrogation at GTMO. It wasn’t a black site. I don’t really care if you think otherwise.

If you want to believe the Camp No conspiracy theory then you’re free to do so.

You mention Dilawar’s beatings, which were against official policy… and then you complain about my saying this: “Critics of U.S. policy are unwilling to distinguish differences between authorized methods that they claim to disapprove of, the careless lapses that weren’t authorized, and the obvious crimes.”

I mentioned Dilawar here, to ask you a question about the concept of torture. It’s a question you’re still ducking. The fact that I “mention Dilawar’s beatings” does not demonstrate that I am “unwilling to distinguish differences between authorized methods that they claim to disapprove of, the careless lapses that weren’t authorized, and the obvious crimes.” This leap you are making is strictly a product of your imagination, like so many other things you say.

And the key point that you still refuse to address, even though 11 GOP senators finally had to admit it, is that our “authorized methods” included abuse.

What you also fail to understand is that when abuse is authorized, “obvious crimes” become much more likely (and this is one of the reasons that authorizing abuse is a bad idea). So there is indeed a connection between the “authorized methods” and “the obvious crimes.”

The detainees at GTMO were in DoD custody.

When you recite the same claims over and over again (e.g., that CIA conducted no interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02), while stubbornly refusing to back your claims with proof, you don’t succeed in making the claims more convincing. On the contrary; you succeed only in making it more and more clear that you have no proof, and that no such proof exists.

Your willingness to internalize and regurgitate unsubstantiated government claims makes you a perfect example of Republican authoritarianism. You perform an inadvertent public service by providing such a vivid demonstration of that important phenomenon. So please keep up the good work.

You mention Dilawar’s beatings, which were against official policy (not simply unnecessary beatings, but the very methods even when they were necessary), and then you complain about my saying this: “Critics of U.S. policy are unwilling to distinguish differences between authorized methods that they claim to disapprove of, the careless lapses that weren’t authorized, and the obvious crimes.”

These things are funny to me. That they go over your head is not my problem.

You say you don’t know of “various reports,” and say you wonder how I do know, and yet you link to this CSMonitor article that’s about one of those many reports.

Yes, everyone knows there are “many reports.” Trouble is, there are no reports which substantiate the various claims you’ve been making. For example, where is the report that says there were no CIA interrogations at Gitmo after 1/02?

I think when you use the term “various reports” you mean ‘something I heard Rush Limbaugh say one day.’

the DoD’s methods (either those authorized at the top, or the excesses) were never as extreme as what the CIA did

Really? The “excesses” in the DoD included such things as beating Dilawar to death. That was less extreme than what CIA did? Tell us more, because this is big news.

Critics of U.S. policy are unwilling to distinguish differences between authorized methods that they claim to disapprove of, the careless lapses that weren’t authorized, and the obvious crimes.

Where is your evidence that any “critics of U.S. policy” have done what you claim?

That you mix these things together is simply astonishing.

Where is your evidence that I mix together the things you claim I mix together?

As usual, you are long on claims and short on proof.

That article is about the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere by the U.S. military. It often crossed the line, but the DoD’s methods (either those authorized at the top, or the excesses) were never as extreme as what the CIA did.

Just look at that picture in the article. The Fay Report says DoD required dogs to be muzzled. It was found that a senior officer at Abu Ghraib ordered his men to remove the muzzles so as to intimidate the detainees. (He was later disciplined for that.)

Is it a violation of regulations to remove the muzzles? Yes. Is it the biggest human rights violation in the Middle East worthy of putting at the top of an article? Nope.

There were crimes, of course, such as when a contractor from Egypt raped a prisoner. And there were the humiliations by the guards. Critics of U.S. policy are unwilling to distinguish differences between authorized methods that they claim to disapprove of, the careless lapses that weren’t authorized, and the obvious crimes.

There were also such “horrors” as taking off their clothes and making them stand in stress positions for hours. Some are clear violations of military law but I think you’ll agree (well, others might) that it’s not in the same class as the CIA’s 180 hours of sleep deprivation. That you mix these things together is simply astonishing.

You can believe whatever you want to believe about the “Camp No” conspiracy theories.

the rough interrogation they did was elsewhere.

How do you know?

the detainees were in military custody. They were subject to their rules for treatment

How do you know that there was no CIA participation in their interrogation? How do you know that no one responsible for “military custody” ever used ‘CIA’ techniques? How do you know that JSOC didn’t use CIA techniques?

What makes you smarter than the 11 GOP senators who determined that the use of abusive techniques was not limited to the CIA? What do you know that they don’t?

I said of the CIA at GTMO, “Others were, but not for this kind of extreme interrogation.”

How do you know?

all those reports had been gone over by the press with a microscope.

You have repeatedly mentioned “various reports.” When are you finally going to be specific and tell us which “reports” substantiate your long list of unsubstantiated claims?

And do you mean the same “press” that gladly promoted Bush’s bogus claims about WMD?

According to Jack Shafer of Slate

Shafer’s article doesn’t make a whole lot of sense (link, link).

you’re running around in circles

Uh, no. I’m simply wondering how many naked assertions you are willing to make before you start showing proof to substantiate them. When are you going to show us the “various reports?” Are you hiding them from us because they’re classified information?

I didn’t say there were no CIA interrogators at GTMO. I said we know the detainees were in military custody. They were subject to their rules for treatment. In fact, I said of the CIA at GTMO, “Others were, but not for this kind of extreme interrogation.”

As I see it, you’re running around in circles for the sole reason of trying to taint the U.S. military for methods used by the CIA. That’s a pretty odd thing to do given that all those reports had been gone over by the press with a microscope.

According to Jack Shafer of Slate, Horton’s claims had indeed been reported about in “an Associated Press story, coverage in the British press (the Guardian, the Independent), a piece on television (Countdown With Keith Olbermann), and scattered articles on top Web sites (Slate, Salon, Andrew Sullivan’s blog).”

But as Shafer points out, it’s been snubbed by everyone else. (I didn’t see it in Volokh.com.) And in defense of some of those who did cover it, they were primarily reporting that Harpers had the story out. They didn’t stand behind it.

BTW: It is pretty funny to think that, of all the failed “suicide attempts” at GTMO, that anyone thinks the few that succeeded might have been fakes.

I know because GTMO, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram had been throughly investigated. The reports are largely declassified. We have a very good idea of the general parameters of what they did, and what they didn’t do.

Which report substantiates your claim that there were no CIA interrogators at Gitmo after 1/02?

I’m well aware of “Camp No,” which is only a nickname given to it by people who haven’t the slightest idea what goes on in that building. SSGT Hickman readily admits it.

Hickman admits that he doesn’t know for sure, but he thinks torture was done there. What makes you smarter than him? Were you there?

Scott Horton’s theories aren’t being being taken seriously at this point.

Not being taken seriously by whom? People like you who are doing this?

I’m well aware of “Camp No,” which is only a nickname given to it by people who haven’t the slightest idea what goes on in that building. SSGT Hickman readily admits it.

You’re a little late. Scott Horton’s theories aren’t being being taken seriously at this point.