It makes a difference whether or not print media outlets are willing to call torture “torture.” Just look at this snippet from the Associated Press:
In July 2004, despite growing internal concerns about the CIA’s brutal interrogation methods, senior members of George W. Bush’s national security team gave the agency permission to employ the harsh tactics against an al Qaida facilitator the agency suspected was linked to a plot to disrupt the upcoming presidential election.
After weeks of torture that included being subjected to prolonged stress positions and sleep deprivation at a secret site in Romania, the prisoner, Janat Gul, begged to be killed. But he steadfastly denied knowledge of any plot, CIA records show leading interrogators to conclude he was not the hardened terrorist they thought he was, and that the informant who fingered him was a liar.
Yet there is no evidence the CIA relayed that information to the White House and the Justice Department, which continued to cite the case in legal justifications for the use of the brutal techniques.
They tortured a guy who knew nothing until he begged to die. Only then did it begin to dawn on them that they were making the government of Syria look good by comparison.
Of course, it doesn’t matter that they had the wrong guy. Let’s not pretend that that makes even an iota of difference on the moral plane, because it doesn’t.
I’m also well aware that it’s part of the CIA’s job description to do what they are told and to shoulder all the blame when their crimes are exposed. But the history does cut both ways. The CIA has often done what it wants without informing the administration, acting with the arrogance of a permanent institution that doesn’t have to lower itself to deal openly with an institution that changes leadership every four to eight years.
Well, that’s two parts of their job description that they regularly shirk — especially the “shouldering the blame” thing. And the “do what they are told” part seems to depend on whether they’re told to do something they’re going to do anyway.
Are there any parts of their job description that they do follow?
Side note: You know, the generally arrogant, entitled, and reflexively dishonest — not to mention thin-skinned — attitude of the CIA seems eerily similar to much of the financial industry … which makes me wonder how interconnected they are.
It’s important to understand that the reason why people were squeamish with the term “torture” was because they knew that’s what it was, they knew it was wrong, but they didn’t want to seem uncool.
Those euphemisms are often someone’s guilty conscience speaking loud and clear…
The CIA is a bureaucratic institution that has a stated mission to lie, spy, and confuse those we need information from. They are reasonably good at the lie and confuse mission, unfortunately they are most skilled at applying it to Congress, other government institutions, and the US public.
The spying part is just a cover to get the funding to do the evil things they want to do. It’s a perfect con, no transparency on their activities, no transparency on their funding, and total discretion on how to act, without any accountability.
If you think the Defense department is a hotbed of waste, fraud, and abuse I’d like to see what it’s turned up to over at Langley.
Indeed.