CIA interrogation files

[dennisw]

I find the methodology used by the democrats in this committee to be very interesting and consistent with the previous approach utilized by democrats.

Incredible amount of documents

Specifically, they always included some incredible number of documents as a way to lend credence to their efforts. If you all will recall they placed great emphasis on the "hundreds of thousands of documents" provided to the congressional hearings related to the IRS scandal. Of course, Lois Lerner's important emails were missing. Regardless, we're supposed to be impressed by the sheer number.

In their current effort, they decided to raise the ante. Since we were not impressed by hundreds of thousands, they increased it to: "six million documents." That's right, "six million documents" related to the CIA were reviewed! Are we impressed? By the way, what do they mean by reviewed? Were the documents read, perused, closely examined? Was it like a "pass and review" where they marched by stacks of documents? Does anyone really believe the number? I guess since they reviewed six million documents, their findings must be true. Right? Oh by the way, the only personnel doing the reviewing were democratic staff! Can you say "witch hunt" or "sham?"

Ongoing investigation

The other method utilized by the Democrats is that if there is an ongoing investigation it prevents them from taking reasonable action. If you will recall during the same congressional hearings mentioned previously, IRS leadership was queried related to their knowledge of the abuses related to the Tea Party applicants, and if they knew about the problem, why not get involved or do something to make things right? Well they couldn't. There was an "ongoing investigation" by the IG, so therefore they didn't want to get involved. You see, if there's ongoing investigation you don't have to take any responsibility or exercise any leadership.

In this instant case, we have a similar strategy. According to former CIA director Michael Hayden, the committee's charter stated there would be interviews conducted with CIA personnel as a part of their investigation. However, to quote an opinion piece from the WSJ dated 12/9/14, "

The excuse given by majority senators is that CIA officers were under investigation by the Justice Department and therefore could not be made available. This is nonsense. The investigations referred to were completed in 2011 and 2012 and applied only to certain officers. They never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study. "

What about all the other CIA personnel who were not being investigated by the Justice Department? Surely they interviewed them, right? No. nada. Not one.

It's interesting that the ongoing investigation did not prevent them from "reviewing" 6 million documents or interviewing the defense attorney of one of the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hearings and recommendations

Mr. Hayden also stated the committee's charter would encompass hearings and recommendations. Yet, no hearings were held, and despite spending over $40 million since 2009 on this investigations no recommendations were included.

In summary, it's mind boggling. The only impressive thing about this enterprise is the sheer amount of balls it takes to undertake this contrived investigation and present it with a straight face. That is very impressive.

http://ciasavedlives.com/ was used in gathering information about the investigation

[ddoering]

Perhaps we should build a camp where we could concentrate these democrats until we can develop a final solution to the liberal question.

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by ddoering

Perhaps we should build a camp where we could concentrate these democrats until we can develop a final solution to the liberal question.

No need to build a camp we have Guantanamo and it has some recent openings.

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

Thanks.

Actually since I have retired, I am now writing under a pen name (other than GreenSalsa ) and actually have been published. What ticked me off was when I submitted this rough draft to my editor, they were aghast and refused to print because I was essentially making the argument we should have done more.

Looks like I will need to reevaluate my relationship with my current publisher.

I weep for what my country has de-evolved into...

GreenSalsa,

Great write up, also I would have said something to that knucklehead women in front of you.

This whole EIT is just like the Protesting. So you protest about Cop treatment, yet who do you call out for?

[GreenSalsa]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Great write up, also I would have said something to that knucklehead women in front of you.

Trying to be the grey guy, besides I might have started a minor stampede of the remaining sheeple in the room...

[frostfire]

Thanks for the post dennisw. I know few patriots who must be gnashing their teeth with the release of the report yet have the decency and discretion to honor the NDA we signed. If I were a betting man, I'd bet the report will if not already cost American lives

Originally Posted by dennisw

I find the methodology used by the democrats in this committee to be very interesting and consistent with the previous approach utilized by democrats.

Incredible amount of documents

Specifically, they always included some incredible number of documents as a way to lend credence to their efforts. If you all will recall they placed great emphasis on the "hundreds of thousands of documents" provided to the congressional hearings related to the IRS scandal. Of course, Lois Lerner's important emails were missing. Regardless, we're supposed to be impressed by the sheer number.

In their current effort, they decided to raise the ante. Since we were not impressed by hundreds of thousands, they increased it to: "six million documents." That's right, "six million documents" related to the CIA were reviewed! Are we impressed? By the way, what do they mean by reviewed? Were the documents read, perused, closely examined? Was it like a "pass and review" where they marched by stacks of documents? Does anyone really believe the number? I guess since they reviewed six million documents, their findings must be true. Right? Oh by the way, the only personnel doing the reviewing were democratic staff! Can you say "witch hunt" or "sham?"

Ongoing investigation

The other method utilized by the Democrats is that if there is an ongoing investigation it prevents them from taking reasonable action. If you will recall during the same congressional hearings mentioned previously, IRS leadership was queried related to their knowledge of the abuses relate
d to the Tea Party applicants, and if they knew about the problem, why not get involved or do something to make things right? Well they couldn't. There was an "ongoing investigation" by the IG, so therefore they didn't want to get involved. You see, if there's ongoing investigation you don't have to take any responsibility or exercise any leadership.

In this instant case, we have a similar strategy. According to former CIA director Michael Hayden, the committee's charter stated there would be interviews conducted with CIA personnel as a part of their investigation. However, to quote an opinion piece from the WSJ dated 12/9/14, "

What about all the other CIA personnel who were not being investigated by the Justice Department? Surely they interviewed them, right? No. nada. Not one.

It's interesting that the ongoing investigation did not prevent them from "reviewing" 6 million documents or interviewing the defense attorney of one of the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hearings and recommendations

Mr. Hayden also stated the committee's charter would encompass hearings and recommendations. Yet, no hearings were held, and despite spending over $40 million since 2009 on this investigations no recommendations were included.

In summary, it's mind boggling. The only impressive thing about this enterprise is the sheer amount of balls it takes to undertake this contrived investigation and present it with a straight face. That is very impressive.

http://ciasavedlives.com/ was used in gathering information about the investigation

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

Trying to be the grey guy, besides I might have started a minor stampede of the remaining sheeple in the room...

Haha.. Likely

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by dennisw

I find the methodology used by the democrats in this committee to be very interesting and consistent with the previous approach utilized by democrats.

Incredible amount of documents

Specifically, they always included some incredible number of documents as a way to lend credence to their efforts. If you all will recall they placed great emphasis on the "hundreds of thousands of documents" provided to the congressional hearings related to the IRS scandal. Of course, Lois Lerner's important emails were missing. Regardless, we're supposed to be impressed by the sheer number.

In their current effort, they decided to raise the ante. Since we were not impressed by hundreds of thousands, they increased it to: "six million documents." That's right, "six million documents" related to the CIA were reviewed! Are we impressed? By the way, what do they mean by reviewed? Were the documents read, perused, closely examined? Was it like a "pass and review" where they marched by stacks of documents? Does anyone really believe the number? I guess since they reviewed six million documents, their findings must be true. Right? Oh by the way, the only personnel doing the reviewing were democratic staff! Can you say "witch hunt" or "sham?"

Ongoing investigation

The other method utilized by the Democrats is that if there is an ongoing investigation it prevents them from taking reasonable action. If you will recall during the same congressional hearings mentioned previously, IRS leadership was queried related to their knowledge of the abuses related to the Tea Party applicants, and if they knew about the problem, why not get involved or do something to make things right? Well they couldn't. There was an "ongoing investigation" by the IG, so therefore they didn't want to get involved. You see, if there's ongoing investigation you don't have to take any responsibility or exercise any leadership.

In this instant case, we have a similar strategy. According to former CIA director Michael Hayden, the committee's charter stated there would be interviews conducted with CIA personnel as a part of their investigation. However, to quote an opinion piece from the WSJ dated 12/9/14, "

What about all the other CIA personnel who were not being investigated by the Justice Department? Surely they interviewed them, right? No. nada. Not one.

It's interesting that the ongoing investigation did not prevent them from "reviewing" 6 million documents or interviewing the defense attorney of one of the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hearings and recommendations

Mr. Hayden also stated the committee's charter would encompass hearings and recommendations. Yet, no hearings were held, and despite spending over $40 million since 2009 on this investigations no recommendations were included.

In summary, it's mind boggling. The only impressive thing about this enterprise is the sheer amount of balls it takes to undertake this contrived investigation and present it with a straight face. That is very impressive.

http://ciasavedlives.com/ was used in gathering information about the investigation

Well what I love over the DemocRats "Reviewing" millions upon Millions of documents is that they can even read their Freackin 500 page or 1000 page Budget Bill or ANY BILL they pass. Both parties do this and it drives me nuts.

[JJ_BPK]

And it's only getting "better".

The UK Army interrogation conundrum, AKA: Your new SOP??

Don't yell at terrorist suspects, soldiers told

Army chiefs warn interrogations are being hampered by go-softly rules, By Robert Mendick and Tim Ross, 10:30PM GMT 13 Dec 2014

British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.

The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect.

The regulations replaced a previous policy that had to be withdrawn after a series of legal challenges and the death in custody of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi detainee in Basra.

But there is growing disquiet within the ranks that the latest guidelines, officially called Challenge Direct, are so stringent that it makes interrogation pointless.

There is also concern that the rules can be so easily breached — especially given the pressure under which soldiers are operating — that military personnel will be left exposed to legal claims and possible disciplinary action.

continued: