Senate torture report: six top findings

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released an executive summary of its investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program – an investigation launched in 2009 after lawmakers learned that the CIA had destroyed videotapes of detainee interrogations.

The full, 6,700-page study remains classified, but the summary offers a detailed and disturbing glimpse into a rogue CIA that, the report concludes, misled the White House and Congress.

“It is worth remembering the pervasive fear in late 2001 and how immediate the threat felt,” writes Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, who chairs the committee, in a forward to the report. “Nevertheless, such pressure, fear, and expectation of future terrorist plots do not justify, temper, or excuse improper actions taken by individuals or organizations in the name of national security,” she adds. “It is precisely at these times of national crisis that our government must be guided by the lessons of our history.”

Here are six top findings in the report.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
A workman slides a dustmop over the floor at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Va., in 2005.

1. The so-called enhanced interrogation techniques did not help the CIA get intelligence

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
A workman slides a dustmop over the floor at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Va., in 2005.

The Senate report takes great issue with claims that the intelligence gleaned from enhanced interrogation techniques helped to save US lives. Again and again, the report found that when subjected to these torture techniques, CIA detainees said whatever their captors wanted to hear. This meant faulty intelligence and wasted time for US intelligence officers tracking down false leads.

“Detainees provided fabricated information on critical intelligence issues, including the terrorist threats which the CIA identified as its highest priorities,” the report found.

CIA officers themselves “regularly called into question whether the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques were effectively assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence.”

1 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.