<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tenet: &#8220;No Papers, No Opinions, No Program&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: acquarius74</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166495</link>
		<dc:creator>acquarius74</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166495</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;You’re most welcome.  Glad it’s a contribution.  I see all these efforts shared here somewhat like Matt Alexander and Ali Soufan view the interrogation process - we’ve got to be smarter than ‘they’ are.  Study them, learn their devious ways, detect their lies, sort out the truth if any is to be found, then proceed lawfully using the actionable intel we’ve gleaned.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It appears that Obama and Holder have drunk Lindsay Graham’s oily elixir.  There are so many mountains of ’stuff’ left by Bush/Cheney, that it’s hard to know which pile to shovel at first.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks for all your fine reporting.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You’re most welcome.  Glad it’s a contribution.  I see all these efforts shared here somewhat like Matt Alexander and Ali Soufan view the interrogation process &#8211; we’ve got to be smarter than ‘they’ are.  Study them, learn their devious ways, detect their lies, sort out the truth if any is to be found, then proceed lawfully using the actionable intel we’ve gleaned.  </p>
<p>It appears that Obama and Holder have drunk Lindsay Graham’s oily elixir.  There are so many mountains of ’stuff’ left by Bush/Cheney, that it’s hard to know which pile to shovel at first.</p>
<p>Thanks for all your fine reporting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rekko</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166472</link>
		<dc:creator>rekko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166472</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;From the National Journal ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090110_9776.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nationaljournal.com.....0_9776.php&lt;/a&gt; ): &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the quoted official, CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman, told the committee on November 18 that he had made no such statement. In fact, Fredman added in a heretofore confidential, five-page memo, he had stressed at the 2002 meeting with interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility described in the Levin committee’s report, “Interrogation practices and legal guidance must not be based upon anyone’s subjective perception” (emphasis added) but rather upon “definitive and binding legal analysis.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Remarkably, the 18-page report issued by the committee (headed “Executive Summary”) does not mention Fredman’s vehement — and, in my view, quite plausible — denial of the horrifying words attributed to him in a document of debatable reliability that the report, and Levin, have treated as established fact.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the National Journal ( <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090110_9776.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationaljournal.com&#8230;..0_9776.php</a> ): </p>
<p>But the quoted official, CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman, told the committee on November 18 that he had made no such statement. In fact, Fredman added in a heretofore confidential, five-page memo, he had stressed at the 2002 meeting with interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility described in the Levin committee’s report, “Interrogation practices and legal guidance must not be based upon anyone’s subjective perception” (emphasis added) but rather upon “definitive and binding legal analysis.” </p>
<p>Remarkably, the 18-page report issued by the committee (headed “Executive Summary”) does not mention Fredman’s vehement — and, in my view, quite plausible — denial of the horrifying words attributed to him in a document of debatable reliability that the report, and Levin, have treated as established fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JasonLeopold</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166385</link>
		<dc:creator>JasonLeopold</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166385</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;this is fantastic! Thank you so much for weighing with this info.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this is fantastic! Thank you so much for weighing with this info.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JasonLeopold</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166383</link>
		<dc:creator>JasonLeopold</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166383</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;A belated thank you for your response and insight on this.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A belated thank you for your response and insight on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rayne</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166282</link>
		<dc:creator>Rayne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166282</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;A “last minute fax”. Interesting. I’d asked in &lt;a href=&quot;http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-april-22-2005-fax-on-torture/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt; why the message was a fax and not and email.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this case, it was a time constraint; an email can bounce around, as we who use email all know, but a fax is a phone call, direct from point-to-point and it’s finite, pin-pointable in time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The only other reason one might send a fax through traditional point-to-point phonecalls is to avoid certain forms of scanning or monitoring.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Looks to me like any time we see a fax used in communications, we should focus on immediacy, timing.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A “last minute fax”. Interesting. I’d asked in <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-april-22-2005-fax-on-torture/" rel="nofollow">this thread</a> why the message was a fax and not and email.</p>
<p>In this case, it was a time constraint; an email can bounce around, as we who use email all know, but a fax is a phone call, direct from point-to-point and it’s finite, pin-pointable in time.</p>
<p>The only other reason one might send a fax through traditional point-to-point phonecalls is to avoid certain forms of scanning or monitoring.</p>
<p>Looks to me like any time we see a fax used in communications, we should focus on immediacy, timing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: acquarius74</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166274</link>
		<dc:creator>acquarius74</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166274</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;They need time to redact the few lines not yet blacked out. /s&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They need time to redact the few lines not yet blacked out. /s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 1divasinger</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166267</link>
		<dc:creator>1divasinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166267</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I have a feeling that come Friday, we will see yet another delay until the first Friday on the August recess calendar!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a feeling that come Friday, we will see yet another delay until the first Friday on the August recess calendar!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: acquarius74</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166262</link>
		<dc:creator>acquarius74</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166262</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The June, 2003 memo to which you refer probably evolved into the following:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11282/section/3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here the Human Rights Watch report on Camp Nama&lt;/a&gt;, [scroll down to page 4]excerpt from my notes:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;…CIA’s Baghdad Station sent a caable to HQTRS on 08/03/2003 raising concern that Special Ops (TF-6-26) troops who served with agency [CIA] officers had used techniques that had become too aggressive.  5 days later [08/08/2003] the CIA issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations.  Separately, the CIA barred its officers from working at Camp Nama, but allowed them to keep providing target info and other intel to the TF.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In summer of 2004 Camp Nama closed and the unit moved to a HQ in Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad.  The unit’s ops are now shrouded in even tighter secrecy.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The June, 2003 memo to which you refer probably evolved into the following:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11282/section/3" rel="nofollow">Here the Human Rights Watch report on Camp Nama</a>, [scroll down to page 4]excerpt from my notes:</p>
<p>…CIA’s Baghdad Station sent a caable to HQTRS on 08/03/2003 raising concern that Special Ops (TF-6-26) troops who served with agency [CIA] officers had used techniques that had become too aggressive.  5 days later [08/08/2003] the CIA issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations.  Separately, the CIA barred its officers from working at Camp Nama, but allowed them to keep providing target info and other intel to the TF.</p>
<p>In summer of 2004 Camp Nama closed and the unit moved to a HQ in Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad.  The unit’s ops are now shrouded in even tighter secrecy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drational</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166238</link>
		<dc:creator>drational</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166238</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;by “real” physical pain, I mean “blatant”.  Psychological pain is VERY real.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by “real” physical pain, I mean “blatant”.  Psychological pain is VERY real.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drational</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166231</link>
		<dc:creator>drational</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/tenet-no-papers-no-opinions-no-program/#comment-166231</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I see what you are saying, but my point was that in the distinction between physical versus mental, which are clearly segregated in the combined memo, Comey specifically noted &lt;em&gt;physical&lt;/em&gt; suffering.  The WaPo article source points us toward the report’s conclusions about psychological impact of combined techniques.  This leads me to wonder whether the CIA is prepared to surrender on questions of psychological suffering but is fighting like hell to keep redacted the physical suffering that had Philbin and Comey up in arms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fair or not, physical suffering is more “poignant” to the general public than psychological suffering.  I can hear the Limbaugh chorus, “boo hoo, we made the terrorist depressed.  Give me a break.”  It would be harder to dismiss detailed medical descriptions of real physical pain, especially if it involved medical instrumentation or blood.  It is this I think the CIA is working on hiding now.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see what you are saying, but my point was that in the distinction between physical versus mental, which are clearly segregated in the combined memo, Comey specifically noted <em>physical</em> suffering.  The WaPo article source points us toward the report’s conclusions about psychological impact of combined techniques.  This leads me to wonder whether the CIA is prepared to surrender on questions of psychological suffering but is fighting like hell to keep redacted the physical suffering that had Philbin and Comey up in arms.</p>
<p>Fair or not, physical suffering is more “poignant” to the general public than psychological suffering.  I can hear the Limbaugh chorus, “boo hoo, we made the terrorist depressed.  Give me a break.”  It would be harder to dismiss detailed medical descriptions of real physical pain, especially if it involved medical instrumentation or blood.  It is this I think the CIA is working on hiding now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.211 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-17 10:10:05 -->

