"You won't mind if I don't believe you will you? I could not read a 6,000 page report in two days and I am pretty fast."
I haven't read the full report as of yet but a good 500 pages in I've seen the CIA have used sleep deprivation, water boarding, refusing to treat injuries like open bullet wounds, rectal rehydration, and other torture methods that brought victims to the point of mental break. Believe me when I say, the report does not shy away from the details.
Okay. Here is the allegation:
Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take "precedence" over his medical care,^ resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture. In at least two other cases, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation techniques despite warnings from CIA medical personnel that the techniques could exacerbate physical injuries.
Here is some general rebuttal:
5. (U//FOUO) The Study has all the appearances of an authoritative history of CIA's RDI effort. As Chairman Feinstein announced to the press the day it was approved by the Committee, its authors had access to 6 million pages of records-most provided by CIA-and they cite more than 35,000 footnotes. However, although the Study contains an impressive amount of detail, it fails in significant and consequential ways to correctly portray and analyze that detail. Simply put, the Study tells part of the story of CIA's experience with RDI, but there are too many flaws for it to stand as the official record of the program. Those flaws stem from two basic limitations on the authors:
• (U//FOUO) A methodology that relied exclusively on a review of documents with no opportunity to interview participants, owing to the Department of Justice investigation of the program; and
• (U//FOUO) An apparent lack of familiarity with some of the ways the Agency analyzes and uses intelligence.
The Democrat staffers who wrote this hit piece interviewed none of the participants from the directors, nor the planners, no the interrogators. But they did interview the slip and fall lawyers for the unlawful combatants. The authors knew the anti-American slant they were going for and they got it. They also have no idea how intelligence is created in the real world. They quoted from documents but did not seek to gain any context. Had they been interested in lessons learned they would have done so.
"Yes, whatever is in the report the treason is in releasing it. She intentionally damaged the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency. The damage is enormous and long lasting. She must be held accountable."
That's not grounds to arrest Feinstein for treason, sorry to burst your bubble there, Mr.Republican. If we are to hold anyone accountable, it's the CIA agents who allowed the torture to take place.
I believe it is. She has done more damage to the United States, by isolating the US, by demoralizing our allies, by giving substantial recruiting aid to the terrorists, including a likely increase in American Jihadists, as well as severely damaging the CIA in ways that will last for a few generations.
We will continue to disagree over interrogations being torture.