CIA Watchdog 'Mistakenly' Destroyed Its Only Copy Of A Senate Torture Report (yahoo.com) 209
An anonymous reader writes: According to Yahoo News, the CIA inspector general's office "mistakenly" destroyed its only copy of a mammoth Senate torture report at the same time lawyers for the Justice Department were assuring a federal judge that copies of the document were being preserved. Agency officials described the deletion of the document to Senate investigators as an "inadvertent" foul-up by the inspector general. "CIA inspector general officials deleted an uploaded computer file with the report and then accidentally destroyed a disk that also contained the document, filled with thousands of secret files about the CIA's use of 'enhanced' interrogation methods," reports Yahoo News. The Senate Intelligence Committee and Justice Department knew about the incident last summer, sources said. However, the destruction of a copy of the sensitive report was never made public, nor was it reported to the federal judge at the time who was overseeing a lawsuit seeking access to the still classified document under the Freedom of Information Act. Despite this incident, a CIA spokesperson has said another unopened computer disk with the full report is still locked in a vault at agency headquarters. "I can assure you that the CIA has retained a copy," wrote Dean Boyd, the agency's chief of public affairs, in an email. Feinstein is calling for the CIA inspector general to obtain a new copy of the report to replace the one that disappeared. A 500-page summary was released in 2014, and concluded that the CIA misled Americans on the effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation." Specifically, the interrogations were poorly managed and unreliable.
"Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a fact no matter how you try to weasel out of it: "enhanced interrogation" is actually torture. Which doing so in a time of war is a war crime. The stuff Japanese people were sentenced to death for shortly after their trials at the end of World War II.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a fact no matter how you try to weasel out of it: "enhanced interrogation" is actually torture.
It is "enhanced interrogation" just like tractor-trailers full of Semtex detonated at the various TLA HQs' would be "enhanced objection".
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
In fact it may be the most mentally destructive form of torture around. Which it was designed to be. We know it as enhanced interrogation because , well, officials want to call it that way and because the press is lost to journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but in order to be convicted you must first loose. Only the looser gets to be punished, the victor is always right.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a war crime unless the enemy is in a position to enforce it against you. In connection with the deliberate strategic bombing of civilian targets, General Curtis LeMay said, "If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
Re:"Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as we all know, if it is legal, then it is moral, and if you aren't found of, then it must have been legal. (That was sarcasm, by the way).
Re:"Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they should get the protections that apply to civilians, protections that apply when not at war, and so forth. There are also international laws and treaties and protocols other than the Geneva Convention that cover battlefield and prisoner situations. The US supreme court however has said that the Geneva Conventions, common articles 3, do apply in the war on terror even though it is not a state vs state conflict.
International criminal courts have had a ruling that said there was no middle ground between civilian and soldier, no status of person that was not covered by some law. That is, civilians engaged in hostile actions are subject to domestic law of the state detaining them. This may mean military tribunal as far as international law goes, however the supreme court has been disagreeing with congress and executive over this. Neither US nor international law allow the secret indefinite detention without trial for unlawful combatants, and neither allows torture.
The military in general supports all this and has a strict military code of justice. They do not want to treat detained combatants badly because they know it will cause repercussions when US soldiers are captured. The CIA however as a civilian organization is much looser and with fewer ethical or moral restrictions, and no hesitation to act outside the law, they're the bastards to watch out for.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, when I searched for the application of the Geneva Convention in non-state wars, I immediately found a paper stating that such conventions do NOT apply to non-state actors, and that revising such conventions to apply to such cases is an ongoing effort. See http://digitalcommons.wcl.amer... [american.edu]
Sorry to confuse you with the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture. (Score:5, Informative)
The US hasn't declared war since WWII.
This is one of those nonsense things people say that simply isn't true.
A declaration of war is an act of Congress. People like to throw around the word "formal" as if that means something, i.e. that it doesn't count somehow if the act doesn't say "declaration of war" or a variation thereof. The Constitution mentions no specific form that the legislation must take, it simply says "Congress shall have the power to [...] declare war".
Since WWII, there have been Congressional acts passed for the Vietnam War [wikipedia.org], the Gulf War [wikipedia.org], and the Iraq War [wikipedia.org], to name a few.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this modded down? The US hasn't declared war since WWII.
Really? What was the Invasion of Iraq, a camping trip? And we just happened to bring 250,000 soldiers with us to guard the beer cooler?
Re: (Score:2)
There was no declaration of war in either US invasion of Iraq. World War II was the last time the United States actually declared war.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
THIS. x1000. The really shitty part is the reason why: back during ww2, Roosevelt and congress got a law passed against undue profiteering from war time contracts by large corporations.
Everything since then has been a "police action" or "in an advisory capacity". such as VietNam. This is so that large corporations can make whatever profits they want without being bound by the wartime law.
Youknow how it works, lobbyists, Red Scare, Blackwater and Haliburton, etc.... and meanwhile people die. Thats a big bloo
Re: "Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture. (Score:4, Insightful)
There was no declaration of war in either US invasion of Iraq. World War II was the last time the United States actually declared war.
Oh, I see. It wasn't a "war" because we didn't call it a "war".
Like when I rape some girl, I don't call it "rape". I call it "unilateral surprise sex", so that way it's not really rape. Or when I break in your house and take your TV and money. Don't bother calling the police, because it's not "stealing", I just "borrowed your stuff forever".
You're right, we didn't actually declare war, but that doesn't mean we didn't go to war.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the Korean War a declared war? If not, why would there need to be an armistice?
Re: "Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture. (Score:5, Insightful)
The restriction against torture during wartime is supposed to mean "not even in the extreme case of war", but some people seem to think it means it's ok as long as it's not war?
Re: (Score:2)
"I was only following orders/public opinion!"
Re:hooding, waterboarding are bad. Raping 13yo gir (Score:5, Insightful)
Waterboarding (pouring water over the enemy combatant's face) and hooding (putting a bag over their head so they can't see) are bad.
Are you serious? Waterboarding someone is a drowning technique. Waterboarding is 'pouring water over their face' the way tearing someone's finger nails out is a 'rough manicure'. They were drowning people several times a day for days or weeks on end. You need to get your head straight on this.
"In other words, raping these civilians hundreds of times each."
Wait that sounds pretty unpleasant. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write it as "In other words, they potentially got some unwanted sexual attention"? /sarcasm
Systematically raping thousands of girls, many of them hundreds of times each, is a completely different level of horrible.
Yes, absolutely, but really its only different because of the scale. We only waterboarded (hopefully) a small number of people (possibly dozens) of times. Not hundreds or thousands. But seriously you can't claim the moral high ground over a criminal who raped his victims repeatedly when you drowned and resuscitated your own victims over and over again. The ONLY thing that made us better was the scale was pretty small by comparison.
I'm not even sure which torture I'd call more inhuman -- held down and raped by soldiers repeatedly vs held down and drowned repeatedly... to hear the waterboarding victims talk; about the panic attacks, nightmares they live with now, the terror and the pain they felt... they might well have opted for the rape instead. Maybe it doesn't even make sense to try to hold one or the other as worse.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/16/cia-torture-water-dousing-waterboard-like-technique
http://www.theguardian.com/law... [theguardian.com]
But that's beside the point. I never claimed it was a lot of people. Only that the people who were waterboarded were waterboarded repeatedly: dozens, even hundreds of times.
Nobody drowned.
Drowning is defined as respiratory impairment from being in or under a liquid. Drowning doesn't need to result in death.
Withstanding waterboarding is part of Seal Training.
Your point? Even SEALs have come out and said that its torture.
And they've also pointed out that their training was in very controlled circumstances, and that they *knew* they would be
Re:hooding, waterboarding are bad. Raping 13yo gir (Score:5, Insightful)
Waterboarding is drowning under controlled conditions. It's supposed to simulated but many times the victims did drown and had to be resuscitated.
I think the main point is that if the US is going around trying to convince the world that it's the shining example of goodness that has been wronged then it shouldn't be going around doing evil acts like this. After the 9/11 attacks there was a tremendous amount of sympathy and goodwill towards the US in which it could have used for much good. Even after the invasion of Afghanistan it kept much of that goodwill because it got the approval from the UN. Then it didn't get the approval for the invasion of Iraq due to the lack of evidence but still went ahead, proof of how prisoners were treated came out, Guantanamo, the death toll from the second Iraq war (and not just the US casualties), the torture scandal, drone strikes, and a long list of other things has eroded that goodwill and even turned it into hostility from certain areas. The world was ready to help the US but it's leaders chose a path of vengeance instead of tackling the problem.
Good points (Score:3)
You make a couple of good points. I think that's much more insightful than suggesting that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other perpetrators of 9/11 is just as raping innocent girls.
Guess you forgot to read your own source (Score:3)
I guess you forgot to read any of those pages before you linked to them. Here are a couple of quotes from your first link:
--- ...
Scott qualified his statement to make clear he was referring to executed Japanese military members who faced a variety of war crime charges, including waterboarding, not that they were sentenced to death solely for that offense.
Wallach, in his essay, wrote that six Japanese generals who ordered and permitted water torture were sentenced to death. He added, however, that those gen
Re: (Score:2)
Time to set the precedent then!
I am perfectly happy to send them, with all of the evidence to very public and open courts and let these questions be decided....in the daylight.
Sadism. (Score:2, Insightful)
Since torture methods are known to barely work, is torture mostly an excuse for sadists to get kicks? some twisted Biblical notion of hellish justice disguised as interrogation?
We know why torture doesn't happen, but when it does, why does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but but it worked on 24
Re:Sadism. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that torture doesn't work is more truthiness than truth. But whether it works or not is irrelevant. It is immoral and should not be allowed.
Re:Sadism. (Score:5, Insightful)
According to them, torture is worse than worthless because the 'intelligence' you gather is far more likely to be false than anything else.
So again, stop believing hollywood, they make shit up for a living.
Re:Sadism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. People under torture lie to make it stop temporarily. They make up stuff when the interrogators insist they must know something, but do not.
On the moral side, the only sane way to deal with torturers and those ordering it is to either execute them or lock them up permanently in a closed mental institution. These people have no place in human society.
Re:Sadism. (Score:4, Informative)
Talk to professional interrogators, or the people that have actually studied the subject. According to them, torture is worse than worthless because the 'intelligence' you gather is far more likely to be false than anything else.
Not quite. If you want to get to the truth of what happened, then torture is worthless. However, if you want someone to say a specific thing regardless of what the truth is (eg: admit to a crime), torture can be very effective.
For example, the CIA was feeling pressure to prove their methods were effective. So their main goal whenever they tortured someone at their black sites [thebureaui...igates.com] was to get them to give up names of others who they could kidnap and torture. They became sort of the Amway of torture. The victim would eventually start giving names of anyone plausibly Muslim they may have rattling around in their head, and then the next round of renditions would begin. The CIA could then throw up all the numbers of names and leads they were getting as proof that their methods were working.
You will to this day hear Bush Admin. officials cite these numbers to defend their torture program.
Re: (Score:2)
He literally told him to go talk to a primary source, not to take his own word for it.
Re:Sadism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel which is a friendly country to the USA let it be known to the Bush administration that they had given up using torture against terrorism as it was so ineffective.
The Bush administration, just like you, was impervious to facts, always preferring their own ideological preconceived notions to reality. Lately, this seems increasingly have become a signature of the whole GOP. If facts are not to your liking just pretend they aren't true.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say has no connection whatsoever to what i wrote. It's funny that you think it does. It's like me saying, "hey your fly is open", and you reply "yeah but Jimmy hasn't taken a shower". Maybe so, and?
Re: (Score:2)
What? How are torture and war alternatives to one another?
Re:Sadism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sadism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Torture is used because the people who use it believe, perhaps entirely sincerely, that the person they are torturing knows something that the people who are performing the torture either want to or need to know, and the importance of them knowing this is of more importance to them than the personhood of the person they are torturing.
Torturers always have ways of explaining away their actions. It is for their country, their faith, the truth or liberty - for the greater good. The goal justifies the means. You should read up om Himmler's speeches to the SS top; all torturers think like that, whether it is the Spanish Inquisition and their "We cause you suffering in this life, so your time in Purgatory will be shorter", Daesh's burning and stoning of innocent people - or the waterboarding og suspected terrorists by the Americans. Good people don't do this, not just out of regard for the victim, but because they have chosen not to lower themselves to the same level as the terrorists and their sadistic torturers.
Of course. it has precisely zero effectiveness if this belief is mistaken.
It has no value whether their belief is true or false, we already know that. A person who undergoes torture is focused entirely on escaping the mistreatment, not on giving accurate information. When you are tortured, your trust in the torturer and in people in general is fundamentally destroyed, and you don't believe that you are not going to be tortured again, soon, whether you tell the truth or not, so you only want the hell you are in right now, to stop; so you say anything they want to hear. At least it may buy you a few hours or even days before it starts again.
In order to gather reliable evidence, you absolutely must establish some sort of trust - you make promises, then keep them, you respect the individual, and gradually they may change their minds and cooperate. You reward cooperation, but not in a way that makes them feel they are being paid off for being traitors. And so on. It isn't really difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true... but it is only *after* they have a realization that what they believe to be the truth will not actually make the torture stop, that a person being tortured will generally resort to trying to fabricate whatever lie they think will make the torture stop. In absence of any evidence to indicate that
Re: (Score:2)
As any halfway sanely organized secret organization has both compartmentalized information and knows what to change and move when somebody is captured, torture is never effective, unless the information would have been easily available by other means. This means the torturers and those that are ordering it are deep in the evil spectrum, because they did not bother to find out about the things they are doing beforehand.
Re: (Score:2)
torture is used for multiple reasons. Torture is sold with a story of some imminent danger where the tortured person has done very bad things and also has a key that when disclosed will stop this imminent danger. If you think this story represents the reality it is easier to support it. In reality this may apply to very exceptional cases but the bulk is that it's used for general information gathering , for turning people into informants , for terrorizing the population. For general information gathering th
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you watch television fiction and think it has any relationship to reality at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if your post has any relationship to mine. Wrong location? In any case I can't figure out what your enlightened criticism is supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Have I ever. Now your post is no longer listed as a reply to mine but to someone else. Apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, slashcode. :)
Re: (Score:2)
There are people that have actually studied the subject. (I don't know how they got their data, but apparently they did.)
Re: (Score:2)
A good source seems to be the war in Algeria 50 years ago. Both the French and the natives tortured excessively, wit little beneficial effect to them, if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about destroying the victim and about spreading fear. It has been known to be completely ineffective as a means of getting information at the very least since the French tortured vigorously in Algeria about 50 years ago. They never found out anything worthwhile they did not already know and they really tried to go to the limits possible.
So, yes, sadism, desire to dehumanize and eradicate the victim, and to terrorize others. Noting even remotely compatible with civilized society. However something reli
Re:Sadism. (Score:4, Informative)
It has been known far longer than that [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
True. The French in Algeria may just be the most solid data available. Likely everybody smart in history that could observe torture figured this out sooner or later.
This is an interesting link, in any case. Thanks!
Re: Sadism. (Score:2)
Unfortunately the brits in Ireland wanted a second opinion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I was pointed at Father Spee through the '1632' fiction series (where the writers perpetuate the mistaken 'von Spee' name). After reading up on him I was quite impressed. An interesting person, and the 'Cautio Criminalis' is an interesting work, so I am glad to help another one find it ;)
Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chicken and Egg (Score:2)
I think that Hillary learned how to be evasive and deny from the best in the CIA. It's pretty amazing how many critical files and witnesses have 'vanished' since the advent of the CIA [google.com].
Criminally negligent/incompetent (Score:5, Insightful)
If the CIA were a person (or smaller less corrupt organization) they'd be held liable (and possibly in contempt) with massive punishments.
I guess it's not just the banks that can be TBTF.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a case of TBTF or "screw with us and we'll show you what replaced the heart attack gun"?
http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001
Re: (Score:2)
I say we kill them for high treason. Apparently they forgot that this was a democracy.
Oh, and we don't need evidence, just like they don't. The CIA is sure good at forgetting things, like the fact that we have a second amendment for this very fucking reason.
Re:Criminally negligent/incompetent (Score:5, Insightful)
I say we kill them for high treason. Apparently they forgot that this was a democracy.
Oh, and we don't need evidence, just like they don't. The CIA is sure good at forgetting things, like the fact that we have a second amendment for this very fucking reason.
They're part of the executive branch - you know the ones that are charged with enforcing the law? That branch has shown repeatedly, in every administration in the past 50+ years, that it cannot/will not control the CIA (not to mention any other alphabet-soup agency).
The Military Industrial Complex needs to be smashed, in order for this to take effect - and that means defeating the funding of this monstrosity.
The only way we can do this is to defund the branch.
Re: (Score:2)
They're part of the executive branch - you know the ones that are charged with enforcing the law? That branch has shown repeatedly, in every administration in the past 50+ years, that it cannot/will not control the CIA (not to mention any other alphabet-soup agency).
The Bush Administration controlled the CIA just fine. The torture was their own idea. The CIA didn't even know how to do it at first, and had to raid the military's SEER [wikipedia.org] (anti-torture training class) for expertise.
Please, no false equivalencies here.
Re:Criminally negligent/incompetent (Score:4, Interesting)
What will they be replaced with?
Maybe a Construction Industrial Complex. Fix all these roads, bridges, subways, water and sewer lines, etc. that are crumbling apart all over our own country instead of dropping a trillion dollars worth of bombs on someone else's country.
Re: Criminally negligent/incompetent (Score:2)
Construction Industrial Complex (Score:2)
Incidentally, Panama actually has this phenomenon. The construction companies have been giving kickbacks to the government officials, and the officials have been coming up with more money and ever more inventive ways to keep the debt off the books. A lot of money seems to be going into useless skyscrapers, but they're also building roads and hospitals.
If you're going to have corrupt industries, it's probably better that they are constructive rather than destructive.
Re: (Score:2)
If the CIA were a person (or smaller less corrupt organization) they'd be held liable (and possibly in contempt) with massive punishments.
I guess it's not just the banks that can be TBTF.
This is the most shameful aspect of Sovereign Immunity.
US Citizens pay the CIA via taxes. Yet, when this tax-payer organization 'goes rogue', we have no Constitutional avenue of redress to punish them for their War Crimes.
Also as a result of CIA actions (over the last 40 years), many US Citizens have died – the ones who pay their salary. Innumerable people from foreign nations have died at their hands, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If the CIA were a person (or smaller less corrupt organization) they'd be held liable (and possibly in contempt) with massive punishments.
I guess it's not just the banks that can be TBTF.
This is the most shameful aspect of Sovereign Immunity.
US Citizens pay the CIA via taxes. Yet, when this tax-payer organization 'goes rogue', we have no Constitutional avenue of redress to punish them for their War Crimes.
Also as a result of CIA actions (over the last 40 years), many US Citizens have died – the ones who pay their salary. Innumerable people from foreign nations have died at their hands, too.
I thought the CIA was funded by illicit drug/weapons dealing
Re: (Score:3)
Having worked for large corporations and the government, I actually can fully understand how this could happen without any foul play (opinions of Slashdotters notwithstanding).
One guy says "it's preserved somewhere", another guy says "it's on those disks" and a third guy says "let's scrap all of those disks". Nobody ever stops to ask "where's the backup?" or "are these disks needed?". Instead, it's just a game of moving targets and priorities, trying to stay ahead of the collapsing mess of bureaucracy whose
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we could torture them, but they lost the instructions.
FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. GO TO JAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
The CIA is a rogue fully-unaccountable shadow organization that thumbs its nose at ALL regulators including Congress. The longer this is allowed to go on the closer to a totalitarian state we are allowing ourselves to veer toward. Checks and balances mean JACK SHIT when they just go right around all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. GO TO JAIL! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Church committee had a good chance, and the Pike committee in the house as well, back in the Ford administration. Donald Rumsfeld was a part of the administration back then and worked very hard to prevent the Church Committee from dismantling the CIA, and the administration did seem very worried that the this could have happened. The Church committee were called traitors by some hardliners at the time. Since that time, the executive has amassed even more power relative to congress.
Copies still exist; CIA IG deleted (Score:5, Informative)
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
Re: (Score:3)
They should just redownload it from OneDrive.
Re:Copies still exist; CIA IG deleted (Score:5, Interesting)
No they don't. That's the entire point. Because of it's classified nature there are very few copies of this report. The copy that was destroyed was the Senate's "copy" (they didn't really have a copy because the entire document was classified to protect the torturers). You may hate Feinman, and I do because she's happy to go along with Jack Booted Thugery, but when she stood on the Senate floor and claimed the CIA was subverting government she was telling the truth. The CIA was hiding and deleting documents the Senate committee had already seen. The CIA was deliberately obstructing the Senate and all "civilian" oversight.
But you know what? No one even cared. I've believed for a long time that the only way to fix the FBI and CIA and the abuses they commit is to destroy them and create new agencies from the ground up to take over their responsibilities. Both agencies have been unelected, corrupt, unchecked little boys clubs that wield influence and power over our democracy.
Disband them both and reassign their responsibilities, because when they reach the point they have the only solution is to burn them down and rebuild them from the ground up.
Re: (Score:2)
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which produced the report, has copies of its own report. The CIA has copies. The CIA IG destroyed its copy, provided to it by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and told the committee. Stupid, yes...but given that it was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, it's not like the CIA IG destroying its only copy of the Senate's report amounts to, well, anything.
I think there's a lot of things going on in this story that needs expert analysis, here's my attempt at fundamentally misunderstanding the important points:
1) It makes sense they'd just have one copy. The full report is highly classified and has major political ramifications. They really want to make sure there's not a lot of random copies floating around.
2) Someone at the CIA supposedly thought they were supposed to delete the report, I feel like the CIA is a place with established mechanisms for deleting
when they get it back they will put it on display (Score:5, Funny)
-I'm just sayin'
Unopened disk ... (Score:3)
a CIA spokesperson has said another unopened computer disk with the full report is still locked in a vault at agency headquarters.
And we'll be happy to open the disk and give you a copy of the contents just as soon as we locate the Torx T10 driver we need to do so... can we keep the cool magnets?
Could always (Score:5, Funny)
How about some Extreme waterboarding with trump! (Score:2)
How about some Extreme waterboarding with trump! and he will put that out with out an cover up.
Re: (Score:2)
How about some Extreme waterboarding with trump! and he will put that out with out an cover up.
No! The orange will all wash off of his face!
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem. You can get Cheetos at any supermarket or convenience store.
Re: (Score:2)
Then PETA will become involved due to cruelty to whatever he's wearing in place of hair.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will just get rid of PETA , NIMBY , ETC.
And then ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: And then ... (Score:2)
Non-story - they have a backup (Score:3)
Re:Non-story - they have a backup (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite this incident, a CIA spokesperson has said another unopened computer disk with the full report is still locked in a vault at agency headquarters. "I can assure you that the CIA has retained a copy," wrote Dean Boyd, the agency's chief of public affairs, in an email.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
And in an Unrelated News Story (Score:2)
Oh sure I believe that (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I totally believe that they only had one copy of this critically important report. It's too bad that the dog ate it or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I totally believe that they only had one copy of this critically important report. It's too bad that the dog ate it or whatever.
Allow me to quote from the summary
a CIA spokesperson has said another unopened computer disk with the full report is still locked in a vault at agency headquarters. "I can assure you that the CIA has retained a copy," wrote Dean Boyd, the agency's chief of public affairs, in an email. Feinstein is calling for the CIA inspector general to obtain a new copy of the report to replace the one that disappeared.
So they're not claiming it's completely gone. At worst this is a delaying tactic, not obstruction.
The dog? (Score:2)
... "mistakenly" destroyed its only copy of a mammoth Senate torture report ...
A genuine "The dog ate my report", then? Amazing, you would have thought adults could do better.
Re: (Score:2)
So now we know (Score:3)
its only copy of a mammoth Senate torture report
So that's why they died out!
Funny (Score:2)
Of course, it isn't like they've been caught lying to the public and the government before...
Freak accident (Score:3)
"Yes sir, we accidently destroyed the disk. You see we where testing a flamethrower and accidently burned the disk, and then as it happens sometimes a steamroller came by and just happened to crush it, and finally we spilled some highly corrosive acid on the remains.It was just a freak accident."
Ransomware? (Score:2)
Yeah if you believe that one... (Score:2)
Yeah if you believe it, I have a bridge for sale in NYC...
Playbook (Score:2)
Seems the CIA and its Inspector General are reading from the IRS playbook.
Re: So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you believe that the new report the CIA will provide is the same as the old report, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Especially considering that the CIA were caught red-handed manipulating the computers, and deleting files from said computers, of the Congressionally Mandated Investigatory Task Force.
The word TRUST contains none of the following letters: C, I, & A.
Re:But of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have to compare yourself to ISIL to look good, I guess you've reached the top of the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not in the slightest.
Now, what was your point again?