I can’t imagine they would have redacted “SMU” … it’s used as a catch-all euphemism for various Special Forces operations throughout the entire report. It must refer to something more specific. The blanks also look slightly bigger than 3 characters to me. My wild assumption is JSOC because [A]USASOC couldn’t fit, and [B]we know TONS of torture was carried out by JSOC forces.

I also think it’s significant that the “OGA” thread seems to separate into a distinct line in July 2002 (pg. 23-24) when Mitchell & Jessen form their consulting firm – which is how the CIA likes to do stuff. EW has pretty extensively drawn a clear line through the CIA program with these guys as the driving force operating as contractors. That seems like a standard-playbook move to compartmentalize the CIA, why would the JPRA continue direct involvement? It doesn’t make sense to me.

IMO, this is where JPRA possibly washed their hands of directly supporting the CIA outside of operations running under military cover. If this assumption is correct, it puts the rest of the SASC report in a slightly different light than if one was assuming that the CIA makies frequent appearances throughout the report.

(Thanks for the response BTW).

I’ve been curious about Project 22B for some time, but cannot get anything from anybody about it. Reading that section again carefully, it appears that the redacted agency space is so small, it is either OGA (other governmental agency, usually standing for CIA), or DIA, but it could be something else, e.g., SMU. The comment by the unknown agency re expecting congressional investigations, in its sang froid makes me believe we’re talking about JPRA training CIA interrogators (perhaps new ones).

This makes sense, as CIA heirarchy took from the Mitchell-Jessen experiment success, while a minority (like Shumate) felt there was a problem. Not that the latter were against all torture or coercive interrogation, but they didn’t like the cowboy style of Mitchell, with all his Special Ops friends.

I’ve long said that the torture group had split up into two parties, the “professionals” (college-educated, practitioners of scientific interrogation, including its coercive component), and the “cowboys”, SERE educated, experience-driven, where experience came from directing the SERE schools, but also occasionally being in the field as Special Ops (at another point in their career), or working with Special Ops, as the document in my article shows they currently do.

The CIA, with White House backing, supported the SERE experiment, leaving the more “traditional” “professionals” out on a limb protesting. It was an internal fight, but some of the leaking probably came from the latter. It’s not a fight that will end anytime soon, as each group has their own constituency, and the tension is embedded in the vague organizational lines between Special Operations and CIA’s Clandestine Division.

My operating assumption is that CIA is also rolled in with these military units and are getting around saying it’s a “CIA” program because it’s a compartmentalized military op. This idea is backed up by a 2006 Washington Post article I just happened across looking up some stuff on McChrystal. It is also hinted at in several of the more redacted sections of the SASC report.

A few (OT) notes on the SASC report; McChrystal and NAMA make a highly redacted appearance around pg. 159-164 (161 ish hits a bit on McChrystal). But this whole section of the report is puzzling when compared to other sources. According to the SASC report, McChrystal doesn’t take over JSOC until October 2003. Other reports have him taking control in September 2003. However, the previous commander (Dell Dailey) reportedly left the position in March 2003 … leaving an apparent six month gap in leadership at JOSC. Whoever held this post, refused to sign any paperwork regarding interrogation authorities – and his legal aides indicate it will be unlikely to find anything with his name on it. How is that even possible? It is also unclear if these authorizations were signed by McChrystal after he took command.

The whole section can be verified as relating to JSOC/Nama because of the close correlation between the SASC report and this HRW Report – that also indicates the level of abuse employed under McCrystal’s direct command well beyond January 2004 … something largely glossed over in the report.

Something else that seems to be undiscussed/unexplained is “Project 22b” created specifically to limit JPRA distribution of sensitive activities (pg 37). Col Moulton wrote that protecting information associated with these activities was “of paramount concern” … and a future congressional investigation was anticipated. This, to me, seems to almost be a statement of intent to mislead congress. When you couple that with the instance by Miller that “the use of false documents and reports” was one of 9 “techniques essential to mission success” (pg 114) – it really makes me wonder if we can even trust the records that were kept by military forces.

IMO, the CIA is a small piece of the torture puzzle. The military is the big daddy here. Another interesting thing to ponder is Carl Levin. He sits on both intel and armed services … how could he not know everything? And if he does, why would he support McCrystal as he did if he does not wholeheartedly agree with what occurred?

Sorry to spew on your thread a bit … kind of excited to see someone dust off the SASC report and look closer at the special forces. Really excellent post … look forward to your one on the APA.

In any case, when I’ve appeared in court, it was to testify on behalf of torture victims who were threatened with deportation back to the country that persecuted them, to places they feared death, so if I had only a minute ethical bone in my body, I’d think I’d want my ducks in order prior to testifying on their behalf. In general I think I’ve done okay.

All the best in your work.

Simple as this, Jeff, if you have never been subjected to intensive cross-examination, than you don’t really know whether you had your ducks in order. You have no idea of the cogency of your argument. Twice I have given expert testimony wherein the trial judge determined the state statute was unconstitutional; in one, the state supreme court, leaning heavily on my testimony,upheld the trial judge’s ruling.

Now, if you find this condescending, by all means. For thirty years now, I have been the only psychologist in Kansas who has publicly supported abortion and homosexual rights; little more than a year ago I gave testimony to the joint legislature session on behalf of Dr. Tiller and late abortion rights. And you have been doing, exactly, what?

So, I am one of those down here in the trenches trying to muck things out.

I see my role as strategically pushing the torture issue, as no issue more clearly leads to an assessment of how the U.S. state runs and is ruled, and no issue but torture stands as anathema to civilized norms as torture. Its long-term presence in U.S. society points like a dagger to the heart of the military-intel apparatus, as the tensions of being a torturing country and a democratic or progressive society cannot be resolved. Something must change.

!!!

great writing, off the cuff.

all the best to ya . . .

And to Sporkie @60, well, I won’t worry too much about that. My guess is I’m well known already from my Valtin posts at Daily Kos. In any case, I see my role as strategically pushing the torture issue, as no issue more clearly leads to an assessment of how the U.S. state runs and is ruled, and no issue but torture stands as anathema to civilized norms as torture. Its long-term presence in U.S. society points like a dagger to the heart of the military-intel apparatus, as the tensions of being a torturing country and a democratic or progressive society cannot be resolved. Something must change. The challenge will someday be made, and then we can truly say we will be living in interesting times. The issue of political parties will sort itself out in the heat of events, no matter what I think about it now.