7 Key Points From the C.I.A Torture Report

TORTURE REPORT

7 Key Points From the C.I.A. Torture Report
By JEREMY ASHKENAS, HANNAH FAIRFIELD, JOSH KELLER and PAUL VOLPE
DEC. 9, 2014 New York Times

The report released by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence discloses new details about the C.I.A.’s torture practices.

1. The C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques were more brutal and employed more extensively than the agency portrayed.

The report describes extensive waterboarding as a “series of near drownings” and suggests that more prisoners were subjected to waterboarding than the three prisoners the C.I.A. has acknowledged in the past. The report also describes detainees being subjected to sleep deprivation for up to a week, medically unnecessary “rectal feeding” and death threats. Conditions at one prison, described by a clandestine officer as a “dungeon,” were blamed for the death of a detainee, and the harsh techniques were described as leading to “psychological and behavioral issues, including hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia, and attempts at self-harm and self-mutilation.”

Waterboarding is called “a series of near-drownings” (Page 86)
Detainees with psychological and behavioral issues (Page 114)

2. The C.I.A. interrogation program was mismanaged and was not subject to adequate oversight.

The report cites dissatisfaction among intelligence officers about the competence and training of interrogators. Those found to have violated agency policy were “rarely held accountable.” The architects of the program had never carried out a real interrogation. The report states that the C.I.A. resisted congressional oversight, restricted access to information, declined to answer questions about the program and “impeded oversight” by the agency's inspector general by providing false information.

An officer with no previous experience conducting interrogations (Page 50)
C.I.A. officers were "rarely held accountable" for death, injury or wrongful detention. (Page 14)

3. The C.I.A. misled members of Congress and the White House about the effectiveness and extent of its brutal interrogation techniques.

The report says that the C.I.A. provided false and misleading information to members of Congress, the White House and the director of national intelligence about the program’s effectiveness. It asserts that a review of cases, in which the agency claims to have collected “actionable intelligence” it would have been unable to obtain by other means, calls into question the connection between the information and any “counterterrorism success.”

How the C.I.A. represented the program’s effectiveness (Page 172)
Examples of inaccurate C.I.A. testimony (Page 462)

4. Interrogators in the field who tried to stop the brutal techniques were repeatedly overruled by senior C.I.A. officials.

C.I.A. personnel reported on multiple occasions to being “disturbed” by waterboarding and concerned over its legality. Officials, including the program’s architects, described the interrogation as a “template for future interrogation” of detainees. In one instance, a senior official pushed back against concern over the “legal limit” of brutal interrogation techniques by stating that the “guidelines for this activity” had been “vetted at the most senior levels of the agency.”

C.I.A. personnel concerned over waterboarding (Page 44)
Counterterrorism official pushes back on questions of legality. (Page 43)

5. The C.I.A. repeatedly underreported the number of people it detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques under the program.

The report states that the C.I.A. never produced an accurate count or list of those it had detained or subjected to brutal interrogation techniques. The agency said it detained “fewer than 100 individuals,” but a review of agency records indicated that it held 119. It also underreported the number of detainees who were subjected to torture.

C.I.A. director “instructed me to keep the detainee number at 98” (Page 15)

6. At least 26 detainees were wrongfully held and did not meet the government’s standard for detention.

The report found that at least 26 detainees “were wrongfully held,” including an “intellectually challenged” man who was used as “leverage” to obtain information from a family member, two former intelligence sources and two individuals identified as threats by a detainee subjected to torture. Agency records were often incomplete and, in some cases, lacked sufficient information to justify keeping detainees in custody.

Of 119 detainees, at least 26 were “wrongfully held.” (Page 14)

7. The C.I.A. leaked classified information to journalists, exaggerating the success of interrogation methods in an effort to gain public support.

The report found that the C.I.A. provided classified information to journalists but that the agency did not push to prosecute or investigate many of the leaks. C.I.A. officials asked officers to “compile information on the success” of the program to be shared with the news media in order to shape public opinion. The C.I.A. also mischaracterized events and provided false or incomplete information to the news media in an effort to gain public support.

Overview of representations to the media (Page 401)

Modi struggles in first big battle of reform campaign

December 8, 2014 2:57 am

Modi struggles in first big battle of reform campaign
Victor Mallet and Avantika Chilkoti in Mumbai Author

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the media during the opening of the winter session of Parliament in New Delhi on November 24, 2014. The Narendra Modi government, which has promised big reforms in its first budget, is looking to push the Insurance Bill as well as the Goods and Service Tax Bill in the month-long winter session that begins today.

India’s government and main opposition party publicly support it. Foreign investors and many local businesses are also in favour.

Yet a plan to raise the foreign ownership cap for Indian insurance companies from 26 per cent to 49 per cent — a jump not even implying a transfer of control — has prompted an exhausting struggle among politicians and business leaders that shows how hard it will be for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to enact his promised economic reforms.

Mr Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata party still hopes to push the Insurance Laws Amendment Bill through parliament this month in what would be the first significant legislative reform of the six-month-old government.

Among the beneficiaries that would be able to raise their stakes are the UK’s Standard Life , which wants to list its joint venture with HDFC, and Mitsui Sumitomo and Nippon Life of Japan, whose partners are Max India and Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group respectively. The law, the wording of which has yet to be finalised, is also expected to allow the entry of reinsurers and of Lloyd’s of London, the insurance market.

The bill was first presented to lawmakers six years ago by a Congress-led government. But it has been held hostage by political point-scoring over unrelated issues — first by the BJP in opposition and now by other parties in the upper house of parliament — and stalled by protectionists in the industry reluctant to share a promising new market with foreign investors.

The wording now being discussed would probably make a concession to Indian nationalists by requiring Indian management control — a restrictive move because under some of the existing joint venture shareholder agreements the operation is run by the minority foreign partner.

After waiting for years for access to India, some foreign investors in the sector would be frustrated if even the mildly reformist law on offer were blocked or further delayed.

David Sloan of risk consultancy Eurasia Group said that if the informal “Bombay Club” of protectionist Indian businesses succeeded in mandating Indian management control, some foreign investors would not only forgo increasing their stakes, they might even withdraw altogether.

“This would be a disaster not only for increasing insurance penetration and boosting financial inclusion, it would be a significant setback for the government’s efforts to attract long-term FDI,” Mr Sloan said.

49% Foreign ownership cap the bill would introduce, compared with current level of 26%

One senior executive at an Indian-foreign joint-venture insurer said: “I think it will be a massive embarrassment for the government if it doesn’t happen in this [parliamentary] session . . . The longer it takes, the less confidence people have. They [foreigners] have put in money on the presumption that it will go to 49 per cent.”

Chris Cummings, chief executive of TheCityUK, which lobbies for London’s financial centre, said of India’s insurance bill while on a visit to Mumbai last week: “It’s important unto itself, and it’s also totemic for the wider liberalisation of the economy.”

The life assurance, health and general insurance markets have huge potential for profitable expansion in one of the world’s biggest and fastest-growing emerging markets — especially as 70 per cent of the life market is currently in the hands of state-controlled Life Insurance Corp.

In a study three years ago, Swiss Re noted that life coverage in India had grown more than tenfold in the decade to 2010 but that the country was exposed to a “protection gap” — the difference between required income after a breadwinner’s death and the sum of savings and insurance cover — of $6.7tn.

Anything that’s done to increase that penetration [of life insurance] is good for the country. I’m confident the government will find a way to make it happen
- Ravi Vishwanath, Tata AIA Life

Insurance executives and analysts say that while health insurance has been booming in India, the private sector life insurance business has been hit in the past few years by customer disappointment over earlier mis-sold products and the effects of the 2008 financial crisis.

There are nevertheless eager potential investors as well as willing recipients in India hungry for capital and expertise.

“From the industry perspective, it will ease the capital strain,” says Shashwat Sharma, a management consulting partner at KPMG in Mumbai. “If this [the law] goes through, I think $4bn of fresh capital will come into the market.”

A vibrant life insurance industry would boost domestic institutional investment in financial markets, still dominated by tycoons and their families. It would also help the government in its quest to fund billions of dollars of infrastructure projects, with the state seeking long-term money and life insurers hunting for currently unobtainable 30-year bonds in which to invest.

“It’s a perfect asset-liability match,” says Ravi Vishwanath, deputy chief executive of Tata AIA Life. “Anything that’s done to increase that penetration [of life insurance] is good for the country. I’m confident the government will find a way to make it happen. The industry has waited a long time for this.”
Source: FT

சமரன்: `தாய்-சேய் மரணம்`- கழகக் கண்டனப் பிரச்சாரக் காட்சி...

சமரன்: `தாய்-சேய் மரணம்`- கழகக் கண்டனப் பிரச்சாரக் காட்சி...: மருத்துவ சுகாதாரத் துறைகளை அரசாங்கம் கைவிட்டு, பன்னாட்டு உள்நாட்டு முதலாளிகள் கொள்ளையிடும் களமாக மாற்றுவதே மருத்துவ மனைகளில் தாய்-சேய் ம...