kaydee412

Google, Hotmail and Yahoo etc are not proper email providers, and web hosting services often do a poor job of handling email also.

Why do you say Google is not a "proper" email provider?

Since you have no effectively descended into pure emotionally fueled FUD, any further expectation of a rational discussion is forfeit. Thank you for making your position crystal clear.

That's your counter? I don't blame you; your position leaves no option but a forfeit anyway. Thanks for playing.

I have written out very concisely what my position is. Re-read it.

... and yes, financial abuses on a nationwide scale are more harmful in the grand scheme of things than imprisoning and / or torturing a couple of enemy combatants.

What do-gooders seem to consistently miss is an awareness of a bigger picture, than focusing on relatively irrelevant minutiae.

You wrote:

"Torture of enemy combatants isn't the issue of concern, in terms of abuse. Wall Street being given free reign, constant pouring of subsidies onto the mega rich, and allowing them to pay no taxes are bigger issues."

I asked you to clarify it twice which you refused. If you wanted to be concise you could simply have written "war crimes good; financial planning bad".

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would think that financial crimes are comparable to war crimes, not to mention that they're more harmful. Is it narcissism, greed, or envy? Or simply ignorance?

It's remarkable how how you lie about the extent of these war crimes, while in the next sentence calling them trivial. Why are you making a liar of yourself to defend something you believe is trivial? Could it be that you're really painfully aware of the seriousness of the situation, but when push comes to shove you don't really care about anyone else but yourself? That would explain everything you've written so far on this.

I'd ask your opinion on the Gestapo, KGB, Stasi, Securitate, CSU, Santebal, etc, but if what you're writing above is anything to go by I think I know where you stand already.

Does that mean torturing inside the Thai territory is legal?

Or only if done by foreigners?

Or only if ordered by foreigners?

No, torture is a war crime and thus illegal; see: http://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture#laws for a summary.

You are incredibly adept at completely going off on hyperbole, going down hypotheticals, and completely spouting FUD.

As I said, there is absolutely no indication of anything of this sort being close to happening - particularly as increasing civilian casualties would work counter to 'bringing everyone home' and with the present system of drone strikes would actually take more effort.

I think you're a little naive about the situation we're in. On one hand you're perfectly fine with accepting torture and other war crimes as standard operating procedure, but you get more upset over Wall Street taking advantage of the system. A system put in place by the politicians elected by the people. Collateral damage has happened and is happening. Instead of relaxing it we have been tightening it. Why do you think we had to do that? Because of the pressure from other countries. It wasn't our initiative. So we've been there already.

Yes, they are. One more reason why it wouldn't happen.

That's false. They don't control everything, they do of course make mistakes themselves, and they have occasional rogue personnel. There are other actors active and operating as well. CIA for one.

Torture of enemy combatants isn't the issue of concern, in terms of abuse. Wall Street being given free reign, constant pouring of subsidies onto the mega rich, and allowing them to pay no taxes are bigger issues.

Uh, excuse me? Are you equating war crimes with Google and Apple setting up tax-dodging schemes and the Obama administration bailing out the car industry and generally saving the US economy?

... and there I thought for one tiny second that you were actually capable of paying attention. I've listed three distinct issues, and you concentrated on a single one, and did so incorrectly, to boot.

Wow. Very disappointed.

Instead of trying to be cute why don't you explain yourself like I asked? What you intended to write and what you wrote may be two different things. What you wrote is so out of whack with reality and any moral compass and the two sentences are so poorly constructed that they leave more questions than answers. Try again and feel free to write more this time.

The military is working extremely hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible, but with support like this I could see pressure being exerted from the top to relax that.

There is nothing to indicate such hyperbolic speculation.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Really? We're in the shits with a war that's been dragging on for 14+ years, sacrificing thousands of soldiers' lives and costing trillions of dollars, not to mention dragging our reputation through the mud and alienating our citizens and allies through illegal surveillance. I'd say the motivation and willingness to end this and go home is definitely there. You just clearly documented that the majority of the people are comfortable with committing war crimes to get this done, so I think we're dangerously close already. Thankfully the US military is a professional one that respects international laws and rules of conduct, and holds itself to a very high standard.

Torture of enemy combatants isn't the issue of concern, in terms of abuse. Wall Street being given free reign, constant pouring of subsidies onto the mega rich, and allowing them to pay no taxes are bigger issues.

Uh, excuse me? Are you equating war crimes with Google and Apple setting up tax-dodging schemes and the Obama administration bailing out the car industry and generally saving the US economy? If you are, you just lost me and will have to explain yourself. We certainly have huge unfair practices when it comes to big corporations and rich individuals, but saying tax dodging is the same as torture, now that's either hyperbole or you're completely off your rocker.

America *is* good. Just like Thailand, self-serving individual are abusing much of what is good to their own benefits. That same goodness renders many people blind and powerless to do anything about it. That is the shortcoming of democracy.

I agree with you, but it worries me that the actions of these few have such broad support in the public. Once we give up the moral high ground I think we're in the slippery dirt. What's next -- our stance on collateral damage? The military is working extremely hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible, but with support like this I could see pressure being exerted from the top to relax that.

Not coddling dozens of bad guys in order to save thousands of innocent lives is fine by me.

Too bad it's nothing but wishful thinking. If we could get rid of all the false negatives and keep a lid on things it'd be a different story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

That is really sad and I stand corrected. I'm quite frankly surprised at the outcome, especially since the poll was done right after the release of the report. Oh how quickly we forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse.

What was that quote from one of Ronald Reagan's speeches -- oh yeah:

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America.

America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Well, let's hope he was wrong.

If I'm Delusional, You're Nuts.

Wow -- great comeback! By the way, what's up with the initial caps? Were you working on your next issue of AQ and had a hard time switching back? Perhaps you should take a break and chill out with some canary songs.

I can't stop laughing on your day dreaming proposals about building sewers, clean water facilities, infrastructure, blah, blah, blah. After spending a couple Trillion Dollars in Afghanistan over the past 12 years, Afghanistan has grown the LARGEST Opium crop the World has ever seen this year! Are you on some sort of medication or something. I really can't believe you actually believe what you are writing! I have an idea. Fly to Kabul, Afghanistan yourself ASAP. Try somehow going up to the tribal areas without getting killed. If you survived the trip, meet with some Tribal Elders and tell them your plans to bring them out of the 10th Century. If you survive the meeting, which I highly doubt, make it back to Kabul without getting kidnapped or killed again. Get back on the computer and if you still have your fingers and hands, type a post and tell me how you made out. Chok Dee! You'll need plenty of that! I'd rather hear canaries sing.

What's so funny about it? Why do you think the farmers are growing opium crops as opposed to other agricultural products? Could it be that their economy has collapsed and that there is little adequate infrastructure and a lack of basic services? Or that they have an AK47 pointed at them? So it's either grow opium crops at a much better price, under the protection of the local rulers, or death (murdered or starve/freeze to death). What would you choose for you and your family? I'm going to (perhaps foolishly) extend you the courtesy of assuming you're a grown man, with some schooling, except for the numerous evidence to the contrary, and hear you out on this. So please tell me why this is so funny.

Your suggestion of meeting with the tribal leaders is actually a strategy employed by the coalition forces for years. It's proven very effective in creating dialog and through that a mutual understanding and cooperation. Of course, unlike you, they don't actively try to insult them. I suggest you educate yourself on the country a bit before digging your hole even further. You may want to start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali. The Afghans has has lived by this code for thousands of years so I have hope you should be able to comprehend it.

Thanks for your support, Daffy. We are both on the same page. There are certain elements or groups that co-habit this Planet of ours, who view Life as having little value. It's all about them living their next life in Paradise. I am not inferring that this entire group feels that way, so I am limiting my views to the extreme elements that unfortunately make the headlines on a daily basis proving my point on how they murder the innocents. kaydee412 is probably a nice guy, but we definitely have polar opposite views on how to deal with certain situations. If he is trying to have me reconsider my views, he definitely is wasting his time. I want to hear canaries sing as loud as possible. Chok Dee!

Well, you might be in the same book or maybe even chapter (if it's a long one), but saying you're on the same page might be pushing it. DaffyDuck is actually able to appreciate the big picture and the complexity of the problem. You're simply playing a losing game of whack-a-mole without considering the underlying drivers. We're not disagreeing on whether we should fight the enemy -- we should -- but whether the criticisms in the report are valid or not, and whether there are strategies that could be more effective.

You've been harping on about hearing canaries sing for a while now so here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VudvdlyJX04. Put on headphones and crank the volume.

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them?

It wouldn't, and it doesn't.

Why not? If we're opposed to them fighting this war using terroristic acts like kidnappings, torture and beheadings, how can you with a straight face legitimize our use of the same tactics (imprisonment without trial, torture, killing)? In my book that seems blatantly hypocritical. And the public opinion seems to agree with me as well given the outcry of disgust every time this is reported.

Just to make sure we're clear: I don't think we're in disagreement on whether neutralizing the enemy is the right thing to do. Clearly that's our goal since we're at war. However, I'm not sure we see eye to eye on what I regard as a sanctioned widespread use of indiscriminate torture of suspected, but innocent people. I think that strategy is hurting us more than it's helping and unnecessarily prolonging the fight. Sure, if you have the enemy in your sight, take them out, but getting to that point is the hard part.

Seeing as how he is advocating applying medieval strategies against opponents that are still squarely living in medieval times, this seems appropriate, and functional.

But wouldn't that would bring us down to the same level as them? Every time reports of torture come out there's an outrage both at home (i.e. public opinion with the countries fighting the war) and in the countries affected. And the enemy exploits it for all it's worth. I'm simply advocating for being smarter about this. It is much harder for the enemy to operate effectively (e.g. without detection, with sufficient logistical support, generally not raising suspicion, etc) without the support of the local population. So how would one go about strengthening local support and thus likely get a vast human-sensor network that would provide intel and other support? One way is to give them what they need, like building infrastructure such as a functioning clean water supply, proper sewage systems, access to basic health care, reliable electricity, communications, etc. Basically things that help the locals, but cannot be seized and used against us by the enemy. In the past we've given our "allies" (at the time) weapons, but as things change we face the wrong end of that stick. I think education is key, but it's slow and building schools have often resulted in the enemy murdering the teachers and the schools destroyed or shut down. Perhaps a less controversial first step such as a working postal system or increased inter-village trade (and thus communication) is a a less risky step. I think much of the support for these groups come from poverty, ignorance and the fact that the locals are not able to organize and support each other -- and the enemy either exploits that to their advantage or simply kills them. There's a limit to how much abuse one can take so I guess at some point some will remember the old "if you can't beat them, join them" saying. So to sum up, I believe if we win over the population bit by bit and kill the enemy's local support, I hope we can gradually eradicate this.

First of all, YOU leave my Phallus out of this conversation. You hear me? Get real man, I will say for the last time and then I'm done with with you and your debate. I said 100% sure, not 99%, not 98% but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! What part of 100% sure, don't you understand? I am not referring to a possible suspect. I am saying 100% without the shadow of a doubt that this person of interest is harboring information regarding a potential terrorist operation. Let me say it one more time for you. 100% positively sure through surveillance, wiretapping, email reading, the works. Got that 100% now straight in your head? I stand by my original post. Daydreaming too, Huh? Tell that to the Families of the 3 civilians killed by the dead fanatic hostage situation in Sydney. Also, tell that to the families of the 120+ young students murdered in Pakistan by the Taliban today. Wake up and smell the coffee! Civilization is at WAR for survival against certain elements that co-inhabit this Planet who would have no problem chopping off your head all the while you would be crying for your life and your neck to be spared. I care more for the safety of civilians, male or female, young and old that have a "Right" to LIVE free and unencumbered from a terrorist act by any individual or group. Unfortunately, there are some people like yourself that just DON'T get it and are too concerned by a number of "What if's" or "Maybe's" Bullshit! I want to the hear canaries sing! And sing LOUD! Listen up, opinions are just like <deleted>, everybody got one. You have yours and I have mine. My opinion has not changed one iota by your rebuttal. Over and Out! Carry On!

Are you trying to say that you have proof? Then there's this thing called a trial. That's where a suspect is either acquitted or convicted of the things he or she is on trial for. If the person is convicted then they are sentenced. Otherwise they're considered innocent and go free. This all happens in a court of law. If you're not opposed to reading, I suggest you get a dictionary and look up these words. They're pretty crucial to a civilized society and the modern world. Unfortunately, your ideas of just whacking people by throwing them out of helicopters and whatnot will still prove to be a little tricky as they're still war crimes.

The antics you're advocating might have worked in the middle ages (or rather, you could get away with it then), but humanity has advanced a wee bit since then. In this day and age they simply do not work anymore, in fact they're counterproductive. This is evidenced by the findings of the intelligence committee and published in their report. I know facts can be a bother, but you don't seem too affected by them so I trust you'll be all right.

Your heart may be in the right place, but unfortunately you're delusional. That's a fancy word for saying you're 100% sure of something that's been proved wrong.

You just bit you lip:

I said 100% sure, not I think, not 99% sure, but 100% sure. Read my post again. You are day dreaming about serious shit here. Mistakes, misunderstandings, blah, blah, blah. Stupid Joke, Huh? There are no misunderstandings or mistakes because these individuals have been suspects for a long time, even with supporting Intel from from other Countries. Next time you're in swampy, tell the security there not to check your bag because it has a bomb in it. Yeah, that's a stupid joke, that will get you beat senseless, if that were possible. There are very, very few mistaken identities regarding possible terrorist suspects. Governments know who they are because they have been on watch lists a very long time. Are you aware that up to 40% of "supposedly innocent" Gitmo releases have returned to terrorist activities? So, stop day dreaming and let's not say if, "I was picked up by a foreign intelligence service." Look what's going on right now in the Lindt Cafe in Sydney. 40 innocent hostages taken by a suspected terrorist with a black flag. (ISIL?) Some how he fell through the cracks in order to pull this off. Failure in Intel? "Our approach is to resolve this peacefully. It might take a bit of time but that is our approach,"Deputy NSW Police Commissioner Catherine Burn told journalists .Authorities want to resolve this peacefully? Dealing with terrorists, peacefully? Not me. 1) Qualified Sniper 2) H ead Shot 3) Bang 4) Hostages released unharmed 5) Perp to the Morgue. You day dream with your fantasies. I'll stand by my Post.

If by lip you mean tongue, then sure.

You didn't answer my questions, but I'm aware doing so would expose your fallacy. You're advocating for war crimes and having a low standard for the "good guys" while holding the "bad guys" to a higher one. That makes it difficult to have a realistic and meaningful discussion on the subject. In short, what you're advocating is both illegal and counter productive.

The definition of "suspect" is: "a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence". The operative word here is "thought". In other words, it is not proven or otherwise established that the person is guilty, it's merely "a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true" (definition of "suspicion"). So again, you fall on your own sword.

You have to distinguish between "suspected terrorists" and "convicted terrorists". There's a huge difference between the two, but I realize it can be convenient to lump them in together, though not very wise. You may have heard of the "presumption of innocence" principle where a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Your assertion that there are "very, very few mistaken identities" are simply false, see: http://www.dw.de/how-innocent-citizens-become-terror-suspects/a-16934329 and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845. Intelligence work is very hard and mistakes happen, but we must not fuel the fire by committing war crimes and exacerbating the problem.

Do you honestly think that a person who is imprisoned without trial, kept for years and tortured, and then deemed innocent and released, does not harbor any bad feelings towards the ones responsible? Do you think they are more or less likely to become what they were suspected of in the first place after this treatment? This approach is counter productive because for every one that is treated this way many more are affected (family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc) and turned against us. And the person itself may very well become something they had no intention of becoming to begin with. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your approach is basically helping the enemy, not hurting them. If you don't realize that, you're the one daydreaming, but hopefully this will wake you up.

I'm not going to comment on the situation in Sydney, except to say I'm glad they're not making rash and reckless decisions without sufficient information or thought. Unlike you.

I agree with you, i am not American, i am British,i am certainly not trying to justify torture but i am pointing out that we shouldn't just be pointing fingers at the Americans.

You're absolutely right. The United States has drawn a lot of criticism for its practices in this regard, but they are far from alone, unfortunately. However, I think we expect a lot more from the US and other western countries when it comes to respecting basic human rights and conventions. Maybe one day the United Nations and NATO will actually hold their members to an acceptable standard. If not perhaps we'll see more of individual countries like Italy sending messages like this one: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/04/cia-guilty-rendition-abu-omar

Okay, I'll bite:

So let's say you were picked up by foreign inteligence agents. This was clearly a mistake (to you anyway) since you're innocent and didn't do anything nor have you been planning to. Because of a mistake or misunderstanding (e.g. mistaken eye witness report, poor quality CCTV footage, language barriers, stupid joke overheard or intercepted, etc) the agents think you've got something of value to them, but suspect you are being difficult. So they decide to "help you help them" by waterboarding you and electrocuting your genitals. That didn't work -- you don't have anything to tell them. So they decide to throw you out of a helicopter and kill you.

Are you saying that's okay? You wouldn't mind this kind of treatment? You are after all a "suspected terrorist", even if you're innocent.

It's amazing how convenient selective reading and cherry picking assists in moving goal posts, when your only concern is furthering your agenda.

I suggest reading his message again. I'm 100% in support of it. You, on the other hand, don't appear to actually care about saving or protecting innocent lives.

You're deflecting. The fictional example I gave was identical to the one SinCityGr8One gave, except for one crucial difference: he was the person detained. That's not "cherry picking", it's turning the tables. If you think it's fair to have one low standard for yourself, but a higher standard for everybody else, well, that's a double standard by definition.

And where do you draw the line? If these procedures are effective for the intelligence community, shouldn't we then consider them for the police as well? Surely suspected murderers, rapists and the like are right up there with suspected terrorists or at least not more than a hop, skip and a jump away. Do you think reports of police brutality deter or encourage protests? Now replace police brutality with torture and answer the same question for terrorism.

You do realize that you just said you're 100% in favor of war crimes like torture and murder, right? You should really take a moment to think about that. If you think that committing war crimes is a smart and effective way to win the war on terror, you're very much mistaken if that's not clear by now. A better approach, in my opinion, is to increase efforts like PSYOPS (psychological operations, e.g. winning the hearts and minds of the people) and thereby increasing both the quality and access to valuable intel, while at the same time denying the enemy these graphic reports that fuel their propaganda and recruiting.

Pages 464 to 473 specifically refer to Detention Site Green, which I acknowledge is not, within the report, identified a Thailand.

case close.

However it has been reported elsewhere many times that this site is in Thailand.

there is no 'however'.

'Elsewhere' is not a source.

The location of the green site is not spelled out in the redacted summary that was published, but the Washington Post have published that the green site is in fact in Thailand citing cables from that facility in Thailand.

America is not the only nation which under the cloak of decency and democracy commits outrageous crimes. The UK in the second world war had safe houses for sustained torture of Germans, some in the best areas of London,forced signatures to crimes committed against humanity on documents written only in English which resulted in the execution of innocent officers, don't believe me ? google London cages. To this day nobody has been prosecuted. The British also set up their special camps in Germany, one witness said it was as bad as Belsen Belsen with prisoners begging to be shot.

That is a common "defense", but irrelevant and more of a smoke screen. You can't justify your own war crimes by pointing to others and saying they're doing it too. I think you understand that. The value of torture is being questioned, i.e. is torture effective in extracting useful information from suspects and known perpetrators. What's not being questioned is the value of these graphic reports to the enemy's propaganda activities, such as recruiting. Perhaps PSYOPS (psychological operations -- such as winning the hearts and minds) is a better approach whose efforts should be strengthened.

If a USA citizen enters Thailand legally and carries on activities for which there is no police ccomplaint, and is operating as a NOC, there is no overt reason for Thailand to take an interest in the guy.

That is false. It's a violation of the sovereignty of the nation to have foreign personnel performing acts on behalf of another country on their soil without their knowledge and consent. The country may not prosecute it, but the personnel is likely to be evicted and a formal complaint lodged with the offending nation. This happens often with spies under official cover. If a NOC (without official cover -- non-official cover) is caught they may be tried as foreign spies (which is serious).

Let me get this right. Some Forum Board members are totally against "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as sleep deprivation, water boarding, electro shocking of the genitals, etc. All this because it violates the "Human Rights" of known or suspected terrorists whose only goal right now is to kill innocent civilians through acts of terror. The same ones who will chop your head off while praising "Allah". I am totally against those techniques my self, due to time constraints utilizing them. Hours, perhaps days wasted to gather necessary Intel to prevent an upcoming slaughter of innocents. What about the basic "Human Right" to Life for the intended victims of a Terror Attack?. Reading most of these Posts, they're mostly regarding the CIA, interrogation facilities, sovereignty of Thailand and the usual bashing of America, and really nothing about saving lives or preventing terror attacks. My solution is simple and quick. I'll gather up five suspected terrorists, who I am 100% sure they know something about to happen. I'll cuff them and blindfold them and place them in a chopper. My crew will fly out over the Sea at about 1500 meters in elevation. I'll open the chopper door and ask the one who I think is the toughest of the bunch of them, questions on what He knows. If He refuses to talk or spits in my face, I'll thrown him out the open door with the others watching. I guarantee you, the others will sing like canaries and valuable Intel will be gathered to prevent an upcoming terror attack. Fly back to base for debriefing. Mission Accomplished. I don't believe that anyone who is willing to kill innocent Men, Women, Children and Babies has any rights to be called "Human" in the first place. They lost that, along with any compassion or sympathy from me. Who has a quicker or better Intel gathering technique than mine? Let me know.

Okay, I'll bite:

So let's say you were picked up by foreign inteligence agents. This was clearly a mistake (to you anyway) since you're innocent and didn't do anything nor have you been planning to. Because of a mistake or misunderstanding (e.g. mistaken eye witness report, poor quality CCTV footage, language barriers, stupid joke overheard or intercepted, etc) the agents think you've got something of value to them, but suspect you are being difficult. So they decide to "help you help them" by waterboarding you and electrocuting your genitals. That didn't work -- you don't have anything to tell them. So they decide to throw you out of a helicopter and kill you.

Are you saying that's okay? You wouldn't mind this kind of treatment? You are after all a "suspected terrorist", even if you're innocent.

As I have said several times, the report last week AT NO POINT mentioned Thailand in relation to rendition, safe house, interrogation, etc. You, me, the Washington Post... we are free to conclude what we want. But the one thing we are NOT free to do is to quote this report on how Thailand was a site for CIA interrogation. That is why Gen Prayut said, very carefully, what he said.

I didn't say the report did -- I said the Washington Post identified Thailand as the CIA green site. Here's a quote from an article in the New York Times:

The Senate report quotes a series of August 2002 cables from a C.I.A. facility in Thailand, where the agency’s first prisoner was held. Within days of the Justice Department’s approval to begin waterboarding the prisoner, [/size]Abu Zubaydah, the sessions became so extreme that some C.I.A. officers were “to the point of tears and choking up,” and several said they would elect to be transferred out of the facility if the brutal interrogations continued.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-intelligence-committee-cia-torture-report.html

When the Thailand site was identified, Dick Cheney personally got involved to suppress the publication of that knowledge:

1. Cheney personally worked to quash press coverage of the CIA's secret prison network.

Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda suspect captured by the United States in 2002, was subjected to years of detention and torture by the CIA. According to the Senate report, Cheney tried to prevent a newspaper from reporting Zubaydah's whereabouts at a CIA black site dubbed "DETENTION SITE GREEN," which theWashington Post reports was located in Thailand.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/dick-cheney-cia-torture-report

The report has the word "Thailand" many times. However, not one of those times is on, about, in relation to or connected with the CIA interrogation. The rendition of Hambali FROM Thailand was/is/will be clear public knowledge, something everyone involved was proud of. Part of the censorship process by the authors made that point. The reason was to provide plausible deniability. Americans are quite good at that smarmy stuff.

The report is a redacted version deemed appropriate for public release. However, it does clearly mention the green site. Given that you know what these sites are used for, I think it's pretty clear what happened there. If not, see above articles.

The dangers of quoting Wikipedia. magnified by your posting.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the report (the original, unredacted version) was not produced by the intelligence committee? The report certainly has their name on it.

No sir, what was released to the public last week was NOT produced by that committee. It is a summary of a 6,700-page report that WAS produced by the committee, but which common folks can't see.

You can't release classified information to the public. That's why the released summary was redacted.