The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...
2536
The Global Intelligence Files

### Index pages

List of Releases

### by Date of Document

unspecified
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

### by Date of Release

2001-03-13
2010-03-10
2011-03-05
2011-03-15
2012-01-29
2012-02-27
2012-02-28
2012-02-29
2012-03-01
2012-03-02
2012-03-03
2012-03-04
2012-03-05
2012-03-06
2012-03-07
2012-03-08
2012-03-09
2012-03-10
2012-03-11
2012-03-12
2012-03-13
2012-03-14
2012-03-15
2012-03-16
2012-03-17
2012-03-19
2012-03-20
2012-03-23
2012-03-25
2012-03-26
2012-03-27
2012-04-01
2012-04-02
2012-04-24
2012-04-26
2012-04-30
2012-05-10
2012-06-18
2012-06-20
2012-07-01
2012-07-24
2012-07-28
2012-07-29
2012-07-30
2012-07-31
2012-08-01
2012-08-02
2012-08-05
2012-08-06
2012-08-07
2012-08-08
2012-08-09
2012-08-10
2012-08-11
2012-08-12
2012-08-13
2012-08-14
2012-08-15
2012-08-16
2012-08-17
2012-08-18
2012-08-19
2012-08-20
2012-08-21
2012-08-22
2012-08-23
2012-08-24
2012-08-25
2012-08-26
2012-08-27
2012-08-29
2012-08-30
2012-08-31
2012-09-01
2012-09-02
2012-09-03
2012-09-04
2012-09-05

### Our Partners

ABC Color - Paraguay
Al Akhbar - Lebanon
Al Masry Al Youm - Egypt
Asia Sentinel - Hong Kong
Bivol - Bulgaria
Carta Capital - Brazil
CIPER - Chile
Dawn Media - Pakistan
L'Espresso - Italy
La Repubblica - Italy
La Jornada - Mexico
La Nacion - Costa Rica
Malaysia Today - Malaysia
McClatchy - United States
Nawaat - Tunisia
NDR/ARD - Germany
Owni - France
Pagina 12 - Argentina
Philip Dorling - Fairfax media contributor - Australia
Plaza Publica - Guatemala
Publica - Brazil
Publico.es - Spain
Rolling Stone - United States
Russian Reporter - Russia
Ta Nea - Greece
Taraf - Turkey
The Hindu - India
The Yes Men - Bhopal Activists
Sunday Star-Times - New Zealand

### Community resources

Supporters Support Wikileaks Follow us on Twitter Twitter this Follow us on Facebook

courage is contagious

# The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

## RE: Torture Supporter

Released on 2012-09-01 01:00 GMT

Email-ID | 1075
Date | 2005-12-01 17:40:31
From | Will.Allensworth@haynesboone.com
To | foshko@stratfor.com, bill@indexaustin.com

This guy lives in a dream world. His proposal, though fairly reasonable in
my opinion, is an utter policy nightmare. The court couldn't possibly
publicly announce the criteria, thus the entire issue is skirted. The
reason people are upset about torture is because we've found out that the
United States engages in behavior that they deem "necessary" and that
Americans deem "torture". When pressed about this recently CIA Director
George Tenet said essentially: I can't speak to any particular form of
torture because doing so would make that ineffective in the field, but
whatever we do it is not torture. In effect, George Tenet knows torture
when he sees it, but you don't get to find out why or what or how he
determines what torture is.
The beauty of the McCain amendment is that it is categorical. All branches
of the military are given clear guidelines on how to treat prisoners
(Field Manual), even the CIA. To the McCain amendment George Tenet
responded that he was NEUTRAL to it. The restrictions it may or may not
impose certainly didn't worry him enough to lash out against it. He
doesn't think that it restricts his ability to combat terrorism.
I'm certain that the ticking time bomb scenario is irrelevant, but even if
it isn't the McCain amendment doesn't restrict the person's action in any
practical sense. If an agent in the field is presented with a scenario
where they know they must torture someone to save millions of lives, then
they will do so. We expect them to do so. There aren't any provisions in
virtually every law on the books; breaking and entering, car theft,
assault, etc. that specifically exempt the CIA from these laws. Why?
Because we know and expect the CIA to have to do underhanded things to get
the job done.
The McCain amendment speaks clearly to the rest of the world that the
United States has standards for prisoners that do not involve torture. It
follows international guidelines prohibiting torture. The psychological
and social effect that has on our standing with the rest of the world
makes the United States infinitely safer from future attacks without
unnecessarily limiting the capacities of our anti-terrorism law
enforcement.
This guy and the President play a dangerous political game. Every
politician knows that if they fail to support the torture amendment, their
reelection campaign gets to compete with a guy who can say, straight up,
"My opponent authorizes the torture of human beings. Is that what we stand
for?" As simplistic as that attack is, the 90-9 senate vote in support of
the McCain amendment should suggest how compelling it is to our
representatives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Ott [mailto:bill@indexaustin.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:29 AM
To: Allensworth, Will W.; foshko@stratfor.com
Subject: Torture Supporter
Abu Ghraib was a travesty and a tragedy. It tarnished America's reputation
and credibility. It gave ammunition to America's enemies and critics. It
set back progress in Iraq.
What took place at Abu Ghraib was illegal - and those responsible have
been rightly prosecuted and punished.
So what is the point of Sen. John McCain's amendment to ban "cruel,
inhuman, or degrading" treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the
United States?
His proposal might be seen as simply sending a message, a way to clean up
the mess left by Abu Ghraib -- legislation in the service of public
relations.
The problem is the amendment fails to distinguish between two very
distinct situations: (1) ordinary prisoners being detained as punishment
for crimes or simply to keep them from returning to the battlefield, and
(2) captured terrorists in possession of information that could save
lives.
In regard to the first situation, McCain is correct. Such prisoners should
never be abused - certainly not for amusement or to indulge sadistic
impulses (as, nevertheless, happens in prisons around the world).
The second situation is not so simple. The most notorious scenario is, of
course, the "ticking time bomb." What should be permissible when a threat
is imminent and making a suspect talk can mean the difference between life
and death? Such circumstances are not as rare as some contend.
For example, two years ago, there was controversy over the actions taken
by Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West. He was serving near Tikrit, fighting
insurgents loyal to deposed dictator Saddam Hussein. While interrogating a
hostile suspect, he drew his pistol - and fired it, twice.
His intention was not to kill or wound - only to frighten. He succeeded.
The suspect revealed details of a planned ambush. Lt. Col. West saved the
lives of men he commanded, men for whom he felt responsible. For that, he
was accused of "torture," charged with assault and drummed out of the
military.
The McCain amendment would confirm that outcome. It would mandate that
other officers in similar situations walk away - and if that means
innocent men, women and children are slaughtered, so be it.
Should that really be our policy? Can a war can be fought and won with
such limitations? Is that really the moral approach?
Put those questions aside for a moment and consider the more common
scenario: the "high-value suspect," someone in possession of information
not about an imminent threat but about how, for example, terrorist leaders
communicate their orders, how they raise funds and distribute weapons, how
they recruit, train and deploy suicide bombers and those who plant
explosives along roads.
Instilling a moment of fear, as Lt. Col. West did, would be unlikely to
get such suspects to reveal all they know. And more severe forms of
"torture" - already illegal under U.S. law - would probably not be the
best way to induce them to cooperate. What can succeed are interrogation
techniques short of torture: physical "stress" coupled with psychological
"duress." But such techniques may be seen as "degrading" and so might be
outlawed by the McCain amendment.
Clearly, lines need to be drawn and someone must have both the expertise
and authority to draw them. More than a year ago, former federal
prosecutor and legal expert Andrew C. McCarthy proposed the establishment
of a "national-security court," a tribunal that would "monitor the
detention of terrorist captives."
It also could be empowered to decide, in consultation with physicians,
psychologists and intelligence experts, which techniques are always to be
prohibited (for example, those likely to cause death or permanent
disability), and which are permissible -- and effective.
Trained government interrogators should be required to apply to the court
for authorization to use specific techniques in specific instances. What
the court would license for use against a "ticking time bomb" would differ
from what it would allow against a bin Laden lieutenant -- and both would
differ from what would be permitted to elicit information from a low-value
combatant.
The key decisions would not fall on the shoulders of an isolated army
officer in the field - no soldier should be made to go through what Lt.
Col. West has experienced. But neither would decisions about sacrificing
innocent lives be made by international bureaucrats or lawyers
representing self-proclaimed "human rights" organizations.
Wouldn't this be better than a no-holds-barred approach? Wouldn't it be
better than treating terrorists with kid gloves? Wouldn't it be preferable
to the McCain amendment?
Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and a Townhall.com
partner organization.
Bill Ott
Index Austin Real Estate, Inc.
1950 Rutland Dr.
Austin, TX 78758
(512) 476-3300 P
(512) 476-3310 F
bill@indexaustin.com
.