SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:28PM
from the Rosenhan-Milgram-Dunning-Kruger-research dept.
from the Rosenhan-Milgram-Dunning-Kruger-research dept.
From Wikileaks (via Vinay Gupta):
Judge rules two psychologists, Mitchell and Jessen, who made millions as consultants for the CIA's torture program can face trial.
How do you get into the business of being a torture consultant? Good question because when they started:
Neither man had ever carried out a real interrogation, had language skills or expertise on al Qaeda - the chief enemy in the war on terror - when the CIA handpicked Mitchell and Jessen to spearhead its supposed intelligence gathering program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Their psychology backgrounds were in family therapy; their Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Millionaire CIA Torture Psychologists to Face Trial
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 42 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
This TOPS OFF my partygoing experience! Someone I DON'T LIKE is
talking to me about a HEART-WARMING European film ...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:39PM (12 children)
Some limp-wristed SJW'er is involved in the prosecution.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:50PM
Justice is fabulous, honey.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 31 2017, @12:06AM (8 children)
It doesn't take a SJW to understand that torture is A: counterproductive and B: carried out by subhumans.
Suppose I live next door to you. My windows are broken. So, I abduct your 8 year old son, and torture the little fuck until he confesses to breaking my windows. Hey, dude, it simply doesn't MATTER that you had the kid in your car, 100 miles away, at the time that my windows were broken. I have his confession. Now you're responsible for replacing my windows, as well as the kid's medical bills. Fuck you, man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @03:46AM (7 children)
There are two ways to use torture.
1. You have a way to test the information, and good reason to believe that they have it. For example, they yanked the power to a computer with an encrypted hard drive as you raided their place. Every time they tell you a supposed password, you go test the password on a copy of the seized computer.
2. You have a way to test similar information, and good reason to believe that they have what you want. Here, you might know the answers to 90 out of 100 interesting questions. You ask all 100 questions. If you are getting mostly wrong answers for the 90 questions you know about, then you can't trust the answers for the other 10. Keep torturing until you are getting good answers.
So can we use method 1 here? No, because the confession can not be tested.
How about method 2 then? This is a possible method if you happen to know of numerous other things that he has and hasn't done. Maybe you saw him steal your junk mail to build a fire, but he doesn't know you saw him do it. Maybe you saw him slingshot a squirrel, and again he doesn't know you were watching. You'll want both positives and negatives, so also invent a few things that you are sure he didn't do. Torture the little fuck until you get 100% correct answers to the things you are sure about, and then trust what he says about the window.
I'm not saying this is friendly, but it sure does work if you aren't stupid about how you do it. Normally one would need something close to "lived will be saved" as a justification for torture, so that window probably doesn't qualify.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Monday July 31 2017, @07:18AM (3 children)
If torture is necessary you're doing something incredibly wrong. Your security services have already failed and one man withholding information is enough to bring all your plans crashing down.
If torture-obtained evidence is acceptable in court, your court systems are also open to bribes, threats and blackmail.
If torture is condoned, you're only a short step away from genocide ("Hey, it's alright if we torture the TERRORISTS, that's allowed! It's good people we can't torture!".
If you find someone willing to carry out torture, your species suck (Yep, humans suck).
This is a perfect example of the Milgram experiments.
More disgusting than that torture was ordered from above, or that it took place, is that nobody in the middle said "Hold on, what the fuck?!". Those are the people who saw a request for torture, and linked it up with the nutter willing to torture people.
Which is EXACTLY the thing we prosecuted thousands of Nazi soldiers for. Not that they were following orders. But that they didn't question those orders when it came to obvious breaches of humanity.
And, to me, even worse than that is that all those people are still in charge of places like Guantanamo, still in active service, etc. or - like here - profiting from it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by driverless on Monday July 31 2017, @09:22AM (1 child)
It's not always that easy. A friend of mine was ordered to participate in death squads run by his country's military. He refused the order as being illegal, and tried to get the program stopped by taking it up the chain of command. It was only when he started talking to the media when the military refused to do anything that action was taken: He was threatened with court martial, and eventually discharged on the stipulation that he stop trying to make a fuss about it. It ended a promising military career. One of the bravest things I've seen done by a military person.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Monday July 31 2017, @11:07AM
Oh, gosh, all we have to do is put our jobs on the line for our morals, instead!
Er... yes. That's exactly why you don't tolerate this kind of stuff.
Of course you will lose your job.
But that doesn't mean you should allow it "just because you'll lose your job otherwise".
The Nazis were given a standard of "was your life in immediate danger if you refused" as to whether they were co-erced or forced to do things. "You may not work in the military again" is far below that.
Of course it's brave, too, but that's not the point (like Manning/Snowden but for something that actually MATTERED). The point is that they STILL GOT AWAY WITH IT, even with him trying to report it. It still happened. And for him to "stop trying to make a fuss about it" is basically capitulation.
No-one says it's easy to bring down a corrupt government. But if you have to fight against your own morals to go to work each day, there's something wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @07:09PM
Not that the Nazi were perfectly fine, but... you've fallen for the typical propaganda. Stalin was way worse, but he helped write history.
Every successful civilization is built upon a hill of skulls. It's easy for you to abhor genocide, demanding that other civilizations not partake of it, when you yourself benefit from numerous genocides.
Yes, you benefit. You wouldn't even be here if your ancestors hadn't won their fights. When a culture or ethnicity or country fails to acquire and defend territory, it is doomed.
Nazi soldiers were serving honorably. The winners dished out victor's justice. Note that Russian soldiers never had to face trial for slaughtering people in Poland -- winners don't face trial.
Western civilization is facing yet another battle for survival. Western civilization is currently generous to a fault, allowing in large numbers of people who will never accept western values. It will end in genocide, and western civilization will lose unless it gets over the current aversion to genocide.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 31 2017, @08:32AM (2 children)
You CAN create scenarios in which the "confession" is controlled for honesty, or for the results you want. But, they are only scenarios. I came up with the kid and the broken windows, only to make it more personal - NO ONE can justify torturing a kid for such a petty reason. No one but a very sick individual. Yeah, in that case, you can probably control for accuracy and honesty, because you probably know a lot about the kid.
Out in the bigger world, how you gonna control for honesty? You captured this guy in Outback, Nowhere, and he's not in your data sets. He's grown up with little interaction with computers, and he likes it that way. The computer systems he HAS interacted with belong to hostile governments. You can't access anything on him. You have little idea what his intelligence value is, unless someone snitched on him - and how the hell do you trust your snitches? Maybe the snitches belong to a rival tribe of people, and the snitches see a chance to get rid of a powerful person from that rival tribe.
I've read many times that interrogators almost invariably get better results when by befriend the "suspect". There's a reason they have that old reliable "good cop, bad cop" routine. Sure, you can threaten the suspect with any kind of stupid crap you like. The cops don't EXPECT the "bad cop" to get results. It's the "good cop" who extracts information after the asshole has made his threats. But, don't believe me - read the reports: https://duckduckgo.com/html/ [duckduckgo.com]
I don't think that you will find a single case in which government has made a credible claim that intelligence extracted by torture was effective, timely, and saved lives. I don't recall ever reading one single report to that effect. I believe that I have read some bullshit political excuses that attempted to justify torture, mostly by Dick Cheney and company. No credible reports from field agents though.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday July 31 2017, @08:58AM (1 child)
The moral argument is usually countered by appealing to relative levels of evil. Is it better to torture one person to get the information that will let you save 10 lives? 100? 1000? If you're confident that the person has the information that you need to save 1,000 innocent lives, is it worse to let those people die or torture someone you're 90% confident is responsible and could give you the information to save them?
There's a bunch of research on the effectiveness of torture. The basic outcome is simple: people will tell you whatever they think will make you stop torturing them. In most cases, this means that there is no pragmatic argument for torture. Unless you can instantly verify the information that you're given, people will tell you anything just for the respite while you go away and verify it. As you say, there have been no cases made public where this was the case, and the sort of situation in which it might be are pretty far fetched.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Informative) by driverless on Monday July 31 2017, @09:31AM
A former neighbour of mine was part of a military unit that, uh, operated some way behind enemy lines. He mentioned on a couple of occasions that one thing they never did to get information was torture someone, because the information was useless for the exact reason you give. They used other methods, e.g. local sympathisers or just general good intel, but never torture, because all it produced was really bad intel, and one thing they were really careful with was making sure the planning was done right because if anything went wrong there was no backup or support coming. In part because of this, his unit never lost a man - specifically, they never left anyone behind, although they did take (nonfatal) casualties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @03:16PM
Braking wrists is a form of torture.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:53PM
The parent comment is one of the best examples for what is wrong with the general population of conservatives today. Instead of standing against torture they turn it into some political game trying to annoy liberals.
I guess it makes sense, they got their man in the white house but for some strange reason they still don't feel like they're "winning!" so they need to take their frustration out on their "enemies". It is amazing how effective the media brainwashing has been, the typical "patriot" types are now pro-torture and fascism and they apparently have zero idea that they are so far past the line of freedom as to be laughable.
Conservatives have lost their way big time as they've been hooked into a cycle of fear and hate. The fear has been instigated through economic warfare, taking away the very means of survival (good paying jobs) and then pumping people full of propaganda to make sure their fear turns into anger directed at whatever target of opportunity presents itself.
People fighting for basic human rights are now labeled SJW cucks #fakenews and offered death threats. It is astounding in a profoundly sad way.
A similar theme exists for some liberals, but thankfully the same techniques don't quite work the same on the liberal minded. Instead you have to present liberals with actual injustice, and the media does try and manipulate them that way as well. Thankfully there is less fear and hate from the liberals, otherwise we probably would be in an actual civil war right now that would ignite every city in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:56PM (2 children)
They can't prescribe drugs; they just recommend someone else do it.
They can't torture anyone; they just recommend someone else do it.
All the while psychologists hide behind their credentials and disclaim responsibility.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 31 2017, @07:04AM (1 child)
Because AMA wants full control. And AMA is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.
Questions? ;)
Common theme in most societies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday July 31 2017, @06:33PM
Not the AMA! As a crazy person, you should know this! APA, the American Psychological Association, which was torn apart by what these war criminals did, and failed to do the right thing and blackball them. Hopefully the legal system will do what the professional organization so egregiously failed to. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of torture-enablers!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:59PM (13 children)
These guys took money to tell assholes how to torture presumably innocent people to tell them things the tortured folks may or may not have known.
Fuck em. Apply the torture techniques they recommended to them to find out, hell I dunno, the name of the girl they met when they were 2 years old and smiled at.
They fucking deserve it.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday July 31 2017, @02:37AM (12 children)
The really nutty thing is that the US military didn't really need the "help" of these psychologists: The techniques employed are well-documented, in the transcript of the International Tribunal for the Far East, the other post-WWII trials for war crimes.
Also, one of the things everyone knows about torture is that it is useless for getting the truth out of people. The way people respond to torture is that they tell their interrogator whatever they think will stop the torture, regardless of whether it's remotely true.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @02:51AM (4 children)
So it seems like it should be obvious that these are patsies.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 31 2017, @04:41AM (2 children)
Definitely patsies. With military justice tending to be harsh and abrupt, the military boys are very interested in CYA. They'll happily use anyone with a degree or reputation to justify their actions. Dangle big carrots in front of them to tempt them into endorsing whatever idiotic notions they want to act upon. They can also exert a great deal of unfair pressure on uncooperative civilians. You don't want to sign your name on the memo endorsing torture? Say goodbye to your career! But if you just sign here, we can keep you on in a real cushy job, a sinecure.
Seems to me the people who actually did the torturing are the ones most deserving of punishment. This latest event could be another twist in the plot. Now that their asses aren't covered, they will throw the doctors under the bus in a heartbeat, turn them into fall guys.
Look at the history of America's foreign interventions. So many of them were directly contradictory to American values, and caused a great deal of blowback. One such is the Contras of Iran-Contra scandal infamy. Seems many of the military boys think the end justifies the means, and keep digging themselves and all of America in deeper with their reckless shortcuts. F*** diplomacy, just identify the bad guys and shoot them! Or heck, who cares who's bad, shoot them all!
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday July 31 2017, @09:39AM (1 child)
It depends. These guys have sworn an oath [ucpress.edu] not to do what they were doing. The Oath of Enlistment [army.mil] doesn't prohibit that, and if it weren't for the Nuremberg Trials sort of making that look bad could be seen as condoning the use of torture if so ordered (disclaimer: I'm not a military lawyer so I don't know if there isn't some subclause of a subclause in the Uniform Code of Military Justice somewhere that prohibits it, but on the fact if it it just says obey orders and follow the UCMJ).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday July 31 2017, @02:30PM
The UCMJ is actually quite clear on this point: Anyone subject to the UCMJ must obey lawful orders, and must disobey unlawful orders. So, if, say, somebody ordered National Guardsmen to gun down unarmed protesters (to use a completely hypothetical example [wikipedia.org]), the Guardsmen are supposed to disobey that order and could be prosecuted for their actions.
Torture, being illegal under both US and international law, should never be carried out by US military personnel, even if they are ordered to do so. Of course, the odds are approximately zero that any of them will be court-martialed for it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @08:59AM
That's a given. Deciding to engage in organized war crimes is generally a top down thing.
At the same time, I think this is a good thing. That same top down hierarchy tends to result in a sense of protection. 'Wow, I can earn millions of dollars just helping carry out some orders from a military commander who's one step away from the white house?' That implies safety, then the cognitive dissonance kicks in. 'I mean this is awful stuff, and I'd never normally do this. But if I don't do it - somebody else will. I'll at least try to carry things out in the most efficient and safe fashion. It's dirty business, but I'll try to make it as clean as possible.' I think killing off the notion of safety is important. Make people understand that nobody who orders, tells, or asks you to do something - you can (and ideally will) still be held responsible for those actions yourself.
Ideally we'd get the guys at the top as well, but this is not so easy. But undermining their assurances, implied or otherwise, of safety goes a long way towards removing the disconnect between personal actions and personal accountability that I think is what the Milgram experiment fundamentally showed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @03:33AM (1 child)
There are two ways to use torture.
a. You have a way to test the information, and good reason to believe that they have it. For example, they yanked the power to a computer with an encrypted hard drive as you raided their place. Every time they "tell their interrogator whatever they think will stop the torture", which is of course the password, you go test the password on a copy of the seized computer.
b. You have a way to test similar information, and good reason to believe that they have what you want. Here, you might know the answers to 90 out of 100 interesting questions. You ask all 100 questions. If you are getting mostly wrong answers for the 90 questions you know about, then you can't trust the answers for the other 10. Keep torturing until you are getting good answers.
So those things "things everyone knows about torture" are just wrong. Use it right, and it works great.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Monday July 31 2017, @05:52AM
Above comment is complete BS.
What really happens when used with confirmation is that the torturers merely attempt to confirm their own biases. Objective truth doesn't enter the process.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday July 31 2017, @05:49AM (2 children)
one of the things everyone knows about torture is that it is useless for getting the truth out of people
This. In fact, getting a "confession" out of someone tend to prove their innocence. Because someone with real colleagues and information to protect is likely to hold out longer.
I've read articles claiming that torture can be useful, when used to acquire specific facts that can be checked. For example: "where is the ticking bomb?" However, that is a very unusual scenario, and there is little evidence that the CIA got any useful intelligence out of this.
Really, one of the most embarrassing episode in American history. Instead of taking the moral high ground, American sought to prove that it could act even more depraved than the terrorists. Plus Abu Ghraib. Plus Guantanamo. Plus whatever secret events that never came to light.
Shameful, and yet: no one from the government is in jail.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:59PM
Most of us were quite angry about this, but seeing as we don't actually live in a free country there is nothing we could do. There were a lot of reasons to put this prison in another country, one big part of that is they didn't want protesters to line up outside and draw lots of attention to their activities.
The fact that no one went to prison, except probably for these two patsies, is a clear indicator that the US is not a democracy in any but the most superficial ways. The people have power, but it is so distributed and scattered into political pockets that it is near impossible to get unified action.
Blergh, I hope humanity steps back from the edge soon, this dystopia crap is becoming depressing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @06:44PM
From the Malleus Maleficarum:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm03_14a.htm [sacred-texts.com]
"We found a
TerroristWitch! May we burn her?"(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 31 2017, @07:09AM
The research from WWII using violation of human rights were barred from use. However with parallel reconstruction and a alibi.. it becomes easy!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:25AM
It's not a binary option "It works/it's useless".
Note: We are talking about getting information, not torture to get a confession, to send a message or as retaliation. Jus to get valid information.
It's documented that there is what they call the breaking point. Before the breaking point, the tortured guy will resists, won't tell any thing or lie, the information is not reliable. After the breaking point the tortured will tell anything he thinks you want to hear to stop torture and information is not reliable. There is a small window of time when the tortured may say valid information. So, recognising when the victim is in the small window is the most important to get valid information.
Getting information by torture is many times useless and not as easy as many supporters of torture think. The interrogator must be skilled to notice the breaking point, unfortunately, many times he is not an skilled interrogator but just a sadist (to overcome the natural empathy towards another human screaming, they must be sadists or have become sadists). The information may have become irrelevant when you get it (i.e accomplices may have flown) . That is why captured try to resist and get time, and interrogators try to sell that resistance is futile, they already know everything.
The justification behind torture is a neat division between "we" and "they". They can be tortured, we will never be tortured.
If you torture someone that hasn't any relevant information, the window time of breaking point is zero, he will pass from telling "I know nothing" to tell anything. Nothing wrong, it's one of them, not one of us. The only regret is the waste of time. It is like picking oysters, some have pearls, some don't, no regrets about the poor oysters.
If you accept torture of enemies as fair play. They torture as well to us. Of course USA citizens may think "Well, they are in the other side of the world, so I will never be tortured. And the battle is so asymmetric that my soldiers will seldom be captured and tortured." And probably they are right.
If you accept torture as a legal activity in your own country, you are playing with fire. i.e. your son, a college student, is friend of someone whose family suspect of terrorism, they may pick your son, and give him back to you with physical and psychological damage, or dead. And everything would be legal. By the way once you accept legal torture in certain cases, won't remain too long restricted to certain cases. The cases when will only expand.
In short: Torture works a little to get information. But if you accept torture as a common practice, you are going to live live in a much tougher world, and in a very little safer world. is it worth?
Note: The information about torture is from a manual of the School of the Americas [wikipedia.org] a read long time ago.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 31 2017, @12:15AM (1 child)
I guess someone finally found the limits of that limited immunity crap. The cops have been testing those limits for awhile now.
Seriously, I can't believe that Government is going to let this happen. Prosecute bad actors for treating brown men badly? Doesn't this open the doors for war crimes trials? Maybe the Abu Ghraib perpetrators (and some others) will be sent to the world court?
There's got to be a lot more to this little teaser of a story . . .
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Monday July 31 2017, @12:47AM
At least that's what it sounds like from the writeup. Which on examination doesn't cite a real source. So maybe he didn't even say that.
But if he did, he's just saying the court has to put it back on the calendar, that's no guarantee trial will ever occur, let alone that they will be held responsible at the end of one.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Informative) by looorg on Monday July 31 2017, @01:05AM (2 children)
That is some selective summary skills right there, just cutting out all the vital parts and leaving the rest behind. Both Mitchell and Jessen worked for the US Air Force teaching SERE techniques to pilots. They probably didn't learn to torture in family therapy and they certainly didn't learn it while doing their dissertations on high blood pressure and the effects of diet and exercise on hypertension. It goes back to the SERE training, to learn to resist torture you have got to know how to torture. Which from the article it seems they picked up from the Chinese.
So while I was kind of surprised that the CIA had to turn to "family therapists" to find torturers, or torture-advisers or whatever they should be called. It seems like they instead picked up two Air Force psychologists that specialized in interrogation and resisting interrogation. Most military forces around the world have at least one school or institution like that where they teach said skills, and said skills are just one tiny little hop and skip away from actually learning how to torture. As is noted in the article if you want to resist torture you gotta know how to torture.
So while it would have been strange for the CIA to hire a couple of family therapists it probably isn't as strange to hire a couple of veteran Air Force experts. Even tho one would think that the CIA already had their own stable of sociopaths on speed-dial and retainers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 31 2017, @01:39AM (1 child)
I'd actually be more concerned if the only things on these guys' resumes were torture related - that's the kind of field you want to have a broad base in other realities if you're going to engage.
Seriously folks, I taught Scuba Diving for a semester in college, doesn't mean I don't know how to do a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis on an electronic device.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:57PM
Himmler studied agronomy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @05:12AM
When all you needed to get on the government gravy train was to be a horse club president with political connections, or be able to spin a good story about risk to the Homeland, or have a religious solution to a societal problem.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday July 31 2017, @05:39AM (3 children)
These two provided some (rather pathetic) scientific cover for what the CIA wanted to do anyway.
It's good to see them going on trial, but the real criminals worked directly for the CIA, plus everyone all the way up the chain who knew about the program. Why aren't they on trial?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday July 31 2017, @11:09AM (2 children)
Yes. Everyone involved, from the guys who ordered it, to the guys like these who enabled it, to the guys who did it, must be hanged. It's the only way to be sure. Everyone must understand that if they commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, that their lives will be forfeit. End of story.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @03:21PM (1 child)
While these private medical "experts" probably deserve prison, they also seem to be scapegoats for the spooks who allowed them to do work for the Feds to begin with. "Well, the experts said it was okay."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @05:09PM
Haha yeah no kidding, at some point the bottom has to drop out, the public has to suddenly stop and say "wait, but the emperor is naked!"
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 31 2017, @07:11AM
Seems the karma echo got around? ;-)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @11:26AM
It's all well documented, however the document is highly secret... The 525-page summary (yeah, you read right) though is available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture [wikipedia.org]
If you haven't read it yet, do yourself and humanity a favor and do read it through. It's a real eye-opener.