Basics:
Lists out various enhanced interrogation techniques including the usual, water boarding, sleep deprivation, etc.
Number of captives it was used on
Captives included our own informants. (Go team?)
My comments:
I'm seeing lots of hay made about the CIA torture report. Lots of people defending it seem to want to list Johnny Jihad's various tortures and what have you, the issue I take with that is that we're supposed to be the good guys. Not just "Well we're better then a bunch of goat fether religious extremists!" but we play ourselves off on the world stage as the bonafide guy in the white hat. Reading the report, more then a few times we got the wrong guys, we even got some of our own guys and tortured them too. Shouldn't that mean we have reason to question our methods? Absolute bottom line? We broke our own rules and we violated our own morals. So we need to take a look at ourselves because of that. I give not one single feth what some mouth breathing, camel jockey does in comparison to my own government, they're not my government. To those who seem to think this excuses this failure on our part, I just want to ask... Should sink to their level? Be the animal you hate so much? Or should we maintain our standards and fight like warriors? Yeah it's hard being the good guy. It's supposed to be. It's not easy to maintain your morals and standards in the face of scumbags who have none, but when you become them, when you abandon your standards, you've already lost.
Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream. How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries. Now I will absolutely joke about glassing the Middle East. That Ground Zero Ocean meme has to be over a decade old now and I giggle every time, but there's a lot of people in the Middle East, and even with the rise of ISIS not even a majority of them desperately need a case of acute onset lead poisoning. I even know some of them. I have friends in Jordan and Kuwait that I treasure greatly. I've even read the book a lot of people are so damn hung up about over there, and you know... with all the men I've buried, I still haven't seen, heard or read one damn thing that makes me say to myself "Yeah, feth it. Let's go burn a village and torture some fethers and see if anything comes out of it. Not like it matters."
The problem is there are too many racists in the world who think that "they" are less important than "us". This was no way for any country to act, no matter what the "enemy" had done. The US and it's allies need to take a long hard look at what they have done. Both in the actions of the CIA and the complicity of the US armed forces, it's allies, both in active participation, providing assistance and support, and in the passive complicity either by looking the other way or refusing to act earlier to condemn what we knew was happening.
We should be better than this, even ignoring the amount of people who were not "enemies", just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. living in a warzone).
I'm amazed that someone who thinks war is "cool" and running around with a BB gun in the woods makes them an expert on guns (Nothing wrong with airsoft, it's fun, but it's about as close to combat as playing table tennis) thinks that they can tell a Marine that he is being unreasonable to think we can uphold those ideas.
But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
Ahtman wrote: But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
This isn't about the actions of a few, but the authorization of those actions by an arm of the government. This is not a few rogue CIA agents, but the CIA as a whole where senior officials authorized those actions, and the actions of both the US government and other governments, including the UK, in either facilitating or ignoring this, and the current attempts to pretend that it is ok to say "Well, make sure you don't do it again".
It is an indictment of most western governments. Wether it is an indictment of our civilization or not depends on how people react now, how it is dealt with and what the outcome is.
If this was the actions of a few sick twisted individuals working outside what they were authorized to do, then it would be a different issue.
notprop wrote: Table Tennis is about as close to playing Tennis as playing tiddlywinks. Tally Hoo!
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our captives party guests - we did.
Honestly I don't have anything to add OP didn't already say, but when someone attacked table tennis's ability to recreate combat I thought of this scene.
Table Tennis to recreate combat?
We we're whacking tennis balls into a mine field (Russian) over the fence line. Guess we were depth charging for Insurgent submarines..
- Torture is worse than useless as an intelligence-gathering tool. We've known it for sixty years, the CIA knew it twenty years ago, and it's just been proven again that torture gets you no actionable intelligence, corrupts what once might have been viable sources of intelligence and produces false intelligence. Since it doesn't actually help us do anything, anyone who says that we "needed" to torture anyone is a fething idiot.
- The CIA tortured at least two prisoners to death - one by beating him to death, one by use of exposure to the elements as a torture device.
- The CIA tortured two of their own spies for 24 hours before they bothered to translate the messages they had been sending to the CIA and realised who they were torturing.
- The CIA was recruiting abusers to act as torturers - these are not hard men making hard decisions for the good of the country, they are sick bastards who like inflicting pain on people who can't fight back.
- Waterboarding is torture, but anyone who tells you that this is the worst thing the CIA did to these people is lying. To paraphrase one particularly odious quote from the report, CIA medical officers wrote "Sure, an IV is a safe and effective way of hydrating prisoners who refuse to drink, but we're impressed with how subjecting them to anal rape makes them stop refusing to drink."
The CIA's torturers produced no useful intelligence, produced a lot of white noise, destroyed sources of intelligence, raped, killed, turned allies into enemies and broke international and American law. They have used no methodology and produced no intelligence that could benefit us by being kept classified to keep it out of the hands of the enemy, and deserve to be remembered as men who sold their souls - and were subsequently executed - for nothing.
Ahtman wrote: But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
if you can blame a whole country, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would have been radioactive by 1.00PM EST on 9/11/2001, and Germany, Japan, and Italy would be nothing but lush farmlands populated by settlers from the Allies. The impact on good beer production would be unforgivable.
I'll be honest, I don't give a gak. This is the Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee trying to rewrite history that they are as innocent as the driven snow. Meanwhile Isis is beheading people for kicks on Youtube and offering to sell the bodies of Americans back to their familes. My give a gak meter for these murdering bastards is nonexistent. burn in bacon covered hell.
As I said yesterday, the report makes for grim reading, but a lot of people seem to have missed the point entirely, in my view.
Torture is just a symptom of a wider malaise, and that malaise is the war on terror.
A trillion dollars wasted, thousands dead, American influence in the ME on the wane, and the world as unsafe as its been for years. It's been a shambles from start to finish.
I understand and sympathise with the American desire for justice and vengeance after 2001, but...
Ahtman wrote: But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
if you can blame a whole country, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would have been radioactive by 1.00PM EST on 9/11/2001, and Germany, Japan, and Italy would be nothing but lush farmlands populated by settlers from the Allies. The impact on good beer production would be unforgivable.
I'll be honest, I don't give a gak. This is the Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee trying to rewrite history that they are as innocent as the driven snow.
Meanwhile Isis is beheading people for kicks on Youtube and offering to sell the bodies of Americans back to their familes. My give a gak meter for these murdering bastards is nonexistent.
burn in bacon covered hell.
What Isis are doing is completely irrelevant to this... This is about the CIA kidnapping, torturing and killing people. "Well they do it too" is not a justification. We, in the west, are supposed to be the good guys.
Ahtman wrote: But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
if you can blame a whole country, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would have been radioactive by 1.00PM EST on 9/11/2001, and Germany, Japan, and Italy would be nothing but lush farmlands populated by settlers from the Allies. The impact on good beer production would be unforgivable.
I'll be honest, I don't give a gak. This is the Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee trying to rewrite history that they are as innocent as the driven snow.
Meanwhile Isis is beheading people for kicks on Youtube and offering to sell the bodies of Americans back to their familes. My give a gak meter for these murdering bastards is nonexistent.
burn in bacon covered hell.
Frazz, this one of the rare times when you exhibit a whole load of common sense.
As I've said before, America really needs to take a good, long hard look at Britain and see the damaging effects the Middle East can have on a global empire. It's a graveyard for empires.
I honestly don't understand the American fixation with the ME
With fracking and shale oil, you don't need ME oil any more, and as for Israel, it'd be easier just chucking money and weapons at them to fix any problems they might have.
America should be looking at the far east. You have countries such as South Korea and Japan that actually like the USA, have tons of bases over there, and in China, America is facing a far bigger threat to its global and economic hegemony than the ME will ever be.
Forget the Arabs, keep your eye on the Red Dragon.
Ahtman wrote: But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
if you can blame a whole country, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would have been radioactive by 1.00PM EST on 9/11/2001, and Germany, Japan, and Italy would be nothing but lush farmlands populated by settlers from the Allies. The impact on good beer production would be unforgivable.
I'll be honest, I don't give a gak. This is the Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee trying to rewrite history that they are as innocent as the driven snow.
Meanwhile Isis is beheading people for kicks on Youtube and offering to sell the bodies of Americans back to their familes. My give a gak meter for these murdering bastards is nonexistent.
burn in bacon covered hell.
What Isis are doing is completely irrelevant to this... This is about the CIA kidnapping, torturing and killing people. "Well they do it too" is not a justification. We, in the west, are supposed to be the good guys.
Blah blah blah blah
There are no good duys. Just us.
Ahtman wrote: But you can't hold a whole government responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole country? And if the whole country is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our Western institutions in general? I put it to you, Steve Stevenson - isn't this an indictment of our entire Western Civilization? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth table tennis.
if you can blame a whole country, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would have been radioactive by 1.00PM EST on 9/11/2001, and Germany, Japan, and Italy would be nothing but lush farmlands populated by settlers from the Allies. The impact on good beer production would be unforgivable.
I'll be honest, I don't give a gak. This is the Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee trying to rewrite history that they are as innocent as the driven snow.
Meanwhile Isis is beheading people for kicks on Youtube and offering to sell the bodies of Americans back to their familes. My give a gak meter for these murdering bastards is nonexistent.
burn in bacon covered hell.
Frazz, this one of the rare times when you exhibit a whole load of common sense.
As I've said before, America really needs to take a good, long hard look at Britain and see the damaging effects the Middle East can have on a global empire. It's a graveyard for empires.
I honestly don't understand the American fixation with the ME
With fracking and shale oil, you don't need ME oil any more, and as for Israel, it'd be easier just chucking money and weapons at them to fix any problems they might have.
America should be looking at the far east. You have countries such as South Korea and Japan that actually like the USA, have tons of bases over there, and in China, America is facing a far bigger threat to its global and economic hegemony than the ME will ever be.
Forget the Arabs, keep your eye on the Red Dragon.
I agree completely. I'm very very fine with getting out and staying out.
But that applies in most regions. Time for being the global policeman has psssed. Now its back to just making money.
I don't think it is ethical to torture another human and deprave of them of their basic human rights.
Though I could see why they would do it. It doesn't make it any right. Just because your doing it in the name of god and country doesn't make an evil deed any better. Am I surprised this is happening though?
No. It happened during WW2 and WW1, on both sides of the war.
Though I wouldn't say it was reasonable to do. Nothing in war or in a conflict is ever reasonable. Anytime you kill a human being the more likely it is unreasonable and insane.
The current issue though being that people outwardly support it so. ITs one thing to advocate for the use of drones, but it is another to advocate for the torture of other human beings, no matter how depraved or 'evil' that they may appear.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think it is ethical to torture another human and deprave of them of their basic human rights.
Though I could see why they would do it. It doesn't make it any right. Just because your doing it in the name of god and country doesn't make an evil deed any better. Am I surprised this is happening though?
No. It happened during WW2 and WW1, on both sides of the war.
Though I wouldn't say it was reasonable to do. Nothing in war or in a conflict is ever reasonable. Anytime you kill a human being the more likely it is unreasonable and insane.
The current issue though being that people outwardly support it so. ITs one thing to advocate for the use of drones, but it is another to advocate for the torture of other human beings, no matter how depraved or 'evil' that they may appear.
Why? A drone takes everything a man has and everything he'll ever be. Just because its at a distance doesn't make it better. To think otherwise is to be a hypocrite.
I don't like this one bit. I wish I could be angry about this. I wish that my anger would mean anything. My own well being was some small part of what used to justify the unjustifiable and I don't have any choice but to accept it.
Basics:
Lists out various enhanced interrogation techniques including the usual, water boarding, sleep deprivation, etc.
Number of captives it was used on
Captives included our own informants. (Go team?)
My comments:
I'm seeing lots of hay made about the CIA torture report. Lots of people defending it seem to want to list Johnny Jihad's various tortures and what have you, the issue I take with that is that we're supposed to be the good guys. Not just "Well we're better then a bunch of goat fether religious extremists!" but we play ourselves off on the world stage as the bonafide guy in the white hat. Reading the report, more then a few times we got the wrong guys, we even got some of our own guys and tortured them too. Shouldn't that mean we have reason to question our methods? Absolute bottom line? We broke our own rules and we violated our own morals. So we need to take a look at ourselves because of that. I give not one single feth what some mouth breathing, camel jockey does in comparison to my own government, they're not my government. To those who seem to think this excuses this failure on our part, I just want to ask... Should sink to their level? Be the animal you hate so much? Or should we maintain our standards and fight like warriors? Yeah it's hard being the good guy. It's supposed to be. It's not easy to maintain your morals and standards in the face of scumbags who have none, but when you become them, when you abandon your standards, you've already lost.
Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream. How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries. Now I will absolutely joke about glassing the Middle East. That Ground Zero Ocean meme has to be over a decade old now and I giggle every time, but there's a lot of people in the Middle East, and even with the rise of ISIS not even a majority of them desperately need a case of acute onset lead poisoning. I even know some of them. I have friends in Jordan and Kuwait that I treasure greatly. I've even read the book a lot of people are so damn hung up about over there, and you know... with all the men I've buried, I still haven't seen, heard or read one damn thing that makes me say to myself "Yeah, feth it. Let's go burn a village and torture some fethers and see if anything comes out of it. Not like it matters."
Maybe I'm just outdated though.
The tragedy of this post is that I can only exalt it once.
....wait a sec... it looks like I can exalt it every time I refresh the page. Does that work? Because if so, I'm going to do some more exalting.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think it is ethical to torture another human and deprave of them of their basic human rights.
Though I could see why they would do it. It doesn't make it any right. Just because your doing it in the name of god and country doesn't make an evil deed any better. Am I surprised this is happening though?
No. It happened during WW2 and WW1, on both sides of the war.
Though I wouldn't say it was reasonable to do. Nothing in war or in a conflict is ever reasonable. Anytime you kill a human being the more likely it is unreasonable and insane.
The current issue though being that people outwardly support it so. ITs one thing to advocate for the use of drones, but it is another to advocate for the torture of other human beings, no matter how depraved or 'evil' that they may appear.
Why? A drone takes everything a man has and everything he'll ever be. Just because its at a distance doesn't make it better. To think otherwise is to be a hypocrite.
Well. i don't agree with it. But I can see why. I am indifferent on the issue. until you know I see the numbers and reliable facts on the drone attacks.
I do think it is deplorable, it is one to kill someone, but to keep someone alive and torture them is something very different.
Killing someone is sometimes more mercyiful than torturing them for information.
And no, you're not outdated. It is your opponents - who still believe that trial by ordeal is an effective means of discovering the truth and still assume that a person is no more than a single cog in the entity that is their race or creed - who are stuck in the middle ages.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said yesterday, the report makes for grim reading, but a lot of people seem to have missed the point entirely, in my view.
Torture is just a symptom of a wider malaise, and that malaise is the war on terror.
A trillion dollars wasted, thousands dead, American influence in the ME on the wane, and the world as unsafe as its been for years. It's been a shambles from start to finish.
I understand and sympathise with the American desire for justice and vengeance after 2001, but...
Yes, this is 100% my view.
2996 people died in September 11th attacks. In the subsequent wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has lost 6,639 troops, while the UK has lost over 650 personnel, compared to 52 civilian casualties in the London bombings.
That's a pretty crap balance sheet by anyone's standards and that's before you even consider the civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan as a direct consequence of the wars which run into the tens of thousands.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.
The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
It is imperative for those who deal in violence, whether they are military, police, or intelligence agencies to maintain discipline and stick to hard rules. Allowing for grey areas invites disaster. The good guys don't target civilians, they don't use torture, and they always do things the right way, even when it isn't easy.
I fear we have lost our way a bit on this and it shows. We have set a low bar. We don't ask for more out of our spys, cops, and soldiers anymore, we just ask them not be criminal. Most of them still hold themselves to a higher standard, but the citizens need to their part. We only pay attention when things go wrong.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
curran12 wrote: Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.
The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.
curran12 wrote: Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.
SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
Frazzled wrote: Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.
What they want, why they want it, what they do or how they do it are all immaterial. It does nothing to change the nature of suffering.
If you're looking for a justification of "Human Suffering is bad" I have none for you. Some people believe in god, I believe that humans shouldn't suffer. What's good and what's bad is not some tangible physical law of the universe. I can't offer some proof or test. I can only say with absolute certainty that it is true.
Frazzled wrote: Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners
Are you saying Native American cultures were wrong?
This is pretty close to the single most pathetic thing I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying something. I really shouldn't even dignify this kind of baiting with a reply, but It bothers me too much to let it sit.
The acts you've listed are evil.
The aspects of those cultures that provided for the normalization of those acts were wrong.
The people who did those things were in the wrong when they did them.
However this is not the same as "Native American culture" being wrong, or the people committing those acts being inhuman. Humans and their cultures aren't that simple. People's beliefs and motivations are complex and derive from their personal experience and the context of their surroundings. Cultures grow out of the collective experiences of those people, and how they in turn react to the culture.
That some aspects of culture permit or even encourage evil, does not invalidate every aspect of that culture nor override whatever good may have come of them as whole. Similarly none of the good things, or achievements of those people or cultures excuse or negate those evil acts. Evil is also not incomprehensible. It's possible to understand the context of an act and the consider the perspective of those committing it without condoning it.
It's no different for us. The United States has tortured people. That is evil. It is inexcusably wrong. The United States has done other evil things in the past as well. That doesn't rip the flag off the moon, or make baseball bad, or ruin the internet. In the same fashion, our scientific achievements and our delicious BBQ do not excuse slaverly or mean we had the right commit genocide against the native peoples.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
curran12 wrote: Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.
SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.
SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.
No-one said that. I'd tell you to grow the feth up, but you're way past that.
Frazzled wrote: Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.
What they want, why they want it, what they do or how they do it are all immaterial. It does nothing to change the nature of suffering.
If you're looking for a justification of "Human Suffering is bad" I have none for you. Some people believe in god, I believe that humans shouldn't suffer. What's good and what's bad is not some tangible physical law of the universe. I can't offer some proof or test. I can only say with absolute certainty that it is true.
Frazzled wrote: Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners
Are you saying Native American cultures were wrong?
This is pretty close to the single most pathetic thing I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying something. I really shouldn't even dignify this kind of baiting with a reply, but It bothers me too much to let it sit.
The acts you've listed are evil.
The aspects of those cultures that provided for the normalization of those acts were wrong.
The people who did those things were in the wrong when they did them.
However this is not the same as "Native American culture" being wrong, or the people committing those acts being inhuman. Humans and their cultures aren't that simple. People's beliefs and motivations are complex and derive from their personal experience and the context of their surroundings. Cultures grow out of the collective experiences of those people, and how they in turn react to the culture.
Why is it evil? It wasn't even for them. Why are you imposing your values on functioning cultures? And it is saying their cultures were wrong because it was a fundamental part of their culture.
That some aspects of culture permit or even encourage evil, does not invalidate every aspect of that culture nor override whatever good may have come of it as whole. Similarly none of the good things, or achievements of those people or cultures excuse or negate those evil acts. Evil is also not incomprehensible. It's possible to understand the context of an act and the consider the perspective of those committing it without condoning it.
Now you're just trying to protect your PC credentials.
It's no different for us. The United States has tortured people. That is evil. It is inexcusably wrong. The United States has done other evil things in the past as well. That doesn't rip the flag off the moon, or make baseball bad, or ruin the internet.
Frazzled wrote: Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.
Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners
You realize all those cultures are either dead, or effectively dead, right? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for torture.
How is this useful if it gets no real results and also gets a decent share of innocents as well? You don't have to like bad men to see what is problematic in torturing people and how it degrades those who do it. Harming others just to harm them isn't a business we should be in.
In case anyone's wondering, while I don't give a flip about terrorists, I'm just arguing becuase those rending their clothing and gnashing their teeth out at America Evilz is just humorous to me.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
You didn't answer the question. Would you?
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
My first inclination is to tell you to feth off, but then on reflection:
Hey, I'm from a totally insignificant country. I've long ago become used to the fact that other forces in the world could wipe us out if they chose. So ISIS have a dirty bomb. Loads of other people have nukes, and we have none. The situation is not that much different.
I guess it must be terrifying for the US though. Being such a weak country and all.
Frazzled wrote: Why? the BG's want genocide. Sweating a few moral equivalency not one make.
Aztec sacrificed prisoners
Maya sacrificed prisoners
Kiowa tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Comanche tortured and sacrificed prisoners
Rome enslaved and sacrificed prisoners
You realize all those cultures are either dead, or effectively dead, right? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for torture.
How is this useful if it gets no real results and also gets a decent share of innocents as well? You don't have to like bad men to see what is problematic in torturing people and how it degrades those who do it. Harming others just to harm them isn't a business we should be in.
Frazzled wrote: They're dead because they were wiped out by germs and steel, not because of goodness and hope.
Excluding Rome, they were severely weakened by germs but finished off by other people. Doesn't change that using dead ancient cultures to justify modern attitudes doesn't really work in any meaningful capacity. It is also not about goodness and hope either, you just keep changing what the standards are.
Frazzled wrote: In case anyone's wondering, while I don't give a flip about terrorists, I'm just arguing becuase those rending their clothing and gnashing their teeth out at America Evilz is just humorous to me.
I expect more out of my country than what we've been doing the last 15 years. We've been doing things half assed and it shows. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we have been.
I don't have any problem with pointing out the hypocrisy of our allies in going after the US, while enjoying our military protection. I'd love to see us leave NATO and quit subsidizing our economic rivals. This and that are seperate things though.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
You didn't answer the question. Would you?
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.
Why?
1. Because from a tactical military perspective, it is fething stupid. Torturing prisoners makes it more difficult to win battles because your enemies are less likely to surrender.
2. Because from a strategic military perspective, it is fething stupid. It is a propaganda victory for your enemy, making it easier for them to recruit support to take you down. It's the reason why it was so easy to get support to go kick ISIS's teeth in - because nobody likes the bastard who murders children and sells women as sex slaves.
3. Because from an intelligence-gathering perspective, it is fething stupid. It is an unscientific method of gathering intelligence that is incapable of distinguishing between the wheat and the chaff, and produces a hell of a lot of chaff.
4. Because from a moral perspective, it is simply evil. Violence may morally be used as a proportional response to an enemy combatant - the equivalent of a police officer shooting a gunman. But once they are no longer an enemy combatant - once they are a prisoner at your mercy - you cannot rely on this justification. And since you can't rely on tactical, strategic or intelligence-gathering effectiveness as a justification either, all you are left with is a bully who likes inflicting pain on people who can't fight back for its own sake.
Torture is not a tool favoured by tough men and criticised by sissy liberals. The laws of war were written by men who wage war, because committing war crimes is useless at best. Fething Napoleon, a man who conquered half of Europe had this to say about torture:
The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.
The people in favour of torture are the posers - the losers who pretend to be Navy SEALs or who think half-drowning some Afghan goat-herder they bought from some warlord makes them big men.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
You didn't answer the question. Would you?
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
Very good. I respect that.
Does that opinion also support that the torturers and those who ordered it (Cheney & Rumsfeld included in that) should be tried for crimes against humanity?
Yes Frazz because I exactly said " I am ok with a dirty bomb". Come on man, you're better than these amateur moves.
While you'd love to place me in with "American the EVLIZ" group, I'm arguing solely on effectiveness. The report said flat out that torture didn't get us meaningful information. So even if I was ok with torture (which I am not) the bottom line is that the good/evil debate is irrelevant because torture didn't work. We'd still be hit by the dirty bomb.
Da Boss wrote: My first inclination is to tell you to feth off, but then on reflection:
Hey, I'm from a totally insignificant country. I've long ago become used to the fact that other forces in the world could wipe us out if they chose. So ISIS have a dirty bomb. Loads of other people have nukes, and we have none. The situation is not that much different.
I guess it must be terrifying for the US though. Being such a weak country and all.
Moldova just caught seven people trying to smuggle uranium...
Its less we are weak more that the Rooskies knew that if they nuked us, we'd nuke them. They weren't hoping they could do it so they could end up in paradise.
Frazzled wrote: They're dead because they were wiped out by germs and steel, not because of goodness and hope.
Excluding Rome, they were severely weakened by germs but finished off by other people. Doesn't change that using dead ancient cultures to justify modern attitudes doesn't really work in any meaningful capacity. It is also not about goodness and hope either, you just keep changing what the standards are.
Actually, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Torture is wrong, no matter who does it, or who it is done to. By torturing them, you turn yourself into the monster you are trying to protect from.
Why?
1. Because from a tactical military perspective, it is fething stupid. Torturing prisoners makes it more difficult to win battles because your enemies are less likely to surrender.
2. Because from a strategic military perspective, it is fething stupid. It is a propaganda victory for your enemy, making it easier for them to recruit support to take you down. It's the reason why it was so easy to get support to go kick ISIS's teeth in - because nobody likes the bastard who murders children and sells women as sex slaves.
3. Because from an intelligence-gathering perspective, it is fething stupid. It is an unscientific method of gathering intelligence that is incapable of distinguishing between the wheat and the chaff, and produces a hell of a lot of chaff.
4. Because from a moral perspective, it is simply evil. Violence may morally be used as a proportional response to an enemy combatant - the equivalent of a police officer shooting a gunman. But once they are no longer an enemy combatant - once they are a prisoner at your mercy - you cannot rely on this justification. And since you can't rely on tactical, strategic or intelligence-gathering effectiveness as a justification either, all you are left with is a bully who likes inflicting pain on people who can't fight back for its own sake.
Torture is not a tool favoured by tough men and criticised by sissy liberals. The laws of war were written by men who wage war, because committing war crimes is useless at best. Fething Napoleon, a man who conquered half of Europe had this to say about torture:
The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know.
The people in favour of torture are the posers - the losers who pretend to be Navy SEALs or who think half-drowning some Afghan goat-herder they bought from some warlord makes them big men.
I was writing almost this exact post. Just with the qualifier "Putting aside that results aren't relevant" at the top.
Also. The report linked in the OP says so. Multiple times. Seriously just CTRL+F "no actionable" if it's too tough a read for you Frazzled.
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
You didn't answer the question. Would you?
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
Very good. I respect that.
Does that opinion also support that the torturers and those who ordered it (Cheney & Rumsfeld included in that) should be tried for crimes against humanity?
I'm biased. I'm sure Cheney is actually the Penguin. Not convinced?
WellSpokenMan wrote: The ends don't justify the means, because the MEANS are what matter the most. They way you do things defines who you are, not your ideals.
Horse gak. ISIL says it has lbs of uranium now. You get word they are making a dirty bomb (so far thats all true FYI). You capture a few. What do you do? Read them their rights or hope to prevent thousands of deaths. Clock is ticking.
If I felt the need to go outside the law and my oaths, when I was serving, to stop something like that I would have done so. However, I would do so expecting consequences of my actions. To remove those consequences is to invite laziness and poor discipline. There will always be extreme cases, and they should be handled as such. If I was right in my actions the court could exonerate me or lessen the sentence, but that should never be a guarantee. It skews the desicion making equation.
I was a soldier, not a combatant. I obeyed the law. If I didn't I expected to be punished, regardless of my reasons. To expect less of myself is the first step to madness.
You didn't answer the question. Would you?
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
Very good. I respect that.
Does that opinion also support that the torturers and those who ordered it (Cheney & Rumsfeld included in that) should be tried for crimes against humanity?
I'm biased. I'm sure Cheney is actually the Penguin. Not convinced?
curran12 wrote: Yes Frazz because I exactly said " I am ok with a dirty bomb". Come on man, you're better than these amateur moves.
While you'd love to place me in with "American the EVLIZ" group, I'm arguing solely on effectiveness. The report said flat out that torture didn't get us meaningful information. So even if I was ok with torture (which I am not) the bottom line is that the good/evil debate is irrelevant because torture didn't work. We'd still be hit by the dirty bomb.
Nah I'm just bringing up different perspectives and arguing hypotheticals.
The report is biased. Its written by Democratic Sneators trying, like Tony Montana washing his money, to wash their images before the Republicans return.
Frazzled wrote: Actualkly, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Things aren't somehow are perfect or free from trouble, but thinking the current incarnation of the world is somehow the same as that centuries and millennia ago seems to just be a bad understanding of history as well as what is actually happening outside ones door.
Frazzled wrote: Actualkly, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Things aren't somehow are perfect or free from trouble, but thinking the current incarnation of the world is somehow the same as that centuries and millennia ago seems to just be a bad understanding of history as well as what is actually happening outside ones door.
Worse actually. Now we do our genocides with gas and machine guns.
3. Because from an intelligence-gathering perspective, it is fething stupid. It is an unscientific method of gathering intelligence that is incapable of distinguishing between the wheat and the chaff, and produces a hell of a lot of chaff.
I would like to address this, and similar comments I've seen made. The belief expressed by these comments shows a lack of understanding about the intelligence cycle (or how info is collected, analyzed, turned into intelligence and used, what it is used for, and so on).
Regardless of how I get info from a detainee, I don't pass it some group of commandos who then go and thwart some plot or kill the bad guy leader or what ever. The info I get from a detainee is evaluated and characterized in several ways. What is my assessment of the reliability of the source/detainee? What is the 'time of life' of the collected info? What assets/sources can I use to verify or contradict the info? What existing info do I have that is associated with this take, and how does the take affect the existing info? At best, the collected info is used to cue other assets/inform other questioning/open new lines of questioning/confirm or deny existing info/validate (or invalidate) another source. It is NEVER used on its own and in almost zero circumstances would be considered 'actionable intelligence'. HUMINT in general (especially from a hostile subject) is not the best INT for 'actionable intelligence' but is invaluable to determining patterns and associations and cueing other collection. You don't really get a 'lot of chaff' because your targeted questioning is designed to elicit specific info/types of info. The 'chaff' is usually pretty clearly chaff (and in fact good info is easier to mistakenly classify as 'chaff' than the opposite, but again, that is why we use multiple INTs and assets to confirm/deny and do diligent analysis before we act...)
Another point, interrogations conducted for intelligence purposes are almost never just big ol' fishing expeditions. They are very much guided by a list of priority intelligence requirements and the info sought is very targeted, and each session is planned towards eliciting certain bits of info. Existing info (from this source or from other sources) will be used to guide questioning some questions will be asked specifically to verify/aid in assessing the detainee/source (I ask a question I already know the answer to or one fro which I have another asset/source to verify current subject's answer).
So when I hear "They got no actionable intel, it was a waste and doesn't work!", I start to realize that person really doesn't understand intelligence. As an intel guy, I would rarely ever expect actionable intel from a detainee, especially after the first 48 hours of detention. Which is also why at point of capture, tactical questioning is usually guided by a different set of requirements which in turn make up the questions asked.
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
I said I would be willing to break the rules if I thought it was important enough for me to sacrifice my future freedom. What I wouldn't do is expect a free pass. I would expect to stand trial and likely be convicted for my actions. I can't say what I would do for sure without a far more elaborate scenario. What I can say is that physical torture has a very low success rate. I would most likely not put my freedom and status as a soldier at risk for such a low probability of success.
Very good. I respect that.
Not seeing why the two are in conflict.
1. I respected his opinion and his moral code. Whats your beef with that?
2. besides the fact no court has jurisdiction and there's no charge, well I guess I can actually stop right there. This isn't a banana republic here we prosecute the last group of politicians. Start down that path then Obama better make a run for Cuba now, because he's guilty as sin too (except of course actually killing US citizens is an actionable federal murder charge)....
curran12 wrote: Well, considering that the report pointed out that torture didn't work, torture ain't getting you anywhere either in that scenario, Frazz.
SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The most worrying thing is the automatic assumption that everyone they captured was guilty. The report says that many of those captured (27 of them, or something) were not implicated in any wrongdoing. Innocent people being tortured. That is what these secretive regimes result in. That is why courts and due process are important. Because if you can act with impunity, you are more likely to make mistakes. And every mistake you make here is a ruined life.
SO you're ok with the dirty bomb. Got it.
It's amazing that I've actually been banned from this forum, when posts like this exist.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing why the two are in conflict.
1. I respected his opinion and his moral code. Whats your beef with that?
2. besides the fact no court has jurisdiction and there's no charge, well I guess I can actually stop right there. This isn't a banana republic here we prosecute the last group of politicians. Start down that path then Obama better make a run for Cuba now, because he's guilty as sin too (except of course actually killing US citizens is an actionable federal murder charge)....
My "beef" with that is it is basically saying one thing but doing something else. In essence, it's akin to a business owner making statements that he supports higher pay for his workers, but lobbies to have minimum wage reduced.
The International Court of Justice has the jurisdiction over that, and the charge would be Crimes Against Humanity. The prosecution would not be because "they were the last group of politicians", but because they actually ordered torture.
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification. The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.
Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.
By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing why the two are in conflict. 1. I respected his opinion and his moral code. Whats your beef with that? 2. besides the fact no court has jurisdiction and there's no charge, well I guess I can actually stop right there. This isn't a banana republic here we prosecute the last group of politicians. Start down that path then Obama better make a run for Cuba now, because he's guilty as sin too (except of course actually killing US citizens is an actionable federal murder charge)....
My "beef" with that is it is basically saying one thing but doing something else. In essence, it's akin to a business owner making statements that he supports higher pay for his workers, but lobbies to have minimum wage reduced.
The International Court of Justice has the jurisdiction over that, and the charge would be Crimes Against Humanity. The prosecution would not be because "they were the last group of politicians", but because they actually ordered torture.
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification. The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.
Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.
By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
May 20, 1988.
God-damned pinko RINO.
What do you expect. He was from California, that pink underwear wearing hippy. Yea I went there!
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing why the two are in conflict.
1. I respected his opinion and his moral code. Whats your beef with that?
2. besides the fact no court has jurisdiction and there's no charge, well I guess I can actually stop right there. This isn't a banana republic here we prosecute the last group of politicians. Start down that path then Obama better make a run for Cuba now, because he's guilty as sin too (except of course actually killing US citizens is an actionable federal murder charge)....
My "beef" with that is it is basically saying one thing but doing something else. In essence, it's akin to a business owner making statements that he supports higher pay for his workers, but lobbies to have minimum wage reduced.
The International Court of Justice has the jurisdiction over that, and the charge would be Crimes Against Humanity. The prosecution would not be because "they were the last group of politicians", but because they actually ordered torture.
Jihadin wrote: I highly doubt we're charging anyone with any crimes against Humanity
Yeah it's not going to happen in this plutocracy of a "country", but if we actually had a decent political system with an actual justice system instead of the farce of one we have, yeah they would be.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing why the two are in conflict.
1. I respected his opinion and his moral code. Whats your beef with that?
2. besides the fact no court has jurisdiction and there's no charge, well I guess I can actually stop right there. This isn't a banana republic here we prosecute the last group of politicians. Start down that path then Obama better make a run for Cuba now, because he's guilty as sin too (except of course actually killing US citizens is an actionable federal murder charge)....
My "beef" with that is it is basically saying one thing but doing something else. In essence, it's akin to a business owner making statements that he supports higher pay for his workers, but lobbies to have minimum wage reduced.
The International Court of Justice has the jurisdiction over that, and the charge would be Crimes Against Humanity. The prosecution would not be because "they were the last group of politicians", but because they actually ordered torture.
Jihadin wrote: I highly doubt we're charging anyone with any crimes against Humanity
Yeah it's not going to happen in this plutocracy of a "country", but if we actually had a decent political system with an actual justice system instead of the farce of one we have, yeah they would be.
We be charging Clinton, Bush and Obama
Various other people under their admin
Jihadin wrote: Anyone else catch another main reason why there's a GITMO?
You mean other than
1. US rights don't apply
2. It keeps them there and not here, thus opening up the potential for more domestic terrorism (even though there aren't any here right?)
Jihadin wrote: I highly doubt we're charging anyone with any crimes against Humanity
Yeah it's not going to happen in this plutocracy of a "country", but if we actually had a decent political system with an actual justice system instead of the farce of one we have, yeah they would be.
We be charging Clinton, Bush and Obama
Various other people under their admin
Every President outside of, er Ford and maybe Garfield?
Frazzled wrote: Actualkly, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Things aren't somehow are perfect or free from trouble, but thinking the current incarnation of the world is somehow the same as that centuries and millennia ago seems to just be a bad understanding of history as well as what is actually happening outside ones door.
there is more slavery, torture and war now then there has ever been, what planet are you living on?
oh wait... planet MURICA! where if the picto cube doesnt say it, IT AINT REAL BABY!
Frazzled wrote: Actualkly, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Things aren't somehow are perfect or free from trouble, but thinking the current incarnation of the world is somehow the same as that centuries and millennia ago seems to just be a bad understanding of history as well as what is actually happening outside ones door.
there is more slavery, torture and war now then there has ever been, what planet are you living on?
This isn't really true. Taken as a global average, any particular person's chance of dying a violent death are at the lowest point in history, particularly if you're a man. We're more interconnected so we're more aware of violence happening to others, and there are 8 billion of us now so the absolute number of deaths is higher. However, by any real measure violence in humans is on the decline and has been for some time. The were points in history where the most common cause of death was "Killed by another person" and we're pretty far from that now.
Frazzled wrote: Bush I is prepared though. If needed, he'll just parachute right out of the airplane...
Or KM gathers a bunch of his buddies and slam a country to get Bush out. Hell I might join him for that Obama.....let me think a bit...
Clinton....let me think a bit....POTUS/Monica stigma...though that cigar trick weighs in his favor
Frazzled wrote: Actualkly, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Things aren't somehow are perfect or free from trouble, but thinking the current incarnation of the world is somehow the same as that centuries and millennia ago seems to just be a bad understanding of history as well as what is actually happening outside ones door.
there is more slavery, torture and war now then there has ever been, what planet are you living on?
This isn't really true. Taken as a global average, any particular persons chances of dying a violent death are at the lowest point in history, particularly if you're a man. We're more interconnected so we're more aware of violence happening to others, and there are 8 billion of us now so the absolute number of deaths is higher. However, by any real measure violence in humans is on the decline and has been for some time. The were points in history where the most common cause of death was "Killed by another person" and we're pretty far from that now.
it is true, I didnt say statistically or on average, so dont talk about something completely different then what I brought up and claim i am wrong.
factually, there is far more slavery, torture, and war if far more horrible right now then ever before. having millions of slaves right now is not "ok" or better then having tens of thousands of slaves in the past, simply because the ratio isnt the same.
Frazzled wrote: Actualkly, judging by most of the world, the standards haven't changed a whit.
Things aren't somehow are perfect or free from trouble, but thinking the current incarnation of the world is somehow the same as that centuries and millennia ago seems to just be a bad understanding of history as well as what is actually happening outside ones door.
there is more slavery, torture and war now then there has ever been, what planet are you living on?
This isn't really true. Taken as a global average, any particular person's chances of dying a violent death are at the lowest point in history, particularly if you're a man. We're more interconnected so we're more aware of violence happening to others, and there are 8 billion of us now so the absolute number of deaths is higher. However, by any real measure violence in humans is on the decline and has been for some time. The were points in history where the most common cause of death was "Killed by another person" and we're pretty far from that now.
Every major power in WW2 targeted civilian populations as a matter of policy, it was only cosidered a crime when the countries that lost did it. 70 years later our collective conscience has improved, but it's a fragile thing. Changes in the space of one lifetime can hardly be considered set in stone.
Every major power in WW2 targeted civilian populations as a matter of policy, it was only cosidered a crime when the countries that lost did it. 70 years later our collective conscience has improved, but it's a fragile thing. Changes in the space of one lifetime can hardly be considered set in stone.
I would say it hasn't. We've not had a major since. The minor wars however have been bloody.
Every major power in WW2 targeted civilian populations as a matter of policy, it was only cosidered a crime when the countries that lost did it. 70 years later our collective conscience has improved, but it's a fragile thing. Changes in the space of one lifetime can hardly be considered set in stone.
I would say it hasn't. We've not had a major since. The minor wars however have been bloody.
General Curtis Lemay firebombed Japanese cities base on their population (I'm not talking about the Nukes, just plain old incedinary bombs). He was promoted the head of the Air Force and eventually was a Vice-Presidential canidate. People are up in arms about drone strikes these days. We think we are better than we were, but you have a point. The worse things get, the worse humans get. It's in our nature.
it is true, I didnt say statistically or on average, so dont talk about something completely different then what I brought up and claim i am wrong.
factually, there is far more slavery, torture, and war if far more horrible right now then ever before. having millions of slaves right now is not "ok" or better then having tens of thousands of slaves in the past, simply because the ratio isnt the same.
A statement like "There is more war than there has ever been" isn't particularly meaningful when looking at absolute numbers. No comparison of the human condition across history is meaningful when looking at absolute numbers. The human population so much larger than it is in the past that you can make almost any statement in the format "There is more [this thing] than ever before" and have it check out in absolute numbers. It's a non-statement, it's functionally identical to "The population is multiple orders of magnitudes higher than it was 2,000 years ago". There isn't anything to what you're trying to assert it here, it's just noise.
Less than 100 years ago, we turned genocide into a facotry operation. At any moment someone could screw up and start a nuclear exchange that kills hundreds of millions of people.
There are conflicts in or between a majority of the nations on this planet. How the heck can you think we're doing better?
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
If one needs to have explained to him why turning into a monster is a bad idea.....well, we have prisons for people like that.
Steelmage99 wrote: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
If one needs to have explained to him why turning into a monster is a bad idea.....well, we have prisons for people like that.
it is true, I didnt say statistically or on average, so dont talk about something completely different then what I brought up and claim i am wrong.
factually, there is far more slavery, torture, and war if far more horrible right now then ever before. having millions of slaves right now is not "ok" or better then having tens of thousands of slaves in the past, simply because the ratio isnt the same.
A statement like "There is more war than there has ever been" isn't particularly meaningful when looking at absolute numbers. No comparison of the human condition across history is meaningful when looking at absolute numbers. The human population so much larger than it is in the past that you can make almost any statement in the format "There is more [this thing] than ever before" and have it check out in absolute numbers. It's a non-statement, it's functionally identical to "The population is multiple orders of magnitudes higher than it was 2,000 years ago". There isn't anything to what you're trying to assert it here, it's just noise.
not accounting for things like the fact that pushing a button can now blow up everyone is what is silly. and yes, there is more of everything now, thats a fact, and it is in fact, meaningful at that. The fact that we have more people, stuff, tech, ect means a great deal actually.
Besides thatI didnt claim that we had a greater ratio of wars, so stop with the red herring.
Only someone who has no idea on how to look at the #'s would state that ratios are the be all end all, and that raw #'s are meaningless. The suffering/deaths of thousands back then is vastly different to what happens when millions die now, even if both samples represent 10% of a given population.
WMD's and other technologies have vastly increased the rate at which we can kill people, and enabled us to kill pretty much everyone on the planet.
Just because no one has hit the doomsday button doesnt meant its not there, and doesnt mean its not dangerous. It also didnt exist in the past.
absolute #s mean quite a lot, the simple fact that millions can be vaporized in an instant now vs those kind of #'s requiring many years and many wars to achieve in the past is very relevant.
Steelmage99 wrote: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
If one needs to have explained to him why turning into a monster is a bad idea.....well, we have prisons for people like that.
"The Best vengeance is...vengeance." -Frazzled
I like frazz's quote,
also, hooking someones testicles up to a car battery (or whatever it is they do nowadays) with the intent to save millions from WMD's is a lot less monster-y then Clinton/Obama/Bush blowing up little kids by remote control.
"Be grateful that better men then you stand between you and the abyss."
-Easysauce
We have come out of the most bloodiest century known to mankind.
As a result a few selected people on this earth can wipe us out with a few buttons.
Some of us live better lives than many lived in the past, others slave away in the dirt to make that possible.
The world isnt any better or worse than it once was.
Its better and worse in different ways. It always has and always will be like that in my opinion. I also think its certainly not better. For some, but not all.
Steelmage99 wrote: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
If one needs to have explained to him why turning into a monster is a bad idea.....well, we have prisons for people like that.
"The Best vengeance is...vengeance." -Frazzled
I like frazz's quote,
also, hooking someones testicles up to a car battery (or whatever it is they do nowadays) with the intent to save millions from WMD's is a lot less monster-y then Clinton/Obama/Bush blowing up little kids by remote control.
"Be grateful that better men then you stand between you and the abyss."
-Easysauce
Car Battery? You been influence by TV to much
Its not a car battery they hook you to but a TA312 Field phone
Two alligator clips, DR8 field telephone line split apart
one end of line connected to the binding post and the other to clip that's attach to skin
Car Battery? You been influence by TV to much
Its not a car battery they hook you to but a TA312 Field phone
Two alligator clips, DR8 field telephone line split apart
one end of line connected to the binding post and the other to clip that's attach to skin
Then spin the hand crank.
I'm sure no one here ever had The New Guy 'hold these two wires for me'. Or WAS the new guy who held the two wires while the Other Guy furiously cranked the handle.
Which were all much better than some of the truly nefarious things which may or may not have been done with CS powder.
Car Battery? You been influence by TV to much
Its not a car battery they hook you to but a TA312 Field phone
Two alligator clips, DR8 field telephone line split apart
one end of line connected to the binding post and the other to clip that's attach to skin
Then spin the hand crank.
I'm sure no one here ever had The New Guy 'hold these two wires for me'. Or WAS the new guy who held the two wires while the Other Guy furiously cranked the handle.
Which were all much better than some of the truly nefarious things which may or may not have been done with CS powder.
I rather take the car battery then deal with getting shocked with a 312 again. I did sign that freaking waiver and went in eye's open
"At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"
Kilkrazy wrote: "At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"
Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream. How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries. Now I will absolutely joke about glassing the Middle East. That Ground Zero Ocean meme has to be over a decade old now and I giggle every time, but there's a lot of people in the Middle East, and even with the rise of ISIS not even a majority of them desperately need a case of acute onset lead poisoning. I even know some of them. I have friends in Jordan and Kuwait that I treasure greatly. I've even read the book a lot of people are so damn hung up about over there, and you know... with all the men I've buried, I still haven't seen, heard or read one damn thing that makes me say to myself "Yeah, feth it. Let's go burn a village and torture some fethers and see if anything comes out of it. Not like it matters."
Maybe I'm just outdated though.
I personally think that much of the hullabaloo is... misguided. Many comments on my facebook feed regarding this issue equate to: "We killed Nazi's without torture, so why do we need it now??" And my usual response to that is, "We DID have a few people torture Nazi's, you're just not reading about it in People Magazine"
I don't really agree with your "airsoft informants" but I also don't agree with your flip side. We don't really need to torture people to get information anymore, and we sure as hell don't need to wallow in the mud with the other "animals" in the barn yard.
Kilkrazy wrote: "At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"
I'm just teasing. Seems suing and prosecuting for having that stuff done is the cool thing to do.
Those NS sure DQ flying low and fast over my property. Drives the horses nuts when a MH47 comes screaming over the pasture at like 300 feet.
Those are NG F models over the back pasture, the 160th guys come in much lower (but I always refrain from taking their picture) and generally at night but take about the same flight path. I keep waiting for them to use my pond to practice water landings..
Automatically Appended Next Post: Did everyone see where Zacarias Moussaoui, the '20th hijacker' is trying to leave the Supermax and go to GITMO?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: We don't really need to torture people to get information anymore, and we sure as hell don't need to wallow in the mud with the other "animals" in the barn yard.
You never needed to torture people to get information. You never could torture people to get information. Even when you concede that they are unneeded you're still selling the CIA's bs.
Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream. How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries. Now I will absolutely joke about glassing the Middle East. That Ground Zero Ocean meme has to be over a decade old now and I giggle every time, but there's a lot of people in the Middle East, and even with the rise of ISIS not even a majority of them desperately need a case of acute onset lead poisoning. I even know some of them. I have friends in Jordan and Kuwait that I treasure greatly. I've even read the book a lot of people are so damn hung up about over there, and you know... with all the men I've buried, I still haven't seen, heard or read one damn thing that makes me say to myself "Yeah, feth it. Let's go burn a village and torture some fethers and see if anything comes out of it. Not like it matters."
Maybe I'm just outdated though.
I personally think that much of the hullabaloo is... misguided. Many comments on my facebook feed regarding this issue equate to: "We killed Nazi's without torture, so why do we need it now??" And my usual response to that is, "We DID have a few people torture Nazi's, you're just not reading about it in People Magazine"
I don't really agree with your "airsoft informants" but I also don't agree with your flip side. We don't really need to torture people to get information anymore, and we sure as hell don't need to wallow in the mud with the other "animals" in the barn yard.
Wait... uh. That's my point. That stooping to torture and other such behavior lowers us to the level of our enemy in a moral sense, and that we don't need to do that. Their point being we should throw out all rules and just kill dem der furriners hurr hurr!
To kill them, it often helps to have intel on who to kill, where they are, and when they will be there.
Often it helps to have intel about their intent for their actions too.
Once in a while, having a live one to interrogate may help facilitate the killing of others (or to facilitate interfering in their op cycle to prevent them killing your guys).
How and where you conduct the interrogations may be an issue, but having interrogations is a good thing.
CptJake wrote: To kill them, it often helps to have intel on who to kill, where they are, and when they will be there.
And torture doesn't give you reliable intel. Every study ever done says this.
Often it helps to have intel about their intent for their actions too.
And torture doesn't give you reliable intel. Every study ever done says this.
Once in a while, having a live one to interrogate may help facilitate the killing of others (or to facilitate interfering in their op cycle to prevent them killing your guys).
Interrogating and torturing aren't the same thing. No one is advocating making their lives easier, but we don't need to rely on unreliable methods that make us just as bad as those we criticize for it.
How and where you conduct the interrogations may be an issue, but having interrogations is a good thing.
And no one is arguing against interrogation in the slightest. Interrogation =/= torture.
CptJake wrote: To kill them, it often helps to have intel on who to kill, where they are, and when they will be there.
Often it helps to have intel about their intent for their actions too.
Once in a while, having a live one to interrogate may help facilitate the killing of others (or to facilitate interfering in their op cycle to prevent them killing your guys).
How and where you conduct the interrogations may be an issue, but having interrogations is a good thing.
Little Yellow Bird say's to turn over the captured Insurgent IED teams (whoever left alive) to the ANA to find out who the Financier and backers are who brought the explosive material to make a IED/VBIED to be used against Coalition forces. Intel within 48 hours. ANA Detainee Compound 40 min flight from Bagram
Edit
Though we did get pissed when a CIA "Black" FoB was damn near over run by insurgents in RC East in 2010
Kilkrazy wrote: "At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"
And?
...!
The "utilitarian" argument is thereby refuted.
When considering a possible course of action its likely effectiveness should be taken into account along with other factors.
Giving the floor over to someone with actual experience in these matters (not to discount intell dweebs and people like me who've been through SERE) but actual POW and torture victim, Senator John McCain.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Giving the floor over to someone with actual experience in these matters (not to discount intell dweebs and people like me who've been through SERE) but actual POW and torture victim, Senator John McCain.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around that only three individuals were confirmed to have been water boarded. That the CIA admitted. Wonder if that report mention other techniques that was done by other nations to provide intel.
Now I have been informed, mostly by guys who look like they spend more time with airsoft guns and at the local sammich shop then in the military, studying geopolitics and the methods and theories of armed conflict between nation states and non-state actors, that my ideals of upholding our convictions the right way, and not stooping to the level of the gaks we're fighting is a pipe dream.
Right, see the problem here is that you're imposing your ideals on others. For many they aren't fighting "the gaks" because they're bad according to some kind of universal morality, but because they're bad in relativistic or amoral terms which can generally be summarized as: they threaten our interests.
How about that? Apparently, to defeat the enemy, we need to wallow in that mud, throw out our humanity, take a leak on any concept of honor and just start glassing countries.
I can think of several concepts of honor which would fully endorse glassing countries for trivial affronts. I also know several current and former members of the military that express the precise sentiment that you solely attribute to fat airsoft enthusiasts, and people who study geopolitics and theories of conflict.
And no one is arguing against interrogation in the slightest. Interrogation =/= torture.
Indeed, whether or not torture is morally wrong may be a relevant question on moral grounds, but its noted lack of effectiveness makes it poor policy regardless.
British intelligence agencies spoke to US counterparts about a report into CIA interrogation before it was published, Downing Street has said.
A spokeswoman did not say the UK had asked for information to be left out - but said if requests were made it was not to hide UK involvement in torture.
No 10 had previously said it had not requested redactions, but it now says any requests would have been made for "national security reasons".
The report found "brutal" tactics used.
The published report, which looked at treatment of detainees in the years after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, is a 525-page summary of a 6,000-page document produced by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The full document remains classified.
Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate committee, said CIA tactics - which included repeated waterboarding, slapping, stress positions and sleep deprivation - amounted to torture.
Ground 'shifting'
The published report contains no reference to UK agencies.
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said that on Wednesday "Downing Street said to the best of their knowledge they hadn't asked for any redactions from that report".
But he said the "ground seemed to be shifting" on Thursday, as a Downing Street spokeswoman said there had been a conversation between UK and US intelligence services about the executive summary of the report.
"So it looks as though redactions were requested," our correspondent said.
"But she [the spokeswoman] went on to say these were on the grounds of national security, not on the grounds of British complicity in torture or any British involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the mistreatment of suspects."
Government ministers and UK security and intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 have always said torture would never be used by Britain to extract information.
Parliament's intelligence and security committee is currently examining the question of whether the UK was complicit in the US mistreatment of suspects.
On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he would be open to a full judicial inquiry if the committee failed to answer key questions.
Kilkrazy wrote: "At no time did the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ticking time bomb,"
And? ...!
The "utilitarian" argument is thereby refuted.
When considering a possible course of action its likely effectiveness should be taken into account along with other factors.
You almost NEVER expect 'actionable intelligence' or 'imminent threat intelligence' from detainee interrogations, regardless of the methods used/not used in those interrogations. That type of info has a lifespan often measured in hours and generally no more than days, and by the time you have the detainee in front of the interrogation team the chances of that type of info not having gone past its expiration of usefulness (LTIOV was the term used back when I was on active duty) is slim. To invalidate a program based on this perceived lack of value due to no 'actionable intelligence' is frankly ignorant. There are plenty of reasons to be against the program, you chose one that is a very, very poor reason. Lack of 'actionable intelligence' or 'imminent threat intelligence' is NOT the same thing, not even close to the same thing as effectiveness when it comes to collection from detainees.
All interrogation is coercive. All of it. These guys used methods not really in an attempt to extract info, but in an attempt to break down the detainees will, and used methods (rightly or wrongly) they felt would do that quickly so that they could then begin the long process of drawing out the info they felt the detainees had. Even in the currently allowed DoD/Army manual on interrogations, getting the detainee started is key, and whether using Fear Up Harsh or Ego Down, there are very legitimate reasons you want to 'break' the guy, and allowed methods which enable it. Not every method is for every detainee, and not all detainees need to be 'broken', the interrogation team evaluates each based on many factors to come up with a plan for that specific detainee.
Soa again, basing the effectiveness on the CIA program on lack of 'imminent threat intelligence' is not a good way at all of evaluating the program's effectiveness. Evaluate it on the legality and/or morality of the methods.
Yesterday, I made the point that the torture report was a symptom of a wider malaise, that being the utter failure of the war on terror.
Today, I'm making the point that the torture report is also symptomatic of an intelligence breakdown, and the name of that breakdown is...
Pakistan
Like others on dakka, we've all followed this closely over the years, and yet, it's amazing that Pakistan has gotten lightly off the hook.
We know the Pakistani intelligence bureau was a double agent for the Taliban, we know that it was no coincidence that Bin laden was hiding next door to a military academy, and we know that we knew
And yet, it was still a clusterfeth!
Instead of torturing people, the CIA might have made more breakthrough by not passing on information to an agency that was in cahoots with the very people the CIA were trying to destroy.
When considering a possible course of action its likely effectiveness should be taken into account along with other factors.
Yep, but the term 'Hail Mary Pass' exists for a reason. Sometimes options with little chance of success become The Option if the perceived/ potential gain (or adverting a perceived/potential loss) is big enough.
It is those 'other factors' that provide context, your initial statement seemed to ignore those 'other factors'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yesterday, I made the point that the torture report was a symptom of a wider malaise, that being the utter failure of the war on terror.
Today, I'm making the point that the torture report is also symptomatic of an intelligence breakdown, and the name of that breakdown is...
Pakistan
Like others on dakka, we've all followed this closely over the years, and yet, it's amazing that Pakistan has gotten lightly off the hook.
We know the Pakistani intelligence bureau was a double agent for the Taliban, we know that it was no coincidence that Bin laden was hiding next door to a military academy, and we know that we knew
And yet, it was still a clusterfeth!
Instead of torturing people, the CIA might have made more breakthrough by not passing on information to an agency that was in cahoots with the very people the CIA were trying to destroy.
Yesterday I read a really good article about Pakistan related to this.
"So it looks as though redactions were requested," our correspondent said.
"But she [the spokeswoman] went on to say these were on the grounds of national security, not on the grounds of British complicity in torture or any British involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the mistreatment of suspects."
National security? What are you trying to do, maintain a monopoly on interrogation techniques that don't work? Protect intelligence sources that produce gibberish? Maintain operational secrecy for missions that don't exist?
Torture as it stands should rate as immoral or amoral, trying to justify it should be regarded in the same light. Torture is never justified. Talking to the ARVN guy i know who was there after the fall of Saigon tells me this is so.
he suffered enchanced interrogation techniques.
all you clowns who are so blase about this gak should talk to someone from ARVN who ended up in enemy territory.
AMerica has done the same gak, gak that got a court marshall in 1900 in the phillipines is now ok.
that's all kinds of fethed.
when i think about it beheading someone is barbaric, but torturing them for the greater good is ok. .....yeah
while i'm at it the moral bankruptsy of assassinating people inside others airspace does not figure?
ffs america
From the people i talk with (pakistani middle class) america is not doing itself any favours. another chance of "policeman" moved to enemy.... ffs figure outthis gak.
To be fair Bullockist, we don't have clean hands either. From memory we handed a few guys over to them knowing full well what would happen. Or ASIO has guys sitting in on some sessions. Or something similarly depressing that I've done my best to forget because it left me ashamed to be an Aussie for a short while.
it's the non clean hands that give me the gaks. why are we dragged into this gak?
on what gounds?
does it benefit us?
if there was torture IM ASHAMED MORE THAN ANY ONE
americas imperialist torturers seem to be able to live with9out a problem
Automatically Appended Next Post: as an ally having someone who miss treats prisoners is embarrassing- having someone who does it at routine is fething terrible.
inept handling of iraq and afganistan do not inspire confidence.
Maybe nuggz can helpyou establish how to live in an occupied territory...he's good at peace.
Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
Does a nation need to torture people to extract information? Yes, I believe we do when the very people that we are fighting could very well be our neighbors.
Do I like the idea of torture? No, however, I must admit that I would be willing to torture another person if the information that was extracted could save lives. I realize that it is not the most reliable way to gather information, but there are times where it is the ONLY way to gather information.
I rather enjoy the people that can sit back and condemn people for doing the hard things in life that make our lives safer. If you have ever had the pleasure of dealing with a sect of people that are willing to not only kill you but your entire family in some of the most gruesome ways possible, then put it up on the internet for others to "enjoy", then you would have a better understanding of why these things must happen.
As far as studies "proving" that torture does not work ... that is educated nonsense. Studies have also shown that red meat is bad for you, then it is good for you, now it is bad for you again. I can take charts and graphs and a study and make it come out to say whatever I want. The point I am trying to make is that torture is unreliable, but it does work. Some people can not be bought, which is what we have done for MANY years, but it too is unreliable.
otherwise, people will say anything to get out of torture....do you see the issue? If you were tortured, what would you say? I can garauntee it isn't truthfull.iit is what stops the torture.The guy from sydney who was tortured said the same thing.
there is only one country advocating torture in the countries it has conquered.
w
t
f
lemmings.
Does anybody remember when the us was pushing the insurgents towards pakistan. The pakistani army was there to guard the border, and make sure no one escaped. suddenly the Kashmir kicked off and the troops were needed there. convenient eh.
from my own observations pakistan shouldbe considered less than reliable....but after the wiork in the area should be 100% reliable......theres's a lesson here....learn it some time.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
That reason is we don't learn and have never learned. Torture isn't and have never been effective for extracting information. Why does torture continue? The same reason the mooks on this thread say it does if you read into their anger. Not a demand for information, but retribution.
There's some good lines in the move Body of Lies for that.
Roger Ferris: I thought you didn't believe in torture, Hani Pasha.
Hani: This is punishment, my dear. It's a very different thing.
------------
Hani: Torture, it does not work. Under torture, a man will say almost anything to make the pain stop.
One of the follow up lines there is "Urgency does not call for changing methods that work for methods that do not work."
OIIIIIIO wrote: Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
...
Are you seriously suggesting that careful intelligence and medical/academic studies that say torture does not work are of less value that your unsupported personal opinion?
OIIIIIIO wrote: Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
Does a nation need to torture people to extract information? Yes, I believe we do when the very people that we are fighting could very well be our neighbors.
Do I like the idea of torture? No, however, I must admit that I would be willing to torture another person if the information that was extracted could save lives. I realize that it is not the most reliable way to gather information, but there are times where it is the ONLY way to gather information.
I rather enjoy the people that can sit back and condemn people for doing the hard things in life that make our lives safer. If you have ever had the pleasure of dealing with a sect of people that are willing to not only kill you but your entire family in some of the most gruesome ways possible, then put it up on the internet for others to "enjoy", then you would have a better understanding of why these things must happen.
As far as studies "proving" that torture does not work ... that is educated nonsense. Studies have also shown that red meat is bad for you, then it is good for you, now it is bad for you again. I can take charts and graphs and a study and make it come out to say whatever I want. The point I am trying to make is that torture is unreliable, but it does work. Some people can not be bought, which is what we have done for MANY years, but it too is unreliable.
Wow. Just. Wow.
Quoting this to memorialize possibly the stupidest and most ignorant thing I have ever seen on Dakka.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Most people are going to dislike what I have to say ... I could not care less. Regardless of what studies say, torture DOES work. It has worked for thousands of years. That is the reason it continues to happen.
No, the reason torture continues to happen is because of idiots spouting "common sense" like this. We have known for hundreds of years that torture does not work, unless all you're looking for is video of Abdul Smith admitting he assassinated Lincoln.
Does a nation need to torture people to extract information? Yes, I believe we do when the very people that we are fighting could very well be our neighbors.
No, that is when it is most important to not torture, because if you have decided your neighbours are potential enemies, you can torture people into agreeing with you even if they aren't. Jesus, even when your neighbours really could have been your enemies, back during the goddamn American Civil War they still didn't torture, because torture is useless.
The Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), 24 April 1863 wrote:Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty — that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.
You are a terrible person. I don't expect to talk you out of your idiotic support for torture any less than I might persuade a cowpat not to stink, but I can only hope that nobody reads what you just wrote and thinks you're not spouting bs.
Wait... uh. That's my point. That stooping to torture and other such behavior lowers us to the level of our enemy in a moral sense, and that we don't need to do that. Their point being we should throw out all rules and just kill dem der furriners hurr hurr!
Yeah, I was kind of throwing in my two cents on it.
For the record, I think that "torture" is wrong, but there are somethings which, if done right, produce actual valuable intelligence. A buddy of mine in the army was an interrogator and his two quickest interrogations were pretty spectacular as far as intel value goes. One guy, he simply called by his nickname. The other guy, he borrowed 1SG's "tape" (for the fat test) and proceeded to "measure" the turd for his jump suit. When the guy asked what he was doing, the interpreter said, "ohh, he's just measuring you for your jumpsuit so the guys at guantanamo will have your size when you get there" If that's torture, then I guess I support that limited use of it.
That said, I agree with most of you when we're talking about things like a car battery and jumper leads because it's "field expedient" or having a person "fall down the stairs", etc. It's been proven over and over that physical trauma does not give any reliable results. I was more commenting on how so many people put rose colored glasses on when looking at some things in the human past to say "but we didn't torture people back then!!"
And, I think that torture will remain so long as there are sick and twisted people in those kinds of positions in the world. Obviously, some cultures or groups will continue using less than "civilized" methods on their prisoners, but that should NEVER be an excuse to torture someone. Not even if they are Soviet moles
Right, don't get me wrong here. Interrogation, leaning on guy is fine, there are people who are very good at that out there and hey they don't need a car battery! Torture and interrogation are not the same thing.
UN: ‘We won’t take ‘no’ for an answer, CIA torture must be investigated’
http://rt.com/op-edge/213331-un-rapporteur-cia-torture/ The release of the so-called CIA torture report will likely create momentum that will lead to justice, UN special rapporteur for torture Juan Mendez told RT. He said the UN will not “take no for an answer” and that each torturous act must be investigated.
The damning report on CIA torture has forced Poland to finally admit that it hosted a secret American prison, with former President Aleksander Kwasniewski coming forward with the revelation. However, Kwasniewski claimed that Polish officials were not informed of the torture tactics being used in the secret jail.
Juan Mendez: I think in fact not only Poland, but many countries cooperated in this immoral, unfair, and illegal practice. And all countries have a responsibility to investigate and come clean. It’s a little hard to believe the president of Poland – he admitted that he allowed the use of secret detention centers for extraordinary renditions and didn’t know that torture happened in that context. I mean, why else would anybody be taken to a secret detention center if it’s not to be tortured? I think all countries that have participated in this should borrow a leaf from the UN Senate Committee on Intelligence and come clean; do an honest, thorough, complete, and impartial investigation of what went on during the extraordinary renditions and the use of black sites.
None of the redactions from a CIA report on interrogation related to British involvement in the mistreatment of prisoners, Number 10 has said.
Downing Street confirmed UK and US intelligence agencies discussed the controversial report before it was published.
But a spokesman insisted any redactions would have been made on "national security grounds".
The report found "brutal" treatment of al-Qaeda suspects in the wake of 9/11.
Senators looked at how the CIA handled detainees in the years after the World Trade Center attacks in 2001. The full document, produced by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, remains classified.
The published report contains no reference to UK agencies.
Studies have also shown that red meat is bad for you, then it is good for you, now it is bad for you again.
Well, no. People who don't know how to interpret scientific studies, or are trying to sell their position to the lay population, have made those claims. But the studies themselves generally do not.
Juan Mendez wrote:I think all countries that have participated in this should borrow a leaf from the UN Senate Committee on Intelligence and come clean; do an honest, thorough, complete, and impartial investigation of what went on during the extraordinary renditions and the use of black sites.
I think that is a fair request. I don't think it will make much of a difference, but it is a fair request.
These days, perception is everything. Often - it doesn't even matter if the accused did the deed they were accused of. You see this all the time in political smear campaigns. For those who live in countries messed up by the results of the US's "freedom exporting" experiment of the 2000's... there's already tons of people with hostility towards America. This CIA thing, now that its out in the public can only go two ways.
1. Ignore and/or do not prosecute - this will probably increase the numbers of those who are hostile to the US as it represents more of the status quo.
2. Draft legislation/Guidelines and/or throw someone under the bus. Best case scenario, the numbers of those hostile to the US grow at a slower rate or at best is neutral to growth.
ISIL can't be beat by a conventional war. The internet has let all the malcontents in the entire region coordinate and aggregate into a cohesive force. Something needs to be done to stem the tide of recruits and regional ill will. Just bombing them is like cutting heads off the hydra without stopping 2 heads from growing back. The West (Canada included) is just making the mess worse.
keezus wrote: ISIL can't be beat by a conventional war. The internet has let all the malcontents in the entire region coordinate and aggregate into a cohesive force. Something needs to be done to stem the tide of recruits and regional ill will. Just bombing them is like cutting heads off the hydra without stopping 2 heads from growing back. The West (Canada included) is just making the mess worse.
This is the wrong thread for it, but I do not agree with you. ISIL can only recruit from a finite pool of sympathisers - even without the morale problems they are currently facing, there are only so many people in the world who are willing to help you build a fascist empire on a foundation of sex slavery and murder. If Bob dies fighting for ISIL most people are going to recognise that he died because he was a donkey-cave and not any kind of martyr for any kind of noble cause. Anyone who doesn't think he was an donkey-cave was already an ISIL sympathiser.
List of Bad Arguments:
"Remember how things felt right after 9/11? We were under existential threat!"
America has faced far worse existential threat in the past, and refused to endorse torture. During the Cold War, say, when we faced potential nuclear annihilation. Also, the torture program continued right up until at least 2009.
"The stuff the CIA did isn't torture."
It isn't? Try undergoing it yourself. Also, Senator McCain, a former POW and victim of torture, seems to believe it is. As does the US Military, which bans the techniques being used by its interrogators.
-Addendum: Having undergone more than a few of these techniques during certain training programs, I'm going to, from personal experience, call bs that any of that crap isn't torture. Feel free to attend SERE and try it yourself if you disagree.
"Releasing this report is politically motivated! It's just a partisan fabrication to control the media narrative!"
In that case, explain why it wasn't released back in October, when it could have influence the election.
-Addendum: Or why it wouldn't be released closer to 2016. I've had that countered with someone saying the human rights/war crimes trials will influence the political backdrop, but for feth's sake if you can admit what we did constitutes a freaking war crime how are you still defending this?
"Democrats on the Intelligence Committee also knew of these programs at the time. They are being hypocrites!"
Yes. They are. But it's never too late to do the right thing. Better late than never.
"Releasing this report endangers our troops and diplomats overseas! It is irresponsible!"
That's not an argument for covering this up, it's an argument for not using torture in the first place.
"How can you be mad at this and not mad at Drones/Obamacare/IRS scandal/Fast & Furious/Ebola response/Immigration executive action/targeted killings of American citizens/[Insert other bad thing here]!"
It is perfectly possible to be mad at both.
"What we did doesn't compare to ISIL beheading journalists/Nazis/Stalin/Twin-Towers!"
Sure. It's still bad. If we've sunk to the level where our best argument is that we aren't as bad as the Nazis, that is a problem
Keep in mind that the real purpose of this report isn't really to condemn the use of torture, but to allow Senate Democrats to wash their hands of it, to say it wasn’t their fault and they had nothing to do with it.
Which is flat out bull.
Frankly, we all need to realize that as a whole, the US ordered the "code red", with respect to EIT. Now the argument can certainly be made that it's definitely torture... but, evidently the DoJ didn't pursue any charges.
Think about it for second. Obama vastly opposed the use of EIT, such that, he ran on it on his maiden election campaign. Don't you think he'd prosecute this more vigorously if there were any inkling of CIA malfeasance? At least when he became President, he ordered all EIT to cease, and that's at least one good thing he has done.
For the record, the use of these techniques makes me uncomfortable. That's a good thing, because of the fear of establishing a precedent. God knows that the government will tend to expand its power whenever it is left unchecked.
The true fallout of this is that our allies will be far less inclined to cooperate with us, knowing that they will be left hanging with the bag the moment the crisis has passed. And our intelligence agencies won’t be as inclined to push vigorously to defend us if they know that their own political leaders will eventually betray them and expose them to prosecution for the very policies they approved.
whembly wrote: The true fallout of this is that our allies will be far less inclined to cooperate with us, knowing that they will be left hanging with the bag the moment the crisis has passed. And our intelligence agencies won’t be as inclined to push vigorously to defend us if they know that their own political leaders will eventually betray them and expose them to prosecution for the very policies they approved.
You say that like it's a bad thing. As I've said many times, torture is fething stupid. If our allies refuse to help the US government shoot itself in the foot and if US intelligence agencies refuse to shoot us in the foot, the US will be better off.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: List of Bad Arguments:
"Remember how things felt right after 9/11? We were under existential threat!"
America has faced far worse existential threat in the past, and refused to endorse torture. During the Cold War, say, when we faced potential nuclear annihilation. Also, the torture program continued right up until at least 2009.
"The stuff the CIA did isn't torture."
It isn't? Try undergoing it yourself. Also, Senator McCain, a former POW and victim of torture, seems to believe it is. As does the US Military, which bans the techniques being used by its interrogators.
-Addendum: Having undergone more than a few of these techniques during certain training programs, I'm going to, from personal experience, call bs that any of that crap isn't torture. Feel free to attend SERE and try it yourself if you disagree.
"Releasing this report is politically motivated! It's just a partisan fabrication to control the media narrative!"
In that case, explain why it wasn't released back in October, when it could have influence the election.
-Addendum: Or why it wouldn't be released closer to 2016. I've had that countered with someone saying the human rights/war crimes trials will influence the political backdrop, but for feth's sake if you can admit what we did constitutes a freaking war crime how are you still defending this?
"Democrats on the Intelligence Committee also knew of these programs at the time. They are being hypocrites!"
Yes. They are. But it's never too late to do the right thing. Better late than never.
"Releasing this report endangers our troops and diplomats overseas! It is irresponsible!"
That's not an argument for covering this up, it's an argument for not using torture in the first place.
"How can you be mad at this and not mad at Drones/Obamacare/IRS scandal/Fast & Furious/Ebola response/Immigration executive action/targeted killings of American citizens/[Insert other bad thing here]!"
It is perfectly possible to be mad at both.
"What we did doesn't compare to ISIL beheading journalists/Nazis/Stalin/Twin-Towers!"
Sure. It's still bad. If we've sunk to the level where our best argument is that we aren't as bad as the Nazis, that is a problem
One of the most intelligent posts on dakka, exalted
Listening to the radio on the way to work yesterday I overheard an interesting point that now seems so obvious that I am honestly surprised I didn't even notice it.
American hostages killed by ISIS are wearing orange jumpsuits.
That's why I am always in the "we are supposed to be the better nation" camp. Because if we do this crab, then there is no reason why any other nation or group shouldn't do it to our citizens. I think we shouldn't torture because I don't want my brother to be tortured if he gets captured.
There is never a guarantee that they won't if we don't, but they have no reason not to use the same "tools" that we use.
Da Boss wrote: I hate being on the same side of any argument as Russel Brand.
I share that feeling. But we seem to be agreeing on a lot more. I'm forced to choose between agreeing with him, or ragequitting society, because there is no fething way I'll agree with a politician.
Sure. It's still bad. If we've sunk to the level where our best argument is that we aren't as bad as the Nazis, that is a problem
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, and all your responses; save the above.
The foundation of any argument a nation-state makes in the course of pursuing violent action is basically "We're better than X.".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And our intelligence agencies won’t be as inclined to push vigorously to defend us if they know that their own political leaders will eventually betray them and expose them to prosecution for the very policies they approved.
Who is being exposed to prosecution? The Senate report does not list names.
President orders a drone strike that kills a civilian or two and nobody says a thing. CIA uses torture on murderous terrorists and everybody loses their mind.
Breo you're completely full of bull gak. There's been pretty serious protests (I know, I've been to a few of them) over President Obama's utterly gak drone policy. It's perfectly possible to be upset over both.
Both involve the CIA interestingly enough. Sounds like someone needs to go in and clean house at "The Company".
It is perfectly possible to be pissed off about this tortute thing for reasons that don't include feeling particularly sorry for the people that were tortured. My personal suspicion is that KM won't particularly shed a tear for the poor unfortunate terrorist that was caught up in this.
I'm guessing that for many folks it is less about "poor murderous terrorists don't deserve to be tortured" and more about "the US is supposed to be better than this". You can be against torture because of what it does to us, and not just because of what it does to other people.
Edit: of course KM could also feel bad for the tortured folks, don't want to exclude that possibility.
Breotan wrote: President orders a drone strike that kills a civilian or two and nobody says a thing. CIA uses torture on murderous terrorists and everybody loses their mind.
There's enough legitimate things to be unhappy with here that we don't really need to invent pretend narratives in our head, least of all in a really roundabout way of torture-acceptance by way of whataboutism.
Additionally, they are alleged "murderous terrorists". They've never been charged with anything. Remember, the guys who brought us Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the Obamacare Website, the IRS scandal, and other assorted acts of ineptitude and malfeasance are also responsible for this. I'm sure they got it right with these guys, right? Federal government couldn't possibly be wrong?
And I feel bad for the tortured folks, no bones about it. Even if they are guilty of everything they are alleged to have done (and of course, we've never tried to actually establish that legally), then they should face justice, not torture.
Ouze wrote: This idea has little basis in reality and I suspect you know that.
Of course I do. I'm putting that out simply to show how little empathy I have for the fate of terrorists, especially given what was being done by their ilk prior to our ever becoming involved in this mess.
Ouze wrote: Additionally, they are alleged "murderous terrorists". They've never been charged with anything.
Still not able to care enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Breotan wrote: President orders a drone strike that kills a civilian or two and nobody says a thing. CIA uses torture on murderous terrorists and everybody loses their mind.
There's enough legitimate things to be unhappy with here that we don't really need to invent pretend narratives in our head, least of all in a really roundabout way of torture-acceptance by way of whataboutism.
Additionally, they are alleged "murderous terrorists". They've never been charged with anything. Remember, the guys who brought us Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the Obamacare Website, the IRS scandal, and other assorted acts of ineptitude and malfeasance are also responsible for this. I'm sure they got it right with these guys, right? Federal government couldn't possibly be wrong?
And I feel bad for the tortured folks, no bones about it. Even if they are guilty of everything they are alleged to have done (and of course, we've never tried to actually establish that legally), then they should face justice, not torture.
I think I agree with this here...
I’ve been re-reading this report… lengthy, no doubt, but a couple things jump to mind.
First, the timeline ends 2008. The one death noted was due to alleged hypothermia, and was covered extensively in the press when it was leaked, and there are a lot of “suppositions” on the part of the SSCI… lots of them if I remember correctly.
Mistakes made? Sure.
Almost ALL of it old news, covered extensively in the US and foreign press over the years, and absolutely NOTHING thus far that has not been out there in the open already…save for the cover names and project code names.
If DiFi truly wanted to *fix* anything... release the whole damn thing (redacted of course) instead of summarizing the executive summary of these documents. Instead, she's re-litigating Bush era policies and this is nothing more than a Wag the Dog scenario imo.
If DiFi truly wanted to *fix* anything... release the whole damn thing (redacted of course) instead of summarizing the executive summary of these documents. Instead, she's re-litigating Bush era policies and this is nothing more than a Wag the Dog scenario imo
DiFi? Are you trying to remind the board of you political leanings?
Almost ALL of it old news, covered extensively in the US and foreign press over the years, and absolutely NOTHING thus far that has not been out there in the open already…save for the cover names and project code names.
If DiFi truly wanted to *fix* anything... release the whole damn thing (redacted of course) instead of summarizing the executive summary of these documents. Instead, she's re-litigating Bush era policies and this is nothing more than a Wag the Dog scenario imo
DiFi? Are you trying to remind the board of you political leanings?
This is her nickname.
Also, re-litigation is not possible.
Why not? None we're reprimanded nor were charged yet.
Almost ALL of it old news, covered extensively in the US and foreign press over the years, and absolutely NOTHING thus far that has not been out there in the open already…save for the cover names and project code names.
None of the names of personnel were revealed.
Don't you think if that they truly broke some laws, the Obama administration would jump all over that?
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the real purpose of this report isn't really to condemn the use of torture, but to allow Senate Democrats to wash their hands of it, to say it wasn’t their fault and they had nothing to do with it.
Pretty sure you've forfeited your right to complain on this forum about that TBH.
Hopefully the whole report will be released in the near future leading to a wholesale purge of the national security and political elements of the West who support and carry out these kinds of things. Hopefully this in turn will lead to a more open security service and political body which is less active in violating the rights of its people and those around the world under vague cries of "because terrorism!".
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the real purpose of this report isn't really to condemn the use of torture, but to allow Senate Democrats to wash their hands of it, to say it wasn’t their fault and they had nothing to do with it.
Pretty sure you've forfeited your right to complain on this forum about that TBH.
Pretty sure I haven't TBH.... you just don't like my politics.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the real purpose of this report isn't really to condemn the use of torture, but to allow Senate Democrats to wash their hands of it, to say it wasn’t their fault and they had nothing to do with it.
Pretty sure you've forfeited your right to complain on this forum about that TBH.
Pretty sure I haven't TBH.... you just don't like my politics.
You know there's a reason why Benghazi's almost reached meme-status here on Dakka, right?
d-usa wrote: It is perfectly possible to be pissed off about this tortute thing for reasons that don't include feeling particularly sorry for the people that were tortured. My personal suspicion is that KM won't particularly shed a tear for the poor unfortunate terrorist that was caught up in this.
I'm guessing that for many folks it is less about "poor murderous terrorists don't deserve to be tortured" and more about "the US is supposed to be better than this". You can be against torture because of what it does to us, and not just because of what it does to other people.
Edit: of course KM could also feel bad for the tortured folks, don't want to exclude that possibility.
I've been tortured. It sucks. and I got the relatively "light" version of this stuff because I was in training, and I always had an "out" if I really needed it. These people did not. I don't feel terribly much compassion for the actual terrorists (who should face a court of law not some CIA gakhead) but I feel very sorry for our agents and the innocents who got tortured.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the real purpose of this report isn't really to condemn the use of torture, but to allow Senate Democrats to wash their hands of it, to say it wasn’t their fault and they had nothing to do with it....
Does that make torture OK?
Let's forget the identity of the president who brought it back and agree that torture is bad.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the real purpose of this report isn't really to condemn the use of torture, but to allow Senate Democrats to wash their hands of it, to say it wasn’t their fault and they had nothing to do with it....
Does that make torture OK?
That's now what I'm saying.
Let's forget the identity of the president who brought it back and agree that torture is bad.
Why? It's one of the reasons why Bush is so critcised as it happened on his watch.
What I'm saying is that I'm surprised that Obama's DOJ didn't find anyone breaking any laws.
That's all...
I ask this in all seriousness, but have you considered that it might not be all that easy to prosecute (at least publicly) a member of the CIA, especially if they are still an active officer? Also, has the DoJ publicly said that they found that no crimes had been committed by the CIA or its contractors?
I mean, let's be honest, that Central Intelligence Agency isn't exactly know for its transparency...
People (individual contractors/Subject Matter Experts) are coming out talking about how this program starting with KLM (Master Mind of the 9/11 attack(?) getting water boarded. Over ten years so some "aspect" of the program can be talked about.
What I'm saying is that I'm surprised that Obama's DOJ didn't find anyone breaking any laws.
That's all...
I ask this in all seriousness, but have you considered that it might not be all that easy to prosecute (at least publicly) a member of the CIA, especially if they are still an active officer?
I didn't say it would be easy... but, the CIA answers to Congress and the WhiteHouse. They're not mercenaries.
Also, has the DoJ publicly said that they found that no crimes had been committed by the CIA or its contractors?
Sorta... the Special Prosecutor stated that the admissible evidence wasn't sufficient "to obtain and sustain convictions beyond a reasonable doubt" and that they've since reviewed the full Senate report and said no new information was revealed in determining illegal activity.
So... again... do I trust the Obama Administration (or the Special Prosecutor) in this? Not really... but, I'm very surprised because I EXPECTED the DOJ to charge someone.
I mean, let's be honest, that Central Intelligence Agency isn't exactly know for its transparency...
Of course, it's secretive by design... but, how was the Oversight? The report dosen't really go into details in that, and more importantly, the report doesn't even offer recommendations to address it.
Jihadin wrote: Over ten years so some "aspect" of the program can be talked about.
Greatly depends on the level of classification. If most/all of it was TS, we've still got another 15 years or so to go till there's even a chance of downgrading or declassifying the information.
Of course, it's secretive by design... but, how was the Oversight? The report dosen't really go into details in that, and more importantly, the report doesn't even offer recommendations to address it.
I have not read the report, so cannot speak on if this is true or not.
If it is though, then it's bs. Just a hack job intended to do harm. Complaining is fine, IF you have a fix action to go along with it. If you don't, then keep your mouth shut.
Of course, it's secretive by design... but, how was the Oversight? The report dosen't really go into details in that, and more importantly, the report doesn't even offer recommendations to address it.
I have not read the report, so cannot speak on if this is true or not.
If it is though, then it's bs. Just a hack job intended to do harm. Complaining is fine, IF you have a fix action to go along with it. If you don't, then keep your mouth shut.
20 second count on water boarding. Hhhhhheeeyyyyyyyy now......getting sleep deprev'ed is torture.....wonder when the Vatican wants the US to say "sorry" for a certain technique to remove someone from their Embassy...
Jihadin wrote: 20 second count on water boarding. Hhhhhheeeyyyyyyyy now......getting sleep deprev'ed is torture.....wonder when the Vatican wants the US to say "sorry" for a certain technique to remove someone from their Embassy...
Huh? I honestly have know no idea what you are saying here.
Jihadin wrote: 20 second count on water boarding. Hhhhhheeeyyyyyyyy now......getting sleep deprev'ed is torture.....wonder when the Vatican wants the US to say "sorry" for a certain technique to remove someone from their Embassy...
Huh? I honestly have know no idea what you are saying here.
Jihadin wrote: 20 second count on water boarding. Hhhhhheeeyyyyyyyy now......getting sleep deprev'ed is torture.....wonder when the Vatican wants the US to say "sorry" for a certain technique to remove someone from their Embassy...
Huh? I honestly have know no idea what you are saying here.
Manuel Noriega in Panama
I finished up Boykin's book a couple of weeks ago and he covers that pretty well.
