CIA Torture report

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**RivenSkull**

Frazzled wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WellSpokenMan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Spoiler:

Would you?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WellSpokenMan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
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?

http://www.bat-mania.co.uk/main/villains/penguin.php

I'm not saying its Dick Cheney but...its Dick Cheney.

Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

Would you?

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

**Frazzled**

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.

**Ahtman**

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**

You didn't answer the question. Would you?

Just to confirm, would I what?

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Nah I'm just bringing up different perspectives and arguing hypotheticals.

Spoiler:

Of course you are.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Nah I'm just bringing up different perspectives and arguing hypotheticals.

Spoiler:

Of course you are.

Hey you have to pass the time somehow.

**RivenSkull**

Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question. Would you?

Just to confirm, would I what?

Trial for crimes against humanity. You can read my earlier post rather than avoiding answering the question, again.

**Frazzled**

RivenSkull wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question. Would you?

Just to confirm, would I what?

Trial for crimes against humanity. You can read my earlier post rather than avoiding answering the question, again.

Would I try Dick Cheney for cimes against Humanity? What court do think has jurisdiction? What law? When does Obama get cuffed?

nope. Try any President or VP for such and
1. You just created a banana republic
2. You're going to have to wade through a division of Marines first.

**CptJake**

AlexHolker wrote:

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.

**RivenSkull**

Frazzled wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You didn't answer the question. Would you?

Just to confirm, would I what?

Trial for crimes against humanity. You can read my earlier post rather than avoiding answering the question, again.

Would I try Dick Cheney for cimes against Humanity? What court do think has jurisdiction? What law? When does Obama get cuffed?

nope. Try any President or VP for such and
1. You just created a banana republic
2. You're going to have to wade through a division of Marines first.

So then you were just talking out of your ass when you agreed with this:

Frazzled wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WellSpokenMan wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

Spoiler:

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)....

**BlaxicanX**

Frazzled wrote:
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**

the question was a bilateral choice.

how are you posting if you're banned?

**BlaxicanX**

The power of islamofacism.

**Jihadin**

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html

Seems the Committee have been well informed on the actions, operations, and intel achieved by CIA

Brennan threw SSCI under the bus

Edit

Fienstein is protected by saying whatever on the floor of Senate
Brennan is not protected

**Frazzled**

BlaxicanX wrote:
The power of islamofacism.

If it helps I had a BLT yesterday. It tasted like freedom.

**RivenSkull**

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.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html

Seems the Committee have been well informed on the actions, operations, and intel achieved by CIA

Brennan threw SSCI under the bus

Edit

Fienstein is protected by saying whatever on the floor of Senate
Brennan is not protected

Good. Turnabout it fair play. In the game of Senate vs. CIA whoever loses, we win...

**Jihadin**

I see Brennan making a trip to the Senate floor

**reds8n**

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

To the Senate of the United States:

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.

**Frazzled**

RivenSkull wrote:
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.

We are not a party to the ICOJ...
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=djcil

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

reds8n wrote:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

To the Senate of the United States:

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!

**Jihadin**

I highly doubt we're charging anyone with any crimes against Humanity

**RivenSkull**

Frazzled wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
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.

We are not a party to the ICOJ...
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=djcil

Wow, the group of people that would have been prosecuted by that court for those crimes, withdraws from that court while committing those crimes.

color me shocked.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
I highly doubt we're charging anyone with any crimes against Humanity

Well if you saw what I did yesterday after eating that greasy chicken fried steak, there'd definitely be some charges filed.

**RivenSkull**

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.

**Jihadin**

Anyone else catch another main reason why there's a GITMO?

**Frazzled**

RivenSkull wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
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.

We are not a party to the ICOJ...
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=djcil

Wow, the group of people that would have been prosecuted by that court for those crimes, withdraws from that court while committing those crimes.

color me shocked.

I know right. I mean after they put Kennedy and Johnson away for Vietnam thing, you'd think everyone was fair game. Oh wait...

**Jihadin**

RivenSkull wrote:
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

**Frazzled**

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?)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
RivenSkull wrote:
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?

And whats with the "country" ? thing?

**easysauce**

Ahtman wrote:
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!