Senate CIA torture report

[MicroBalrog]

War is inherently immoral. Much better to be good at it and win than lose though. My moms family can explain why


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Except that being more brutal and violent doesn't equate to being better at winning wars.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So was col west a torturer?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MicroBalrog]

Which of them, and why is this pertinent?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

There more than one?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MicroBalrog]

There more than one?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh, you mean the guy who was thrown out of the armed forces for his use of an illegal interrogation tactic? Yes. Beating people to get information is torture.

[wmenorr67]

Hell Congress still doesn't know what is in the ACA/Obamacare, you expect them to actually pay attention when being briefed by the CIA?  99% of them were asleep or worrying about were to hold their next fund raiser.

[Scout26]

Three former directors and three former deputy directors respond to the report:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644

1)  THe committee report is nothing more then a partisan hack job. They simply reviewed documents and cherry picked things to fit their narrative.  They didn't interview anyone from CIA.

2)  Having said that.  IF the CIA went "Too Far", and Congressional Oversight failed to stop them, then who's fault is it?  The CIA claims congress was briefed.  Initially just the "Gang of Eight"  (Which I assume are the leaders and chairs (from both parties) of the Intelligence committees.  Which would seem to include Feinstein.  I'd like to see the attendance lists from those meetings and maybe just the agenda to see what was discussed.

3) Seems like this is the Iraq War all over again, where they voted for it before they voted against it.

4) And yes I m concerned about the techniques used, and that once the camel's nose is under the tent that they will expand it to include American Citizens they deem a threat or "Terrorist".

[Ben]

So what are the alternatives for captured enemy combatants that are taken prisoner? Do we simply put them, in a room, ask them to give up their intel, and when they say "no" say, "Okay, no problem, thanks anyway."?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here. If we say that torture and/or enhanced interrogation are totally unacceptable, then the above may actually be the correct scenario because we chose to take a moral stand. Otherwise, what is acceptable interrogation, and what does it get you? Forcing a prisoner to listen to one loud Nickelback song may be annoying, but the prisoner will likely suck it up. Making them listen to 24 hours of Nickelback would be torture so we wouldn't do it, so what's the point of even trying with the one song if it's ineffective?

If we use the definition of torture that Rooster gave above, then drugs are out as well since you would be injecting someone against their will. If we accept torture as anything done against a prisoner's will, then the only acceptable interrogation I can think of is the kind cops do when they question suspects and try to make them slip up, but that generally only leads to admissions of guilt, not methodology or information intelligence. I'm sure there are other non-invasive methods that I'm not familiar with.

[MechAg94]

Holding them prisoner is against their will also, so we can't do that either.  

What is torture?  Feeding a prisoner a ham sandwich would not be torture to me.  A Muslim might disagree.

[MechAg94]

Aside from eliminating all gun and drug laws? Legalizing home distillation?

Not getting in wars for no goddamn reason? When war is needed utterly destroying our enemies and then colonizing their land? Restoring a code of honor and then enforcing it? Rejecting some things as unconscionable regardless of theoretical efficacy?

I don't really disagree with most of that, but we can't change the past.  What do we do now?  What definition of torture would you put in law? 

[TommyGunn]

Sorry. I should clarify.

It doesn't produce actionable intel when employed by people on a power trip... people who are looking to deliver intel at any cost for career, not accuracy... people who are stupid... people who just want to get free reign to hurt others and dont care about methodology and utility... people who are incompetent... people who are jealous of operators and their glory and want to stick it to the bad guys too... people who want accolades for producing intel that gets the next 9/11 guys...



So , it doesn't produce actionable intel for: basically everyone.

Humanity sucks. In general, it's full of selfish, weak, idiotic aholes. Folks who ENJOY conducting torture, rather than actually using it to extract good intel.

It's probably possible, but I don't forsee torture being effective under any incarnation of the US government i can envision. We simply suck too much.

Yet the ... "experts" re emphasize how aggressively questioning Khalid S Mohammed got them the name of Osama Bin Laden's driver (whose name was one of thousands on CIA lists beforehand, but they had no context to understand what he did...) and thus, finally, allowed Seal Team 6 to whack OBL himself.
Plus other accounts of terrorist attacks being thwarted.  Supposedly an attack on the tallest building on the West Coast, again using airplanes, was one such attack.
Whether it's called "enhanced interrogation," "aggressive questioning," or "torture," or whatever, and whatever one thinks of it, it apparently does work to some extent.   I've heard it claimed that we don't do it to get "information," per se, but to get "cooperation."   Whatever.  Claiming it has never worked stands in opposition to the facts of the case, so it seems.

Now, I guess everyone is going to stomp me cause I "approve" of "torture."     Really.   Well, here's something else; I've been told there are drugs that can be used that make people talk, irregardless of how well trained they are.   The drugs are harmless and are reputed to work very very well.
Why aren't we using these drugs, assuming what I've heard is true?   No torture is involved.   One does not have to debate with Judge Napolitano whether water boarding is torture.   

 

[Balog]

Yet the ... "experts" re emphasize how aggressively questioning Khalid S Mohammed got them the name of Osama Bin Laden's driver (whose name was one of thousands on CIA lists beforehand, but they had no context to understand what he did...) and thus, finally, allowed Seal Team 6 to whack OBL himself.
Plus other accounts of terrorist attacks being thwarted.  Supposedly an attack on the tallest building on the West Coast, again using airplanes, was one such attack.
Whether it's called "enhanced interrogation," "aggressive questioning," or "torture," or whatever, and whatever one thinks of it, it apparently does work to some extent.   I've heard it claimed that we don't do it to get "information," per se, but to get "cooperation."   Whatever.  Claiming it has never worked stands in opposition to the facts of the case, so it seems.

Now, I guess everyone is going to stomp me cause I "approve" of "torture."     Really.   Well, here's something else; I've been told there are drugs that can be used that make people talk, irregardless of how well trained they are.   The drugs are harmless and are reputed to work very very well.
Why aren't we using these drugs, assuming what I've heard is true?   No torture is involved.   One does not have to debate with Judge Napolitano whether water boarding is torture.   

 

Probably because those drugs are just as much of a fiction as all of the attacks the CIA claims to have stopped by torturing people.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Or maybe this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TommyGunn]

Probably because those drugs are just as much of a fiction as all of the attacks the CIA claims to have stopped by torturing people.

Are you sure?   I am hardly an expert on pharmacology but the people who've told me this have had far more knowledge about these things than I.Your statement "as much of a fiction as all of the attacks the CIA claims to have stopped" betrays a certain preset bias that IMHO may be effecting your judgement.  Can you offer any proof the interdicted attacks are fiction?  I am aware of some small stuff (stopped attack at Fort Dix NJ, IIRC) that are a matter of public record, so with due respect to your normally sage & worthy self I am calling this.
I think your prejudice is showing, not your judgement.  I think this is revealed in how you have expressed yourself.


Sorry.

[Balog]

Are you sure?   I am hardly an expert on pharmacology but the people who've told me this have had far more knowledge about these things than I.Your statement "as much of a fiction as all of the attacks the CIA claims to have stopped" betrays a certain preset bias that IMHO may be effecting your judgement.  Can you offer any proof the interdicted attacks are fiction?  I am aware of some small stuff (stopped attack at Fort Dix NJ, IIRC) that are a matter of public record, so with due respect to your normally sage & worthy self I am calling this.
I think your prejudice is showing, not your judgement.  I think this is revealed in how you have expressed yourself.


Sorry.

Lol.

Sure, let me get right on proving a hypothetical negative. I'll get right on that, as soon as you prove that the CIA isn't using alien technology to teleport terrorists into the Sun.

[TommyGunn]

   And now we're off to STAR TREK territory.


All I ask is you support your contention that no major attacks were interdicted.
"Probably because those drugs are just as much of a fiction as all of the attacks the CIA claims to have stopped by torturing people."

It is statements such as that which compel one to prove a "hypothetical negative."   Doing so is not impossible, just really difficult.
If you wish to re state your thesis in a manner which does not require such proof, I'm all ears.

All I need is a good reason to believe which side is lying. 

[SADShooter]

Or maybe this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks. Been meaning to read that, and it's pretty compelling.

[Balog]

  And now we're off to STAR TREK territory.


All I ask is you support your contention that no major attacks were interdicted.
"Probably because those drugs are just as much of a fiction as all of the attacks the CIA claims to have stopped by torturing people."

It is statements such as that which compel one to prove a "hypothetical negative."   Doing so is not impossible, just really difficult.
If you wish to re state your thesis in a manner which does not require such proof, I'm all ears.

All I need is a good reason to believe which side is lying. 

You think it's possible to prove a negative? 

It's politicians so the correct answer is all of them.

[TommyGunn]

You think it's possible to prove a negative? 

It's politicians so the correct answer is all of them.

Try REAL HARD to provide me reason to believe your thesis.  I don't give a rat's butt if you couch it in a + or - way.
If all you're saying is "I believe it's a lie," then have the guts to simply say that.  That way I can say "I believe it is not a lie," and then we can atleast agree it's only a matter of opinion.   

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Don't let him read the link!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Balog]

Try REAL HARD to provide me reason to believe your thesis.  I don't give a rat's butt if you couch it in a + or - way.
If all you're saying is "I believe it's a lie," then have the guts to simply say that.  That way I can say "I believe it is not a lie," and then we can atleast agree it's only a matter of opinion.   

Thesis? Am I trying to get my Masters or discussing things on an internet forum here? I don't care about you or your opinions, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just laughing at your credulity.

You made a vague statement based on third hand anonymous sources, then asked a question. I answered it. Nowhere did I say I had definitive proof, anymore than you did. Of course it's my opinion, I never said otherwise and trying to claim I did then demand proof of the non-existence of highly classified things that were used secretly to prevent a theoretical thing from happening is just, well...

[Balog]

Thanks. Been meaning to read that, and it's pretty compelling.

Meh. A bunch of folks who did illegal and immoral things defending their legacy with vague and impossible to verify claims of efficacy. Color me unimpressed.

ETA: I thought this line was pretty telling.

It felt like the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario—every single day.

1. Declare state of emergency is reason to suspend civil liberties.
2. Define state of emergency so broadly that it is impossible to ever not be in state of emergency.
3. ? ? ?
4. Profit

[TommyGunn]

Thesis? Am I trying to get my Masters or discussing things on an internet forum here? I don't care about you or your opinions, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just laughing at your credulity.

You made a vague statement based on third hand anonymous sources, then asked a question. I answered it. Nowhere did I say I had definitive proof, anymore than you did. Of course it's my opinion, I never said otherwise and trying to claim I did then demand proof of the non-existence of highly classified things that were used secretly to prevent a theoretical thing from happening is just, well...

OK, then, I laugh right back at your credulity.  You want to believe all the anti-American dung that Diane Feinstein and her ilk have hung their hat on with this report. 
Fine.
"Of course it's my opinion, I never said otherwise."    OK then, but even opinions have something behind them.  In your case it's antigovernment bigotry.
Atleast I know where you're coming from.

[Balog]

OK, then, I laugh right back at your credulity.  You want to believe all the anti-American dung that Diane Feinstein and her ilk have hung their hat on with this report. 
Fine.
"Of course it's my opinion, I never said otherwise."    OK then, but even opinions have something behind them.  In your case it's antigovernment bigotry.
Atleast I know where you're coming from.

 

Remind me which parts of the government I'm supposed to just trust to be telling the truth and acting with my best interests at heart? Obviously you have some anti-government bigotry (I literally can't even type that phrase without laughing out loud) going on in regards to Democrats.

[TommyGunn]

 

Remind me which parts of the government I'm supposed to just trust to be telling the truth and acting with my best interests at heart? Obviously you have some anti-government bigotry (I literally can't even type that phrase without laughing out loud) going on in regards to Democrats.

I am glad you find this asshatery amusing.
Try to use some judgement regarding which politician(s) to believe and when, you might do better.  I despise Obama but he does occasionally tell the truth.   I liked Reagan and some others but even they were human, and erred.

There have been many retired CIA employees and other contractors who have explained how and what we gleaned from these interrogations.  If you choose to consider it all a bunch of baloney, fine.

Laugh out loud all you like. 
Here, I'll help you: