Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RevDisk on December 09, 2014, 01:52:10 PM
-
The Senate released a summary of the 6,000 page investigation of the CIA and its 'enhanced interrogation' program.
Key points:
- The CIA was lying the entire time to the public. Gee, no kidding.
- The CIA was lying to Congress.
- The CIA may have been lying to the White House.
- The CIA officials surreptitiously accessed investigation committee work product and email on a firewalled shared network. Ie, they snooped on Congress.
- Yes, they tortured folks rather than interrogated them.
- No, life-saving intelligence wasn't gathered through torture
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
-
This is just Democrats trying to stick it to Republicans before they lose majority control.
-
This is just Democrats trying to stick it to Republicans before they lose majority control.
:facepalm:
-
All lies, all the time, all branches of gov, top to bottom, side to side, lies and lies.
-
This is just Democrats trying to stick it to Republicans before they lose majority control.
*shrug*
In this case, they are actually doing their duty to the United States and its citizenry. By accident, by maliciousness, by intention, the end result is the same. Positive in this case. They're exposing murder, torture, perjury and other crimes. I'm very curious if any American citizens were tortured or murdered. I'd assume that'd be in the unreleased version.
-
Doing their duty is probably only an accidental coincidence. Also, if they released a report tomorrow on the same stuff over the last 6 years, do you think it would be different (assuming both are honest)?
-
When they blamed the Benghazi attack on ill-feelings from a video critical of Islam, something sure to inflame anti-American passions in the Middle East and be a recruiting tool for jihadis, some called release of the video treasonous. (Never mind that this story was a lie.)
Now that they're releasing a CIA "investigation" sure to inflame anti-American passions in the Middle East and be a recruiting tool for jihadis . . . wonder what they'll be calling it.
-
The only people who would object to secretive fed.gov agencies breaking laws and lying to Congress are terrorists and Democrats, obviously. We can totally trust secretive fed.gov agencies to only break the law and lie to Congress for our own good.
-
Doing their duty is probably only an accidental coincidence. Also, if they released a report tomorrow on the same stuff over the last 6 years, do you think it would be different (assuming both are honest)?
It's all in the timing. Do you think anyone in the last 100 years would ever have served a second term in any office if tax day was the day before early voting starts?
-
For reference, can someone point me to a resource articulating which members of the Committee endorsed the content and release terms of the report vs. those who demurred on either issue? Curious to know if it was a bipartisan decision.
-
Releasing 10 percent of a report makes me wonder
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The Senate released a summary of the 6,000 page investigation of the CIA and its 'enhanced interrogation' program.
Key points:
- The CIA was lying the entire time to the public. Gee, no kidding.
- The CIA was lying to Congress.
- The CIA may have been lying to the White House.
- The CIA officials surreptitiously accessed investigation committee work product and email on a firewalled shared network. Ie, they snooped on Congress.
- Yes, they tortured folks rather than interrogated them.
- No, life-saving intelligence wasn't gathered through torture
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
Cool, so who's going to prison?
-
Cool, so who's going to prison?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Cool, so who's going to prison?
Only Jack Bauer.
-
Now that they're releasing a CIA "investigation" sure to inflame anti-American passions in the Middle East and be a recruiting tool for jihadis . . . wonder what they'll be calling it.
If the US government doesn't want news of wrongdoing to infuriate people abroad, it can start by avoiding committing the wrongdoing in the first place.
-
Why release it yesterday? Oh, Gruber (the dumbest guy with a PhD) was testifying about O-care. So there was a need to distract from that. Why not release it on a Friday like they do other "bad" news? Or just before a Holiday weekend?
Who were the Senators and Representatives who were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques *cough* Nancy "Are we going far enough" Pelosi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html) ?
If people are to be sent to jail then it should be those elected officals that knew of and approved those meeasures, if there were measures used that were not approved, then those who used them and the non-elected people who approved should go to jail.
Sadly, I predict that none will....
(What was someone saying about the bureaucrats not being like nobility?)
-
Sorry, I have a SERIOUS problem categorizing any of what was done (actually or supposedly) as "torture."
Then again, since late summer 2001, I've found myself not really:
- Giving a rat's ass about whether or not we harshly questioned individuals or not.
Caring what the rest of the world thinks.
Here's the sad truth of it... no matter what the US does, good or bad, we're going to catch some sort of hell about it.
Give billions in aide around the world? My God, you're the richest nation on earth, and you're being very, very greedy!
Cut aide? My God, you're the richest nation on earth, and you're being very, very greedy!
I simply don't care anymore. Our first priority should be our own safety and our own national interests.
-
Sorry, I have a SERIOUS problem categorizing any of what was done (actually or supposedly) as "torture."
Then again, since late summer 2001, I've found myself not really:
- Giving a rat's ass about whether or not we harshly questioned individuals or not.
Caring what the rest of the world thinks.
Here's the sad truth of it... no matter what the US does, good or bad, we're going to catch some sort of hell about it.
Give billions in aide around the world? My God, you're the richest nation on earth, and you're being very, very greedy!
Cut aide? My God, you're the richest nation on earth, and you're being very, very greedy!
I simply don't care anymore. Our first priority should be our own safety and our own national interests.
Also to put things into perspective, one thing our interrogators never did was to make the terrorists choose between being burned alive or jumping to their deaths. Making them listen to the "Barney" theme is kind of a cakewalk compared to that.
I think it's important to always evaluate and question our methods to keep us from going down a dark road, but hamstringing ourselves can lead to more pain for less deserving individuals.
-
If sleep deprivation (sp) is torture then every member of the U.S. Military has been tortured at one time or another.
-
Cool, so who's going to prison?
This is what we should be demanding that the media get an answer to at every "release" like this; what real action will be taken based on this information?
-
There are plenty of things that members of the military do in training that are considered torture and assault if done to a non-consenting victim, what's your point?
-
(https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/t1.0-9/954838_861073450584098_4071879814160079896_n.jpg?oh=9cd669fec5cf660d6e218743a5b323aa&oe=551827EF)
Plus there is the minority report that differs from Feinstein's:
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/t1.0-9/954838_861073450584098_4071879814160079896_n.jpg?oh=9cd669fec5cf660d6e218743a5b323aa&oe=551827EF
-
There are plenty of things that members of the military do in training that are considered torture and assault if done to a non-consenting victim, what's your point?
What exactly is your point? War is bad? Our country has done unsavory things? Yeah, I am sure that never happenned before. We should try to keep it in check, but to assume it never happens or it is never necessary is naive.
Nothing I have heard in this is new except maybe the internal spying. However, I think I have heard about that also at least well before the last administration.
-
My logic is very simple.
Servicemen fight with pugil sticks for training. If someone beat a prisoner with a pugil stick as part of an interrogation procedure, that would be torture.
Servicemen undergo sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation as a form of interrogation is torture (and can in fact kill you).
Ice baths are torture (and have in fact killed at least one man).
The authority of the government to use force should be limited. When agents of the government use force without limits, deceive the legislature and the Commander in Chief, this is something that is outrageous and people should be outraged about.
You cannot limit the government if your reaction to the government doing unsavory things is "oh, well, this stuff happens."
-
Yawn...
Wake me up if I should ever give a *expletive deleted*it.
-
(https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/t1.0-9/954838_861073450584098_4071879814160079896_n.jpg?oh=9cd669fec5cf660d6e218743a5b323aa&oe=551827EF)
The picture is blatant straw man argument. And even if it wasn't blatantly wrong, which it is, there's a couple issues.
1. Not everyone accused of terrorism is actually a terrorist. A goat herder accused of being a terrorist because his neighbor wanted to collect a bounty is not yet legally considered terrorism. Same with being related to someone. Same with having the same or similar name or face.
2. Not everyone actually a terrorist had anything to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. Hell, not all terrorists are Islamic either.
3. Picture assumes torture is for purpose of gaining information, which this report shows them to be a false assumption.
My biggest issue ignores all that rhetoric. My viewpoint is much more simple. The Gestapo, the NKVD, the Stasi, al Qaeda and ISIS are the enemy. I signed up to turn them into good enemies (ie dead). I never swore an oath to follow their orders. We're supposed to be Americans. Not them. We're supposed to be the ones killing those sorts, not giving them legal immunity and taking their orders.
-
“The CIA briefed Congress approximately 30 times” on interrogation, according to six former CIA directors or deputy directors in an article Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal. “The briefings were detailed and graphic and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection.”
Are the former directors right? Not according to the Senate report, which claims: “The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.” For example, the report notes that the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee wasn’t briefed about the brutal interrogation techniques until September 2002, a month after they were first used against Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah.
Let’s look at the 2002 complaint. A CIA review of “contemporaneous records” shows that this initial briefing to Sens. Bob Graham and Richard Shelby and Reps. Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi included “a history of the Zubaydah interrogation, an overview of the material acquired, the resistance techniques Zubaydah had employed, and the reason for deciding to use the enhanced measures,” along with a description of “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yawn...
Wake me up if I should ever give a *expletive deleted*it.
Like when they start doing this to those bomb throwing anarchist Tea Party terrorists?
Nah, I'm sure we can trust secretive fed.gov bureaucracies with the literal powers of life and death without any form of effective oversight. I'm sure they'd never hold without charges, torture, and kill anyone who didn't really deserve it, and if they've gotta lie to Congress about what they're doing then oh well.
If you're only ok with the feds doing X if they do it to people you don't like, then you're being shortsighted. You give .gov the power to do something, and it'll be done to you eventually. Jihadists are not an existential threat to fed.gov, but Constitutionalist patriots are. The 9/11 jumper pic is a cute little facebook meme, but this is why I care about keeping the feds in check.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2Fcb_compound_burning_jt_130225_wblog.jpg&hash=ade822deca908f3d0261e8be659d5fe8d9a6c651)
-
My biggest issue ignores all that rhetoric. My viewpoint is much more simple. The Gestapo, the NKVD, the Stasi, al Qaeda and ISIS are the enemy. I signed up to turn them into good enemies (ie dead). I never swore an oath to follow their orders. We're supposed to be Americans. Not them. We're supposed to be the ones killing those sorts, not giving them legal immunity and taking their orders.
This. This times a *expletive deleted*ing million..
-
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
-
I am curious though.
Do folks support this solely because they don't think that what is being done is torture? Or because they don't care if "terrorists" get tortured?
-
I am curious though.
Do folks support this solely because they don't think that what is being done is torture? Or because they don't care if "terrorists" get tortured?
I concur with Balog's questions, but would add a couple.
Do you support this because you don't think it's torture?
Do you support this because you think the people being tortured or "enhanced interrogated" are terrorists?
Do you support this because you think torture or "enhanced interrogation" provides critical intelligence information?
I'm actually curious for the answers. In the case of scout26's answer, it was wrong, but it was an answer. I do respect him for giving a candid answer. I suspect he really believed that it was torture (though he did not use the term), but the CIA was torturing actual terrorists and it produced useful information. This is about approximately 98% incorrect.
I can do a more thorough approximation from open sources of how incorrect it is if scout26 wants. Look up the number of official detainees, look up the number released. "Useful information" will be harder to gauge from open sources, but I'll try my best to find a good metric if it exists. I know from not open sources that is low. Mainly because you tend to have 1 Omar the Terrorist, 9 Johnie Jihadi Grunts and 10-40x Billy the Illiterate Goatherder. Omar the Terrorist will often try to pretend to be Billy the Illiterate Goatherders if possible, Johnie Jihadi Grunt (follows orders but zero strategic knowledge, foot soldier at best) if not. So, if you torture them all, you have between 1-5% chance of getting actual information. Statistically, you'll be torturing the equivalent of Billy the Illiterate Goatherder, who could only possibly give you vital strategic intelligence on his goats.
Once in a great moon, you'll get a confirmed Omar such as KSM. By now, he's being tortured for entertainment value, or just incompetence. The amount of useful intel he'd possess within 48 hours of the press conference announcing we snagged KSM is trivial. Historical information would be very useful, but it's not exactly "time sensitive" ticking timebomb 24-style information. The CIA and Bush/Obama administrations did their best to insinuate that the 24-style torture was the routine rather than an absolute statistical anomaly.
I guess it's not quite as cool to admit you're mostly torturing either footsoldiers who tend to know less about their movement than a person that watches CNN regularly or random bystanders snagged for mistaken identity or fraudulent purposes (ie for the bounty, revenge, etc).
-
I used to be firmly in the 'who gives a crap' camp, especially right after 9/11.
A lot of things have happened since then- Patriot Act, NDAA, militarization of the police....and lets not forget the memos from Holder's office on people who should be looked at potential terrorists- White males, Christians, gun owners, Veterans, and pretty much everyone with political opinions that fall outside either of the two main (non)competing political parties.
The whole 'terrorist hunt' has turned inward.
The whole weight of .gov can easily be turned to crush any form of dissent, and it would be completely legal- what ever merit that word holds anymore.
-
Well said, brimic. I am of the opinion that what is being done to Johnny Jihad today is the crack in the dam that may end up in what is being done to Joe Smith, American citizen, tomorrow. If it hasn't been already.
-
The end does not justify the means.
There unfortunately is no way to have any oversight though. It appears whole sections of bureaucracy operate independently of any of the elected branches of government, regularly.
-
Does it not strike anyone else as Orwellian the way the left is now trying to pretend that it didn't know about or condone our intelligence activities right after 9/11?
There was a good article the other day in the Washington Post. The author is one of the CIA guys who briefed congressional Democrats about this stuff at the time. Many of the people he briefed back then are the people behind the Senate report today claiming they didn't know anything. He accuses them of hypocrisy for denouncing today all the of practices they approved back at the time.
Here's the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/todays-cia-critics-once-urged-the-agency-to-do-anything-to-fight-al-qaeda/2014/12/05/ac418da2-7bda-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
It's deja vu all over again. The left did the same thing with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It was like someone just flipped a switch, and suddenly all of the Democrats who supported war were against war and had been all along.
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/health-care-inc/2014/12/cia-paid-spokane-firm-80m-in-taxpayer-money-to.html?ed=2014-12-10&s=article_du
Huh. That $ 80 million to develop torture techniques went to a Spokane firm run by two former Air Force psychologists that reverse-engineered the SERE school teachings at Fairchild AFB.
-
I am curious though.
Do folks support this solely because they don't think that what is being done is torture? Or because they don't care if "terrorists" get tortured?
Which parts are torture? One of the problems is that the definition is vague. I certainly have no expertise as to what qualifies as torture and what doesn't, especially regarding psychological torture.
I know* that if you were to cut a guy's fingers off until he started talking, that's torture.
I know that if you burn a person until they start talking, that's torture.
I know that if you electrocute a person over and over again, that's torture.
I'm not sure if waterboarding is torture - it might be, but it also looks a lot like water survival training.
I'm not sure if the music is torture. While I think that there is acoustic torture, at what point does loud, repetitive music qualify as torture vs enhanced interrogation?
At what point does sleep deprivation become torture?
I can't answer many of these questions. I also don't know to what degree some of these techniques were applied - i.e., at what point did they cross the line from enhanced interrogation to torture? The whole thing is a messy business.
* By "know" I mean that I believe so based on cultural references I'm familiar with.
-
Which parts are torture? One of the problems is that the definition is vague. I certainly have no expertise as to what qualifies as torture and what doesn't, especially regarding psychological torture.
I know* that if you were to cut a guy's fingers off until he started talking, that's torture.
I know that if you burn a person until they start talking, that's torture.
I know that if you electrocute a person over and over again, that's torture.
I'm not sure if waterboarding is torture - it might be, but it also looks a lot like water survival training.
I'm not sure if the music is torture. While I think that there is acoustic torture, at what point does loud, repetitive music qualify as torture vs enhanced interrogation?
At what point does sleep deprivation become torture?
I can't answer many of these questions. I also don't know to what degree some of these techniques were applied - i.e., at what point did they cross the line from enhanced interrogation to torture? The whole thing is a messy business.
* By "know" I mean that I believe so based on cultural references I'm familiar with.
Rectal feeding?
Stripping someone down and leaving them on a cold concrete floor until they die of hypothermia?
Nudity: In November 2002, a CIA officer "ordered that Gul Rahman be shackled to the wall of his cell in a position that required the detainee to rest on the bare concrete floor. Rahman was wearing only a sweatshirt, as [CIA OFFICER 1] had ordered that Rahman's clothing be removed when he had been judged to be uncooperative during an earlier interrogation.
"The next day, the guards found Gul Rahman's dead body. An internal CIA review and autopsy assessed that Rahman likely died from hypothermia — in part from having been forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants."
-
•Waterboarding: According to the report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — often described as the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks — was waterboarded at least 183 times. This is a technique that simulates drowning, in which the detainee is strapped to a board while water is poured in his mouth and nose.
"During these sessions, KSM ingested a significant amount of water. CIA records state that KSM's 'abdomen was somewhat distended, and he expressed water when the abdomen was pressed.' KSM's gastric contents were so diluted by water that the medical officer present was 'not concerned about regurgitated gastric acid damaging KSM's esophagus.' The officer was, however, concerned about water intoxication and dilution of electrolytes and requested that the interrogators use saline in future waterboarding sessions. The medical officer later wrote ... that KSM was 'ingesting and aspiration [sic] a LOT of water' and that 'n the new technique we are basically doing a series of near drownings.' "
I've broken ribs, and I've also been held under the water until I nearly drowned.
Offered the choice I'd take getting a beating that broke bones over being near drowned every single day.
-
Deleted. Dumb post.
-
I used to not care about this *expletive deleted*it. But with the focus turning inward, I think it's dangerous not to hold folks accountable.
Especially since it's pretty widely acknowledged that these methods dont measurably increase actionable intel.
-
I used to not care about this *expletive deleted*it. But with the focus turning inward, I think it's dangerous not to hold folks accountable.
Especially since it's pretty widely acknowledged that these methods dont measurably increase actionable intel.
And that is the salient point. If the "enhanced" interrogation doesn't get us anything useful, why skirt the moral/ethical consequences and backlash?
-
Does it not strike anyone else as Orwellian the way the left is now trying to pretend that it didn't know about or condone our intelligence activities right after 9/11?
There was a good article the other day in the Washington Post. The author is one of the CIA guys who briefed congressional Democrats about this stuff at the time. Many of the people he briefed back then are the people behind the Senate report today claiming they didn't know anything. He accuses them of hypocrisy for denouncing today all the of practices they approved back at the time.
Here's the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/todays-cia-critics-once-urged-the-agency-to-do-anything-to-fight-al-qaeda/2014/12/05/ac418da2-7bda-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
It's deja vu all over again. The left did the same thing with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It was like someone just flipped a switch, and suddenly all of the Democrats who supported war were against war and had been all along.
The guy who was the chief counsel for the agency tells all about that in his book. Those mother *expletive deleted*ers KNEW what was going on, were briefed, and approved.
Then backpedaled.
-
Months ago a story came out the CIA was busted spying on Feinstein and her staffers. Claim was made computers were compromised, etc ostensibly to learn what the committee was creating. Now the story floated is Feinstein just had her revenge. Hell hath no fury like a senator pissed, or some such.
-
The guy who was the chief counsel for the agency tells all about that in his book. Those mother *expletive deleted*ers KNEW what was going on, were briefed, and approved.
Then backpedaled.
I don't have time to look up names, but have't some of these politicians been guilty of letting out classified info to the press that damaged our non-torture spying efforts in the recent past?
-
I am curious though.
Do folks support this solely because they don't think that what is being done is torture? Or because they don't care if "terrorists" get tortured?
I think a better question is what is your ideal standard of behavior? If you were king, what rules would you set? what is your plan today? No time travel or do overs. What would you change today?
-
I used to not care about this *expletive deleted*it. But with the focus turning inward, I think it's dangerous not to hold folks accountable.
Especially since it's pretty widely acknowledged that these methods dont measurably increase actionable intel.
Agree with the first sentence.
US gov't would use such against US citizens if US gov't felt threatened--without hesitation. Note, I did not write, "If American citizens are threatened." I believe that such methods were used after 9-11 not to get hot intel, but to to demonstrate that the US gov't was serious about terrorism. The target was primarily American citizens, who the US gov't needs to have faith in US gov't. Very much like the TSA and airport security kabuki. "How serious are we? Serious enough to (not) torture the ever-loving *expletive deleted*it out of Al Queda bad guys!"
Also, I think that if there ever is a Really Big Mass Casualty Event, the American public will insist that torture be used. And then after the American public cooled, the MSM blamed America for it, and the Democrats saw a political opportunity, the pendulum would swing back toward the anti-torture position. Men are fickle.
Disagree with the second sentence.
Oh, I am quite ready to believe that CIA and/or another gov't agency managed to get bupkis after using these methods. This is the gov't that managed to bankrupt a whorehouse. Halfwit crack whores manage to make a profit selling poon, but not the US Govt. But those sorts of techniques certainly can provide good data, especially when you have 2+ likely suspects to work with. The strong argument against torture is the moral, Christian "It is evil to intentionaly harm someone who is no immediate threat," argument. The weak argument is the pragmatic, "It doesn't work," argument.
Tom Kratman both has a pragmatic approach to the practical use of torture for intel as well as a broader definition than most. TK's definition of torture in interesting. He defines torture to include everything one usually thinks of, but posits that even the implied threat of vigorous interrogation is itself torture. Pretty much any time you have a helpless subject who knows that he is powerless and that his captors hold the power of life and death over him, there is torture involved.
-
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.
-
I think a better question is what is your ideal standard of behavior? If you were king, what rules would you set? what is your plan today? No time travel or do overs. What would you change today?
Aside from eliminating all gun and drug laws? Legalizing home distillation? :P
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?
-
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.
-
So was col west a torturer?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Which of them, and why is this pertinent?
-
There more than one?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
Holding them prisoner is against their will also, so we can't do that either. =D
What is torture? Feeding a prisoner a ham sandwich would not be torture to me. A Muslim might disagree.
-
Aside from eliminating all gun and drug laws? Legalizing home distillation? :P
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?
-
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." >:D 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.
???
-
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." >:D 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.
-
Or maybe this
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
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.
-
:facepalm: 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.
-
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.
-
:facepalm: 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? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It's politicians so the correct answer is all of them.
-
You think it's possible to prove a negative? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
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.
-
Don't let him read the link!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
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...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphilly.barstoolsports.com%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F06%2Fthats-real-retarded-sir.jpg&hash=b426c0b9f07742acb0400203434008b7c8243911)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
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.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
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.
:facepalm:
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: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I used to not care about this *expletive deleted*it. But with the focus turning inward, I think it's dangerous not to hold folks accountable.
Take some violent lifer prisoners from wherever, toss them in the cell, and pay them in cigs or liquor for every piece of information they get. Give them more sentences for any atrocities they commit in the process, and call it good. Interrogators are cheaper than .mil ones, more creative, and they're being held accountable. Problem solved and money saved.
-
:facepalm:
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: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 6'4" 245 lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.
-
This thread appears to have run its course.