- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Read more @: CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation[/FONT][/COLOR]
Why arent those who are responsible for such inhumane, evil, and just outright criminal activities in jail? Why are they being given a free pass? This is freaking outrageous.
Ah, so this is about America hate.
Ah, so this is about America hate.
Revenge is a sin, retribution is a sin. I suppose we should have just turned the other cheek on 9/12?It is possible to hate the sin and still love the sinner.
I'm gonna go out a limb here and say think I speak for DA60 when I say....I love my country, but I will not blindly forgive its sins, lest it becomes the very thing we claim to hate.
Read more @: CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation[/FONT][/COLOR]
Why arent those who are responsible for such inhumane, evil, and just outright criminal activities in jail? Why are they being given a free pass? This is freaking outrageous.
matchlight said:The United States is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture, and the provisions it agreed to were ratified by the Senate and codified in section 2340 of the U.S. Code. The United States has not authorized the torture of anyone. The enhanced interrogation techniques the Defense Dept. proposed to use in 2002, including waterboarding, were modeled on techniques the U.S. itself had used on thousands of servicemen as part of their survival training. The purpose was to give men most likely to be captured some experience of what they might expect if captured by certain enemies.
The Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel, which contains some of its best lawyers, thoroughly evaluated the proposed techniques and concluded that they did not violate any applicable U.S. laws, including section 2340. I have read their memos, and they are as good as legal research gets. If it can be shown that any U.S. official administered those interrogation techniques in a way that was not approved, that person should be disciplined. But so far, I have not seen any reliably documented instances of any acts that constituted torture under U.S. law.
Interrogation can be very painful and coercive, both physically and mentally, and yet not constitute torture under our laws. There has to be room for enough coercion to get results--the whole idea was the make murdering jihadist war criminals reveal what they knew, and with more attacks in the works, we had to find out that information fast. These mangy mutts got off damned easy. The only good reason not to have tried them before a military tribunal and executed them, after they had coughed up their secrets, was that once their pals found out they would be killed anyway they would probably not reveal anything.
:roll: Oh yea.... "Carefully controlled". So "carefully controlled" that why from the latest report it was found that integerators locked up a naked man to the floor and he later died of hypothermia. And dont forget one of our "sites was run by a junior officer with no relevant experience, and that this person had “issues” in his background that should have disqualified him from working for the CIA at all." had a detainee loose his eye while in custody, oh yea and we forced food up peoples asses without any medical need to do so, oh yea and we sexually assaulted many as well. The Most Gruesome Moments in the CIABecause they were neither inhumane nor criminal. In fact, they were carefully controlled by the Justice Department in order to make sure that they never risked becoming so.
Sorry. I dont hold this view. I dont hold the view that torturing people, sometime to death is "dangerous work" I believe its inhumane, evil, and all around cowardly. It serves no purpose.And, more generally, because going after people who do dangerous work for you for doing it in the way that you told them to is not only wrong, but self-destructive.
:roll: Oh yea.... "Carefully controlled". So "carefully controlled" that why from the latest report it was found that integerators locked up a naked man to the floor and he later died of hypothermia. And dont forget one of our "sites was run by a junior officer with no relevant experience, and that this person had “issues” in his background that should have disqualified him from working for the CIA at all." had a detainee loose his eye while in custody, oh yea and we forced food up peoples asses without any medical need to do so, oh yea and we sexually assaulted many as well. The Most Gruesome Moments in the CIA
But hey, it was also found that "The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.". So I guess there goes the whole "carefully controlled by the Justice Department" point.. And its also important to note that "CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters."... CIA interrogation report: The 20 key findings - BBC News
But not lets forget: "For five years as a researcher for Human Rights Watch and reporter, John Sifton helped investigate homicides resulting from the Bush administration's torture policy. His findings include:
• An estimated 100 detainees have died during interrogations, some who were clearly tortured to death.
• The Bush Justice Department failed to investigate and prosecute alleged murders even when the CIA inspector general referred a case.
• Sifton’s request for specific information on cases was rebuffed by the Bush Justice Department, though it was “familiar with the cases.”"
The Bush Administration Homicides - The Daily Beast
....The report will conclude that the CIA’s interrogation techniques never yielded any intelligence about imminent terrorist attacks. Investigators didn’t conclude that no information came from the program at all. Rather, the committee rejects the CIA’s contention that information came from the program that couldn’t have been obtained through other means....
Sorry. I dont hold this view. I dont hold the view that torturing people, sometime to death is "dangerous work" I believe its inhumane, evil, and all around cowardly. It serves no purpose.
Many americans and most of the government condone torture, as long as it's not to anybody they know.
The legal principles developed at Nuremberg are now considered quaint and out of style.
It is possible to hate the sin and still love the sinner.
I'm gonna go out a limb here and say think I speak for DA60 when I say....I love my country, but I will not blindly forgive its sins, lest it becomes the very thing we claim to hate.
Revenge is a sin, retribution is a sin. I suppose we should have just turned the other cheek on 9/12?
Find me a recruiter that will take a 52 year old, and I will sign up today. And yes on 9/11 I was still too old. I have buried war dead in my family, during my life time. So don't play that one with me.Who said anything about turning the other cheek? I just think that your emotional need for revenge and retribution doesn't effectively deal with the problem.
So instead of just calling you out, here is my proposal...
Find a way to reduce or effectively eliminate our need for oil. We have spent $1.6 trillion on wars in the middle east. Could we have achieved the goal of energy independence for that much? I dunno, maybe, maybe not, but the result (spending $1.6 trillion on energy independence) imo would have done more to reduce the capabilities of groups and countries that we call our enemies (given that most fund their economies with oil and without our demand markets would fall dramatically) without ever putting an American life at risk and permanently screwing up the lives of those "lucky" enough to make it home.
All so you can have your revenge and retribution.
Now if you want to go to Afghanistan (or wherever) yourself and persecute your revenge....You have my unfettered support :usflag2:. You want to send my Nephew (a Marine) to do it for you, I don't think so :2no4:.
Find me a recruiter that will take a 52 year old, and I will sign up today. And yes on 9/11 I was still too old. I have buried war dead in my family, during my life time. So don't play that one with me.
Also, we are getting less and less oil from the ME. Do your home work on that.
"MY" revenge is not what is called for either, its a national revenge. A national effort to eradicate what claims to what us dead.
Speaking of emotion. You have much more on the issue than I do.
You dont need to sign up, just get on a plane fly over there and join or start an army of your own....Your call.
While I think it's tragic that you've buried war dead in your family and I offer my sincere condolences, I would ask, though I can anticipate your answer, was it worth it? I mean, unless we are talking about WWII or perhaps the Cold War, I can't think of a single war after WWII that was worth it's cost in American lives.
We're getting less oil from the ME? That is your response? So what? oil demand has continued to rise and when you add in the fact that it was ~$1.50 up to ~2005 and after it's averaged over ~$2.50, I'd say there is more money than ever flowing from the US to the ME. Add to that, the fact that we consume more than 3 times the next highest consumer (China) I'd say we're largely responsible for the wealth that flows into the hands of the people that "want us dead". We are funding the capability to make war against us.
"National Revenge"? That is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Revenge is emotional response. There is nothing rational about that word. Nothing you've said is rational, it's all emotional despite accusing me of the same, though you didn't give an example.
How does "National Revenge" accomplish anything rational? Try to think more than 1 layer deep. If you eliminate today's threats, what about the next generation of children that grow up hating so much they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to kill innocents? Your "revenge" doesn't deal with that problem, it only makes it worse, that is, unless you are prepared to commit genocide in order to accomplish your goals?
You dont need to sign up, just get on a plane fly over there and join or start an army of your own....Your call.
I mean, unless we are talking about WWII or perhaps the Cold War, I can't think of a single war after WWII that was worth it's cost in American lives.
We're getting less oil from the ME? That is your response?
So what? oil demand has continued to rise and when you add in the fact that it was ~$1.50 up to ~2005 and after it's averaged over ~$2.50, I'd say there is more money than ever flowing from the US to the ME.
Add to that, the fact that we consume more than 3 times the next highest consumer (China)
I'd say we're largely responsible for the wealth that flows into the hands of the people that "want us dead". We are funding the capability to make war against us.
National Revenge"? That is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Revenge is emotional response. There is nothing rational about that word.
...What evolutionary purpose does the impulse for revenge serve?
It's got costs, but it does look like, from the best models we have, that individuals with a taste for punishing those who have harmed them could become a major part of a group. The way revenge seems to operate in our minds today really does have a functional ring to it.
The loudest way to exact revenge is to make a person's gains less profitable. You have reached into their accounting system and changed what they've gained from harming you.
The interesting thing is that the desire for revenge goes up if there are people who have watched you be mistreated, because in that case, the costs have gotten bigger. If you don't take revenge, there's a chance that people will learn that you are the type of person who will put up with mistreatment. That is the kind of phenomenon that you would expect if there is a functional logic underlying the system that produces revenge. This is a well-tuned system that's highly specific in what it cares about and the kinds of responses that it generates.
If it's so well tuned in humans, do we see this sort of behavior in other animals?
Absolutely. Imposing costs on individuals that have imposed costs on you is really common in nonhuman animals. We see it in birds. We see it in fish. It does actually seem to change them. It produces reformed behavior—the way it ought to if it's designed for deterrence. ...
csbrown28 said:How does "National Revenge" accomplish anything rational?
Try to think more than 1 layer deep. If you eliminate today's threats, what about the next generation of children that grow up hating so much they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to kill innocents?
Your "revenge" doesn't deal with that problem, it only makes it worse,
So.. What exactly is your point here? Somehow because he was injured that justifies torture? I mean he was treated, then transfered to black sites where he was tortured essentially non stop.Sure, we interrogated Abu Zubaydah after he was brought in, despite the fact that he was wounded. We didn't have the luxury of the time necessary to wait for him to feel hunky dory.
1.)Since he died on "accident" this is what? Ok? Continue with the policies?Yup, a guy died (on accident) when his room got cold over night. Far from being an intended or acceptable result of an interrogation program that incident had strong repercussions inside the CIA, leading to a review that uncovered abuses in detention and interrogation procedures, and forcing the agency to change those procedures. Which is exactly what you would want to happen in that instance.
What you just quoted doesnt say what you think it says. Go over it one more time: "Rather, the committee rejects the CIA’s contention that information came from the program that couldn’t have been obtained through other means... The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed 20 cited examples of intelligence “successes” that the CIA identified from the interrogation program and found that there was no relationship between a cited counterterrorism success and the techniques used... The CIA acknowledged that it never properly reviewed the effectiveness of these techniques"Other than the media outlet, this, I think, fairly well captures the report:
:lol: so, it doesn't count that the program actually helped stop attacks and save lives, because maybe they would have told us if we had first sent them on a 6 month all-expenses paid vacation to Tahiti. Oh, you don't think that would have worked? Well did you try it???.
:roll:
1.)Its not "tough interrogation", its not "enhanced interrogation", its torture.:shrug: I have literally watched actual torture (much less ETOs) save lives, likely including my own. The idea that there is no trade-off between tough interrogation techniques and intelligence gathered may comfort those who don't want to recognize trade-offs for their policy proposals, but it does not match actual reality. The worst thing about torture is that it actually does work.
Not really a war junkie like those others. Which I guess is your que to call me a coward or sissy.
Was Vietnam worth it? Hmmm, his death was tragic and no. My cousin was worth more than all the hundreds of thousands of NVC killed. Damage to our family was immense.
Don't like national revenge? Well what did you call it on the day after when everyone was screaming for someones head.
I've deployed multiple times, and buried more than a few friends. I don't recall us ever mass-murdering civilians for the delight of doing so, a'la the accusation that we are becoming what we oppose.
[snip]...I would say that Bosnia, Somalia, Desert Storm, Korea, and a few others are "worth it".
And it's a good one. We are.
Well that's an interesting claim - can you demonstrate it?
Actually the revenge instinct evolved as a rational cost-benefit equation with prohibitive/warning functions. If you are perceived as potentially likely to respond to someone stealing from you by murdering them, then you will reduce the benefit to others of attempting to steal from you. Result: you don't get robbed.
It's interesting stuff
While your anecdotal experience is fascinating, do you think it represents the depth and breadth of American policy?
Korea and DS are what I was talking about. We can agree to disagree on their worth.
Now you're just distracting with minutia.
Whether we are or aren't we are still by far the world's largest user of oil and none of your replies invalidate, though they do attempt to distract from my original, claim.
Yes because robbery is an excellent analogy to war.
What works on the personal level often fails at the group and national level.
Pro tip, deal with fact. 9/11 did change everything.
While your anecdotal experience is fascinating, do you think it represents the depth and breadth of American policy?
Korea and DS are what I was talking about. We can agree to disagree on their worth.
Now you're just distracting with minutia. Whether we are or aren't we are still by far the world's largest user of oil and none of your replies invalidate, though they do attempt to distract from my original, claim.
Yes because robbery is an excellent analogy to war. What works on the personal level often fails at the group and national level.
Quite desecrating those who died that day by using their memory as your emotional political tool to try get what your way.
You've shown you know just enough about this subject to tick off a few words you think will sound meaningful--Constitution, Eighth Amendment, U.S. Code, CAT, Nurmberg (Shrub and Darth C. were just like the Nazis, dude!), the news--and nothing more. I am sure you have never so much as glanced at a single page of the legal memos you pretend to know are sophistry, and by calling them that you only expose your own. Realizing that you don't know enough about the subject to make even one specific objection to the findings of the Office of Legal Counsel (or those of the lawyers in other federal offices that agreed with them), you try to hide the fact you have no arguments by making a lame crack about my supposed gullibility. You'd do better to consider your own.
I challenge you, again, to make specific objections to the legal findings of the OLC regarding applicable U.S. laws against torture, as they concern the enhanced interrogation techniques U.S. officials used in 2002 and 2003 to make several jihadist war criminals reveal information about Al Qaeda and its plans to murder still more Americans. Show us how much more you know more about this subject than, say, the supremely naive John Yoo, who teaches at U.C. Berkeley Law School. Use reasoned legal arguments supported by facts, instead of just regurgitating cliche anti-American propaganda against this country. We've been hearing that from the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Mother Jones, and similar sources of leftist slop for the past dozen years.
Wouldn't it be nice if those so enamored with the illegality of torture also paid the same dedication when the govt go outside the lines of the Constitution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?