But what if you NEEDED to decapitate the kid or rape the wife to get valuable information on a ticking bomb in an NFL stadium?
I'm going to disagree with both of you. I don't buy Paschendale's point in the sense that I believe it was intended to produce results. I do not buy that it was done for punitive purposes. Having said that, I do not believe it worked, either. When tortured, people will often tell their tormentors what they want to hear just to make it stop. Happens in police interrogation rooms across the country, too, when psychological interrogation techniques are used.
Yeah and Feinstein's Report was used politically and for that purpose only. Yet like I stated her report shouldn't be even be considered. Here is what Susan Collins has to say bout it, and she was one of the 3 Repubs that wanted to go thru this.
Sen. Collins' Views on Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogation Program
"In addition to the partisan nature of the staff investigation, the report has significant intrinsic limitations because it did not involve direct interviews of CIA officials, contract personnel, or other Executive branch personnel. John Rizzo, one of the chief architects of the program, has stated publicly that he would have been happy to be interviewed, and he said a number of his colleagues would have as well. The absence of interviews significantly eroded the bipartisan cooperation that existed when the SSCI Review began and calls into question some of the report's analysis.
"The lack of interviews violated the Committee's bipartisan Terms of Reference that were approved by an overwhelming 14-1 vote in March 2009. The Terms of Reference describe the purpose, scope, and methodology of the Review, and they include the following statement: "The Committee will use the tools of oversight necessary to complete a thorough review including, but not limited to, document reviews and requests, interviews, testimony at closed and open hearings, as appropriate, and preparation of findings and recommendations." Yet, there were no interviews, no hearings, and no recommendations. By comparison, the SASC's 2008 Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody included 70 interviews, written responses from more than 200 individuals in response to written questions, two hearings, and at least two subpoenas. "Documents never tell the full story and lack context. As the former Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate's chief investigative committee for ten years, I found that interviews were always key sources of information for every investigation our Homeland Security Committee conducted. In the 2012 HSGAC investigation into the attacks in Benghazi, for example, we discovered one of our most alarming findings in a discussion with the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, General Carter Ham. We learned that he was unaware of the presence of CIA officers in Benghazi, despite the fact that his Command had responsibility to prepare for the evacuation of U.S. government personnel.
"The bipartisan Terms of Reference also called for the production of policy recommendations, but not one is included in the Review's Findings & Conclusions or its Executive Summary. Ironically, it was the CIA, rather than the Committee, that first developed recommendations to address the mismanagement, misconduct, and flawed performance that characterized too much of the CIA's Detention & Interrogation program. I have identified several recommendations that should be implemented as soon as possible.
Susan M.*Collins (via noodls) / Sen. Collins' Views on Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogation Program
Now that sounds OrwellianIt's all political. The best thing is to let it sit. Like a "truth commission."
There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture does not work, in fact leads to more misinformation.
If I understand the psychology, the victim soon learns what his torturers want to hear, and even if innocent, will tell them anything. I would think the experience of US Air Force and Navy pilots shot down in Korea and Vietnam, how they "testified" against "US imperialism" and alleged war crimes; those were understood and forgiven as a wrongful result of torture. Yet, here, so many insist it works. Not for highly trained US pilots it didn't.
Sleep deprivation, Stress positions, Not knowing what day it is, people yelling threats at them. Should we stop all of this for our Special Forces Troops too?
Do you think any of the leftests thinks about when One of these type of Solider's of ours gets captured and what happens to them? Let alone one of our Intelligence people.
I've already stated that if we engaged in the process of torturing prisoners the the people responsible need to be prosecuted.It probably is here too, but why split those hairs?
Are you really asking me?
Well, I thought you might want to elaborate for those leftists who thought they held a Higher Moral ground. Like I said, thought! :lol:
It's all political. The best thing is to let it sit. Like a "truth commission."
The CIA directors, who would have known whether it was effective or not are saying that it was effective.
The people on whom these methods are being used are not highly trained US pilots.
The same CIA that missed the fall if the Berlin Wall, 911 etc., was sure there were WMD's in Iraq?
I am surprised you would take their word at face value. Of course they are going to say that, would you expect them to say. "yeah, what we've been doing isn't really effective but it's fun?
The Senate committee was both parties. I heard no dissent in fact both Republicans and Democrats are behind it. Anything that congress can agree on has to have merit.
To me, the CIA does not and never has.
These people will never be sent to the Hague.
Even democrats who participated? :roll:
Of course.
Funny how the we treat the UN- we used a UN resolution as a pretext to invade Iraq and now that they are criticizing us we demand its dismantlement.
Don't get your bleeding heart panties in a bunch...tell me is AQ, ISIS, or any of the terrorist groups a uniformed military?
The release of the report was a shameful betrayal of American interests.
I never knew that torture was an "American interest" that needed to be kept under wraps. Where does it say that?
Where does what say that? It was a betrayal of our interests because of what it did to our standing, the fuel it gives our enemies, and the distraction from our enemies activities at such a critical point in our modern history.
So massacring several hundred thousand innocent people in the fake war on terror, Killer Tuesdays, relentless droning, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and other black sites, etc. did not affect our standing much but the Senate Report was the tipping point then?
We haven't massacred several hundred thousand people, 'Killer Tuesdays'?, the use of drones is a laudable and desirable method for defeating our enemies and minimizing civilian casualties, Abu Ghraib was horrendous and we brought those responsible to justice with the minimum possible public exposure, I have no moral problem with 'Gitmo' or the black sites only practical ones.
The torture issue had been more or less dead and was only arousing the interest of activists. Now it is re-ignited. It has nothing to do with a 'tipping point'.
Fall of the Berlin Wall surprised everyone with it's suddenness. 9/11 is an instance where the lack of inter-agency communication (FBI - CIA) gave each an incomplete picture insufficient to connect the dots. Yes, there were WMDs in IRaq, but they were moved out (perhaps to Syria?), remenants of said WMDs were in found by US forces in Iraq.
If it's not producing useful intel, then why bother? I'm not seeing your logic that they'd continue to use those methods if it didn't. 'it's fun' doesn't make any sense.
Seems counter to what I've been hearing in the media.
Meh.
When the UN stops promoting human rights abusers to lead its condemnation bodies then they may have a shred of credibility.
We haven't massacred several hundred thousand people
'Killer Tuesdays'?
the use of drones is a laudable and desirable method for defeating our enemies and minimizing civilian casualties,
Abu Ghraib was horrendous and we brought those responsible to justice with the minimum possible public exposure,
I have no moral problem with 'Gitmo' or the black sites only practical ones.
The torture issue had been more or less dead and was only arousing the interest of activists.
It has nothing to do with a 'tipping point'.
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?