What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: torture report (1 Viewer)

Interesting op/ed from the WSJ:

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives The Senate Intelligence investigators never spoke to us—the leaders of the agency whose policies they are now assailing for partisan reasons.

Updated Dec. 9, 2014 12:20 p.m. ET148 COMMENTS
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

...
The Senate Intel Committee to me is like a lawyer, or a doctor, or a pyschologist.

We all have a right to know what goes on in our government. But remember this, if any of this gets used for prosecution in an an international war crimes case the committee members have basically turned over inculpatory, damning information and a report that looks like it is self-damning. Have they acted responsibly in doing so? - I don't know, if your lawyer or doctor turned over something like this to prosecutors about you, how would you feel?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
For one thing because some of them maybe aren't terrorists. We don't try them; who knows if they're really guilty? We do get some of this #### wrong you know. For another, even if we ignore the morality of it, it doesn't seem to work. It only makes our enemies stronger, creating more recruits.

 
Link to document. Should have been released with a free copy of Toby Keith's How Do You Like Me Now?

Conclusions:

#1: The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of

acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.

#2: The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on

inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.

#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA

represented to policymakers and others.

#4: The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had

represented to policymakers and others.

#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice,

impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

#6: The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

#7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

#8: The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases

impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

#9; The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.

#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including

inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation

techniques.

#11: The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation

Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.

#12: The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program

was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early

2003.

#13: Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and

played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's

Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced

operations related to the program.

#14: 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.

#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of

individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for

detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its

enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.

#16: The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation

techniques.

#17: The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and

significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management

failures.

#18: The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and

objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and

Interrogation Program.

#19; The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and

had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation

from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.

#20; The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States'

standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.
#3 to #10 show why this will happen again and again and again.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.
The bold is ridiculous, contrary to all US law, including the code of military justice, and all international treaties on the subject we were responsible for creating and we drafted. You seem to know less than nothing about this issue.

 
Obama doesnt mind it

:shrug:
Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.
Obama canceled all enhanced interrogation programs.
Reminder: he also granted immunity to the interrogators:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama doesnt mind it

:shrug:
Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.
Obama canceled all enhanced interrogation programs.
Reminder: he also granted immunity to the interroghators:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
He had to for a variety of reasons. That doesnt mean we cant condemn it as vile and reprehensible behavior and policy we should never do again.

 
I know that we couldn’t have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques — I used them thousands of times over two decades — and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees. . .to provide closely-held information (or any information at all) without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques is laughable. There is zero chance. Zero.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/interrogator-breaks-his-silence_819033.html

 
Obama doesnt mind it

:shrug:
Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.
Obama canceled all enhanced interrogation programs.
Reminder: he also granted immunity to the interroghators:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
He had to for a variety of reasons. That doesnt mean we cant condemn it as vile and reprehensible behavior and policy we should never do again.
I wouldn't argue that, but I would also have a hard time arguing that something is vile and reprehensible and also not punishable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone surprised this happened to be released the day Gruber testified on Capitol Hill? This administration has perfected deflection of major stories that shine a poor light on them. These are old reports that the CIA responded to in June of 2013 - why choose today to release, unless there's some rule I'm not aware of?

So the timeline here is after 9/11? And we're we just abusing random Middle Easterners that we pulled off the streets? I guess I'd have a much bigger issue with this if we weren't at war. These are people that believe death after life is better. Its extremely embarrassing that we corralled all Japanese-Americans during WW2 but its what we thought was right at war time then.

 
The men and women of my former organization, the CIA, are accustomed to frequent and sudden reversals of direction from their political leaders. But the latest twists and turns are especially dramatic.

...

The leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and of both parties in Congress were briefed on the program more than 40 times between 2002 and 2009. But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to deny that she was told in 2002 that detainees had been waterboarded. That is simply not true. I was among those who briefed her.

There’s great hypocrisy in politicians' criticism of the CIAs interrogation program. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, lawmakers urged us to do everything possible to prevent another attack on our soil. Members of Congress and the administration were nearly unanimous in their desire that the CIA do all that it could to debilitate and destroy al-Qaeda. The CIA got the necessary approvals to do so and kept Congress briefed throughout. But as our successes grew, some lawmakers' recollections shrank in regard to the support they once offered. Here are a couple of reminders.

On May 26, 2002, Feinstein was quoted in the New York Times saying that the attacks of 9/11 were a real awakening and that it would no longer be "business as usual." The attacks, she said, let us know "that the threat is profound" and "that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves."

...

If Feinstein, Rockefeller and other politicians were saying such things in print and on national TV, imagine what they were saying to us in private. We did what we were asked to do, we did what we were assured was legal, and we know our actions were effective. Our reward, a decade later, is to hear some of these same politicians expressing outrage for what was done and, even worse, mischaracterizing the actions taken and understating the successes achieved.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/353653.php

 
Obama doesnt mind it

:shrug:
Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.
Obama canceled all enhanced interrogation programs.
Reminder: he also granted immunity to the interroghators:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
He had to for a variety of reasons. That doesnt mean we cant condemn it as vile and reprehensible behavior and policy we should never do again.
I wouldn't argue that, but I would also have a hard time arguing that something is reprehensible and also not punishable.
You would then have to hold those responsible for giving the orders. Tenet, Cheney and multiple layers of the CIA.

We are talking about contractors who did the interrogations, they are bound by a very specific set of orders. This means that those running the program knew exactly what was happening, from the guy turning up the music to Cheney at least.

 
Obama doesnt mind it

:shrug:
Pretty sure he even doubled down on it.

Gotta' love all the fake moral outrage going on in here. Basically, this is a "I was for it before I was against it" defense again.
Obama canceled all enhanced interrogation programs.
Reminder: he also granted immunity to the interroghators:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
He had to for a variety of reasons. That doesnt mean we cant condemn it as vile and reprehensible behavior and policy we should never do again.
I wouldn't argue that, but I would also have a hard time arguing that something is vile and reprehensible and also not punishable.
I hear you. The practicalities of punishing people for this are incredibly difficult. Do you prosecute foot soldiers (CIA) for carrying out orders from on high (President, VP, Attorney General, etc.)? Do you expose covert operatives in order to prosecute them? Do you prosecute top down? And because the federal government redefined torture into meaningless ambiguity, what law do you prosecute under--international treaties or the international criminal court? The code of military justice?

 
Anyone surprised this happened to be released the day Gruber testified on Capitol Hill?
This report impacts our presence and security all over the world. Some two bit adviser on a contract who stuck his foot in his mouth is a blip on the radar.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.
Interesting that you condemn the terrorists when they violate the rules but are totally ok with it when the US does it.

Some would see that as a double standard or hypocritical. Like me. I see it as that.
must be a democrat.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.
Interesting that you condemn the terrorists when they violate the rules but are totally ok with it when the US does it.

Some would see that as a double standard or hypocritical. Like me. I see it as that.
Uh no. That's the point. If one side violates the rules the other is not obligated to follow them. Had we violated them first you'd have a point but we didn't.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.
Interesting that you condemn the terrorists when they violate the rules but are totally ok with it when the US does it.

Some would see that as a double standard or hypocritical. Like me. I see it as that.
Uh no. That's the point. If one side violates the rules the other is not obligated to follow them. Had we violated them first you'd have a point but we didn't.
That's not how the rules work. So you are breaking the rules by making up your own rules. Thus, you are no better than the original breakers of the rules.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
For one thing because some of them maybe aren't terrorists. We don't try them; who knows if they're really guilty? We do get some of this #### wrong you know.For another, even if we ignore the morality of it, it doesn't seem to work. It only makes our enemies stronger, creating more recruits.
Name one person we tortured that was then proven not to be a terrorist. If you can do that you might have a point. There is certainly some responsibility if we choose this route but I'm not aware that we got any of this #### wrong in this case.

And for the record, I'd rather we didn't do this type of thing. I do believe that America should be above it. But I'm not going to condemn us for doing it if we feel it's what is best for making us safer against terrorism.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
Because torturing damages us as much or more than it damages the enemy. I'm with you on spying and no fly and such.

Plus the good guys don't torture. Conservatives love black and white on issues and this is as black and white as it gets for me. Good guys don't torture. Period.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The "good guys", or what I would call civilized society, sometimes have to fight. What the civilized world has decided is that, even in war, there are rules you have to follow. You don't stand behind defenseless women and children so your enemy won't shoot you. You don't use those same women and children as weapons. The list of rules goes on and on, and is actually written down. Most countries abide by those rules, and their captured military are treated according to those rules. If some choose to fight without following those rules the other side doesn't have to follow them either. That's the penalty for violating the rules. It doesn't make us bad people for using the fact that the other side doesn't want to play by the rules against them.
Interesting that you condemn the terrorists when they violate the rules but are totally ok with it when the US does it.

Some would see that as a double standard or hypocritical. Like me. I see it as that.
Uh no. That's the point. If one side violates the rules the other is not obligated to follow them. Had we violated them first you'd have a point but we didn't.
That's not how the rules work. So you are breaking the rules by making up your own rules. Thus, you are no better than the original breakers of the rules.
:lmao:

 
Anyone surprised this happened to be released the day Gruber testified on Capitol Hill?
This report impacts our presence and security all over the world. Some two bit adviser on a contract who stuck his foot in his mouth is a blip on the radar.
So releasing this improves our security across the globe or if we didn't release this it would have compromised our security?
Well we increased security measures at embassies and military bases overseas to coincide with the release of the report. Like someone today basically said though, what else is new? World is a dangerous place.

 
Anyone surprised this happened to be released the day Gruber testified on Capitol Hill?
This report impacts our presence and security all over the world. Some two bit adviser on a contract who stuck his foot in his mouth is a blip on the radar.
So releasing this improves our security across the globe or if we didn't release this it would have compromised our security?
Well we increased security measures at embassies and military bases overseas to coincide with the release of the report. Like someone today basically said though, what else is new? World is a dangerous place.
My point (suspicion)is the Democrats released this to deflect Gruber being drilled about ObamaCare. Otherwise, if it is going to compromise American's safety what benefit in releasing this? Completely political. Panel didn't even interview anyone from CIA. And, since $40M was spent on this report, were any new measures enacted today so that CIA won't impose these practices? I realize Obama eliminated many of them when he got in office, so again I ask, why release this? As an apology to those held at Guantanamo? Were other countries demanding we release it? Or just the continued 'transparency' of this administration?

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
For one thing because some of them maybe aren't terrorists. We don't try them; who knows if they're really guilty? We do get some of this #### wrong you know.For another, even if we ignore the morality of it, it doesn't seem to work. It only makes our enemies stronger, creating more recruits.
Name one person we tortured that was then proven not to be a terrorist. If you can do that you might have a point. There is certainly some responsibility if we choose this route but I'm not aware that we got any of this #### wrong in this case.

And for the record, I'd rather we didn't do this type of thing. I do believe that America should be above it. But I'm not going to condemn us for doing it if we feel it's what is best for making us safer against terrorism.
I think you make a thoughtful response here. But I would like to point out that the bolded is almost the exact same argument I made about the NSA collecting mass emails without individual warrants, which IMO is a far lesser deal than torture, and you were among those who condemned me for making that argument.

 
This administration isn't transparent at all, but not everything is a conspiracy. The Senate released the enhanced interrogation techniques docs, not the White House.

 
Anyone surprised this happened to be released the day Gruber testified on Capitol Hill?
This report impacts our presence and security all over the world. Some two bit adviser on a contract who stuck his foot in his mouth is a blip on the radar.
So releasing this improves our security across the globe or if we didn't release this it would have compromised our security?
Well we increased security measures at embassies and military bases overseas to coincide with the release of the report. Like someone today basically said though, what else is new? World is a dangerous place.
My point (suspicion)is the Democrats released this to deflect Gruber being drilled about ObamaCare. Otherwise, if it is going to compromise American's safety what benefit in releasing this? Completely political. Panel didn't even interview anyone from CIA. And, since $40M was spent on this report, were any new measures enacted today so that CIA won't impose these practices? I realize Obama eliminated many of them when he got in office, so again I ask, why release this? As an apology to those held at Guantanamo? Were other countries demanding we release it? Or just the continued 'transparency' of this administration?
Gruber's testimony wasn't a very big deal.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
For one thing because some of them maybe aren't terrorists. We don't try them; who knows if they're really guilty? We do get some of this #### wrong you know.For another, even if we ignore the morality of it, it doesn't seem to work. It only makes our enemies stronger, creating more recruits.
Name one person we tortured that was then proven not to be a terrorist. If you can do that you might have a point. There is certainly some responsibility if we choose this route but I'm not aware that we got any of this #### wrong in this case.

And for the record, I'd rather we didn't do this type of thing. I do believe that America should be above it. But I'm not going to condemn us for doing it if we feel it's what is best for making us safer against terrorism.
I think you make a thoughtful response here. But I would like to point out that the bolded is almost the exact same argument I made about the NSA collecting mass emails without individual warrants, which IMO is a far lesser deal than torture, and you were among those who condemned me for making that argument.
There's a clear distinction between the groups of people involved with the NSA spying that I have a problem with and these torture scenarios. I'm opposed to the USA killing it's own citizens without due process, something you have no problem with. I have no problem with the USA doing it to known terrorists though. See the distinction?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, I was JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.

(Seriously, let's think about that for a second. And I'm not just condemning those that did... But evil done on our nations behalf is still evil, done.

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
For one thing because some of them maybe aren't terrorists. We don't try them; who knows if they're really guilty? We do get some of this #### wrong you know.For another, even if we ignore the morality of it, it doesn't seem to work. It only makes our enemies stronger, creating more recruits.
Name one person we tortured that was then proven not to be a terrorist. If you can do that you might have a point. There is certainly some responsibility if we choose this route but I'm not aware that we got any of this #### wrong in this case.

And for the record, I'd rather we didn't do this type of thing. I do believe that America should be above it. But I'm not going to condemn us for doing it if we feel it's what is best for making us safer against terrorism.
You cant possibly be this naive. We held this guy for around 10 years in a couple dungeons, including the Salt Pit, tortured him, and then sent him home with an apology letter: "whoops, our bad!"

I'll let you in on a little secret: We released the majority of Guantanamo detainees. After 9/11 we "detained" and did renditions on thousands of people worldwide, many of whom we subsequently released after realizing there was nothing to charge them with or because they had done nothing. Now think about what we did to them before we released them....

 
Well.....sometimes you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.......
We imposed death penalties in WWII for the same crap we have been doing ourselves. I find this attitude disgusting and about as blatantly un-American as it gets.
You know what's Un-American? Unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. Putting it's own citizens on no fly lists that they can't see, without due process, and where there is no recourse to get removed from the list. I could go on and on. Dealing with terrorists in whatever way benefits us is not on my list. If they want "humane" treatment there's a perfectly good way to go about that. Honor the Geneva conventions. Then when we catch them we will as well. Absent that I don't have any issues with anything we might do to them. These people strap bombs to little kids for Christ sakes. I should care about them why?
For one thing because some of them maybe aren't terrorists. We don't try them; who knows if they're really guilty? We do get some of this #### wrong you know.For another, even if we ignore the morality of it, it doesn't seem to work. It only makes our enemies stronger, creating more recruits.
Name one person we tortured that was then proven not to be a terrorist. If you can do that you might have a point. There is certainly some responsibility if we choose this route but I'm not aware that we got any of this #### wrong in this case.

And for the record, I'd rather we didn't do this type of thing. I do believe that America should be above it. But I'm not going to condemn us for doing it if we feel it's what is best for making us safer against terrorism.
I think you make a thoughtful response here. But I would like to point out that the bolded is almost the exact same argument I made about the NSA collecting mass emails without individual warrants, which IMO is a far lesser deal than torture, and you were among those who condemned me for making that argument.
There's a clear distinction between the groups of people involved with the NSA spying that I have a problem with and these torture scenarios. I'm opposed to the USA killing it's own citizens without due process, something you have no problem with. I have no problem with the USA doing it to known terrorists though. See the distinction?
Not really no.

 
Should also note many of these dems approved these methods 10 yrs ago
Why would anyone's knee jerk reaction to this be in any way partisan?

WE FAILED.

WE FAILED AS A NATION TO LIVE UP TO OUT IDEALS.

Let's ####### be honest, FOR ONCE, about an issue and determine how we as a nation - not a nation of democrats or republics but as a nation of Americans - are going to do better.

Because we failed. Plain and simple. And anyone who supported these efforts should be forced to face the sad, dangerous and criminal reality of what has taken place.
It sounds like they missed an opportunity to do that by failing to gain consensus, failing to interview the principles and overlooking key facts that might give the fuller picture.

It's typical politics....somebody might have a salient point, but their dishonest tactics undermine their credibility...

 
Interesting op/ed from the WSJ:

The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. This was a time when:

• We had evidence that al Qaeda was planning a second wave of attacks on the U.S.

• We had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons.

• We had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City.

• We had hard evidence that al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.
Hmmm this is close to:

"We had evidence/reports/certain knowledge that Saddaam Hussein /Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction"
also similar to "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"

Red is gray and

Yellow white

But we decide

Which is right

And

Which is an Illusion

 
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.
After reading the rebuttal in that op/ed, I am very skeptical that no valuable intelligence was gained and politics may indeed have played a major role behind the Senate report.

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.
After reading the rebuttal in that op/ed, I am very skeptical that no valuable intelligence was gained and politics may indeed have played a major role behind the Senate report.
Unfortunately, the report is filled with speculation, opinions and conclusions which reeks of partisanship. You might as well had the folks at MSNBC writing this report.

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.
After reading the rebuttal in that op/ed, I am very skeptical that no valuable intelligence was gained and politics may indeed have played a major role behind the Senate report.
After listening to Michael Hayden, it seems like this is exactly what was going on.
 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.
After reading the rebuttal in that op/ed, I am very skeptical that no valuable intelligence was gained and politics may indeed have played a major role behind the Senate report.
Mr. Know-It-All said:
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.
After reading the rebuttal in that op/ed, I am very skeptical that no valuable intelligence was gained and politics may indeed have played a major role behind the Senate report.
Unfortunately, the report is filled with speculation, opinions and conclusions which reeks of partisanship. You might as well had the folks at MSNBC writing this report.
Mr. Know-It-All said:
If no valuable intelligence was gained, then I am left thinking the CIA must be the most sadistic bastards on the planet...well on par with the head chopper offer guys in ISIS.
After reading the rebuttal in that op/ed, I am very skeptical that no valuable intelligence was gained and politics may indeed have played a major role behind the Senate report.
After listening to Michael Hayden, it seems like this is exactly what was going on.
That op/ed is a total joke. Did you guys actually read it? It is a cover my ### plea for mercy from guys who cant even travel outside the country because they are afraid that the rest of the civilized world will arrest and try them for torture. Here is the important part of their silly op/ed which makes the rest of it entirely meaningless:

First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate.

You notice what is missing there and in the title? The word "enhanced". These KooK torture goofs are falsely claiming that the Senate report argues that the CIA interrogation program was ineffective, so they can then argue that the CIA interrogation program was effective. But the Senate report says that the CIA enhanced interrogation program was ineffective. What beautiful obfuscation intended to convince the dim bulbs.

And every single actual interrogator--Ali Soufan, Glenn Carle, Matthew Anderson, etc.--who has come out and spoken on the subject not only says we didnt get good intel from torture, but that you almost never do except by chance. The truth is out there.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
This administration isn't transparent at all, but not everything is a conspiracy. The Senate released the enhanced interrogation techniques docs, not the White House.
And this the problem I have with the report--Feinstein is playing politics and nothing more. If we are going to release this info, then make it comprehensive and interview those involved. Instead Feinstein treated this report like the Rolling Stone rape article. She went in with a particular goal in mind and interviewed those that would fit the narrative.

They had a former CIA advisor (I didn't catch his name) on the radio this morning and he said that not one CIA representative was interviewed for this report. No one of consequence was interviewed, How can you come up with the conclusions this report made, when you didn't talk to anyone? He laid out a time line how the techniques used (no matter how upset people are about them) were directly responsible for the killing of Umar Farooq this weekend--right there in 2 munutes that disproved one of the findings of this report.

The bottom line is and this reminds me of the Jack Nicholson Few Good Men court scene. Americans love to read the headlines about how Bin Laden was killed and this terrorist was killed, but that didn't just happen because we got lucky or used some CSI techniques. Unfortunately there is a lot of behind the scenes ugliness most Americans don't want to know about and to act like this is something new is really naïve.

 
meh. forgive me if I don't shed a tear over making life miserable for some of these scumbags.. we should be more outraged over the killing of innocents by countless drone attacks.. that is far worse IMHO :shrug:

 
What are people talking about when they say releasing this report is "playing politics"?

Is anyone denying any of the facts, that we horrendously tortured people? I truly believe that the USA is supposed to stand for something better than that. I am thankful this report has been released, because maybe - just maybe - by seeing the reality of what we did, we'll never do it again.

Yesterday's floor speech by John McCain - the one Senator who has first-hand knowledge of torture - was stirring. One piece:

"Torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world."

 
What are people talking about when they say releasing this report is "playing politics"?

Is anyone denying any of the facts, that we horrendously tortured people? I truly believe that the USA is supposed to stand for something better than that. I am thankful this report has been released, because maybe - just maybe - by seeing the reality of what we did, we'll never do it again.

Yesterday's floor speech by John McCain - the one Senator who has first-hand knowledge of torture - was stirring. One piece:

"Torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world."
Meh...McCain is a far-left liberal

 
What are people talking about when they say releasing this report is "playing politics"?

Is anyone denying any of the facts, that we horrendously tortured people? I truly believe that the USA is supposed to stand for something better than that. I am thankful this report has been released, because maybe - just maybe - by seeing the reality of what we did, we'll never do it again.

Yesterday's floor speech by John McCain - the one Senator who has first-hand knowledge of torture - was stirring. One piece:

"Torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world."
Condemning the use of the techniques was appropriate. It was the conclusions about the effectiveness which are speculative and contrary to what many involved in the program say which comes across as highly partisan.

 
What are people talking about when they say releasing this report is "playing politics"?

Is anyone denying any of the facts, that we horrendously tortured people? I truly believe that the USA is supposed to stand for something better than that. I am thankful this report has been released, because maybe - just maybe - by seeing the reality of what we did, we'll never do it again.

Yesterday's floor speech by John McCain - the one Senator who has first-hand knowledge of torture - was stirring. One piece:

"Torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world."
Condemning the use of the techniques was appropriate. It was the conclusions about the effectiveness which are speculative and contrary to what many involved in the program say which comes across as highly partisan.
Of course "many involved in the program" have a vested interest in proclaiming the efficacy of their "techniques." They'd hate to think that they hideously tortured people, some of them to death, just for the fun of it.

At any rate, I agree with McCain's comment above. Even if torture were effective, the USA still shouldn't be doing it.

 
What are people talking about when they say releasing this report is "playing politics"?

Is anyone denying any of the facts, that we horrendously tortured people? I truly believe that the USA is supposed to stand for something better than that. I am thankful this report has been released, because maybe - just maybe - by seeing the reality of what we did, we'll never do it again.

Yesterday's floor speech by John McCain - the one Senator who has first-hand knowledge of torture - was stirring. One piece:

"Tortures failure to serve its intended purpose isnt the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isnt about our enemies; its about us. Its about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. Its about how we represent ourselves to the world."
:goodposting: I'll defer to the guy who has actually endured torture as to whether or not it's effective.

 
Condemning the use of the techniques was appropriate. It was the conclusions about the effectiveness which are speculative and contrary to what many involved in the program say which comes across as highly partisan.
Many involved in Enron said told us we should be sinking 100% of our retirement funds into the company's stock.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top