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

[GrandpaRox]

Most of the people they kill, rape and torture are both Arabs and Muslims.

Your moral equivalency is so bassackwards.

Yet you wonder why so many people here call you names and make fun of you. SMH

 

[timschochet]

Most of the people they kill, rape and torture are both Arabs and Muslims.

Your moral equivalency is so bassackwards.

Yet you wonder why so many people here call you names and make fun of you. SMH

Moral equivalency is something that I detest. Personally I believe ISIS to be evil. That doesn't preclude me from trying to understand them. Only you could claim that I believe in moral equivalency.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I want no part of, but absolutely approve of torture of the right people under the right circumstances.

There is a huge moral difference between what we do and the terrorists do. When we legitimately (Abu Ghraib being illigetimate) torture someone it is to try to save lives, maybe one, maybe thousands. When ISIS tortures it is for no other reason than to hurt or influence another group of people. It is NEVER to save lives.

If you cannot see the moral difference between the two, you are indeed naive or ignorant.

I hope it stays hidden and quiet but for the right reasons I hope we continue to try to save people anyway we have to.

Moat members of ISIS honestly believe that by beheading westerners they are creating terror that will serve to remove their oppressors from the Middle East, thus "liberating" the Arab people from the yoke of western imperialism. To them, that is as moral a goal as saving lives is to you.

King of the supposition, there must 5-6 there. They do it because it begets them money and power, and because they have a sick, twisted ideology that views certain religions and cultures as being subhuman. We have seen it before.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Torture works. It always has worked & always will.

Yes, with torture I will get you to confess to anything I want you to admit to. Anything at all. *It works.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Here is what I have learned following this message board....Put Tim in there with the prisoners and just let him start talking....It wouldn't take long for them to spill their guts just to make him stop...Now that is torture ..Just kidding Timmy.

 

[fatness]

Just as striking as that central finding is the detailed account of C.I.A. mismanagement. Both factions in the fight over interrogations were led by people with histories that might have been expected to disqualify them.

The chief of interrogations, who is not named in the report, was given the job in fall 2002 even though the agency’s inspector general had urged that he be “orally admonished for inappropriate use of interrogation techniques” in a training program in Latin America in the 1980s.

And Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, identified by the pseudonyms Grayson Swigert and Hammond Dunbar in the report, had not conducted a single real interrogation. They had helped run a Cold War-era training program for the Air Force in which personnel were given a taste of the harsh treatment they might face if captured by Communist enemies. The program — called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape — had never been intended for use in American interrogations, and involved methods that had produced false confessions when used on American airmen held by the Chinese in the Korean War.

The program allowed the psychologists to assess their own work — they gave it excellent grades — and to charge a daily rate of $1,800 each, four times the pay of other interrogators, to waterboard detainees. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen later started a company that took over the C.I.A. program from 2005 until it was closed in 2009. The C.I.A. paid it $81 million, plus $1 million to protect the company from legal liability.

$1800 per waterboarding/day. Done by a private company. With no experience interrogating anyone. With the results of their work graded by............themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-torture-report-shows-cia-infighting-over-interrogation-program.html?_r=0

 

[The_Man]

Well this settles it--George Bush invented torture, Thank God he is out of office because it never happened before he got in and hasn't happened since. Glad we solved this problem. Now lets move on to the Royals in New York or how to lose weight from eating too much over the holidays.

Huh?

Can't speak for others, but Bush is a very small piece of this puzzle. He had barely even come to mind for me on this issue to be honest. It also appears Obama is likely no better, and in that way probably more hypocritical. It's hard to know that level of specifics though - objective truth is so rarely ever told.

Koya you are right--it is just the way this is coming out is wrong. It is being politicized plain and simple. This isn't a "Hey, let's change something that is wrong." This is a let's point fingers and use it to score points against the other side. Even the most objective person can see this. The problem is, it pretty much kills everything this president has tried to foster. From day one when he went on his "Obama Apology Tour" when he took office, this basically puts it all back at square one with some nations.If Feinstein was in any way interested in making this better, she would have presented her findings to the president. Talked to the people involved. Worked to change things within. But no, she basically held a press conference. And keep in mind, she DIDN"T INTERVIEW ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED!! What is she going to do when the other side of the story comes out?

And what is "the other side of the story"?

ciasavedlives.com

Good god you will believe anything.

just ignore me

Great idea. Ironically, the first thing you've ever written that I agree with will also be the last thing you write that I ever read. Congratulations on going out on top!

 

[Lutherman2112]

I am uncertain as to how to define torture. Is it any adverse or coercive experience, or is it somewhere along a continuum of adverse or coercive experiences? I mean I get that Torquemada stuff is torture. I get that the crew of the Pueblo and the boys at the Hanoi Hilton where tortured, but sleep depravation, hunger, cold, I am less clear on this. When people here talk about torture I truly do not know what they are speaking about.

As for the ticking bomb scenario folks say it never happens. I suppose literally that is true, but metaphorically I do not know. Certainly terrorist plots involve timelines and action hours. 911 had an action hour, Pearl Harbor, the Murray building. If before those jumped off, say 4 hours before, we had some inkling that they might be about to occur, we have a ticking metaphorical time bomb. Certainly there are emergencies and certainly plots have been foiled before fruition. There have been and are ticking time bomb situations.

As for the efficacy of torture, to say it is never effective is counter intuitive and does not stand up to evidence. To say that it often is ineffective or produces false info has also been shown. The frequency, the relative numbers I have no real feel on as I believe we receive colored information or false information on this front.

I believe this. I believe if folks think we are torturing and otherwise interrogating captives that they necessarily have to change plans or timelines because they can't know what information we may get. That fact hinders operations so there is some utility there. That utility, and the utility vis a vis other methods of interrogation and intelligence gathering I cannot possibly know.

As for the moral or legal questions they are hard to get to for me absent some fixed and acceptable definition of torture. The subject for me is one that really pits principles against pragmatism. I am not open-minded on th subject right now as much as I am confused and searching.

I don't yet have a cogent philosophy on the subject so I am enjoying your discussion.

Ladies and gentlemen, the above statement(s) is a perfect example of mumbo jumbo.

Reminds me of this: link

So again Luther, instead of name calling, linking other articles, do you have any rationale thoughts of your own?

Here is a handful of links to which you could have responded to my own thoughts, but didn't:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=722420&p=17567832

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=722420&p=17567900

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=722420&p=17568425

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=722420&p=17568595

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=722420&p=17568636

 

[johnnycakes]

Sometimes I think the world is just too small for the likes of Muslim radicals and us, regardless of their agenda.

note: if you have a queezy stomach, don't click these links... I linked them to show they're legit stories... the title says it all.

ISIS Executes Homosexual By Throwing Him Off A Rooftop And Then Stoning Him

Woman Stoned to Death by ISIS in Syria - her father actively participates!

We're not morally superior to them? Riiiiight.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

We've basically been discussing the ethics of torture and the effectiveness of torture. But there's a third issue we haven't really discussed: that in the past we signed treaties agreeing not to do this. Among other agreements, this nation solemnly signed the Charter of the United Nations (which we also basically wrote), the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UN officials demand prosecutions for US torture

Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) — All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

It's not clear, however, how human rights officials think these prosecutions will take place, since the Justice Department has declined to prosecute and the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said it's "crystal clear" under international law that the United States, which ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, now has an obligation to ensure accountability.

"In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture — recognized as a serious international crime — they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency," he said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hopes the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques at secret overseas facilities is the "start of a process" toward prosecutions, because the "prohibition against torture is absolute," Ban's spokesman said.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said the report released Tuesday shows "there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration, which allowed (it) to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law."

He said international law prohibits granting immunity to public officials who allow the use of torture, and this applies not just to the actual perpetrators but also to those who plan and authorize torture.

"The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the U.S. government provides no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability," Emmerson said.

Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth echoed those comments, saying "unless this important truth-telling process leads to the prosecution of officials, torture will remain a 'policy option' for future presidents."

The report said that in addition to waterboarding, the U.S. tactics included slamming detainees against walls, confining them to small boxes, keeping them isolated for prolonged periods and threatening them with death.

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

The United States is also not part of the International Criminal Court, which began operating in 2002 to ensure that those responsible for the most heinous crimes could be brought to justice. That court steps in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The case could be referred to the ICC by the U.N. Security Council, but the United States holds veto power there.

In one U.S. case mentioned in the report, suspected extremist Gul Rahman was interrogated in late 2002 at a CIA detention facility in Afghanistan called "COBALT" in the report. There, he was shackled to a wall in his cell and forced to rest on a bare concrete floor in only a sweatshirt. He died the next day. A CIA review and autopsy found he died of hypothermia.

Justice Department investigations into his death and another death of a CIA detainee resulted in no charges.

President Barack Obama said the interrogation techniques "did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies." CIA Director John Brennan said the agency made mistakes and learned from them, but insisted the coercive techniques produced intelligence "that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives."

The Senate investigation, however, found no evidence the interrogations stopped imminent plots.

European Union spokeswoman Catherine Ray emphasized Wednesday that the Obama administration has worked since 2009 to see that torture is not used anymore but said it is "a commitment that should be enshrined in law."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was quoted as telling the Bild daily that Obama had clearly broken with Bush policies and, as a result, Washington's "new openness to admitting mistakes and promising publicly that something like this will never happen again is an important step, which we welcome."

"What was deemed right and done back then in the fight against Islamic terrorism was unacceptable and a serious mistake," Steinmeier said. "Such a crass violation of free and democratic values must not be repeated."

Bush approved the program through a covert finding in 2002 but wasn't briefed by the CIA on the details until 2006. Obama banned waterboarding, weeks of sleep deprivation and other tactics, yet other aspects of Bush's national security policies remain, most notably the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sweeping government surveillance programs.

U.S. officials have been tried in absentia overseas before.

Earlier this year, Italy's highest court upheld guilty verdicts against the CIA's former Rome station chief Jeff Castelli and two others identified as CIA agents in the 2003 extraordinary rendition kidnapping of an Egyptian terror suspect. The decision was the only prosecution to date against the Bush administration's practice of abducting terror suspects and moving them to third countries that permitted torture.

All three had been acquitted in the original trial due to diplomatic immunity. They were among 26 Americans, mostly CIA agents, found guilty in absentia of kidnapping Milan cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr from a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003.

In Geneva last month, a U.N. anti-torture panel said the U.S. government is falling short of full compliance with the international anti-torture treaty. It criticized U.S. interrogation procedures during the Bush administration and called on the U.S. government to abolish the use of techniques that rely on sleep or sensory deprivation.

The word "torture," meanwhile, wasn't mentioned in U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power's statement Wednesday for Human Rights Day in which she criticized countries including North Korea and South Sudan.

 

[timschochet]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

They need to be held accountable or things like this will happen again.

 

[timschochet]

Sometimes I think the world is just too small for the likes of Muslim radicals and us, regardless of their agenda.

note: if you have a queezy stomach, don't click these links... I linked them to show they're legit stories... the title says it all.

ISIS Executes Homosexual By Throwing Him Off A Rooftop And Then Stoning Him

Woman Stoned to Death by ISIS in Syria - her father actively participates!

We're not morally superior to them? Riiiiight.

Very very few people are making this argument and the ones who do so are wrong. But don't use it as a straw man which somehow justifies what we're doing. ISIS is evil and we are not. But that doesn't make torture OK.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Sometimes I think the world is just too small for the likes of Muslim radicals and us, regardless of their agenda.

note: if you have a queezy stomach, don't click these links... I linked them to show they're legit stories... the title says it all.

ISIS Executes Homosexual By Throwing Him Off A Rooftop And Then Stoning Him

Woman Stoned to Death by ISIS in Syria - her father actively participates!

We're not morally superior to them? Riiiiight.

Very very few people are making this argument and the ones who do so are wrong. But don't use it as a straw man which somehow justifies what we're doing. ISIS is evil and we are not. But that doesn't make torture OK.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[timschochet]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

They need to be held accountable or things like this will happen again.

I disagree. The use of torture was bad policy. It should be rationally argued against, and that is why we shouldn't do it again. But it was a decision made at the highest levels of our government. So any attempt to prosecute it would inevitably become a partisan circus in which true justice would not be present. It would do nothing but increase the tension between the two parties for no good purpose and just further embarrass us to the world. I can't see any good that would come of it. It was a mistake; let's move on.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

They need to be held accountable or things like this will happen again.

I disagree. The use of torture was bad policy. It should be rationally argued against, and that is why we shouldn't do it again.But it was a decision made at the highest levels of our government. So any attempt to prosecute it would inevitably become a partisan circus in which true justice would not be present. It would do nothing but increase the tension between the two parties for no good purpose and just further embarrass us to the world. I can't see any good that would come of it. It was a mistake; let's move on.

I think we disagree because I see torture as being something that is reprehensible and that we authorized it is not only against international law, but also against everything we stand for. There is no greater injustice than this, if you let this slide and move on , then the line has moved to the point in which our laws do not matter for those in power and we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a fascist state.

I completely understand that this is embarrassing for the US, but we did this and measures need to be taken to rectify it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

They need to be held accountable or things like this will happen again.

I disagree. The use of torture was bad policy. It should be rationally argued against, and that is why we shouldn't do it again.But it was a decision made at the highest levels of our government. So any attempt to prosecute it would inevitably become a partisan circus in which true justice would not be present. It would do nothing but increase the tension between the two parties for no good purpose and just further embarrass us to the world. I can't see any good that would come of it. It was a mistake; let's move on.

I think we disagree because I see torture as being something that is reprehensible and that we authorized it is not only against international law, but also against everything we stand for. There is no greater injustice than this, if you let this slide and move on , then the line has moved to the point in which our laws do not matter for those in power and we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a fascist state.

I completely understand that this is embarrassing for the US, but we did this and measures need to be taken to rectify it.

Just so I'm clear, if we execute an innocent man via the death penalty, is that the same as waterboarding a terrorist? Those two acts are equally unjust? Just so I can update my notebook.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

They need to be held accountable or things like this will happen again.

I disagree. The use of torture was bad policy. It should be rationally argued against, and that is why we shouldn't do it again.But it was a decision made at the highest levels of our government. So any attempt to prosecute it would inevitably become a partisan circus in which true justice would not be present. It would do nothing but increase the tension between the two parties for no good purpose and just further embarrass us to the world. I can't see any good that would come of it. It was a mistake; let's move on.

I think we disagree because I see torture as being something that is reprehensible and that we authorized it is not only against international law, but also against everything we stand for. There is no greater injustice than this, if you let this slide and move on , then the line has moved to the point in which our laws do not matter for those in power and we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a fascist state.

I completely understand that this is embarrassing for the US, but we did this and measures need to be taken to rectify it.

Just so I'm clear, if we execute an innocent man via the death penalty, is that the same as waterboarding a terrorist? Those two acts are equally unjust? Just so I can update my notebook.

Nice.


[SIZE=11.8181819915771px]Just so I'm clear, if we torture a man for years in secret prison camps is that the same as we throw a switch to kill a man Those two acts are equally unjust? Just so I can update my notebook.[/SIZE]

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We've basically been discussing the ethics of torture and the effectiveness of torture. But there's a third issue we haven't really discussed: that in the past we signed treaties agreeing not to do this. Among other agreements, this nation solemnly signed the Charter of the United Nations (which we also basically wrote), the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UN officials demand prosecutions for US torture

Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) — All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

...

This is really a problem with what the Senate committee did. It's basically like they are lawyers or doctors who turned over information provided in privilege and confidence to a world waiting to tag and prosecute our people for something. I know, I know, we have a right to know what our government does, but I think the Senators have betrayed a trust or confidence here, it's a problem for these people who have worked to protect us, these are the people responsible for tracking and killing OBL for instance, and our Senators have essentially written a damning confession.

 

[StrikeS2k]

We've basically been discussing the ethics of torture and the effectiveness of torture. But there's a third issue we haven't really discussed: that in the past we signed treaties agreeing not to do this. Among other agreements, this nation solemnly signed the Charter of the United Nations (which we also basically wrote), the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UN officials demand prosecutions for US torture

Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) — All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

...

This is really a problem with what the Senate committee did. It's basically like they are lawyers or doctors who turned over information provided in privilege and confidence to a world waiting to tag and prosecute our people for something. I know, I know, we have a right to know what our government does, but I think the Senators have betrayed a trust or confidence here, it's a problem for these people who have worked to protect us, these are the people responsible for tracking and killing OBL for instance, and our Senators have essentially written a damning confession.

Not really because they weren't the ones who did it, nor did they give those people the chance to defend themselves. This report never should have seen the light of day. It was a political move and now it will be used as evidence of wrongdoing without due process.

 

[timschochet]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

No

 

[lod01]

UN officials demand prosecutions for US torture

Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) — All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

...

Go ahead and try. We are the U.S of A.

Of course, I would probably be worried if I was just below the top dog torturers as I could see them throwing the lower level torturers to the wolves as a sacrifice.

 

[timschochet]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

No

Really? You stated that report should never have seen the light of day. You stated that it will incriminate people without due process. These are quite similar to the attacks against Snowden. I fail to see the difference.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

No

Really? You stated that report should never have seen the light of day. You stated that it will incriminate people without due process. These are quite similar to the attacks against Snowden. I fail to see the difference.

Bummer for you. You don't see the difference between terrorists and American citizens either. Sorry I can't help you in either case.

 

[timschochet]

All right. Since you can't offer any distinction, I'll just assume that you hate what the NSA did but that you're OK with torture, and that is why you're willing to condemn the Senate but not Snowden. Whistle blowers and leakers only bother you if it's something you approve that gets revealed.

Incidentally , the fact that torture is OK with you but that the collection of mass emails is evidence of a tyrannical government shows how truly messed up your morals are IMO.

 

[RCon]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

No

Really? You stated that report should never have seen the light of day. You stated that it will incriminate people without due process. These are quite similar to the attacks against Snowden. I fail to see the difference.

Have to admit, I don't see where you're going with this. I'm not necessarily agreeing with StrikeS2K that the senate report shouldn't have been published, but how are these two things comparable or relevant to each other?

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

 

[timschochet]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

No

Really? You stated that report should never have seen the light of day. You stated that it will incriminate people without due process. These are quite similar to the attacks against Snowden. I fail to see the difference.

Have to admit, I don't see where you're going with this. I'm not necessarily agreeing with StrikeS2K that the senate report shouldn't have been published, but how are these two things comparable or relevant to each other?

its the nature of his criticism. He's ripping the Senate for revealing state secrets. Snowden revealed state secrets and Strike defended that. Why is one ok and not the other?

 

[jonessed]

Strike, your last comment seems to contradict your defense of Edward Snowden doesn't it?

No

Really? You stated that report should never have seen the light of day. You stated that it will incriminate people without due process. These are quite similar to the attacks against Snowden. I fail to see the difference.

Have to admit, I don't see where you're going with this. I'm not necessarily agreeing with StrikeS2K that the senate report shouldn't have been published, but how are these two things comparable or relevant to each other?

It's a weird rabbit hole to go down. I don't see how the CIA torturing terrorists relates at all to NSA mass email collection.

 

[jonessed]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

 

[ffldrew]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

They need to be held accountable or things like this will happen again.

I disagree. The use of torture was bad policy. It should be rationally argued against, and that is why we shouldn't do it again.But it was a decision made at the highest levels of our government. So any attempt to prosecute it would inevitably become a partisan circus in which true justice would not be present. It would do nothing but increase the tension between the two parties for no good purpose and just further embarrass us to the world. I can't see any good that would come of it. It was a mistake; let's move on.

I think we disagree because I see torture as being something that is reprehensible and that we authorized it is not only against international law, but also against everything we stand for. There is no greater injustice than this, if you let this slide and move on , then the line has moved to the point in which our laws do not matter for those in power and we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a fascist state.

I completely understand that this is embarrassing for the US, but we did this and measures need to be taken to rectify it.

Just so I'm clear, if we execute an innocent man via the death penalty, is that the same as waterboarding a terrorist? Those two acts are equally unjust? Just so I can update my notebook.

You can't have equally unjust - as they always pull out in these situations - you can't be a little bit pregnant.

Both are unjust and both are wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

 

[jon_mx]

I think we can all agree that StrikeS2K being pregnant would be both unjust and wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

Of course there are differences. But my point is, they don't come with birth. A non-American, even a former terrorist, could come to this country, embrace the ideals that make this country great, and thereafter be a better American than many of the citizens who are born here. The ideals that make us great are universal: freedom of thought, freedom of action, a democratically elected republican government limited by a Constitution, and not least open to all who desire to come. If any nation on Earth were to accept these 4 ideals as fundamental, that nation would be more American than we are (since at the current time we unfortunately are not willing to abide by the 4th ideal I stated.)

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.

Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

 

[timschochet]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same. You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.

Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

No one will get in any trouble for this, which is fine so long as we stop torturing.

 

[stlrams]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

So for the record...You are ok with killing people., but not smacking them around or humiliating them?

 

[timschochet]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

So for the record...You are ok with killing people., but not smacking them around or humiliating them?

im OK with killing enemy combatants in times of war. I am saddened and upset that innocent people are often killed as well, but again in war it's morally justified IMO. Torture is not OK. Humiliating people, removing their dignity, is never OK.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

So for the record...You are ok with killing people., but not smacking them around or humiliating them?

im OK with killing enemy combatants in times of war. I am saddened and upset that innocent people are often killed as well, but again in war it's morally justified IMO.Torture is not OK. Humiliating people, removing their dignity, is never OK.

You can come back from humiliation....dead not so much.

 

[RCon]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

 

[stlrams]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

Agree 100% - our values need some course correction when drone killing preferred over water boarding....

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Can't we remove them from our country...deportation

 

[johnnycakes]

This just in... **** Cheney says the report is "full of crap".