Slashdot Mirror
CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations
mrspoonsi sends this news from the BBC:
The CIA carried out "brutal" interrogations of terror suspects in the years after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., a U.S. Senate report has said. The summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report said the CIA misled Americans on the effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation." The interrogation was poorly managed and unreliable, the report said. President Obama has previously said that in his view the techniques amounted to torture. The Senate committee's report runs to more than 6,000 pages, drawing on huge quantities of evidence, but it remains classified and only a 480-page summary (PDF) is being released. Publication had been delayed amid disagreements in Washington over what should be made public.
CIA Director John Brennan has posted a response.
No shit.
Is anybody going to jail?
How about Bush, is this enough to put Bush in jail?
Yet, despite common ground with some of the findings of the Committee’s Study, we part ways with the Committee on some key points. Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qa’ida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day.
Just when will the CIA get off its high horse of believing that this program, in its former form, or any newer form, produces value for the American citizen or state as a whole? They need to stop defending this indefensible stance that it's okay as long as the CIA is in charge of capturing, detaining, violating rights, and denying everything it does or has ever done.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
...to say that Senate Democrats claim the CIA lied aver "brutal" interrogations. That opinion is not universal.
CIA did not lie. They softened the language so the program can go on and everyone be happy. No one really wanted to know what is going on. The official story is that Cheney and his sidekick were not provided details on until after 38 interrogations already happen. See no evil, hear no evil.
I prefer this memo:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/
Part of being the "good guys" means NOT being the "bad guys".
More people die in traffic accidents EVERY YEAR than the "terrorists" have ever killed here. So why give up a morally superior position to "fight" people who pose almost no threat to anyone outside their own countries?
Queue all the posts of "Why are you surprised! of course they were doing this!"
No, you should be surprised. Suspecting and Knowing are 2 different things. Get mad, do something. Don't use your arrogance as an excuse for apathy.
I think the most enlightening part of the report was this:
The torture of prisoners at times was so extreme that some C.I.A. personnel tried to put a halt to the techniques, but were told by senior agency officials to continue the interrogation sessions.
The Senate report quotes a series of August 2002 cables from a C.I.A. facility in Thailand, where the agency’s first prisoner was held. Within days of the Justice Department’s approval to begin waterboarding the prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, the sessions became so extreme that some C.I.A. officers were “to the point of tears and choking up,” and several said they would elect to be transferred out of the facility if the brutal interrogations continued.
That gave me some hope for the world. At least some stood up and said "No" and likely ended their careers over it. I doubt we'll ever know who those people were, but if any of you read this, my hats off to you. You're the real Hero's of this war.
Disclosed that she is suffering from Parkinson's disease and can no longer "sing a note". She also said she received the Parkinson's diagnosis about eight months before. [August 2013]
[1997] Diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune disease attacking the thyroid, which has contributed to her weight gain over the years.
All the news that's fit to be the news. Bush/Cheney we LOVE you (now go to hell).
Ron Paul knew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKsZM181bSk)
The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qa’ida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day.
You torture me, I will crumble, beg for you stop and tell you what I think you want to hear.
So, if you I think I am some sort of terrorist Mr. CIA dude, I'm gonna tell you about all the cells in the US, finger everyone I'm associated with and their dogs, and make of shit until you stop. Sure, there may be some truth buried in there (if I am actually a terrorist), but have fun finding out what is the truth. In the meantime, the reality will proceed while you are chasing red herrings.
Of course, what really happens, is that I spill my guts out and you then torture me and learn absolutely nothing new, as was found in this report.
But the real question is what is causing the terrorism in the first place.
Could it be the fact that we are in the Middle East supporting assholes all because we need to secure our oil supply? (See Carter Doctrine and read national interests as 'oil supplies'.)
It's all about oil, baby. And with more military action in Western Africa and near east to guard pipelines, shipping, and other oil related things, we can expect to experience more terrorism from other peoples - as well as military aid to other oppressive governments.
All because our economy is based on oil.
And no, increased domestic production will not solve the problem by a long shot - that's assuming we could.
Anyway, we have gone down this road of idiotic geo-oil-politics since FDR and there's no turning back without crashing the economy (think post WWI Germany) - making '08 look like a minor recession.
The most serious problems occurred early on and stemmed from the fact that the Agency was unprepared and lacked the core competencies required to carry out an unprecedented, worldwide program of detaining and interrogating suspected al-Qa’ida and affiliated terrorists -CIA December 9, 2014
Apparently moral self restraint is one of the core competencies that the CIA lacks.
This is reactive and not proactive. You think you found a bad guy. Good for you. But het probably does not know much.
You're much better off asking citizens for help: they probably hate the whole unrest and war... and some may be able to point out who or what is involved.
But that doens't work if you're known as 'the enemy'.
This reminds me of my all-time favorite Onion headline: "CIA Realizes its been using black highlighters all these years"
Even if torturing prisoners was "effective," who cares? If something is immoral, good results will never make it moral.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Page 115
I'm reminded of a quote I once heard from a U.S. Army interrogator (paraphrasing a bit to make the context and intent clear): "Torture and Drugs are something people do for fun - they're not used for gathering intelligence."
"I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored."
From a Republican even.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
No comments needed.
Who doesn't pay? Those responsible for such atrocities. We increasingly live in a society where a few - IE military and intelligence brass, the rich, the police, and corporations and individuals with the money to play the game can do nearly anything with impunity.
This meets the definition of tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power - and we live it every day, but most do not see it. The question is, is the natural state of being for humans - people abusing their power over others, or can it be changed and transcended?
Silence is a state of mime.
Not only that, your brother can take your position 8 years later.
Where's the oversight? Oh, it was by the same people that oversee the NSA, never mind.
Don't know if behind paywall, got there via Google so if it doesn't work google the title and read it.
Can you imagine what is on the other 6000Â pages? If this is what they decided to release imagine what they decided to keep hidden.
In USA a report like this is allowed to surface.
Thanks Osama!
So we don't have to torture them over here
http://coreyrobin.com/2012/04/...
Certain detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), which the Department of Justice determined at the time to be lawful and which were duly authorized by the Bush Administration. These techniques, which were last used by the CIA in December 2007, subsequently were prohibited by an Executive Order issued by President Obama when he took office in January 2009.
Damn straight that guy deserves a medal.
Wish he had kept up that sort of perspective.
CIA officers are rightly proud and honored to be part of an organization that is indispensable to our national security.
Don't be too sure about that bub.
I mean, really.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my freedom!
Majid Khan was then subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration, ....
I bet it tasted like shit!
Don't point at the CIA.
You were responsible;
You knew what was happening.
It will happen again and, once again, you will look away.
In case no one has noticed it seems everything is out of control theses days. War, spying, bankers and the economy, human rights and the list goes on.
As Leonard Cohen says in his song The Future:
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
It seems that everything we ever used to benchmark human progress has slipped away.
Our nation spent a decade running a network of torture prisons, including Abu Grahib and Guantanamo bay, where cathartic biblical justice was and still is the prescription. Most of these prisoners cant be tried, and cant be released, for reasons that cant be told to the public. The actual details, while speculated for years by the public in quiet shame, were not only far worse than we could imagine but deliberately and baselessly shrouded in secrecy from the public. our intelligence agency actually lied to the govenment it was created to protect.
We can hardly keep our government open and when it is, its operation is ostensibly predicated on blanket covert surveillance against its own citizens. If anyone challenges it, we just lock them away forever and insist they are traitors. Our police operate entirely above the law, routinely executing unarmed citizens and exist in posession of several million dollars in military grade hardware from machine guns to tanks. the only thing "exceptional" about american exceptionalism these days is that we maintain the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, and yet still havent managed to usher in the apocalypse despite a very public report on the sheer bumbling incompetence of the military divisions assigned to operate and maintain these weapons. The most devastating part about this as a foreigner, ill presume, is that a country of this level of dysfunction, porverty and animocity still controls such a disproportionate level of wealth, power, and influence.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Not just the cruelty.
Did fMRIs disappear yesterday and did I just miss the memo? Did psychoactive agents stop working? We couldn't have used neurological stimulation of the pleasure center each time a detectable truth was told until the subject couldn't wait to answer?
Did all this disappear yesterday? Did the hundreds of other neurological manipulation techniques we might have employed painlessly go away? Suppose we stimulated the "God Spot" in each detainee, and broke their religious beliefs. Think that wouldn't have worked?
Are security agency personnel simply incapable of reading neurophysiology journals? Or do we just hire stupid people?
So, instead, the CIA and probably Homeland Security (i.e. the new KGB) wallow in the temple of dumb. Any one of the aforementioned techniques is likely to be at least as effective as crude torture, and probably more so.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
we should put something in place to prevent it from happening? Oh, we signed the orders to allow the CIA to do it? Oh. Well then, shame on you for not doing it right. Back to bickering about possibly shutting the government down...
I might too, but that doesn't make us right.
Shrub's daddy was into illegal arms trading, human rights violations and drug trafficking, just read up on Iran-Contra.
I see.
Terrorizing is bad.
So obviously the solution is more terrorizing.
Feedback I submitted to the CIA website. If you no longer hear from AC, you know why...
"After reading Director Brennan's response to the CIA torture report, I no longer have faith in the CIA's leadership. I do not believe the CIA abides by US and international laws against torture. As such, I think the folks at the CIA pose a serious threat to US security concerns. As an American, I feel it necessary to report this to you.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this issue."
This article seems relevant: On the difficulties of reforming torturers.
Demented But Determined.
Torture is useless as an intelligence tool. It is also counterproductive for any reason other than a "sense of vengeance".
Sure, it satisfies that, but then you lose the moral high ground. And that shit is actually important.
Senator D Feinstein worked hard to prove to prove enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT; eg water-boarding) don't work. This argument has been made before. I doubt her revelations will drive any future policy decisions.
The CIA issued a ... response ... denying that it intentionally misled the public or policymakers ...
Why deny it? The White house has already promised CIA employees immunity from prosecution.
Republicans ... faulted the .. decision to base ... findings exclusively on CIA documents ...
Because it's wrong to use the CIA's own admissions of failure and misdeeds to judge their competence.
What he meant: Damn the rules, I'm not stopping until I get results I like.
We've seen it in the tropes of 21st century US Tv. It started with '24' and went through 'Battlestar Galactica' and 'Bionic woman' remakes: I'm the victim and everybody else is the enemy. A new trope is overwhelming US television this year: I got mine so fuck off. It started in 'Blue bloods' and we're now seeing it in the new politico dramas like 'Madame secretary'.
The CIA has been lying about the war on terror for a long time.
Someone like you. Just so you will know the difference between 'simulated drowning' and having your head severed from your body.
Ya? So what? What is anybody going to do about it?
As a private citizen, you can do that without representing the neighborhood. The CIA tortured on behalf of the United States.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I don't think being better than other countries is somehow a reasonable justification for torture.
I would also say that transparency and information are good for the public. I'm not sure minimzing large-scale torture by calling it political finger-wagging is appropriate. Furthermore the Democrats of the 60's and 70's weren't the "liberal" party if you recall your history. Go look at some voting maps for the south from 1960-1980.
This shouldn't be legal just because folks were working for the government.
According to the NY Times article:
Detainees were deprived of sleep for as long as a week, and were sometimes told that they would be killed while in American custody. With the approval of the C.I.A.'s medical staff, some C.I.A. prisoners were subjected to medically unnecessary “rectal feeding” or “rectal hydration” — a technique that the C.I.A.'s chief of interrogations described as a way to exert “total control over the detainee.”
Terrorists kidnap, behead, murder and rape people everyday. No one cares. Muslims force non-Muslims to live under conditions much worse than than apartheid and no one says a word. Palestinians explicitly target civilians in unprovoked attacks because the burden of peaceful coexistence isn't compatible with their need to humiliate and persecute filthy infidels. It would be nice is we could fight our wars honorably. It would be nice if we didn't have to fight at all. It would be nice if I could turn on TV to a news station for a year, and for once, not hear about Muslims murdering people while they gloat live on TV every single time. It would be nice if the left-wing media didn't immediately blame everyone but the actual terrorists.
Sometimes you have to do bad things to evil people or they will do much worse to you or your love ones. People will blame you. They will say you are evil. They will say you provoked all of this. No amount of logic or truth will ever make them see the reality of your situation. You will be blamed no matter what you do. The terrorists will always be "innocent." You will persecuted because they are cowardly hypocrites who will always blame the person who refuses to be a victim.
Have a happy Christmas and don't be a bloody terrorists.
--modded this down only serves to underscore my point.
Perhaps the US believes that "Kings may not be punished by their subjects"?
De Cive, Section XI Chap III
I'm shocked that a government security agency woulds lie about their activities.
the sentence CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations felt redundant and I got the idea of removing the tautological elements word by word but each time I ended up with an empty sentence. I had to start over 3 times before I realized I had to keep the first word.
With their own approval rating at 16%, Senate Democrats announced today that Bush was a meanie. More exciting news after the break.
If you wish to torture someone for revenge, remember:
1) It is NOT Constitutional. Sorry. Patriots follow and uphold the constitution. Anyone is is a pretend-patriot, working to kill American ideals.
2) It doesn't work to discourage or dissuade unless (arguably) it is done in public, and even then, it may not work.
3) You have to prove them guilty of something before giving a consequence, or do you think that too should be thrown out the window?
I like the neighbor test for determining support or opposition to torture. Would you want to live next door to a torturer? If you found out somehow that your neighbor had tortured prisoners for the USA or for some other country, would it make you uneasy? Would you let them babysit your children? I suppose the same question can naturally be directed to returning soldiers as well. The difference is that soldiers don't hide their identity as veterans. We tend to treat them with respect, at least the ones who aren't homeless.
This is without a doubt Politics. I have turned off Politics from Slashdot not because I have no interest in things political but because Slashdot is flat out terrible at politics.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
There is no such thing as a terrorist. But it must be nice to see the world in black and white, saves you the trouble of having to actually think about or empathize with other humans.
"Wer mit Ungeheuern kampft, mag zusehen, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
No half-assed bureaucrat at the CIA wipes his nose without the authority of the US Congress. The authors of this report should be looking in the mirror. The Congress of the United States has completely failed this country. Both parties. They all knew it, they represent us, and they did nothing but for half of them writing a report pointing the finger at the other party, leaving out the obvious fact of their complete dereliction of their duty. They should have all resigned in ignominy when they published this. Right after the War Crimes tribunal for both sides. That would be justice.
I, for one, am *shocked*. The CIA *lied*?!?
Shocked, I tell you.
Waterboarding and a beating or
Blown-up by a drone.
Your choice.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. The CIA works in all kinds of different places, with all kinds of different people. I am betting that in some of the countries where the detainees were from, this sort of interrogation is expected. Of course we stop short of cutting their heads off with a sword. The bottom line is that we have to give the CIA latitude to do their jobs. Despite what some of us may think of the tactics, they get results.
You are an utter fucking retard if you think your little tirade in any way justifies this shit the CIA did.
to try to link the moral bankruptcy of torture to your irrational hatred of the scary black man.
and other ethical people. As long as you don't have to be reminded of your own moral shortcomings.
It's not useless, but it is limited. For example if you have two subjects who you suspect both have information about a certain subject you can separate them and ask them questions then torture them when their answers don't match. Since in most cases they won't have a pre-arranged story eventually they'll capitulate and tell the only thing they know the other one can confirm. Still horrible, still not ethical in most cases but not useless.
You gotta do what you gotta do. If someone was tied to terrorizing my neighborhood I would hang them from a chain, soak them with salt water, and zap them with a MIG Welder.
God I hope you aren't American. Because to any objective observer, it is the US who is terrorizing everyone else's neighborhoods. Do you apply the same standard to yourself?
The Israelis who have no qualms supporting state sponsored assassinations in the name of national security told the Bush administration that torture doesn't work.
For Xsakes, this are your friends telling you not to do it, because it doesn't work. What did Bush do? he carried on regardless.
This has become a signature pattern for the right in the last 15 years. It wasn't always that way. In the 80s and 90s one could disagree yet respect the opinion of Republican leaders and administrations, even if one didn't always agree with them. Somewhere around the time of the Contract with American ideology became more important than facts and it has been all downhill for America. The 2 trillion dollar invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, the loss of critical support across the world with unwarranted acts of torture, the obstructionist practices of the Republican congress v. the Obama administration.
Give it another 10 years and the present GOP will achieve from within what Osama Bin Laden foolishly tried to do with a few planes. He should have financed the Tea Party instead, and by now he would be further ahead in his goal.
It wasn't the Democrats that put us at risk, Sparky.
... is reading a 480-page "summary".
You're going to bathe them in a mixture of Argon/CO2 while poking them with a steel wire that has a small ball on the end?
wow.
There is no such thing as a terrorist. But it must be nice to see the world in black and white, saves you the trouble of having to actually think about or empathize with other humans.
"Wer mit Ungeheuern kampft, mag zusehen, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
Those who stand up for no values have no values themselves. Without acknowledging the existence of evil, there can be no good.
There is no such thing as a terrorist.
There are most certainly groups that employ random violence intended to create fear and provoke political change. What definition of terrorism are you using?
...is zero on the US side.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
There's no statute of limitations on tortures of a degree that can kill. I'd love to see a presidential debate moderator pose the question to each candidate: will the pursue indictments of those involved in torture at any level. If there's nothing here then a trial can sort that out. Indictment requires a grand jury to agree as well, so it's not the same as saying these people are guilty. It's saying there's enough evidence to indict, which plainly there is.
against Russia!
That falls apart if the "subjects" agree on a bogus story beforehand. If they fear capture and know they will be tortured, they may very well go to those lengths.
If simulated drowning and chest slapping are the standard for torture worldwide, that would be progress. But you morons would still cry about it.
As a Brit living in Australia, two of the world's most ardent allies of the USA , I say this: America, you stink. When a friend tells you you stink you'd better wise up and do something about it. Your actions are CAUSING the terrorism that you are seeking so vainly to suppress. The more you oppress, the more people turn against you. I know you have a bit of a thick skull and your thinking processes are limited (as a country, we understand you have trouble walking and chewing gum, but that's OK, intellectual disability we can accept and sympathise with - we are similarly afflicted, truth be told). It's the actions we have a problem with. But now even your friends and allies can see the terrorists' point of view, and have done for some time. Wake up, fix your stupid foreign policies and you know, maybe THAT will sort out terrorism. It's win-win.
There's 'another side' to the use of torture?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Reminds me of techniques used in asylums and sanitariums in the Victorian era. In fact, several of them are *exactly* techniques used in that era.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Your time in the sun has passed; you turned your back on your hard-won Enlightenment birthright and you have squandered your wealth.
We are all the poorer for the loss of what the United States could have been.
Your Empire has lasted far shorter than most; the collapse is coming, and it is well-deserved.
Fuck off and die.
It's useless because the initial mismatch may have been part of the plan to sucker you into buying a story you wouldn't have if both had maintained it from the start. Never trust information that's not given by someone who has any interest in lying about it under the given circumstances.
The people who ordered this deserve to be tried for war crimes. Some individuals were actually tortured to death. Baby Bush would be first in line for a hanging. It makes me sick that the lowest level guards who were following orders were the ones who were drummed out of the service etc.. And the public should know that we caused other nations to apply even worse tortures within the same prisons. I would rather be loyal to humanity than loyal to any nation.
In the US, the powerful can be the most evil scum and commit the most heinous crimes against humanity and will have nothing to fear from "the law" at all.
To be clear, torture is a human rights violation against customary international law and treaty; it is not a crime against humanity unless it is part of widespread or systemic practice.
It is, however, widely practiced as a practical matter. Sometimes even by heads of state. This guy has personally tortured people, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
terrorists, stop being an idiot. Richard Reid tried to light a shoe bomb and didn't kill anyone, yet let at all of the trouble and hassle EVERYONE who flies has to go through now. It isn't always about death. It's also about our way of life. How much money do you think is being spent to find explosives on persons who fly?
So stop saying "More people are killed by albino left-handed sharks than terrorists because that isn't the point."
If I were President and I felt that X was necessary then I would document why I thought X was necessary and that I was solely responsible for X.
Afterwards, I'd release that to the media.
There wouldn't be any of these rolling revelations. Everyone would know that I thought it was necessary to torture persons A, B and C (and no one else) and that they were tortured and (redacted) information was collected and that the people who did so did so under my DIRECT ORDERS. No one else tortured anyone other than A, B and C.
Instead, we have denials, euphamisms, "extraordinary rendition", "black sites" and unsubstantiated claims.
Everyone responsible for advocating or performing torture should be subjected to their own interpretation of "reasonable". An eye for an eye. Fucking assholes.
We constantly try to convince ourselves and the world that we're supposed to be some sort of role model after which all others should strive to emulate.
.my point.
:|
Time and time again, the evidence tends to show that we can actually be much worse than those countries we love to demonize.
Can you imagine what would happen if another country ( pick one ) started a program like the one we run for snatching up Americans ( or American Allies ) suspected of ties to $scarylabel ?
Perhaps building their own version of Guantanamo and holding them indefinitely without charges, trial or even notification to anyone they were being held at all ?
Everyone here knows exactly what the reaction would be. Drone strikes, commando raids, hell we might even send a Battle Group or three and park them off your coast. Regime change, invasion, air strikes, sanctions, excuse for new war toys testing, etc. etc.
As long as the country in question isn't a major power of course. We love to send in the troops to countries that cannot possibly defend themselves from our mighty war machine. Not so much into the countries that can. See any Russian or Chinese detainees in that lovely detention camp of ours ? Yeah . .
Ever see a bully pick on someone who could kick their ass ? Me either.
Wonder how our war-nuts would handle it if $evil_country started snatching our worldwide intelligence agents ( or just Americans and their Allies at random ) and subjecting them to the same tortu. . . . er. . . . enhanced interrogation techniques that we use. Would be hilarious to hear what insanity would spew forth from our Government about how . . . how . . . EVIL such a thing is. How DARE they do that to an American ?! Resolutions !! Declarations !!! OMGTEHHORROR !! ( Fox News would just implode I think )
To the rest of the world, I would like to apologize for the arrogance, hypocrisy and illogical ideology of our "elected" government. If you have any ideas on how to fix it, we're all ears.
Scary black man? In your mind, every person that pulls the lever for a Republican candidate is a racist bigot.
I am a conservative actually, and a Republican.
Your "Torture" report and ad hominem screed are as typical of your political viewpoint as mine is.
Many people don't like Obama. Not liking him, and disagreeing with his policies, and those of the Democratic party, is OK in my book.
I disagree with your hard left wing, hair-on-fire, bleeding heart liberal viewpoints as much as you disagree with mine.
You "Won a game of Bingo"? What are you even talking about?
If you think I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama and the Democratic party's policies, maybe you are the "Vile POS" you so eloquently speak of.
This "Torture report" is pure politics, plain and simple. Shame on President Obama and the Senate Democrats.
The viewpoints expressed are my sincerely held beliefs; not "Talking Points".
You can dish it out, but you just can't take the heat.
It's OK: I'm used to it. I live in Massachusetts, eyeball deep in Liberal Democrats and their worldview.
... precise surgical removal of heads, on their captive, without applying any anesthesia ...
Now which one is more BRUTAL ???
Except that doesn't work, because people being tortured will say anything to make it stop. At no point when they change their stories can you be certain they're now telling the truth. Even if their stories suddenly match, it could be a complete fluke, or as a result of the interrogator asking leading questions. Torture is useless.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Ah but that's where international treaties and international law come in. If it is a war, then treat the prisoners like prisoners of war.
Not following it because the enemy combatants have not signed it? CONGRATULATIONS, that is literally the Nazi justification for atrocities.
Yes, godwinning, but treating "enemy combatants" inhumanely is ridiculously stupid, shortsighted, and loses the moral high ground.
The waterboarding done by the Japanese involved putting a hose down peoples throats, filling their stomachs to the bursting point and then hitting the victims stomach with sticks until it actually did burst.
Not even close to the same thing.
They didn't have fun, to be sure, but brutal it wasn't.
Your ability to think of something more horrific does not mean it was not brutal. All you proved is that there are even more horrible things that can be done but that does not in any way mitigate or excuse needlessly harsh treatment of another human being. Just because you don't leave a mark doesn't mean it isn't torture and certainly doesn't make it right.
Oh just fuck off. If you actually read TFA, you'd see that it also indicates that Bush had little to no knowledge of the specifics of the interrogations or their brutality
Ahh, plausible deniability. I'm pretty sure he didn't ask either and it wasn't as if no one ever brought the subject up. Almost everyone involved reports to him so he is responsible on some level regardless of whether he knew all the details or not.
Also, waterboarding was done on 3 prisoners, though the media would have you believe every single prisoner in gitmo had it done to them. The onus here is on the CIA, primarily.
The CIA reports to the president. Even if it was just 1 person that is 1 too many. I expect our leaders and those trusted with protecting this country to behave better.
I prefer this memo: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/
Part of being the "good guys" means NOT being the "bad guys".
More people die in traffic accidents EVERY YEAR than the "terrorists" have ever killed here. So why give up a morally superior position to "fight" people who pose almost no threat to anyone outside their own countries?
I prefer to discourage people from attacking my countrymen, and simultaneously limit their capabilities to do so. That often means killing the people who are trying to kill us, until they get the idea that trying to kill us is a bad idea. Their incompetence in killing us does not erase the trespass. People who get into accidents have their insurance rates go up. People who try to kill us get killed. Actions have consequences.
If your neighbor was trying to kill you, repeatedly, would you tolerate it? Would you find the milk in your cereal curdled one day from poison, push it away, then look out your window and say 'Ah, nice try Mohammed! Maybe next time!.' I mean, you might notice that next crude tripwire before you set off the IED in your hedges.
You wouldn't tolerate it. You'd have him thrown in jail at the first try. Back to the national scale, if the people trying to kill us are in countries that will have them thrown in jail, great. If not, well, now we're back to the concept of war between distinct states or peoples. The fact that one side is weak and incompetent does not mean they get to keep trying without reprisal.
What you seem to advocate- ignoring attacks by barbarians as just another risk in modern society- is in it's own special moral vacuum. I'm having a hard time fathoming how such a dereliction could seem morally superior to you, and I can only guess your education has been a steady diet of 'Western civilization is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.' That sort of 'critical theory' rubbish has been all the rage in higher education for decades.
(I'm not studied up enough on the topic at hand- 'enhanced interrogation'- to condemn it or defend it.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
If torturing one prisoner could demonstrably save millions of lives, the act might still be immoral but it would certainly be welcomed by nearly everyone
That my friend is the very definition of a strawman argument with a bit of Reductio ad absurdum thrown in for good measure.
That's a fancy way of saying your argument is nonsense.
According to this, Bush approved the general program in 2002 but wasn't briefed on the specifics of the brutal methods being used until 2006, with which he was uncomfortable:
I doubt he asked either because then he wouldn't have plausible deniability. And if he was "uncomfortable" with the specifics once he became aware of them it didn't seem to cause him to act on his supposed discomfort. He was the president at the time and if he told them to stop they (probably) would have. If he didn't tell them to stop then he was the spineless misanthrope many of us suspected him to be.
There is no such thing as a terrorist. But it must be nice to see the world in black and white, saves you the trouble of having to actually think about or empathize with other humans. "
If not terrorists, how about Barbarians who must be kept at bay? The people who think we need to empathize with barbarians are often under the following mistaken impressions:
1) Westerners are the only real evil in the world today.
2) Westerners are the only people who act; who have agency. All other people do not have their own plans, thoughts and ideals- they merely react to what westerners do. They are automatons we can control through correct choices.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Inquisition. Witch Hunt. McCarthyism. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Anyone else notice a pattern?
Torturing terrorists was never about the terrorists. It was about us. This is what morally flawed humans and arguments always fail at.
Here are some typical defenses for torturing terrorists:
- it's "not really" torture;
- it works;
- they are bad and we are good. Therefore we can torture them and it's justifiable;
- any one of our lives is worth any number of their lives. Therefore we can sacrifice an infinite number of their lives on the merest pretext that it might save one of ours;
- they are part of their tribe and we are part of ours. We can therefore ignore their needs and humanity.
Now here are the arguments against torture:
- in many cases, we have not actually proven they are terrorists;
- the merits of our systems (democracy, rule of law, habeas corpus, etc.) are self-evident. While we might talk them up to raise awareness, public relations is a simple go-with rather than a necessity to win and keep friends;
- when we behave like the enemy in order to defeat the enemy, we become indistinguishable from them;
- we destroy the internal life and morality of our troops, our intelligence analysts and our citizens when we force them to torture;
- we also lose the propaganda war when we torture. The enemy already says that we are immoral. Should we hand them victory on that score, even in our own minds? What about those of our allies and potential allies?
- the information gathered by torture is of questionable quality. I won't say it never works, or even how often. The question itself is irrelevant;
- when we torture we strengthen tribalism. Tribalism is one of the hallmarks of the enemy. Again we begin playing to the terrorists strengths.
Again, when we torture it's all about us, how we see ourselves, and what torture does to us. That is why I can never condone torture. Those who do have an irredeemable stain on their hands. I do not defend them or their actions.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you are OK with others torturing you and your loved ones, then by all means, support torture!
I realize this is a distracting thing to say, and I don't support torture, and it appears we've used it, and it's a crime that no one in power will unfortunately ever be held accountable to. My intent was more to say that I haven't RTFA or summary report; and I was responding only to the position of 'let's just ignore them because they're so terrible at killing us.'
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
...this is entirely the Democratic party trying to blame Bush yet again, six years into Obama's presidency. Stop posting propaganda.
"Fire Still Hot"
"Water Still Wet"
The uselessness of torture as an interrogation tool was conclusively described about 400 years ago in "Cautio criminalis" by Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld. You are free to ignore 400 years of knowledge though. But then you are just ignorant.
Always keep a dictionary handy, it saves looking foolish.
oligarchy
/quote?
[ol-i-gahr-kee]
Examples
Word Origin
noun, plural oligarchies.
1.
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That is what the CIA does. We should not be surprised. Covert assassination, Toppling legitimate foreign Governments, Dealing Crack in the USA, and that is only the things that are publicly know. Give me a break - outraged that they lied to Congress, Come on - their bread and butter is DECEIT!
This was 100% politics and had little to do with much else. Why else release such inflammatory information AGAIN?
...
The really sad part though is that it is highly possible that the release of this report will cost Americans their lives. The world is a dangerous place, but it's stupid to poke the enemy or hand them such a public relations win as this will be. We will be lectured by Iran and North Korea for human rights abuses and you can bet ISIS will be happy to use this to recruit/conscript more help.
(sarcasm)Oh Yea! That's great.. (/sarcasm)
The really sad part is that people get so caught up in petty politics that they can't see that torturing people is immoral and ineffective and that maybe we should consider not fucking torturing people and hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other people are worse than us."
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Explain why that's relevant.
No, it does not - it applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States, except where it says otherwise. Go ahead, try to actually read it - e.g. "the right of people to keep and bear arms ...". And yes, there are court cases that have established that as a precedent, too.
There are different rules on the battlefield, but once you capture them and bring them under US jurisdiction, all constitutional protections apply.
In any case, torture is an atrocity and a war crime regardless of what US Constitution says about it.
terrorists, stop being an idiot. Richard Reid tried to light a shoe bomb and didn't kill anyone, yet let at all of the trouble and hassle EVERYONE who flies has to go through now. It isn't always about death. It's also about our way of life. How much money do you think is being spent to find explosives on persons who fly?
So stop saying "More people are killed by albino left-handed sharks than terrorists because that isn't the point."
No, that's exactly the point. We've completely caved to fear and thrown what little moral standing we had in the world right out the window. We've spent well over a trillion dollars, killed thousands of people directly, tens of thousands indirectly and replaced an evil but fairly contained dictator with a sectarian battlefield. Because we're bad at math and suck at assessing threats. We are a nation cowards, armed to the teeth and afraid of shadows. We are the fucking boogieman.
And before I get shit for it, no I don't think we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 and terrorists are asshats. But that doesn't justify overreacting and it doesn't justify holding people sans due process and torture.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. Certainly not to unlawful enemy combatants.
What are the first three words of the Constitution? "We the citizens?"
No, the constitution goes to great lengths to not limit rights to citizens except where it is natural (like rights to vote or run for office).
And what court has decided that they are "unlawful"? To be unlawful, there has to be law. Not just hearsay.
unlawful enemy combatants
Sorry, as a non-American, what does that euphemism even mean? I only heard it a couple of time coming out of US media and it makes no sense.
Are there "lawful" enemy combatants and under who's law these ones unlawful?
And aren't they enemy combatants because a "coalition of forces" invaded their countries?
Not trolling, but is that just a euphemism to put an air of respectability around 'they are the bad guys so anything goes' ?
Terrorize and interrogate your govt.
I think the US Constitution purports to apply to federal actors. It seems to be worded in a way to put limits on their behavior.
As Lysander Spooner wrote:
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Personally, I think its purpose is to dupe people into believing that the racket that calls itself the United States of America is somehow a legitimate form of thuggery.
Torture is useless as an intelligence tool. It is also counterproductive for any reason other than a "sense of vengeance".
Sure, it satisfies that, but then you lose the moral high ground. And that shit is actually important.
I always thought that far Right wing social conservatives believed in torture beccause their God is the king of torture. Don't believe or forget to go to church on Sunday, and's it's into the barbeque forever for you, sinner! They wanna get in on the act too..
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's not useless, but it is limited. For example if you have two subjects who you suspect both have information about a certain subject you can separate them and ask them questions then torture them when their answers don't match. Since in most cases they won't have a pre-arranged story eventually they'll capitulate and tell the only thing they know the other one can confirm. Still horrible, still not ethical in most cases but not useless.
Doesn't that fly in the face of the other rationale that you have to torture the perp because you only have an hour before whatever you only have an hour before to do? Takes some time to play the compared stories game.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Releasing this report for purely political reasons does. People can mod my original post as flamebait but that's bullshit. Why wasn't the report released before now? Why now? Why wasn't ANYONE in the program interviewed to be included in the report? Why are all of the dems that were in congress saying they knew nothing about this when it was proven that they were included in the briefings?
Look, you may not like what was done. I can respect that. But releasing this report for pure political reasons is inexcusable.
Are there "lawful" enemy combatants and under who's law these ones unlawful?
Yes, there are. I'll explain in a moment. The Law in this case is International Law - the Geneva Convention, among others, is involved here.
And aren't they enemy combatants because a "coalition of forces" invaded their countries?
Yes, that is part of what makes them enemy combatants. The other part is that they chose to shoot at those invaders.
Ok, so some explanation -- there's some rules of war that the countries in power at the time put together. They include things like soldiers needing to wear a uniform with identifying marks for the country (or group in cases where you might not have an officially recognized country) in whose service they are fighting. If two of those powers went to war, they'd follow those rules (in theory), and soldiers of the other side would be lawful enemy combatants (or usually just enemy combatants, contrasted against enemy civilians).
If some of those soldiers stripped off their uniforms and did stuff against those rules, they could be disavowed by the other country -- they were out of uniform and therefore they were unlawful enemy combatants. The special rules regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War wouldn't apply. They could be held after the cessation of hostilities, for example, and could be tried by the country that captured them for their crimes rather than those acts (such as mass-homicide and such) being considered acts of war and therefore somehow perfectly acceptable.
So if these insurgent groups wore a uniform of some sort, and followed a normal command structure, and didn't hide in civilian populations, they could be lawful enemy combatants. They'd also be a lot easier to eliminate, which is why they don't do that. However, because they aren't playing by the Big Powers rules, that means the Big Powers don't technically need to follow those rules either. I still think we should, but that's a separate discussion.
That should hopefully help you understand where the term comes from, and why it gets used in reference to actions like this.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
www.rectalfeeding.com could be a thing
But the blow back undoes any advantage you got. The enemy knows we torture and uses it as a propaganda tool. Ie, the US does a better job of recruiting for Al Qaeda than Al Qaeda does. Also our friends know we torture and then don't want to be around friends so much (not a problem for US because we think "friend" means "does what we ask with no questions"). And it means that all those other countries out there are saying "hey, if US can torture then we can torture too!", or "if US can violate Geneva convention, then we can too!" And when our soldiers get captured, and they will, the enemy will use the same techniques we use or worse.
That's the main reason why so many in politics just wanted to cover all this up. They know it causes problems for the US, but it's ridiculous to pretend it doesn't exist or that anyone eventually freed from Guantanamo is lying when they claim to be tortured. If we don't want blowback from torture then we shouldn't do it.
Remember these are all interrogation methods disallowed by the army. The army knows there would be blowback. But they're ok for the CIA?
Another problem is that the interrogation techniques were not originally designed to get information. They were originally developed to get captured soldiers to admit to false confessions. Then the US used training for our soldiers so that they could attempt to resist such methods. Then ridiculously the CIA adopts those techniques and think that they would work to get useful intelligence. It's BS. If the CIA does know what it is doing then it is not using these enhanced interrogations to get information but for some other motivation (please the boss, please the political base, make it seem like we're doing something, finally have a suitable job for those who flunked the psych exam at Langley, etc).
Now there's this idiotic justification I do hear, not from politicians but the fanboys of one party or the other. That we treat the prisoners better than so many other countries. Dumb. That's like saying you beat your wife less than the neighbor does. Really, do these morons think that the standard of conduct should be "don't be as bad as North Korea"?
If you come up with the idea for an interrogation technique called "Anal Feeding" you aren't the one that gets to decide if it's justified or legal.
-Dave Brockie
If it was intended as some sort of partisan football, it would have been released BEFORE the election, not after.
The Flamebait mod was quite appropriate
I see.
Terrorizing is bad.
So obviously the solution is more terrorizing.
For a while I've been telling people they've been saying it wrong... it's not the "War On Terror"... it's the War OF Terror.
Anyone still wondering why Americans can't really set foot outside of the US safely can thank the CIA. There's nothing for controlling your populace quite like making it impossible to leave, but if you can make it impossible to leave by making every other human being on Earth want to kill you, you get CIA Bonus Bucks! Everyone else does your work for you, and all you have to do is be a morally bankrupt and empty, repulsive, sadistic, vicious, evil fuck!
Sounds like it's right up their alley, doesn't it? Most Americans saw the pictures that leaked of Abu Ghraib Prison and were repulsed. The CIA took one look at that chick giving the thumbs up and pointing to the Iraqi prisoner and got a MASSIVE HARD-ON! BOOOOING!
The irony is of course that they're now insisting that torturing people saved lives, which even were it true, (which of course it's not, it's total bullshit,) did they stop to ask if we were willing to make our individual safety and survival as a nation contingent upon their being able to torture people like they did?
Of course they didn't ask... because they knew we'd resoundingly say... NO!
All except assholes and fucking sniveling cowards, but who gives a fuck what they think?
... is that all of this, going back to 9/11, then back to the bombing of the USS Cole, then back to Oklahoma City, then back to Vietnam, then back to WWII, and WWI before that, back to the war of 1812 and before that even, is Obama's fault. He should have prevented all of this.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you don't want the world to be offended at your behavior then don't commit atrocities! If you don't want horrible people to lecture you on your behavior then don't sink to their level.
At this point your top concern seems to be damage control from the bad publicity. Do you know what the best course of action for the United States is at this point? The best course of action is to find those responsible for the atrocities and hold them accountable.
Brenner says CIA was unprepared for all that stuff. Didn't they practiced a lot in Latin America in the 70s?
The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. Certainly not to unlawful enemy combatants.
"unlawful enemy combatant" was a term made up during the bush administration to cover arbitrary detainment, torture and assassination. it was explicitly abandoned during the obama administration (whereas perpetrations continued). the term never made any legal sense whatsoever since "enemy combatants" can, by definition, exist only in the context of a declared war and the us never acknowledged its agressions as such, so it's moot. even then, the victims would be protected by the geneva convention and these crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction so what the us constitution says in this regard is irrelevant. of course, that those sick bastards someday get actually prosecuted is a different story, aint gonna happen.
oh, and by the way, us citizens could and actually were declared "unlawful enemy combatants", and were abused this way.
So they'd be lawful of they put on obvious clothes and stood outside so they could be systematically shot from above by drones? Nice logic right there. Of you want a perfectly fair fight, send in as many of your soldiers as they have, with the same level of weaponry and then see how it goes down. Calling them cowards because they don't fight a war on your terms, where you have drones and cruise missiles to kill from 100 miles away is, well, cowardly of you.
Also, by your logic, pain clothes, undercover agents are fair game for torture when captured.
You still going to stick with that line?
The only thing worse than living in a world filled with monsters is not having your own monster. Nobody likes the killers after the dirty work is done but we keep them around because it would a death-wish not to.
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Nah. You're confusing cause and effect. They just expect it from God because they'd do it.
Well...Obama's ratings are down again so he attacks his own government again for the same crap we already knew about when Bush was around. Does Obama even have a job other than golfing and lying when he's not trying to actively screw his own nation just for kicks.
You know what really pisses me off? That damn windshield that has to be installed on every car. SERIOUSLY?? I have never once been hit in the face with high wind, blown insects or leaves, or even rain while I've been driving. Yet we still have to have those windshields on every single car.
Yes, just like terrorists. You don't like the protections because you don't see any terrorist attacks. But if we removed the protection and it were KNOWN we removed them how many terrorists would jump at the opportunity?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
The people who think we need to empathize with barbarians are often under the following mistaken impressions:
...
2) Westerners are the only people who act; who have agency. All other people do not have their own plans, thoughts and ideals- they merely react to what westerners do. They are automatons we can control through correct choices.
Well said.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Another problem is that the interrogation techniques were not originally designed to get information. They were originally developed to get captured soldiers to admit to false confessions.
As was the case here. The the Bush/Cheney administration knew that they wouldn't get any useful intelligence from torture, but they wanted "evidence" pointing towards Saddam, so that they could start another war.
You are, of course, specifically referring to the section commonly known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments do not grant rights to anyone. The constitution does not grant rights to anyone. Doing so would make them privileges and not rights as rights are inherent and not something that can be granted. The Bill of Rights specifically limits the ways in which the government in allowed to infringe upon our rights. This is true both in intent and in wording. Further, those amendments do not make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. You should try actually reading it sometime.
As far as "unlawful enemy combatants" goes, there is no such thing in international law. That is a term that was manufactured to make people feel better about denying folks their due process and to make torture easier to stomach. The people who created and support that sort of thing are cowards who lack any sort of honor or dignity. It is a stain on the country that will take decades or longer to wash off.
Germans called the French Resistance terrorists.
Play Command HQ online
Yet, you have surely seen a lot of insects, leaves or rain drops splashing on the windshield. Now compare that to the fight against terrorism...
So they torture people by waterboarding, painful physical positions, confining people in cold/hot/confined/rough/hazardous places, sleep deprive them for hundreds of hours, starve them, beat them, deafen them. ....And they lie too? They lie? They don't tell the truth to the US Congress, the US Senate, Federal Judges, the American People. They lie too? After all that torture, killing (some of the waterboarding was 'too successful'), some of those waterboarded (one prisoner was waterboarded nearly 200 times, another was waterboarded over 80 times in a single month), one was incoherent for days after being waterboarded. Tortured people will say anything to make it stop. Any information gained is questionable. As one man who was tortured put it: "Torture tells you nothing about the person being tortured, but tells you a lot about the people doing the torturing." So now we know about the C.I.A. We know about people like Dick Cheney, who was the Dr. Goebels to George W. Bush's Hitler. The C.I.A. is a 3 letter agency. They could save space by cutting out one letter. Eg: SS. And two lightning bolts could represent for them quick action.
However, because they aren't playing by the Big Powers rules, that means the Big Powers don't technically need to follow those rules either.
This is so horribly wrong that I don't even know how you came to this conclusion. There is nothing in law anywhere that says that if someone else is breaking the law that you are released from your obligations to follow it. Specifically in terms of the Geneva Convention and wartime conduct, you are *not* allowed to ignore the law even if your opponent is. Doing so will just cause both of you to potentially end up on trial.
So if these insurgent groups wore a uniform of some sort, and followed a normal command structure, and didn't hide in civilian populations, they could be lawful enemy combatants
Why would they do all of that when they are already lawful combatants? They weren't hiding in civilian populations...they were/are civilian populations. Al Quadia (as an example) is not a nation state and as such it is not bound by the Geneva Convention. The US Military (for example) is part of a nation state and is always bound by the Geneva Convention (specifically the 3rd Convention dealing with prisoners...the rest don't have to apply if the conflict doesn't involve another nation state, though they should be followed anyway and UCMJ is in line with that). The Geneva Convention does not apply to insurgent forces, civilians, homegrown militias, or other forces that are not affiliated with a nation state (this is where Blackwater gets hairy.) So if you send your military to fight a criminal organization, you still must respect the rules of war while they are free to disregard them as they please. It is up to you to try them in a court of law for any criminal acts that they commit.
Sure, it satisfies that, but then you lose the moral high ground. And that shit is actually important.
Hah. As if any of the blame-America-first crowd would ever concede any kind of high ground!
"What's that? You're not torturing? Well, err, you're invading. For OIL!" ... umm ... well, you have too many bases around and the world and that's bad because reasons!"
"What's that? Not invading? Err
"What's that? No more bases? Well, erm, you're evil because racism! And bad healtchare! And hicks!"
Face it - doesn't matter what the US does or doesn't do; the battle lines are already drawn. Trying to placate those who hate you is asinine. As for those of us who don't hate you, torturing a few scumbags certainly isn't going to push us over the line.
And it's bizarro-world when John McCain, who was tortured for years in Vietnam, leaving him permanently physically damaged, agreed with Bush that waterboarding and other 'enhanced' interrogation methods were OK.
Totally Party-line over what's right, or even personal beliefs.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The really sad part is that people get so caught up in petty politics that they can't see that torturing people is immoral and ineffective and that maybe we should consider not fucking torturing people and hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other people are worse than us."
Yes, you're right. Let's just do what Obama does and kill people, including women, children and American citizens, by remote control. Much cleaner and neater.
Torture is useless as an intelligence tool. It is also counterproductive for any reason other than a "sense of vengeance".
Sure, it satisfies that, but then you lose the moral high ground. And that shit is actually important.
It doesn't matter if it is effective. It doesn't matter if they lied about it. What matters is that the USA tortures people and torture is wrong.
"The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. Certainly not to unlawful enemy combatants."
Horse Shit. The document is a framework for the structure of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments provide limitations and restrictions on that government. Law is law, and anyone brought before a US court is entitled to protection from the tyranny of government action which is not in accordance with the Constitution or any duly enacted legislation or ratified international treaties.
That is why the suspension of Habeas Corpus, which originated before the United States was a gleam in the eyes of our ancestral slave traders, rum runners, territory thieves and genocidalists, is so damaging to the concept of international law or the myth of American leadership or exceptionalism.
Why are Americans always think its them against the world? More specifically, why do they think(or afraid of) people from other countries only want to attack US? Is it the reality or its just the news\Hollywood depicting US differently than what the reality is?
People advocating torture always forget how many "witches" were hanged (or killed using other way) after they confessed all sort of satanic rituals and demonic concourse.
Sure nowadays the torture is less likely to leave physical traces in america, beside that torture is maoral and unethical, the lessons has long been known that torture is useless in getting informaztion out of people. Heck they might as well have asked the guatabnamo prisonner if they were witches and gotten positive answers.
But in the end for American, now their security is WORST than it was before. because 1) for decades they wilkl be known as hypocrite torturing people and putting them in prison forver without due process 2) they won't be able to pretend to have any moral ground whatsoever if somebody else torture an american to get "information".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"The enemy knows we torture and uses it as a propaganda tool..."
I suggest you don't use the word "we". They would certainly torture you if that's what they wanted.
accountability is only a bullet away ....
Now, why should DICK Cheney's lap dog be sent to jail? That's like convicting Pinky and letting The Brain walk free.
Stop cheering until someone actually goes to jail over this.
the US does a better job of recruiting for Al Qaeda than Al Qaeda does
This is a really important point that the US still doesn't seem to understand. It's not just torture either, take drone strikes as another example. By remotely killing faceless civilians from an air conditioned room somewhere the US just de-humanizes themselves in the eyes of their victims, making it even easier to hate and despise them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nah. You're confusing cause and effect. They just expect it from God because they'd do it.
In the true spirit of "Man makes God in his own image".
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I believe the point he was making is that defending your home against a foreign invader as a civilian does not catapult you into "enemy combatant" status; it makes you (at most) guilty of murder in self defense.
But why quibble with pesky things like facts. I so much prefer your version of bullshit.
The really sad part is that people get so caught up in petty politics that they can't see that torturing people is immoral and ineffective and that maybe we should consider not fucking torturing people and hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other people are worse than us."
I'll accept your critique, but do try to THINK about and not just dismiss the political angle. This report was partisan in it's construction and partisan in it's release, and you can not dismiss that the timing of this was politically motivated. This was the democrats LAST CHANCE for at least 2 years to release this report which has been in the works now for at least 2 years (really more like 6+ years), not to mention that there clearly are things the administration wishes to deflect attention to going on right now. The timing was all about politics, make no mistake.
Also note that I'm not debating the issues raised, that some of what was done was neither helpful nor necessary and likely should have been avoided. I'm saying that the release of this information, at this time, is political and very partisan. If you cannot see that, then you are easily duped by rhetoric from your side. I suggest you be careful, politicians lie, mislead and obscure things to their advantage all the time.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In a way that's irrelevant, as utility does not trump morality, but it really does remove even the slightest justification for torture.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You gotta do what you gotta do. If someone was tied to terrorizing my neighborhood I would hang them from a chain, soak them with salt water, and zap them with a MIG Welder.
You're so butch that reading your post got me pregnant, and I'm not even a girl.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sure, but actually happened is that someone terrorized your neighborhood, so you just picked a random guy off the street in the terrorist's hometown and started torturing him.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Many of the connections to terrorism were tenuous at best, That someone you pick up that is "tied to the terrorist" could be the Subway "sandwich artist" that sold them a Pastrami foot long in the morning. If you then hung said condiment artisan them from a chain and applied some voltage, they would not only admit to the terrorizing, but they'd also admit to 9/11, admit to assassinating Archduke Ferdinand, and admit to blowing up the Maine and starting the Spanish-American war. You're usually just adding more hay to the haystack, not finding any new needles.
One of the big takeaways from the torture report is not only is torture wrong, but it's useless. So you dirty yourself for not a lot of gain. The mechanics of torture work closer to terror than you'd like to think. It's effective at scaring a big subset of your chosen population and emboldening a small subset. If you're a despot and trying to control a population, you probably can handle the said "emboldened" subset. But we're not talking control here, we're talking about getting actionable intelligence in a very short period of time. I remember a story where a captive was tortured and gave up nothing - but when an interrogator gave him sugar free cookies (he was diabetic) the interrogator seemed more human and gained trust and intelligence.
Yet, you have surely seen a lot of insects, leaves or rain drops splashing on the windshield. Now compare that to the fight against terrorism...
Yes I have seen those things because insects blown by the wind, leaves and drops of rain are incapable of being deterred the way a terrorist is.
Perhaps a better analogy regarding insects is a screen window. Why have one? Do you ever see insects flying into a screen? If no insects ever fly into the screen, then how can the screen be keeping the insects out of your house? The answer is deterrence. The insects see the screen in the window so they don't try to fly through the window.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I don't think the utility is really the strongest argument against it, I personally think it's unethical in all but the most unusual of cases and that's grounds enough. That said, I think you need to take the report produced with a grain of salt, it's not like the Democrats would come out in the current political environment and say "yeah, they did everything right and were completely justified, wow that Bush guy really knew what he was doing". (I didn't like or vote for Bush and don't really think he was a very good president but even if he was they wouldn't admit it)
Does morally misguided mean it's still moral? Does legally misguided mean it's still legal?
From top to bottom, if "I believed torture/preemptive strikes/FISA/giving banks a blank check/shooting to kill was the right thing to do.", regardless of how many people die or are violated or how much tax money it costs, then you were merely misguided?
Note that the report was heavily redacted. Aspects of this inhuman behaviour is still being held secret. Also, lets not forget those redacted pages also hide the role of the British Government.
We should be demanding access to the whole report before people prematurely claim that the US, and Britain, has regained the moral high-ground because they have played shrewdly in only having a partial release. A partial release is a partial apology.
I bet we hear, once again, refrains of National Security prevents us from releasing the report in full. We need to keep demanding full access to this report.
US and British Governments; Disgusting! Absolutely disgusting!
I would be very interested to hear what people have to say regarding different country's history of their government's self criticism. I can't recollect any recent publications or articles like this outside the US.
"do no torture on my behalf",
we should perhaps scream
I am willing to let X=8,143 people a year die from terrorist attacks rather than use torture
The number 8,143 is what we are arguing about.
The CIA thinks X is something small, like 1 child or 3 innocent adults.
The rest of us must think X is closer to 1M. Interestingly, it is the scientific humanists among us who claim X=Inf, even though they do not have a moral compass like the church telling them that. More proof that it does not take a religion to make one moral.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
People who conduct hostilities without uniforms are either (a) resisting an invasion before the regular army shows up (see the appropriate Hague convention for this), or (b) criminals. Criminals are not normally subject to punishment without a trial, and they are normally protected from cruel and unusual punishments after (and torture is, by definition, cruel).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Given that there are chemical methods of getting all the information you need torture is not done for getting information. It is done to bring a society to the level of Nazi scum. Anyone who goes along with torture either by doing it, defending it or ignoring that it is being done is complicit.
Sieg Heil America!
Sad to see because the USA was a great idea but the Nazification of the USA is now complete. Put your arm out in a nice Nazi salute all Americans. If you are one of the few who actually spoke out against it then you will be the next victim. There will be no room for dissent.
Sieg Heil America! Sieg Heil America! Sieg Heil America! Sieg Heil America! Sieg Heil America! Sieg Heil America!
So we are to take the word of a bunch of politicians who have spent the last 6 years lying to US citizens that the CIA lied to the politicians? Does anyone else see the irony of that? I will believe the CIA long before any politician. Many CIA agents have put their lives on the line for their country. If they are told something is legal they do it. Politicians on the other hand, at least most of them, spend their entire time in office lining their pockets and the pockets of their supporters.
Sure things may have been done that most Americans do not agree with, put it was the politicians that told them they could. And of course now the politicians are lying about that. While they are airing the dirty laundry of the CIA, why do they not release the transcripts of all the committee meetings leading up to these decisions. And while they are releasing information, I want to know everything about the run-up to Obamacare, all the withheld information about the IRS targeting Americans, Benghazi, and the whole fast and furious gun running fiasco. Every little piece of dirty laundry that the politicians are withholding for political reasons need to be posted publicly posthaste. Until that is done, I will not believe a politician telling me it is sunny outside until I can go out and look for myself.
So Blackwater and all the other mercs are unlawful combatants? I can go with that.
It dosent make it right but the people we are dealing with are absolutely ruthless and should be delt with as such. Protecting this country from this kind of threat is not clean work by any means. I dont think it is right but i understand why it is done. Also do you even think for a second that if one of us got caught by the terrorists that they would take it easy on you, hell no they cut off your head and show your family. So as far as im concerned we do what we have to do to protect our country and frankly i thank those people that have balls enough to get dirty so we dont have to.
CIA is run by politicians or generals and admirals converted to politicians. The preferred applicant generally accepted is a old money Ivy League Grad. The ones destined to be eternal grunts in the "company" are recruited from the military. A lawyer = politician. What do you call a lawyer who always tell the truth and performs in most ethical manner ? Answer: Homeless and broke. Not really a surprise is it considering the 1st director of the CIA was tried by congress for trading with the enemy. It is a tradition, ya think?
No, I am referring to the whole Constitution, None of it applies to non-US citizens. Unlawful enemy combatants refers to combatants not wearing a uniform. The Geneva Convention makes this clear.
POWs are treated according to the Geneva convention, not the US Constitution.
Ex parte Quirin, stating that military tribunals for POWs are constitutional, implies that constitution does apply. That Geneva also applies is orthogonal to that.
US citizens who join up with terrorists deserve everything they get. Their passports should be revoked and they should never be allowed back in.
So tell me about all the Germans and Japanese who were Mirandized when they were captured in WWII.
Are you sure Democrat leaders knew all about this? Sure that OBL was found through torture? Sure there's no value in letting the US public know what went on in the name of the US?
You do realize that Bush and company could have easily prevented this whole thing from happening, by not torturing. If we get lectured on human rights abuses, it's because we damn well deserve it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No we don't "deserve it" especially from the likes of North Korea, Russia, China or Iran.
Your questions, one at a time:
YES, democrats knew about this. They get classified briefings, same as the president. Plus you do recall they talked about some of this right? Or is your memory that short?
Pretty sure OBL was found though information obtained though interrogation done using "enhanced" techniques.
Finally: We already knew, maybe not the full extent, but we knew about waterboarding, we knew about sleep depravation, all where previously outlined in the press and recounted by former Gitmo residents. It was a subtext of Obama's first campaign for president.
So I ask you, why do we need to know the details? I don't think the details are all that important, and this report doesn't expose anything we already haven't discussed in the public forum. That we use "enhanced" techniques when questioning combatants during a war isn't that important. We've done it for all our history, as EVERY other country in the world has in times of war. We've done much worse in the past, and I think we showed remarkable restraint compared to what this country allowed during WWII.
But, if we stipulate that we shouldn't do this kind of stuff, I ask you if it's permissible to just kill them on the battle field? Would you rather we just do that? Oh wait a min, we ARE doing that RIGHT NOW! Are drone strikes so routine that YOU don't care about them? But how do you prosecute a war without killing people and breaking things? Shall we just talk to them and use reason? Yea, that's going to work..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Naw, kill 'em with drones when no one is looking, and kill their wives and children too. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. But mum's the word, because Democrats are doing it.
Murphy was an optimist
I suggest you actually read the decision in Quirin. That constitution applies doesn't mean that they get all the rights that civilians do.
It seems that the CIA is just another state sponsored terrorist organization. Look at what the terrorist organizations do and then look at what the CIA does, see if you can spot any difference.
> CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations
An “interrogation” is you sit someone down and ask them questions and they answer you or they don’t. When things are being shoved up someone’s ass, that is no longer an “interrogation” — it is an act of torture just like there are acts of rape and acts of murder. Torture has absolutely nothing to do with interrogations, just like rape and murder have nothing to do with interrogations. These people were tortured by agents of the US government solely for the gratification of those agents and the gratification of the architects of the torture program. “Interrogation” is simply the excuse they make, and you are making that excuse for them here for some reason.
tens of thousands indirectly
Make that hundreds of thousands; check out what Madeline Albright has to say about the estimated 500.000 infant deaths in Iraq. She thinks it was absolutely 'worth it'.
The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
Anyone who thinks that WAR is civilized and has moral and ethical standards are ignorant. The main reason we are still having to deal with terrorist today is that weak political groups and an uninformed propaganda media tells useful idiots how to think. The fact is we are not trying to win. It is just stupid to put a moral spin on war. For anyone to look at this report and be surprised fall into that group of a useful idiot. For all you think this is news are uninformed because this was all brought to our attention years ago and since then we have stopped the torture practice. The release of the CIA report was revenge from Democrats that are not good sports.
It wasn't released before the election because it is an unpopular partisan football. It wasn't released before the election because it would have cost the dems votes. Since they've already lost control of the senate they have to release it now before they lose control of the senate. Again, you're missing the point of why was this released now? Do you think that this report just happened to be finished at the end of November? Don't be naive. This report has been declassified since July. This report was released because as a lame duck dem senate there is nothing for them to lose.
Feinstein, along with Pelosi and other democrats, knew this was going on. They were briefed AS IT WAS HAPPENING. Was anyone in the CIA or anyone involved in these interrogations interviewed? NOPE. That should tell you everything right there.
The "flamebait" mod was bullshit because my comment was political. My comment was political because this report along with the timing of it's release was purely political. Again look who wrote the report, when it was ready, when it was released, and who was ignored.
Example of how a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Leads to wrong conclusions. If torture is done correctly, it's very very effective and reliable. You need to do some more research in those 400 years you speak of. You're the ignorant one. It's also a fact of life. If you're caught by some foreign power you can almost depend on being tortured. All I'd have to do is have you for a day. Put some electrodes under your finger nails. You will tell me whatever I want to know and I'll know if it's the truth, lie or you don't know fairly quickly and I'm considered an amateur by the real guys. You'll never forget it either.
and napolean, and just about everyone else who's tried it, outside of villians in pop culture. The problem with most of America, is that many people can't understand things beyond pop culture refrences.
It means that the people we trust to "keep us safe" are more involved with indulging their perversities than with doing what would work better in terms of gaining intelligence, (let alone any question of who's guilty or innocent, which was not determined at the time all these folks were apprehended and imprisoned); and that half the American public agrees with them. That oughta keep us safe.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You gotta do what you gotta do. If someone was tied to terrorizing my neighborhood I would hang them from a chain, soak them with salt water, and zap them with a MIG Welder.
And if you couldn't find them, then you'd find a bunch of random folks, and do it to them. Because this is serious, dammit!!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Are there "lawful" enemy combatants and under who's law these ones unlawful?
Yes, there are. I'll explain in a moment. The Law in this case is International Law - the Geneva Convention, among others, is involved here.
And aren't they enemy combatants because a "coalition of forces" invaded their countries?
Yes, that is part of what makes them enemy combatants. The other part is that they chose to shoot at those invaders.
Ok, so some explanation -- there's some rules of war that the countries in power at the time put together. They include things like soldiers needing to wear a uniform with identifying marks for the country (or group in cases where you might not have an officially recognized country) in whose service they are fighting. If two of those powers went to war, they'd follow those rules (in theory), and soldiers of the other side would be lawful enemy combatants (or usually just enemy combatants, contrasted against enemy civilians).
If some of those soldiers stripped off their uniforms and did stuff against those rules, they could be disavowed by the other country -- they were out of uniform and therefore they were unlawful enemy combatants. The special rules regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War wouldn't apply. They could be held after the cessation of hostilities, for example, and could be tried by the country that captured them for their crimes rather than those acts (such as mass-homicide and such) being considered acts of war and therefore somehow perfectly acceptable.
So if these insurgent groups wore a uniform of some sort, and followed a normal command structure, and didn't hide in civilian populations, they could be lawful enemy combatants. They'd also be a lot easier to eliminate, which is why they don't do that. However, because they aren't playing by the Big Powers rules, that means the Big Powers don't technically need to follow those rules either. I still think we should, but that's a separate discussion.
That should hopefully help you understand where the term comes from, and why it gets used in reference to actions like this.
Yes, enemy combatants who attempt to avoid identification are classified as spies and terrorists, and are not protected by rules of war. On the other hand, you do have to supply some evidence that they are actually combatants, and not just some shmuck picked up off the street, or turned in by a tenant who owed 6 months rent.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Page 115
You're implying that this was not useful information in the War On Terror. In fact, this was soon followed by Operation Smile, consisting of airdrops of huge numbers of filed toothbrushes over suspected enemy territory, followed by incessant bombardment with depressing Emo songs.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.-- Confucius
Casteism
This was 100% politics and had little to do with much else. Why else release such inflammatory information AGAIN?
...
The really sad part though is that it is highly possible that the release of this report will cost Americans their lives. The world is a dangerous place, but it's stupid to poke the enemy or hand them such a public relations win as this will be. We will be lectured by Iran and North Korea for human rights abuses and you can bet ISIS will be happy to use this to recruit/conscript more help.
(sarcasm)Oh Yea! That's great.. (/sarcasm)
The really sad part is that people get so caught up in petty politics that they can't see that torturing people is immoral and ineffective and that maybe we should consider not fucking torturing people and hold ourselves to a higher standard than "other people are worse than us."
When you're in the authoritarian hierarchical decision making mode, if your superiors tell you torture isn't immoral and anyway we're not doing it, then it's Your Truth. (See also "It's Not Warming, and Besides, Nobody Denies It's Warming, Scientists are Fraudsters")
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
That's your best reference, a guy who was talking about witchcraft trials? And you call it 400 years of knowledge because that? Wow. Just wow.
Torture is useless as an intelligence tool.
There have been instances in the history where torture has proven to be a helpful intelligence tool. The most notorious one has been that of General Jacques Massu using torture to completely uproot the leadership of the National Liberation Front in the Battle of Algiers. Massu has attributed his success to his technique of using torture hand in hand with extensive classic intelligence work.
The problem there was not that torture wouldn't work - it did, but it had some unpleasant side effects. You would inescapably end up torturing innocent people - but even torturing just the 'guilty' destroys your PR. The French ended up alienating the general population of Algiers (even more than before the incidents) and eventually had to leave the country. Meaning that torture helped them to win the battle but it had cost them the war.
The United States government is one of the largest and most active of those groups.
but at the very least you should make an effort to filter out the innocent people. The report showed that the US tortured pretty much anybody they wanted, even people they were sure were innocent. Same for people thrown in a hole in guantanamo.
I can sort of see why he likes it.
"Did every one of them live?"
Actually, no. Not all of them did.
So they'd be lawful of they put on obvious clothes and stood outside so they could be systematically shot from above by drones? Nice logic right there. Of you want a perfectly fair fight, send in as many of your soldiers as they have, with the same level of weaponry and then see how it goes down. Calling them cowards because they don't fight a war on your terms, where you have drones and cruise missiles to kill from 100 miles away is, well, cowardly of you.
I didn't make any statements agreeing or disagreeing with the system, I was describing it as it exists currently. It was written well before those technologies existed, and was meant for "conventional" warfare.
Also, by your logic, pain clothes, undercover agents are fair game for torture when captured.
You still going to stick with that line?
Yes, espionage agents are routinely part of the black-ops "disavowed by their government" and fair game for treatment as criminals rather than as prisoners of war.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
I believe the point he was making is that defending your home against a foreign invader as a civilian does not catapult you into "enemy combatant" status; it makes you (at most) guilty of murder in self defense.
Whether we invade you or you invade us, if you shoot at the members of the military on the "us" side, you are an enemy combatant to the people of that "us" side. I don't see how this is even a questionable point. You aren't "guilty" of anything, you are labelled as something.
Here, I'll make a simple set of qualifiers:
* Are you in combat with someone? Yes? You're a combatant.
* Are you shooting at the people on my side? Yes? You're an "enemy" combatant to the people on my side.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Democrats got briefed, yes. Did they get briefed truthfully? Truth in briefing doesn't seem to be in the NSA playbook.
Why are you pretty sure we got OBL from information from torture? Without further evidence, I'd suspect we got him through information derived from more reliable means,
We knew something was up with torture, but we didn't know the details. It was easy to disregard it as exaggerated, particularly after Obama swept it under the rug. Snowden's revelations didn't tell some of us much of anything we hadn't been fairly sure of, but it's really hard to convince other people of such things without solid evidence. Some people would think I was being paranoid.
Have you done much studying about torture in warfare? I haven't found good sources on it. I'm suspicious that this has been standard practice. Certainly US troops have roughed up PoWs, and sometimes killed them, but I haven't found much reference to torture by the US, and I don't read much blindly patriotic crap. It's worth noting here that most of the torture being covered was not from the US Armed Forces.
And, yes, in war it's perfectly legitimate to kill people on the battlefield, until they surrender. That's because they're out there, not under our control, and they're dangerous. Even so, it isn't legitimate to do certain things. The use of bullets that can't be detected by X-rays is banned, for example, as are weapons whose primary purpose is to blind or be poisonous. We can't torture an active enemy on the battlefield. We have to capture that enemy, at which point he is no longer a threat, and that means international law and military honor limit what we can do to the prisoners.
The report really did need to be released, in an attempt to rein in the CIA. If the CIA didn't want to deal with the consequences of torture, they shouldn't have tortured people.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And now they lie about the fact that they lied.
The CIA's usual operating procedure is to do everything in secret. Now the secret is out and there's nowhere to hide. So the CIA chain of command, both past and present, throw up a wall of flack to desperately try to avoid responsibility. By the way I don't hold the CIA solely accountable. This went all the way to the top, that's why Cheney has been so vocal about it. He too has blood on his hands.
They may avoid prosecution but the reputational damage is done. They have to live with that. Everyone involved has a stain on their hands and that is forever.
Take a look at all the professional weasels giving interviews, their eyes shifting back and forth. They try to parse every question and minimize everything. "Were you talking about Guantanamo, or the overseas black sites? Well FIRST of all Guantanamo was 100% approved by the President..." And so the dance of the excuses goes on. It's embarrassing and these weasels are left to defend the indefensible.
The country was not founded to permit or enable torture. Human rights and human dignity were paramount. Our moral authority to use force to defeat terrorism is based, ultimately, on the fact that we ourselves are not terrorists.
Does Slashdot still offer mod points? I wish I had some to give to Anguirel (58085). Human history is filled with periods of war (pick a Continent, any Continent). The Geneva Convention was created for a reason. If the US loses its "moral compass" and begins to believe the Geneva conventions can be set aside when its convenient, then we've taken a big step backwards instead of forward in terms of human progress.
Parts of it do apply to non-US citizens, though...
Democrats got briefed, yes. Did they get briefed truthfully? Truth in briefing doesn't seem to be in the NSA playbook.
This was NOT the NSA and Yes the Democrats got EXACTLY what the president got and then some. The President's Daily Brief is not just for his eyes, both the house and senate intelligence committees get copies.
As for the rest of your post, because you don't understand even the basic facts and procedures all that well and I don't have time to waste trying to educate you on how the intelligence system of the USA actually works, I'm just going to dismiss it. You obviously don't understand the difference between NSA and CIA or how all this took place, not to mention that you either are *really* young and didn't watch the news during the Iraq war, or your memory is pretty short. In any case, go back and read some about 9/11 and the Iraq war, specifically about what the democrats where saying about it back then. They knew full well what was going on.
Go learn something about what you are making confident assertions about. The rest of your post is useless and I don't have time to spend educating you on where you obviously don't understand how things really work.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In the U.S., sure, citizen suspects (not necessarily criminals -- we don't even know if they've done anything wrong at this point, after all, that's what trials are for) would be protected until convicted in trial, and then still protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Non-citizen suspects have somewhat fewer protections, but most of that would still apply (I believe in some cases they can be deported with a minimal trial or no trial, but I'm not certain). However, this isn't happening in the U.S., so they'd have whatever protections those countries offered. Many of them where the CIA set up these prisons, offer little to no protection against those sorts of things.
So if they're suspects of being hostile forces acting outside the conventions of warfare (e.g. unlawful combatants), they're subject to whatever punishments are allowed, and whatever trials are required in the place they're captured, or the place they're detained. There's a reason they haven't brought those people to the U.S. itself.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
I blame both sides which are the same party anyway.
It is too bad that did not dissuade them from torturing people in the first place. We deserve what is going to happen because of this.