First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate....
The second significant problem with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is its claim that the CIA routinely went beyond the interrogation techniques as authorized by the Justice Department. That claim is wrong....
Third, the report’s argument that the CIA misled the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, and the American people is also flat-out wrong....
Fourth, the majority left out something critical to understanding the program: context....
December 9, 2014
"The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity..."
"... to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks," say former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
209 comments:
1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»I hope they put on their overshoes before they read this report.
Well in reference to Ms. Althouse's immediately preceding post title--it may be time to put on your overshoes whilst reading this Democrat prepared report.
But then it's not nice to fool Mother Feinstein.
Fuck our allies. We don't need them or their help anyways! Far more important to make our partisan points and fuck you to the American people too, for taking away our majority.
a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question
It's not the first, not the most significant, and certainly not the last.
I think it's interesting that the CIA, which isn't allowed to have an institutional opinion on such a report, uses retired spooks to speak for it.
The idea that torture doesn't work is dumb. The idea that torture is wrong is not dumb.
The self righteous who want to make war into a polite gentleman's game of rules really do get a kick out of looking down their noses at the fighters.
Somebody needs to ask a Sainted Dem if those laws are also changeable by Presidential order?
At least in the hourly radio reports I've heard so far today, there's no mention of the report being prepared only by the Democratic majority staff.
Compare this to the media always being careful to zealously label any report, hearing, or House action even slightly critical of the Obama Administration as coming from the Republican majority.
tim in vermont:
The prevailing Democrat paradigm is DRAT: Displace, Replace, Abort, and Tax. It's side-effects are soothed with a liberal dose of redistributive change.
That said, there is evidence of progressive opportunistic behavior from each competing interest, partisan and otherwise, which is, unfortunately, neither a revelation nor innovative.
Perhaps we need a review of the meaning of torture. The selective exploitation of a narrow definition in this report is counterproductive but expected. It is the prevailing paradigm in the political domain.
the CIA should rember this attempt to smear them at th behest of democratic operatives for the furtherance of democrats. Of course we should also remember that many dems in the CIA were actually complicit in the politization of 9/11 and subsequent policies.
The dirty secret about interrogations is that "everybody talks" if enough of the right pressure is applied. Which is why SERE training is focused on keeping the operational details secret long enough for them to be useless or for our operators to pull out of the compromised ops.
John Lynch: The idea that torture doesn't work is dumb. The idea that torture is wrong is not dumb.
the idea the enhanced interrogation techniques are necessarily torture may also be dumb.
One organization that is taking a very defensive posture about torture is the AFIO -- Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Here is their spin on the report.
Am I right about this:
Torture is said not to work, because a tortured person will say what is needed to end the torture.
If the torturers know some information and are using the informant to confirm things and develop their leads, and the tortured person understands that and anticipates that what he gives will be checked out, he will give useful information.
If information is already known, then the tortured person cannot be said to be an independent source of the information.
The report says torture is not useful because it doesn't produce any independent information.
So the way that torture works is excluded as a way that counts as working.
John Lynch said...
The idea that torture doesn't work is dumb. The idea that torture is wrong is not dumb.
So is war, tyranny, and slavery. So if we gotta tune up some villians to get the goods...............I can live with it.
cheers
Well, most of them are lawyers, after all.
Althouse: "So the way that torture works is excluded as a way that counts as working."
That is a perfect encapsulation of how the left is defining "works".
Unless they're chopping off fingers or pulling out fingernails it's not real torture.
"The dirty secret about interrogations is that "everybody talks" if enough of the right pressure is applied. Which is why SERE training is focused on keeping the operational details secret long enough for them to be useless or for our operators to pull out of the compromised ops."
waterboarding works almost as well as full on torture with none of the damage. Which is also why we can use it for training purposes on SERE cadets. Because we can't actually torture them. But we want to get them to try to withstand breaking as Long as possible using some form of coercive action.
If we were to really tortute them they wouldn't then be able to go out and fight as soldiers. Did you ever see sadaam Hussein's torture videos. They chop people's tongues out snap their arms so they look like an L throw them off of roofs.wayerboarding is not comparable to those things.
Journalists would not test whether getting thrown off a roof top is torture by using themselves as a test case. By that logic I could go on Great Adventures free fall scream
And pass out and then say it was torture.
By the way how would those calling waterboarding torture feel if we put people on amusement park rides as part of enhanced interrogation but don't tell them they are amusement park rides. Would that shock the conscience the way chopping someone's tongue out might.
In the case of torture the goal is often not to get information but to inspire terror. If you are trying to get information though water boarding works as well as full on torture (on both sere cadets as well as the few it was used on) so that we don't Need to go further to actual shock the conscience torture.
"The report says torture is not useful because it doesn't produce any independent information."
And this is directly controverted by Marc Thiessen's many articles on the subject, written from his perspective inside the Bush White House.
I don't believe we can call it "torture" when the waterboarding and sensory discomfort is something we use to train our own operators prior to deployment in special operations.
Let me repeat to lefties:
discomfort != torture.
one thing is not the other thing.
Mike - I fail to understand why we even bother training our troops with waterboarding when we know ISIS goes straight to beheading.
And this is directly controverted by Marc Thiessen's many articles on the subject, written from his perspective inside the Bush White House.
LOL
Count down to when Garage pops in with his "why do we call it a war crime when the Japs waterboard people?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But the Imperial Army actually filled people's stomachs to overflowing with water, which is torture, and deadly to boot.
Alex, I presume it's because the are other bad guys we will face other than ISIS. There ain't much resistance to beheading. I'm pretty sure you can't train for it either.
Tenet, Goss, Hayden, McLaughlin, Calland and Kappes...that's a Mt. Rushmore of skilled, professional liars.
Professor-
You are correct that torture is only useful if you have a way to sort the truth from the lies.
One way to check is to compare to independently known information: if they aren't contradicting information that you already know, then the additional information is likely also true.
Another way to check is to degrade their cognitive functions, and see if their story changes. It is mentally much easier to tell the truth than to lie consistently. All those horrible things we do- sleep deprivation, loud music, stress positions- are not about breaking their will. They are about degrading their ability to lie effectively. They work.
So the way that torture works is excluded as a way that counts as working.
I thought I knew where you were going, but I didn't. I think you are right.
Any information revealed by a hostile (e.g. enemy, traitor) source cannot not be considered without corroborating evidence or testimony . Interrogation is not useful because it doesn't produce any independent information.
Skeptical Voter: "But then it's not nice to fool Mother Feinstein."
Feinstein wasn't "fooled".
Nor were any of the democrats who were there from the beginning, fully briefed, fully involved, and who provided complete moral and legislative approval for acts taken by the CIA officers.
This report, issued only by the Dem soon-to-be-history Senate majority, is nothing less than a full-court press to alter history and pretend they had nothing to do with anything that occurred and, worse, they were "lied to".
They are attempting a massive "Gruber" on their approval and involvement in the effort.
Given all the CIA career officer leaks designed to hurt the Bush admin, I'm almost nonchalant about this. But then you must remember the men and women on the front lines who did the work and you realize you cannot just leave them to twist in the wind.
bbkingfish: "Tenet, Goss, Hayden, McLaughlin, Calland and Kappes...that's a Mt. Rushmore of skilled, professional liars."
Well then, I guess we'll be looking to carve the images of Obama and the Clintons into the face of Olympus Mons.
Senate Democrats? Oh yeah, these are the people that lied to us about Obamacare.
@AA: So the way that torture works is excluded as a way that counts as working.
Correct. We appreciate the mini-fisking.
But it is only surprising if one starts with the assumption that the writers operate in good faith.
A better assumption would be that a report written by Dems on behalf of Dems about the CIA will aim to harm the organization, undermine our defense, and aid and abet the enemy. Anything that deviates from the expected party line would be surprising.
You can't prepare someone for real torture. Maiming is something so horrible that you hope you just don't get captured. Or have a cyanide pill ready.
also regarding waterboard training, which non-ISIS enemies would use that on Marines?
jr565:
Without physical damage, but there is short-term psychological damage with each instance. It is similar to the uncertainty experienced after an automobile accident, clinic abortions, etc., that stems from the discomfort of losing control.
Alex: "Unless they're chopping off fingers or pulling out fingernails it's not real torture."
Hmmm, are you afraid to actually list out what the other side really does?
Anyone else notice that while the left here conflates waterboarding with torture those same lefties are constantly downplaying the actual torture techniques employed by the terrorists.
It's almost like the left realizes what a joke their complaints would be if all the facts were out there.
Hey, that's sort of a theme with them, isn't it?
Of course interrogation can be useful and provide independent (in the sense you dont already know it) info.
Bad: Asking a prisoner under duress for the name of his contact. under enough duress, he'll give you whatever you want, and 99% will be garbage
good: Why is the buried stockpile of weapons? what he says, you don't already know, yet it can be confirmed by incontrovertible facts on the ground. e.g. go there and dig up the weapons.
the form of the questions matters...
Drago - my point is that waterboarding is a bullshit strawman by the left. Real torture is maiming all the way up to beheading. The left does try to conflate the two, but normal Americans are not that dumb.
This temper tantrum is a political loser too.
Is waterboarding torture?
*googles "did Republicans waterboard"
NO! Waterboarding is not torture.
garage - is beheading torture?
In the first Jonathan Gruber comment that came to light, he said they tortured the ACA to get it to say what they wanted.
Alex: "Drago - my point is that waterboarding is a bullshit strawman by the left. Real torture is maiming all the way up to beheading. The left does try to conflate the two, but normal Americans are not that dumb."
Correct.
The first thing you can expect if captured by Al Qaeda et al is to have a knife inserted into your eye socket in order to pry your eyeball out.
Things go down hill from there fast.
Of course, garage and his courageous pals (many of whom have had to battle to land a large trout at one point in their lives) think that waterboarding is torture but what our enemies do to us is.......understandable, all things considered.
Drago:
Good point. They attempted the same dissociation following approval of holding Hussein's regime responsible for violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement.
yet all the talk today is about CIA "torture" when Al Queda is gouging out eyes, tearing out tongues, cutting off limbs, genitals and finally the head.
The fact that the left continues this false moral equivalence tells me that the real enemy is not ISIS or Al Quaeda, but the LEFT. The enemy within!
I like the idea of just droning any suspects, and letting them hang out in the desert with their arms and legs blown off while they wait for medical help.
Then we get no information from them, they aren't water boarded, and everything is nice and humane.
Right, President Obama? Right, Garage?
Bravo Mike
Welp, after a hard day of defending rectal rehydration, it's off to yank away someone's healthcare and strip funding for school lunch.
garage - how does it feel to live constantly in snark mode? I guess that's the end result of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The end of seriousness.
Actionable intelligence is a close to subconscious assembling of the pieces of a puzzle. Every piece adds something to solving the puzzle.
The torture interrogations gets a man with information to start talking about something which he thinks is not useful. But that piece is useful when mixed with all of the other pieces.
Interrogation is never an independent source of information, irrespective of the techniques employed. The information from a source can only contribute to a pool of information and to establish the character of a subject after the fact.
Also, the definition of torture has been expanded to proportions that capture behaviors that are not and, in principle, cannot, be limited. They need to specify not only techniques, but criteria for physical and mental harm, and also circumstances.
garage mahal: "Welp, after a hard day of defending rectal rehydration, it's off to yank away someone's healthcare and strip funding for school lunch."
Welp, after a lifetime of defending/encouraging America's enemies, and after already having yanked away the healthcare of millions of Americans, AND forced astonishingly inedible "food" choices on American school children (who, of course, refuse to eat it and post pictures of it), garage also wants to make sure everyone knows he is very very very disappointed with our war fighters.
Well, color me "surprised".
The torturer can say, if you want this to stop, tell me something I don't already know. That would be independent information.
I think the best argument that torture does not work is that you can get more information by turning the person, because then they will tell you everything, not just the stuff you know to ask them.
The CIA argues that there wasn't time to turn the Al Qaeda prisoners and that they were trained too well against being turned. Those are things we just can't know, what would have happened if it had been done differently.
I fully expect our resident lefties to shortly work in the "but the terrorists had their hands up and just want to go to college and the evil republicans tortured them...for no reason!!!"
With possibly a "skittles and ice tea" sub-reference as well.
"In 2003, Bush gave a speech at a UN event condemning torture and calling on other nations to investigate and prosecute torture allegations. The statement was so at odds with US practices that the CIA contacted the White House to make sure enhanced interrogation techniques were still okay"
Left Bank of the Charles: "I think the best argument that torture does not work is that you can get more information by turning the person, because then they will tell you everything, not just the stuff you know to ask them."
Logic fail, though I do understand the point you are making.
Yesterday I heard Josh Earnest say that "these same questions" (referring to a question about how appropriate it was to release info that may damage field operatives) came up before another report, and before the release of Zero Dark Thirty last year.
Which reminds me that intelligence professionals and Republicans were very critical of the access that the Obama White House provided to Ms. Bigelow (who directed the movie). For her part, the director claimed the extraordinary access was necessary to "get it right" in the film.
One of the things she apparently "got right" was the scenes where the CIA roughly interrogates a man who gives up the name of Osama's courier. Funny, but the general outlines of that scene conform to Marc Thiessen's article on how we got the intel to track down Osama.
I'm sure it was just dramatic license, Garage. By the way, what the hell is "rectal rehydration"?
machine: "In 2003, Bush gave a speech at a UN event condemning torture and calling on other nations to investigate and prosecute torture allegations. The statement was so at odds with US practices that the CIA contacted the White House to make sure enhanced interrogation techniques were still okay"
........and.....what?
Whose wording was that?
The dem senate staffers?
A CIA case officer?
Individual(s) who were actually executing the techniques?
Gee, lawyers and staffers contacting each other as well as up the chain to make sure everything is in order.
Astonishing!
Up next, requests for clarification/validation/confirmation of orders/directives become firing offenses!!!
Mike: "One of the things she apparently "got right" was the scenes where the CIA roughly interrogates a man who gives up the name of Osama's courier. Funny, but the general outlines of that scene conform to Marc Thiessen's article on how we got the intel to track down Osama"
That is precisely how we obtained the name of the courier who was then tracked and eventually led to osama.
Which is what Panetta was alluding to when he stated that enhanced techniques yielded actionable intelligence.
And it's precisely what the left will forever refuse to admit occurred since it invalidates their latest (and they are always changing) narratives.
By the way, what the hell is "rectal rehydration"?
Garage likes to give himself high-volume enemas using hot, soapy water.
...and they don't always end well.
Mike
The report debunks the Zero Dark Thirty scenario that torture of the courier led to Osama bin Laden
These detainee guys are real sweathearts
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/beheading.jpeg
garage, that is so weasel worded as to mean anything. But go ahead and fill in the blanks with talking points.
Anyone who says 'torture doesn't work' is a flaming idiot. Of course it works. It works for the same reason people will plea bargain... human nature is to get the best deal they can under the circumstances.
Yes, it's not reliable because the victim will quickly say anything he or she has to to get the torture to stop. But when they don't know what you already know, and you already know a thing or two, that's not a problem.
Jesus effing Christ, the utter naiveté of these idiots.
garage mahal said...
The report debunks the Zero Dark Thirty scenario that torture of the courier led to Osama bin Laden
Which is of course not what Mike claimed. It was not the courier who was tortured, but the person who gave up the courier.
Fail
garage the hopeless: "The report debunks the Zero Dark Thirty scenario that torture of the courier led to Osama bin Laden"
LOL
You really are that stupid.
Really.
For those who are interested in how "thorough" the dems were in constructing this hail-Mary "it's not our fault" Report, this should help:
From the website created by CIA officers to debunk the dems latest set of lies (there are almost too many of them to keep track of):http://www.ciasavedlives.com/
snip: "Astonishingly, the SSCI Majority staff interviewed no CIA officers responsible for establishing, implementing, or evaluating the program’s effectiveness. Let us repeat, no one at the CIA was interviewed."
"Let us repeat, no one at the CIA was interviewed."
Sounds authoritative alright.
Garage likes to give himself high-volume enemas using hot, soapy water.
Um, speak for yourself, weirdo.
What is funny is that there is no indication of what kinds of information was obtained by the CIA without waterboarding in garage's "debunking."
Just that there was information.
It's better though to execute suspects without trial, by drone, killing and maiming innocents, the Obama way, though.
It was not the courier who was tortured, but the person who gave up the courier.
They tortured him after he gave up the courier.
"But the report emphasizes that Mr. Ghul provided all the important information about the courier before he was subjected to any torture techniques and spoke freely to his interrogators. During that two-day period in January 2004, it said, the C.I.A. produced 21 intelligence reports from Mr. Ghul, who one officer said “sang like a Tweety Bird.”
“He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset,” the officer added."
Tim in Vermont: "Just that there was information."
This is precisely why the dems refused to interview any CIA personnel who were directly involved.
If they did interview them then the dems would have been on the hook to include all the relevant intel that was provided by the program.
So the dems didn't.
They just allude to "info", which is more than enough to keep the garages of the world fat, dumb and satisfied as to this reports "accuracy".
The CIA refused to cooperate with the investigation and spied on the Senate staff conducting it.
Why believe a word they say?
garage: ""But the report emphasizes that Mr. Ghul provided all the important information about the courier before he was subjected to any torture techniques and spoke freely to his interrogators. During that two-day period in January 2004, it said, the C.I.A. produced 21 intelligence reports from Mr. Ghul, who one officer said “sang like a Tweety Bird."
LOL
Gee, why couldn't the CIA officer who actually conducted the interrogation been interviewed?
I mean, wouldn't it be nice to hear from the folks in the room?
But no, I guess that wouldn't be useful at all, considering what the goals of the report were.
Garage I can't address anything you write until you tell me what the fuck you were trying to say with "rectal rehydration" before.
Revenant: "The CIA refused to cooperate with the investigation and spied on the Senate staff conducting it"
Oh, gee, the CIA refused to cooperate.
So, let me see if I have this straight:
The CIA, which currently answers to a democrat President, refused to cooperate with an investigation conducted by Senate dems ONLY, in order to provide long-term historical cover for the dems and the CIA "refused" to cooperate!
LOL
Pull the other one.
Garage I can't address anything you write until you tell me what the fuck you were trying to say with "rectal rehydration" before.
See here
Scenario:
It's WWII, just before D-Day.
Hitler and his army think the allies will land at place X.
They capture and torture a British spy who knows where the real landing site is. At first, they don't focus on the impending landing, only on his contacts with the Resistance.
After severe torture he blurts out that the real landing site is Normandy.
\
The Nazis say, We're don't believe you."
Spy say, "Go look more closely at those UK airfields in places Y and W. You'll see that the planes, tanks and trucks are rubber blow-ups, not the real thing. Then go look at place Z and you'll see this and this and this", all inconsistent with no landing in X, but strong evidence of landing in Normandy.
Nazi engage in recon missions, and are amazed at the deceptions, and change their defense focus to Normandy.
***
Did the spy tell the Nazis something they didn't already know?
Yes. Did he give them info to help confirm the real landing site?
Yes.
QED.
(5,000 years of human experience tell us that torture often, but not always works. No amount of prog disinformation can change that.)
"Gee, why couldn't the CIA officer who actually conducted the interrogation been interviewed?
I mean, wouldn't it be nice to hear from the folks in the room?"
Sure, Drago! Actually let's follow the model we've seen with Police Departments here. Let the CIA operatives be in charge of investigating themseves! I am sure if they find any wrongdoing they will let us know!
NOT following any of your stupid links. Spell it out, Man!
garage
The "All the important information" phrase comes from the NYT, and they reference the report, and yet, the report doesn't say that.
What gives? Primary sources please.
Mike, if you're dying to know what rectal rehydration is and you can't trust the Washington Post, you're going to have to google it yourself.
Garage: NO I want to know why YOU are using that phrase within a discussion about waterboarding and intelligence.
But I'm done asking. I've already wasted too much time on it, thinking maybe you had some witticism to share. Nevermind. Who cares.
Because it was in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA interrogations, the subject of this post?
Mike,
The report reveals torture acts including but *not at all limited to* waterboarding. There are other acts listed. Why are you trying to act as though this is a discussion about "waterboarding and intelligence" only? It's not.
harrogate - none of the 'torture' consisted of maiming acts. so who gives a flying fuck.
harrogate you read too much into that one sentence. I'm "acting like" a participant in a discussion, you dick. But in my experience when I ask "what torture?" liberals and progressives can usually only cite one thing: waterboarding. Props to you for referencing the report. I won't assume it means you read it.
These sweethearts should all be treated as the special snowflakes that they are.
*googles "did Republicans waterboard"
So, let me see if I have this straight:
The CIA, which currently answers to a democrat President
You think the CIA is in the habit of obeying the President, whatever party he may belong to, when the President wants to do something at odds with what the CIA wants to do?
That's so cute! I bet you're really looking forward to when Santa Claus brings you presents this year, too.
"NOT following any of your stupid links. Spell it out, Man!"
We've all been there, Mike. It's what he does.
If you really want to say that torture is wrong for ethical reasons, then (unless you are a utilitarian) it should not matter much whether torture "works" or not. I want to be able to say that torture is wrong as a matter of principle, rather than just convenience -- that we sign treaties or conventions banning it because that is what civilized people do. (Just as we don't use gas or biological weapons, even though they "work").
But once we allow that it is acceptable to trick or persuade prisoners into giving us information that they would rather not give us,the line between what is torture and what is not has to be drawn on arbitrary grounds, and it is hard to say that something just inside the line is fine, but something just over it is malum in se. In addition, one very real reason why the US has joined agreements against the use of torture (and chemical and bio-weapons) is that we hope that if others join the same conventions, it will protect our own people from torture, etc.
Once we are involved in conflict with opponents who are manifestly uncivilized, and who are bound by no standards of behavior, then these practical reasons for adhering to such rules become less valuable.
It used to be the folks on the political right who chided those on the left for "moral relativity" and the like. Since the torture issue came up, not so much.
Well, after reading the NYT article and the report, unless it comes out that there are factually false sections, it does appear that enhanced interrogation did not lead to the capture of bin Laden, oh wait, we didn't capture him, we extra-judicially executed him, same difference.
Download the report and search on "tweetie" for the relevant section.
I don't have a problem with it. I just don't think it led to getting bin laden.
Calling what happened to them "torture" is like calling what happened to Lena Dunham "rape." It just strips the word of meaning.
Actual torture did save thousands of lives in the '90s when a plot was uncovered to simultaneously blow up five flights over the Pacific.
Harrogate, a closer reading of my post would reveal that I in no way stated or insinuated that the CIA should investigate itself. The Senate staffers/investigators who produced the report should have questioned them.
Thanks for being so (purposefully?) obtuse.
And speaking of obtuse, Revenant now pretends CIA personnel can refuse to appear before an investigating committee if compelled by the Senate.
Now thats cute. I hope Father Christmas is generous to you this year. Or Gaia.
Well didn't that fellow on the waterboard say, "I can't breathe".
Didn't he have his hands up and say "Hands up don't shoot"?
I guess he did--so we should leave him alone. He was just an early adopter.
We've all been there, Mike. It's what he does.
Ya'll just aren't very good at comprehension.
"Revenant now pretends CIA personnel can refuse to appear before an investigating committee if compelled by the Senate."
That's true. They cannot "refuse to appear." Who the hell said they could? Not Revenant.
Now whether they tell the truth or change their behavior according to what they are told to do by their superiors? Very different story there.
Let's all remember that the people who did this "supposed" "torture" were all being investigated by the Holder Justice Department with the threat of criminal legal action against them. Therefore, Holder says to the Senate Dems "no interviews of these nasty CIA folks for you". So..the Dems can move forward with their report and issue it with no interviews of CIA personnel because they can say the Justice Dept. did not let us. So....it follows there will be no "other side of the story" that EIT actually worked and that lives were saved because we stopped "this plot" or "that plot" and that's how we got the information about Bin Laden's courier.
This is nuts. Torture is wrong whether it works or not. In the latter case it is also stupid. But that doesn't mean it's smart when it works.
This is nuts. Torture is wrong whether it works or not. In the latter case it is also stupid. But that doesn't mean it's smart when it works.
Oh wow, you're dumb. Thank god you're not in charge of the NSA, CIA or national security.
We don't need to hear the other side of the story any more than the Klan needed to hear the other side of the Emit Til story.
We know how those people are. This is the new world of hope and change. Nobody is innocent.
I can understand an argument against torture if you believe in the Almighty.
But if torture saves lives, what's the argument against torture if you don't believe in the Almighty?
Well, Jeff, I guess I agree with you. Except that we will need a definition of "torture" that everybody agrees on before we continue.
Is shining a bright light on a suspect and demanding to know where they were on the night of the third torture?
107 comments now. It'll reach a barrier at 200. What's the betting?
_ 160
_ 200
_ 250
_ 300
I'd say 199. Sort of a "Price Is Right" guess.
Lucien, I think you're misreading something somewhere. McCain and liberals think anything anyone labels "torture" is wrong, but I don't know of any other conservative that thinks any coercion is wrong. Like most conservatives think spanking is not wrong in principle. I do think you'll probably find agreement by conservatives that an action with good possibility of resulting in death or permanent injury is wrong in principle. As long as the word torture is flexible, I can't say torture is wrong on principle (although I can say that something used in coercion which is designed or likely to cause death or disfigurement is wrong in principle).
The folks on the right aren't generally using moral relativity to justify torture, just pointing out to moral relativists that their own calculus justifies torture.
The word "torture" is not "flexible."
And this is like giving your word on something; it is not about who you give it to, but about who you are.
Tim in Vermont, This is not a snark, I'm curious but not motivated enough to run it down & since you appear to have already digested the material,
Does it appear that enhanced interrogation contributed to (1) the demise of OBL, however insignificantly (i.e., did the case use evidence from enhanced interrogation, and/or (2) prevention of any other adversarial actions?
It's a wonder to behold pro-abortionists/murderers argue issues on grounds of moral equivalence. This doesn't imply that their argument is necessarily or always wrong, but the cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
George Tenet tut-tutting about the ""missed opportunity for serious blahblahblahdeblah...etc." is about like Himmler or Goebbels tsk-tsking critics of Nazi policies.
RObert Cook,
That is disgusting of you to equate Tenet's actions with the actions of the Nazis. Unfortunately, not surprising though.
"the idea the enhanced interrogation techniques are necessarily torture may also be dumb."M
The idea that "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a term is anything other than a euphemism for torture--as the same term was for the Nazis--is certainly dumb.
@exhelodrvr1:
It is disgusting for any person in an administration that made torture official policy to pretend to any sort of moral probity or gravitas.
Tenet is a torturer, and a disgusting shit for that.
Hypothetical -
If your elementary school age son or daughter was kipnapped, and one of the kidnappers was captured in the act, would you want the police to use "enhanced interrogation" on the kidnapper, knowing that in most cases the kidnap victims are killed within a couple of hours?
This report, issued only by the Dem soon-to-be-history Senate majority, is nothing less than a[n]...
...attempt to push Gruber's testimony before a House committee off the front pages.
If a few embassies then happen to get ransacked and torched in spontaneous protests, what difference, at this point, does it make?
HOW MANY HYPOTHETICAL ATTACKS CAN THIS COUNTRY WITHSTAND?
Yes, but the report successfully arrived at its foregone conclusion, which was the whole point.
You people all realize that on this issue everybody have their own motives and nothing anybody says can be taken for granted without corroboration, right?
garage mahal: "HOW MANY HYPOTHETICAL ATTACKS CAN THIS COUNTRY WITHSTAND?"
I don't know.
How many hypothetical crimes have you convicted Scott Walker of committing?
How many hypothetical rapes have lefties accused others of committing?
How many hypothetical "innocents" have the racist cops gunned down lately?
Oh, and I guess those Benghazi deaths are simply "hypothetical".
Robert Cook: "It is disgusting for any person in an administration that made torture official policy to pretend to any sort of moral probity or gravitas."
LOL
It is ridiculous for any person that believes in made up fairy tale conspiracies (9-11/October Surprise Truthers) to stand in judgement of anyone else for any reason. A person who believes in such patent nonsense is completely lacking in gravitas and probably moral probity.
tim in vermont: "Well, Jeff, I guess I agree with you. Except that we will need a definition of "torture" that everybody agrees on before we continue"
Oh, that's easy from a leftist perspective.
If the US does it, it is torture.
If anyone does it to the US, it is an understandable reaction to the US and probably part of a cultural tradition which, if non-western, is superior to ours.
@Unknown
According to the report, the guy who gave up UBL's courier a Mr Guhle(sp?) spoke freely ("sang like a tweetie bird") before being subject to enhanced interrogation, and gave no further useful information under it.
Alex's big argument is that we know there are crazy bastards out there doing far, far worse things to their prisoners than we do to ours. So, his "logic" continues, what we are doing cannot be torture.
What a low bar that is. And it's pathetic how many Americans accept it.
Drago,
I'm not a fan, but your 5:01pm comment was a on target. It would chasten any normal commenter.
but then again ......
harrogate: "Alex's big argument is that we know there are crazy bastards out there doing far, far worse things to their prisoners than we do to ours. So, his "logic" continues, what we are doing cannot be torture."
Hmmm, so there's that (now patented?) harrogate obtuseness rearing its unattractive head again. You should bottle the stuff.
That's what he is saying! We didn't cut off anyone's heads and we didn't "maim " anyone ! And look here's these other crazies doing just that! None of that stuff shows up on our senate report!
Murderers don't get to define what torture is, by proxy, through Alex, even though he would clearly be honored to provide this service
Blah blah blah. Let's talk about "torture." Let's write reports about "torture." Let's morally preen about "torture," as if any American supported it in the abstract. Yes, "Torture," a word which now has no meaning its critics are willing to pin down in any way historically recognizable.
Today, "Torture" has become nearly equivalent to Monty Python's Holy Grail French soldier saying "I fart in your general direction" being equated with a Geneva Convention prohibited poison gas attack.
All this discussion and I mean all of it boils down to definition as defined by the CURRENT political landscape. It will change again in due course. The rest is in the weeds.
See also "rape" "homophobia" islamophobia" and "racism."
CWJ,
You do realize that any acts can be defended as falling short of "torture" according to your argument?
"One day it won't be torture!" FTW.
What a low bar that is. And it's pathetic how many Americans accept it.
Your sentiment is noted, but this is a democracy, and you don't get to redefine words in the English language at will.
No Harrogate. I think that clamping jumper cables to testicles will always count as "torture."
I am not sure that the concept of a "rape" occurring whenever a couple have sex when high will ever catch on outside the left, for example of a redefinition of terms to the point where it is no longer respected.
I guess we will have to redefine Grateful Dead concerts as Rape Factories, and search out the survivors and offer them counseling for their deep pain at the experience.
Drago:
You can't blame lame duck Senate democrats for the report and hamstringing our operators. Just WTF did you expect the outcome would be when the asshat dipshit titsucking Bush administration tried to make torture "legal". Some things are best left to the field.
The First Rule of Torture...
harrogate: "Murderers don't get to define what torture is, by proxy, through Alex, even though he would clearly be honored to provide this service"
harrogate takes time out from his vigorous defense of islamist terrorists to focus on Alex's hypothetical honor in providing contextual and ameliorative services to hypothetical murderers.
Howard: "You can't blame lame duck Senate democrats for the report and hamstringing our operators. Just WTF did you expect the outcome would be when the asshat dipshit titsucking Bush administration tried to make torture "legal". Some things are best left to the field"
What the hell are you babbling about?
DiFi and the dems produced a BS "report" which was nothing more than an attempt to pretend they didn't know what they knew and didn't approve what they approved.
Are you so dense as to believe that the dems were "out of the loop" as they claim?
You probably are.
That, and the obvious BS about no useful intel being acquired from the program represents the entirety of my complaint about this "report".
BTW, I do want to congratulate Howard for completing a post without dropping in Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, "mud people" (whatever that is), evolution, etc.
We're baby steppin' here, but progress noted!
The last 30 pages of the Senate Report are a comparison of Michael Hayden's statements about the torture program side by side with concrete evidence that he was lying. I see no reason to believe anything he has to say now.
harrogate,
Nonsense. I made no such argument that could be construed your way.
"One day it won't be torture!" FTW.
Nor did I write the sentence you put in quotes.
I once praised you. Up your game.
harrogate: "CWJ,
You do realize that any acts can be defended as falling short of "torture" according to your argument?"
The converse is also true. Any act can be impugned as falling within the definition of "torture" according to your argument.
Quite frankly, any treatment harsher than "The Comfy Chair" is considered verboten by the left, unless, of course, you are a Republican. Then I think some definitional "flexibility" arises.
When even Richard Engel of NBC "knows the score" and is willing to say it on TV, well, that's all you need to know.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/09/nbc-foreign-affairs-reporter-interrogation-report-rewriting-history-and-scapegoating/
snip: "“So many people knew what was going on. This wasn’t a program that was over one or two weeks in a couple of dark sites,” Engel told MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow. “Everybody knew about it.”
Engel said that some of those implicated told him that they were being used as scapegoats by the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by outgoing Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.).
“The CIA was asked to do this; was given authorizations to do this. And now many people involved are saying to me privately, ‘Now we’re being held out to dry. You asked us to do this, and now the world is coming down on top of it,” Engel said."
That's what this is all about.
It's simply another chapter in "We were lied into the War!!!"
No you weren't.
"harrogate takes time out from his vigorous defense of islamist terrorists"
Opposing US torture is not the same as defending islamist terrorists. *One* of the baseline premises of such opposition, in fact, is that we have higher standards of conduct than they do.
But that's just a baseline. It cannot be a significant measuring tool, or else we are pretty damn brutish.
This is nuts. Torture is wrong whether it works or not. In the latter case it is also stupid. But that doesn't mean it's smart when it works.
This is crap. If we can prevent some radical idiot from killing my family members then I don't give a fuck what we do to get the information. That is the reality of fighting a war against terrorists who don't give a fuck what they do to us.
I refuse to sacrifice my loved ones so people like you can pat themselves on the back for your sensibilities.
Scott Shackleford over at Reason is reviewing the report. Based on his excerpts, I can see why the CIA didn't want their people to cooperate unless the Justice Department would promise not to prosecute.
harrogate: "Opposing US torture is not the same as defending islamist terrorists."
I agree.
I was riffing off of what you said to Alex:
harrogate: "Murderers don't get to define what torture is, by proxy, through Alex, even though he would clearly be honored to provide this service"
Revenant: "Scott Shackleford over at Reason is reviewing the report. Based on his excerpts, I can see why the CIA didn't want their people to cooperate unless the Justice Department would promise not to prosecute."
Thanks for the link.
If we can prevent some radical idiot from killing my family members then I don't give a fuck what we do to get the information.
That's all well and good, provided you actually know you're torturing a "radical idiot" who plans to kill people. As the report makes clear, the CIA tortured people who had nothing to do with terrorism and who the CIA had no rational reason to believe were connected with terrorism.
That doesn't keep your family safe. It puts your family in greater danger. You shouldn't be defending the CIA for having done it.
"These sweethearts should all be treated as the special snowflakes that they are."
Tim, even if we agree--strictly for discussion--that such people may warrant torture, the problem is that by opening the door to torture as acceptable policy in extreme cases, it will soon become acceptable policy in less extreme cases, and soon after that it will become standard policy in all cases.
Casting aside our revulsion at and prohibition against torture coarsens our sensibilities overall, and soon enough we are a society of barbarians, baying for blood and pain from all and sundry for the slightest offenses.
We become, in short, those we claim to detest for their evil ways...we become the enemy we have imagined threatens us.
Also, if there is a general prohibition against torture among "civilized peoples," it tends to mitigate against torture being used commonly by any but the worst of the worst. Once the societies who were (or claimed to be) the acme of civilization adopt torture as acceptable and official policy, all the rest will follow, and we insure that torture will be employed world-wide.
We can only go back to the dark ages by our own doing, and making torture acceptable for any reason, at any time, against any person is one irrevocable leap back into the dark.
In short, torture is never acceptable, never anything but evil perpetuating evil.
I stand by my comment. I don't give a fuck what you think.
"As the report makes clear, the CIA tortured people who had nothing to do with terrorism and who the CIA had no rational reason to believe were connected with terrorism. "
I would give a lot to be as sure of my opinions as most leftists.
I have small sympathy for most CIA employees as they read foreign language newspapers and leak anti-George Bush comments, like Iran has stopped its nuc program,
Torture or just blast the fuckers up with drones (and oh yeah a whole bunch of collateral damage folks - innocent or not, we, as the Obama administration do not give a flying fuck, 'cause the media will not report how many innocents we have killed, so......we are free and clear with what we are doing.
So...to put it more concisely, I would "torture" a few high value people than kill a bunch of innocents.
I stand by my comment. I don't give a fuck what you think.
So why tell me you're standing by your comment? :)
"In short, torture is never acceptable, never anything but evil perpetuating evil."
In all things, it is important to establish definitions.
John McCain is unreliable on this topic because he broke under torture and is ashamed of it.
I would give a lot to be as sure of my opinions as most leftists.
Well, hang in there. You're already managed to convince yourself I'm a leftist based on no evidence beyond your own wishes and hopes.
In any event, it isn't my opinion; it is the CIA's opinion. The man in question was seized because a family rival fingered him as Al Qaeda. The CIA tortured him, but eventually gave up after he (predictably) told them nothing useful. They then recommended he be returned and paid off.
If you read more and commented less, you'd know this already. Food for thought.
So...to put it more concisely, I would "torture" a few high value people than kill a bunch of innocents.
Well, sure. But that isn't what we actually did. What we actually did was choose "all of the above" -- killing innocents AND torturing high value targets. And torturing some innocents, too, just to mix it up. :)
So why tell me you're standing by your comment? :)
Okay, you got me. Let me sheepishly retract that last comment as a momentary lapse of character. As someone who is familiar with your input here, I actually do give a fuck what you think.
the problem is that by opening the door to torture as acceptable policy in extreme cases, it will soon become acceptable policy in less extreme cases, and soon after that it will become standard policy in all cases.
Yeah, just like we took our firebombing policies that we used against the Nazis and now firebomb our domestic enemies... Oh wait, that was Clinton at Waco. All kidding aside, I just don't buy your argument. This is war. These people have the capacity to do harm to the United States in a serious way and have declared war on the US. No democratic government can fail to protect its citizens, it will be thrown out.
Drago,
In the very comment you provided, I called them "murderers." Not sure how you thought you were "riffing," but you certainly didn't represent what I said about terrorists. In fact, I think it pathetic that their behavior would be used as a barometer of any kind, for evaluating our own conduct.
I would hope you agree with me on that.
If there is a crime here prosecute it.
No?
Than its legal.
Democrat Senators where informed of, and approved these techniques
Remember Frank Church
“Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
reagan sez....get busy.
Yeah, just like we took our firebombing policies that we used against the Nazis and now firebomb our domestic enemies
Firebombing does, indeed, make the short list of US government military wartime tactics it has not re-purposed for domestic use.
The slippery slope concern is still a legitimate one, though. Why would a government that kills its own civilian citizens without trial balk at torturing them? It isn't like torture was never used in this country; police routinely used to beat confessions out of suspects, until mid-20th-century reforms put an end to it.
harrogate: "Drago,
In the very comment you provided, I called them "murderers." Not sure how you thought you were "riffing," but you certainly didn't represent what I said about terrorists. In fact, I think it pathetic that their behavior would be used as a barometer of any kind, for evaluating our own conduct."
You misunderstand. I was "riffing" off of your characterization of Alex as wanting to somehow provide service to murderers. Nothing more.
Now to revisit:
harrogate: "In fact, I think it pathetic that their behavior would be used as a barometer of any kind, for evaluating our own conduct."
We are not using their behavior as a barometer. I'm saying that waterboarding (using the techniques our personnel utilized) is simply not torture.
machine: "“Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
Boy, wait till Bill Clinton hears that machine wants him extradited to the Hague to stand trial for extra-judicial renditions.
You do want that, don't you machine? I mean, you wouldn't want to be seen as "inconsistent" or worse, hypocritical, now would you?
In 2013 Obama said if we could save "just one child" with new gun laws, to keep what happened in Newton from happening again, then we should do it, whatever "it" is.
I wonder if anyone asked him about this report and asked him, "Would it save just one child not to release this report and give ammunition to our international enemies?"
Somehow, I doubt it.
The bottom line here is that the dems simply want to whitewash their role in this entire business.
It would be interesting to here from Revenant, harrogate, etc whether or not they really believe that dems on the House and Senate intelligence committee knew "nothing" about any of this "torture" business.
Of course, we already know that obama knew nothing about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the dems never knew and continue not to know who Jonathan Gruber is, and all the dems are shocked, shocked to find you really couldn't keep your doctor if you liked your doctor!
LOL
Yeah DiFi, you had no idea about any of this! Gee, it's a good thing you were able to generate an utterly unbelievably self-serving "report" that completely exonerates you just prior to moving into the minority!
My my, that was fortuitous timing, wasn't it?
Drago, for my part I would guess that most of the Dems in both chambers of congress knew and either approved or didn't approve but were too chickenshit to do anything about it. Hell, WE (citizens with any sense whatsoever) knew and we didn't have access to White House briefings.
That of course, in no way constrains decent people to approve of the acts detailed in the report.
It would be interesting to here from Revenant, harrogate, etc whether or not they really believe that dems on the House and Senate intelligence committee knew "nothing" about any of this "torture" business.
Well, people who've been around a while have already "hered" me observe that Congressional Democrats knew what the CIA was doing.
I keep hearing Republicans bleat "the Democrats knew too!" like that somehow means something significant. So far as I can tell, the logic is "if Democrats and Republicans both do it, nobody should complain".
As someone who hates both parties and the harm they do to America, allow me to say: fuck that noise.
You still don't get it Drago.
The BS report and it's repercussions are all on W for pulling a bonehead move trying to legalize something that that has always been done on the QT. Now, quiet tuneups are harder to do. That's the real damage to the WOT. You are just distracted by the sideshow spank bait.
When the Geneva Conventions were drafted, no one conceived that a single person might have information that would doom or spare hundreds of millions.
Besides, the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.
I think the Wikipedia definition will suffice:
Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer's control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to them.
Reading through the comments here and in other forums where this subject has been discussed is a dismaying experience. The number of psychopaths who lack empathy for their fellow humans is astounding.
Torture is cruel to the victims, of course. But it is also degrading to the torturer. Civilized people don't torture. We are better than that. Although it seems some of the commenters here are not.
Carlo Dalla Chiesa, general of the Italian carabinieri, rejected the suggestion that torture be used in the investigation of the kidnapping and murder of the Italian prime minister Aldo Moro with these words:
"Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."
America survived 9/11. But our national character has been irreparably damaged by our reaction to 9/11. In that sense, the terrorists have already won. They got us to sink to their level. We used to think we were better than that.
Jeff:
Civilized people do not commit premeditated murder for causes other than self-defense. Only sociopaths force people to not only tolerate but subsidize premeditated abortion of wholly innocent human lives. It's interesting to note the paradox of people who oppose torture, and are simultaneously pro-abortion/choice.
n.n.,
What makes you think I'm pro-choice? Are you not aware that the Catholic Church, for example, opposes both abortion and torture?
I said nothing about abortion in my comment. It is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. If you really want to know, I think almost all abortions should be illegal.But I also know that most people don't agree with me, and for that reason abortion is going to remain legal in my lifetime. I don't argue about it because it's pointless.
America survived 9/11. But our national character has been irreparably damaged by our reaction to 9/11.
Ummm... bullshit.
Total, self-congratulatory, conceited chin-stroking bullshit.
"'America survived 9/11. But our national character has been irreparably damaged by our reaction to 9/11.'"
"Ummm... bullshit.
"Total, self-congratulatory, conceited chin-stroking bullshit."
No, it's absolutely, 100% accurate.
You didn't quote the entire statement:
"'America survived 9/11. But our national character has been irreparably damaged by our reaction to 9/11. In that sense, the terrorists have already won. They got us to sink to their level. We used to think we were better than that.'"
This is the real meat of the matter, and is also 100% accurate. I'll even assert that not only did we "used to think we were better than that," we once were better than that...but not now.
I guess what I'm most surprised by is that so many people are surprised to learn we've been torturing people. I took it as a given that we've been torturing people in secret since the founding of the CIA, and during every war prior to that. Sure, we have laws against it, but that's the whole idea of doing it in secret. And I can't imagine that we're not still doing so today.
Whether torture is a reliable way to get useful information or not--and that's another discussion--the fact is that certain parts of our intelligence apparatus believes it is reliable, and none of our recent presidents would risk being the guy who let a terrorist attack happen if some torture might have enabled him to prevent it. Does anybody really think Obama would allow the Sears Tower to get blown up if ten hours of thumbscrews might uncover that plot?
Or Clinton, for that matter? That's a guy who would torture you to find out which McDonalds is giving out free fries today.
"This is war. These people have the capacity to do harm to the United States in a serious way and have declared war on the US. No democratic government can fail to protect its citizens, it will be thrown out."
No...this isn't war, this is simply the American empire grotesquely overreacting to enemies who have no real capacity to harm it; now World War II, there was a war! The German war machine was a real threat to Europe and ultimately to America...yet we didn't torture German POWs.
Torture provides no protection against the harm any parties may wish to do to us, it merely inflames the hatred of more people against us, (just as a municipal police force engenders more hatred of it and creates enemies when it behaves like an invading army in the communities it serves, meting out brutality with impunity).
nope...try em all.
Jeff:
I did not suggest that you are pro-choice. I don't know what your orientation is. And, no, it's not pointless to argue against premeditated abortion, any more than it is to argue against torture. However, in order of priorities, terminating a human life without cause poses a greater threat to the integrity of individuals, society, and humanity. Also, tortured efforts to rationalize its commission (e.g. clump of cells, spontaneous conception, exclusive rights) serve not only to corrupt individuals and society but also science, and give incentive to their progress. It is utterly relevant in this context to infer motives and establish character. As they say, it's actionable intelligence.
Former senator Bob Kerrey has weighed in, and he's none to happy with his former colleagues. Key paragraph:
"There was no operating manual to guide the choices and decisions made by the men and women in charge of protecting us. I will continue to read the report to learn of the mistakes we apparently made. I do not need to read the report in full to know this: We have not been attacked since and for that I am very grateful."
He goes on to note that report does not contain any recommendations. Reading between the lines, he's saying that the Senate Democrats are taking the position that they won't give guidance to the CIA, but they'll be sure to come in post hoc and smack the agents if they think the agents have done wrong. Nevertheless the Democrat Senators don't propose to tell the agency what's right.
Appalling, if only because it's a prescription for the agency to do hardly anything at all.
this is simply the American empire grotesquely overreacting to enemies who have no real capacity to harm it
Cookie, if you flick my ear with your finger, and I beat the living snot out of you, you make think that I'm "grotesquely overreacting" to your provocation, but you won't ever again provoke me.
I would argue that that the US has been far too restrained in our response to 9/11. If Bush had stood up and announced that we were at war with all of Islam, if we had announced plans to invade Saudi Arabia and pump their oil fields dry, if we had announced that we were going to kidnap lovely Muslim women and put them to work in the brothels of Nevada, and so forth, then I think the "War on Terror" would have ended circa 2005 with total capitulation on the part of the Muslim world. Would they hate us? Oh, Hell yes! Would they ever attack us again? Would they dance in the streets as Americans leapt from high towers to avoid being burned to death? Ah, I don't think so.
Brutality is nasty, and by definition brutal. But it's all Muslims seem to understand.
"I would argue that that the US has been far too restrained in our response to 9/11."
Of course you would, "Big Mike," because you're no less a brute than those you deplore for their violence.
People respond to brutality with brutality. Your imaginary scenario of our responding even more viciously and stupidly than we have, causing them to become too fearful to strike at us--(that infinitesimally small percentage of them who originally wished to...before our blundering response)--is a fantasy. It has been our response that has caused the Muslim extremists to multiply in number and metastasize into more areas.
We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than were dropped in all of WWII, yet it didn't cause the Vietnamese to cease fighting us.
In that sense, the terrorists have already won. They got us to sink to their level.
Did any of them get their heads sawed off slowly with a dull kitchen knife while they screamed and gurgled on camera, moron?
No?
Then we didn't sink to their level.
We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than were dropped in all of WWII, yet it didn't cause the Vietnamese to cease fighting us.
You're an idiot. Operation Linebacker II was the only thing that did.
"(Kerry) goes on to note that the report does not contain any recommendations."
Well here's one: don't torture.
Here's another: prosecute those who did, including the planners and decision makers and those who authorized it.
"Did any of them get their heads sawed off slowly with a dull kitchen knife while they screamed and gurgled on camera, moron?
"No?
"Then we didn't sink to their level."
How about all the innocent men, women and children we have turned into bloody goo with our bombs?
We are very easily at the level of the worst of the Muslim extremists.
We Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay killed way more noncombatants in Germany.
That doesn't make us Nazis.
tim in Vermont, "the guy who gave up UBL's courier a Mr Guhle(sp?) spoke freely ("sang like a tweetie bird") before being subject to enhanced interrogation, and gave no further useful information under it." The fact that his story did not change when he was placed under duress was considered confirmation that he did not lie in the first place. Confirmation is an important piece in investigation; in the case where there was no other readily available confirmation, this might have been the only alternative. In that context the information was not useless. You are free to argue that it did not reach a value that justified the duress, not free to argue that it was valueless.
Howard, the bonehead move W made was to try to make sure the common and accepted practices of harsh interrogation met the letter of law, not to legalize them. In fact, it was a pretty ethical move. Had the report come back that the practices were not legal, they would have been retired.
Until you find where common and accepted practice of US citizens is remotely similar to the accepted practice of the terrorists (actually of Practioners of Sharia law), then your claim "we once were better than that...but not now" is extremely offensive and down right stupid. A blatant lie.
Healthy reminder for sheltered, safety-privileged twits like Cookie:
HERE'S their level.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358063/I-was-one-of-the-Talibans-torturers-I-crucified-people.html
Jason,
It's very typical of people who commit crimes to try to excuse their behavior, just as you're trying to excuse our crimes of committing torture and mass murder.
It doesn't wash.
this is class:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/us/politics/bush-and-cia-ex-officials-rebut-torture-report.html?_r=0
This legal term "murder" you keep using. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Unknown:
1) I never said this:
"then your claim "we once were better than that...but not now" "
2) having torture meet the "letter of the law" and legalizing torture is a distinction without a difference.
3) Don't confuse the law with morality or ethics.
4) Anointing torture with the law and calling it with moral and/or ethical is the MO of totalitarian regimes
Some things, like torture, are best left "off book". In that way, it remains rare. Shoehorning torture into a legal safety-net invites abuse and it also gives our enemies a moral victory and it endangers our POWs and it places further and tighter JAG controls over our operators.
All of this legalizing of torture and the ROE done by W and his cronies was just to cover their own asses. Then, they went on to waste our troops on stupid wars that killed hundreds of thousands for nothing.
It's blindingly obvious we need to his a strategic reset button.
"This legal term 'murder' you keep using. It doesn't mean what you think it means."
Isn't "murder" the illegal killing of another?
I'm using it correctly, then.
Jason:
The firebombings of WWII were war crime atrocities. We might not have been Nazi's, but we were doing a decent job of playing the same game of civilian bloodletting.
What was the benefit to mankind from slaughtering 2-million Vietnamese?
Remember, the US invented Total War in the 1860's.
Hair Mussed
Robert Cook: "We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than were dropped in all of WWII, yet it didn't cause the Vietnamese to cease fighting us"
LOL
What a moron.
Yes we dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than were dropped in all of WWII.
But we made sure we dropped them in designated drop zones.
And the North Vietnamese knew where those zones were.
So they parked all their "stuff" in the "no drop" zones.
What a farce.
Hey, do you think the Germans would have appreciated us making it known in advance where we would NOT be bombing and WHY we wouldn't bomb there?
You really don't have the first clue about military history/tactics/strategy at all.
And it shows.
Howard: "Remember, the US invented Total War in the 1860's."
What kind of an ignoramus writes such drivel?
I suggest you pick up a book on Genghis Khan and/or the Romans. The chapter on Carthage post-3rd Punic War ought to be sufficient to disabuse you of such a silly notion as to think that "Total War" was invented in the 1860's.
King David taught us a few things in that regard as well.
There are numerous other examples from antiquity to the present that should "help" you come to the realize how wrong you happen to be.
Post a Comment