PDA

View Full Version : Torture?


tartare
10th Dec 2014, 01:32
Maybe I'm just a sick f%ck.
But I can't say I'm that `horrified' by the revelations of what happened to detainees post 9/11 in CIA interrogation sessions.
Being kept in stress positions for long hours?
Pretty normal I would have thought.
Deprived of sleep?
Again - interrogation 101.
Rectally hydrated?
Not nice, but...
The hypothermia death after being kept in a cold cell - very stupid, and a mistake I would have thought.
Isn't torture is having your fingernails pulled out, or the soles of your feet beaten black and blue, or having fingers cut off with bolt cutters, electric shocks to the gentlemen's area... etc.
I haven't read anything so far that I haven;t thought "...nasty, but entirely what I would expect spooks or soldiers to do.."
Some of the tales one hears from special forces candidates about SERE training and what really happens makes ones hair stand on end.
I heard of one incident from an air-force psychologist observer of a butt-naked SAS candidate standing dripping wet in front of a CO with a fractured radius saying he didn't want to give up...
Am I wrong at not being offended by this CIA report?
I note that the public version is an executive summary of a classified 6000 page document.
Maybe there is truly horrific stuff that we are not privvy to...?

rh200
10th Dec 2014, 02:38
Rectally hydrated?
Not nice, but...

Didn't know there was a medical procedure as such. If they need sustance, then I say cudo's for choosing a method they don't like. I'm guessing its not Haal when given up the @rse.

Am I wrong at not being offended by this CIA report?

Depends on your Utopian view of the world and if your happy to take the report as nothing more than an abbreviated media release.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy at its worse, Jane Fonda would be proud of the Democrats.

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 03:11
Remember it was the Democrats putting the Report out on the same day that their guy Gruber was testifying before a Congressional Committee about all of his Obamacare Statements that were so embarrassing to the Democrats, Obama, and the Fraud called Obamacare. Do you think the Timing was just by pure coincidence?

Also remember the Current CIA Director was Chief of Staff while this was going on....and he is Obama's hand picked guy for the CIA job after working in the White House on Obama's National Security Staff.

Feinstein herself was given detailed Briefings all along about the Program.

So who is she fooling?

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 03:28
The FBI complained about the EIT's being used at Gitmo and other places. A close Friend was in charge of the DOD Investigators there and did not like what he saw either.

His objection was not about the force being used but the fact he felt it would not be productive in the long run but that belief was based upon his experience as a Criminal Investigator dealing with American Criminals and not Islamic Terrorists.

He made a very good point when he said an American at Gitmo threatening a hard core Terrorist who had been living in Caves in Afghanistan, dodging Missiles, Bombs, Drone strikes, Direct Action Raids, eating Goat Meat and Rice, suggesting the American was the Terrorist's Worst Nightmare was probably going to fall on very deaf ears.

er340790
10th Dec 2014, 03:55
I thought John McCain made a good speech today.

But overall, deep down, I still think 'they got off light'. :E

John Hill
10th Dec 2014, 03:58
911 changed all for us here in the USA.

Maybe, but it should not have come as a surprise.

rh200
10th Dec 2014, 04:27
His objection was not about the force being used but the fact he felt it would not be productive in the long run but that belief was based upon his experience as a Criminal Investigator dealing with American Criminals and not Islamic Terrorists.

There are several threads to the whole counter productive bit. As evryone knows, torture doesn't work, from a simpletons perspective. The whole idea of making someone extremely uncomfortable, either metally or physically is to break them.

The problem with it is, you can get to the point where they are telling lies or are just telling you what you want to hear. In reality most profffesionals know this. That is why extreme methods arn't used on their own. It like many other things, is a tool in the tool box that is used to assist in carrying out the task.

To what level you can carry out extreme methods is up to your legal advice on what constitutes torture or exemptions. Without having details, things like forced to stand on broken limbs is an emotive description, what was it? broken leg, broken big toe?

tartare
10th Dec 2014, 07:40
Ahh - so it was democrat driven.
Now the bleeding heart manufactured outrage makes sense.
Still a little puzzling tho.
The people from Langley are not know for nancying around.
IIRC - immediately after the attack, didn't the CIA actually literally ask for "...the head of whoever has done this."
Operation Jawbreaker. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046794/CIA-chief-told-agent-Gary-Schroen-Cut-Osama-bin-Ladens-head-off.html)
(I realise The Wail is not the most reliable of sources...)
I seem to remember that one of the logistical problems should the task be (ahem) executed was preserving said removed head in transit...:E
I mean really - WTF - what do people think spies actually do?
Sit around singing khumbya?

Capetonian
10th Dec 2014, 07:45
I am certainly not shocked or disturbed at reports of these lowlife being caused distress.

What should they have? Armchairs, feet up while they watch 50" TV as lackeys bring them tumblers of single malt and honey roasted peanuts?

VP959
10th Dec 2014, 07:59
Like others here who probably went through some form of escape and evasion training, with 24 hours or so of the sort of sleep deprivation, bright lights, being kept naked in stress positions, loud music, cold water, etc if caught before reaching their escape objective (as a taster of what interrogation might be like if caught by an enemy) most of the techniques described don't surprise me.

There are are two things that do bug me about this whole thing though.

The first is that some of the detainees were innocent people who either just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or who were of the wrong religious persuasion, as viewed by their captors. Some were nationals of allies of the US. There seems to have been a policy of indiscriminate capture and detention with little or no evidence as to whether those captured had been involved in terrorist activity. Not only is this fundamentally wrong, it was also counter to US law and, in the case of some of those innocent people detained, it stirred up more hatred against the West that has probably caused more to join the real terrorist groups.

The second is that there was a deliberate side-stepping of US law in order to do this. If the US wanted to use physical and psychological interrogation techniques then why didn't they just change their laws to allow it and do it on their own soil where the normal rule of law applied? The whole extraordinary rendition fiasco has done as much to harm the view many hold of the US as direct involvement in some of the pointless knee-jerk conflicts in the ME. Diplomatically, extraordinary rendition was a very dumb thing to do, as several allies of the US are now likely to be more cautious and less helpful in providing assistance than they would have in the past (even here in the UK, when we found out about extraordinary rendition flights possibly staging through the UK).

I fully understand the horror and outrage from 9/11, but frankly some of the knee-jerk responses just resulted in more Americans getting killed, damaged US international relationships and did nothing to suppress Islamic fundamentalism. If anything, some of the knee-jerk reactions may well have created a bigger problem with Islamic fundamentalism as a consequence of stirring up more hatred of the West.

I remember at the time of the Iraq war that many Americans when surveyed believed that it was direct action against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't, of course, as Saddam Hussein was an enemy of al-Qaeda as much as the West were, so if anything, toppling his regime did al-Qaeda a favour. What that war did do was act as a safety valve for the need for vengeance that was understandably strong in the minds of millions on Americans and their allies for this outrage and unwittingly provide another motivational factor for young people to join Islamic extremist groups.

Blacksheep
10th Dec 2014, 08:28
Unproductive methods?

I seem to recall that they extracted a great deal of useful information from one particular terrorist, as a result of which several other important terrorists were assisted in meeting their virgins.

Or was that not the point of interrogation? These were not common criminals being questioned by the police. These were enemy combatants, taken in the field.

tony draper
10th Dec 2014, 08:43
That Mr Guido Fawkes was rather uncooperative until they strapped him to the lengthening table, then he sang like a canary,pain is the only thing some human beings understand.
Rack the bastards.
:suspect:

MagnusP
10th Dec 2014, 08:44
Rectally hydrated?
Not nice,

ISTR Princess Di paying good money for that.

tartare
10th Dec 2014, 08:54
VP - I assume that to change the law to allow `enhanced' or `extreme' interrogation, one would have to get it through Congress?
I assume they thought about that and realised there'd be no way that your average Representative (or many Senators for that matter) would be able to come to terms with what is sometimes necessary.
The messy and very grey reality of these sorts of things is something most people with a left of centre persuasion have terrible trouble coming to terms with.
The decision makers probably realised after a minute or twos discussion and debate that it would never fly in the home of the free.
Better to render - and outsource the issue - I suspect that was the conclusion they came to.

P6 Driver
10th Dec 2014, 09:19
Given that the 'Muricans didn't feel they ever had enough information to actually charge most of these detainees, the methods used seem pretty ineffective and possibly counter productive. It's what happens when a few individuals go off on a knee jerk reaction and some others don't stand up to them.


Bear in mind that as harsh as the methods revealed are, they are only what the Yanks have had to reveal so far and that when these methods were not deemed harsh enough, rumour has it that the detainees were then secretly shipped off to countries and regimes that were even more harsh and unaccountable. How many were charged is the acid test for me.

radeng
10th Dec 2014, 09:26
There is a ban in international law on torture, which the US has signed up to. By ignoring treaties to which you have signed, it means that the trust in you abiding by any other treaties is diminished, too. So I suspect that international distrust of the US will increase - which won't worry the US one bit. Until one day, something happens....

It also sets a precedent for any US forces that are captured..

The CIA have always been somewhat of a law unto themselves, such as in the deliberate bombing of the British ship in Guatemala in the 1950s when they were wanting regime change, and the subsequent refusal to pay compensation.

VP959
10th Dec 2014, 11:02
Just to be clear, I have no particular problem with some of the techniques used to extract information from people who were KNOWN to be enemy combatants (and any terrorist fell into this category as a consequence of the "war on terror" I believe). Many years ago we were taught to expect such interrogation techniques, and I certainly remember my short stint being made to stand naked on tip toe, leaning with just my finger tips on a tiled wall, being subjected to sleep deprivation from bright lights and loud music, being hosed down with cold water etc. My personal breaking point was when I was made to stand at attention, naked, with two others on my course who'd been captured (by some RM guys who were playing the enemy) and having a snotty WRAC woman poke my privates with her swagger stick with the sneering remark "call yourself a man with parts like that?". I damned near had her by the throat before I was restrained.......................

The problems here are that very few of those captured and interrogated have been charged and found guilty, some seem to have been wholly innocent, in that they weren't involved in any way with terrorist activity, so were not enemy combatants by definition and it seems that the US broke international law and treaties that it had signed up to.

If the US had come clean, and said that they were going to use certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques against KNOWN enemy combatants involved in terrorism, I suspect that many in the US and elsewhere would have supported them. After all, most of this stuff was no worse than the sort of things they probably put their own armed forces through in training (assuming they use similar training techniques to the UK). There would have been a few whines from the huggy fluffs, but the bottom line was that war is a dirty business, where sometimes things like this have to be done in order to win.

The problem is the way this was done, and the deliberate intent to flout both national law and international agreements, plus the indiscriminate use of these techniques against non-combatants.

charliegolf
10th Dec 2014, 11:28
Isn't torture is having your fingernails pulled out, or the soles of your feet beaten black and blue, or having fingers cut off with bolt cutters, electric shocks to the gentlemen's area... etc.

You forgot to mention being partially drowned over and over again. Water boarding, don't they call it? Or did that not happen either?

As usual, the real crime is being caught doing it!

CG

Fox3WheresMyBanana
10th Dec 2014, 11:52
Note that there is very little reaction in the Middle East - this is how their Authorities normally treat suspects - it's no big deal to them.

The big problems are that the CIA broke American Law, and lied about it to Congress, and lied about it to the US's allies. The UK and other Governments also knew illegal Extraordinary Rendition was happening and chose to ignore it.
What it says is that there are no laws if terrorism is even suspected, and since UK councils have been using anti-terror laws to spy on parents claiming residency for school placements......
Councils warned over unlawful spying using anti-terror legislation - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922427/Councils-warned-over-unlawful-spying-using-anti-terror-legislation.html)
New anti-terror measures revealed | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2846735/New-anti-terror-measures-unveiled.html)

Enemy of the State might not be such a fantastic scenario.

Waterboarding known combatants/murderers I have no problem with, and as others have said this can yield valuable gen, but not suspects - it basically doesn't work.

radeng
10th Dec 2014, 12:52
A lot of these techniques were used by the SS and the Gestapo. If those were crimes, why are these techniques against even suspected terrorists no crimes?

It seems very much a case of 'we will justify torture if we use it and punish anyone else who does it on our citizens', which really is hypocrisy.

Now was Bush kept in the dark about the techniques and so was a completely dishonourable liar when he said 'America does not use torture'?

If he knew about the waterboarding, then he definitely was.

Slfsfu
10th Dec 2014, 13:07
I have a slightly different spin on this whole affair.

Prior to releasing the report the US, as I understand it, increased the security on all of their international facilities. Clearly, they anticipated/anticipate some form of adverse reaction.

They go ahead and release the report and all is "legal".

Snowdon releases NSA documents and he is a traitor who could cause American lives to be put at risk.

Now, I accept his release was unauthorised BUT..,. the consequences are seen to be the same. Such consequences are seen as acceptable for the Report but not acceptable (indeed highly emotive) for Snowdon.

Is this double standards?

BTW - I don't hold any views on Snowdon or the Report

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 14:49
Of course it is a double standard.

The Democrats live by that double standard.

They love "transparency" and demonstrate that by releasing this Report.

Compare that to their conduct on any number of other issues....Fast and Furious, the IRS, Obamacare, Benghazi, the Veterans Administration, the GSA, and so many others.

The release of that report was purely a political stunt to draw attention away from Gruber's Testimony before Congress and a way of trying to make the Republicans (Blame Bush Concept) look bad.

They don't give a damn how many Lives are lost over it just like they don't care how how many lives are lost due to the VA's incompetence and corruption.

KBPsen
10th Dec 2014, 14:55
Is this double standards?Of course it is double standards. The United States excels in double standards.

The U.S. and allies have sentenced to death and executed people for using the very same torture, that now apparently have become just a "technique" or "method". This time it seems the only ones to suffer any consequences are those murdered and crippled physically and mentally. The torturers go free.

There's a lot of people who should be ashamed of what has been happening over the last 13 years.

er340790
10th Dec 2014, 15:24
I wonder how long it will be until the WHOLE REPORT appears on Wikileaks????!

COME ON, SOMEBODY!!!!! :E

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 16:00
The Left and Yank Bashers tell us our actions only serve to recruit more Jihadi's.

Why does their conduct not suffer the exact same criticism?


https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10858587_10152808904142221_6747368957589765944_n.jpg?oh=6642 0f471f72ab24a76a6ca65822a640&oe=55038657&__gda__=1427090241_1afc4117d5dea4f4cab909e7fadb4bb9

Fox3WheresMyBanana
10th Dec 2014, 16:19
Bob - the issue is, as I've said, not how information is gathered from terrorists (I agree with you), but from how it's gathered from people who are only suspected of being terrorists, and whether we in West are prepared to be honest about it. Illegally torturing suspected terrorists and their associates then lying about it is ineffective, does act as a recruiting aid for terrorists, and destroys any hope of legitimacy for any other Government actions.

Liberal idiots' actions do not gather the same criticism because the media is full of liberal idiots.

KBPsen
10th Dec 2014, 16:32
Liberal idiots' actions...As opposed to Conservative idiots and apologists who will rationalize any illegal act of the State.

rgbrock1
10th Dec 2014, 16:49
I, a conservative American and former service member, will side with John McCain on this one. And will quote what he had to say on the Senate floor last night:

"I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn't about our enemies; it's about us. It's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It's about how we represent ourselves to the world," he said.
McCain added: "When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea...that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights."
"Our enemies act without conscience. We must not," he added.

Having said all that, I will diverge from Mr. McCain and his defense of the report's release, as I do not think it should have been released. It serves no good purpose and puts many Americans' lives in jeopardy. We know what happened - some of it illegal, some of it way over the top and some of it questionable - but there is no logical reason to know the details. All we need to do is ensure that it does not happen again.

Toadstool
10th Dec 2014, 16:53
Bloody hell rgbrock, someone with objectivity and common sense. Both you and Senator McCain.

KBPsen
10th Dec 2014, 17:00
All we need to do is ensure that it does not happen again. What you need to do is to show that you are a Nation that respects the rule of law and prosecute not only those who carried out these acts but also those who ordered and sanctioned them.

rgbrock1
10th Dec 2014, 17:08
KBP:

From reading the report, not so much because I needed to know exactly WHAT happened but more for BY WHOM, I've come to the conclusion that some of the operators involved in these tortures were hired thugs who need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some of these "operators" were known felons to include one who was charged, and convicted, of sexual assault on a minor prior to becoming a "hired gun." WTF? :eek:

I would also like to add another aspect to this. As I mentioned, and as many already know, I am a former serviceman. As such, during various training cycles I too undertook SERE training. Some of which was most severe and included "simulated" interrogation and torture. I'll readily admit that on several occasions I would have sold my first born into slavery just to have it stop. And I cannot imagine any American serviceman or woman having to endure any form of torture. (As Mr. McCain did whilst a POW in 'Nam) Torture is, and always will be, morally wrong and repugnant. There are other methods of obtaining information from those who wish to do us harm. Torture SHOULD NEVER be one of those methods.

Again, I am against the release of this report as I don't see it doing any good for anybody.

KBPsen
10th Dec 2014, 17:39
hired thugs who need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Why only those on the ground floor? Why not those who provided the legal memos attempting to justify this? Those who asked for the legal justification for torture? Those who ordered it? Those who hired and supervised the thugs?

I can understand why not, as it would be embarrassing having to prosecute the highest levels of the Administration at the time.

rgbrock1
10th Dec 2014, 17:43
KB:

True, but you also have to take into account that a lot of lying was being done at the lowest levels. (probably at middle levels as well. Although upper "management" is not immune either.) From reading some of the report, it becomes obvious that some of these operators/thugs undertook forms of torture that were not approved from higher-ups in the intel community. There were several occasions where "management" expressly forbade the use of a specific form of torture, yet it was done anyway.

the whole sordid affair is a disgrace. No real reason to go into the details of it as it's sufficient enough to label it as a national disgrace.

bcgallacher
10th Dec 2014, 17:56
The comments on this subject are so predictable - Senator Mclain is a lone voice of sanity. The report really comes as no surprise to anyone who has tried to keep up with current affairs over the last few years.

KBPsen
10th Dec 2014, 18:01
Poor management and supervision, whether deliberate or due to incompetence, is no defense. How this is dealt with will follow your country for decades to come.

So far it seems that sweeping it under the carpet, blaming the messenger and those at the very bottom is the preferred course.

John Hill
10th Dec 2014, 18:01
Boudreaux Bob, America's battle with terrorists did not start with 911. If America uses military forces to attack, destroy and kill people and property around the world do not be so surprised when some of them strike back.

The Muslim extremists probably want you to be like them so why do you give them what they seek?

G-CPTN
10th Dec 2014, 18:19
What about the persistent denials issued over the years?

If those issuing the denials were truly unaware of the facts, then there was gross mis-management.

If they were aware then I can understand them not wanting to expose the USA to the inevitable.

Even stating 'we do not comment on security matters' would have raised suspicions.

Difficult situation.

What did the then POTUS know? Did he tell the truth?

McCain knows what he is talking about:-
"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."
McCain added (emphatically) that:- "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."
He condemned the use of misinformation to garner support for past CIA practices:-
"There is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure."
From:- Senator John McCain Delivers Speech Condemning CIA Torture Report - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/John-Mccain-Speech-Senate-Republican-CIA-Torture-Report/383589/)

Checkboard
10th Dec 2014, 18:21
It shows that the American government (and most of the people posting here) are in complete agreement with the terrorists that any tactic is fair game.

Full support for the terrorists has been shown on this page, so the only disagreement is now the reason for an attack, not the nature of it.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
10th Dec 2014, 18:23
There were several occasions where "management" expressly forbade the use of a specific form of torture, yet it was done anyway.

When management insists on results above all, and doesn't bother checking on how they are obtained, then one second's experience of human nature tells you that certain individuals will take 'don't do this' as a hint about what to do. You need a stronger supervisory system when close to the limits, not a weaker one, 'as any fule kno'. The leadership are more culpable than anyone in this.

rgbrock1
10th Dec 2014, 18:25
Fox3:

Agree. The responsibility has many places to roost in this case.

bcgallacher
10th Dec 2014, 18:46
I can recall the time when the US government banned the supply of arms to the Northern Irish police force as they accused them of using excessive interrogation techniques.At about the same time they refused to extradite an IRA terrorist - who was in the US illegally - on the grounds that killing an Irish policeman was a political offence. They also refused to extradite a Cuban who planted a bomb on a Cubana aircraft killing all on board. Now we are all asked to join the war on terror!

Armchairflyer
10th Dec 2014, 19:07
Wonder how the "It served them right after all"-gang would like these interrogation procedures applied to themselves (or their relatives). Of course, they are not murderers or terrorists (presumably) and therefore do not deserve such treatment. But the same apparently applies to many of the CIA victims.

In case of rock-solid evidence that the person on the receiving end of interrogation is indeed a thoroughbred villain with knowledge about terrorist activities and that the extraction of said knowledge could save lives, I could probably put the do-gooder in me aside. However, the same equally applies to the thought of those who see such measures as justified on spec having a taste of their own medicine.

Seriously, how a civilised person can condone (or worse) this apparently quite indiscriminate use of torture (or its concealment) is beyond me.

VP959
10th Dec 2014, 19:37
It shows that the American government (and most of the people posting here) are in complete agreement with the terrorists that any tactic is fair game.

Full support for the terrorists has been shown on this page, so the only disagreement is now the reason for an attack, not the nature of it.

There is a fine line between what most civilised people would regard as legitimate interrogation of KNOWN enemy combatants and torture. There has to be, as there has been, and always will be, a need to know what your enemy knows, and what they may be planning.

In war, the question is where you draw this line, and most would agree that firm interrogation is needed, that those under interrogation need to be made to feel that they have to talk in order to make their immediate situation less stressful. I think I know where that line is at the moment, based on the training I went through 30 odd years ago. Then it was considered reasonable to deprive enemy combatants of sleep and do anything short of physical violence in order to increase their fatigue and stress levels and make them more likely to talk.

There was then, as there should be now, agreement that physical violence, or threats of physical violence or death, were unlawful. There was also agreement that the use of such interrogation techniques should ONLY be used on KNOWN enemy combatants.

In this case, the US CIA went far beyond what has been generally considered to be reasonable and lawful, for two reasons:

1. They used these interrogation techniques on people who were NOT enemy combatants and who were often NOT GUILTY of any offence. That is unacceptable in any civilised society, and reflects a lack of moral judgement and principles amongst those who arranged an ordered these interrogations.

2. They knew that what they were doing was both unlawful and morally unacceptable, and that they were using these interrogation techniques on people who may not have been enemy combatants, and who may not have been guilty of any crime, and they deliberately chose to hide this fact from both the public and their elected government representatives, by using a range of obfuscation techniques, including abusing the privileges offered by allies of the US.

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 19:52
BCG,

Which way do you want it? You cannot have it both ways.

Were you lot using torture during the Troubles?

Toadstool
10th Dec 2014, 20:29
In case you think this is anti American, it's highly likely that MI6 were complicit in this too.

bcgallacher
10th Dec 2014, 20:46
Bob It would appear that it is the US government that wants it both ways - I do not know what interrogation techniques were used in Northern Ireland.What I do know is that the situation was used for political ends by US politicians looking for the Irish vote - Ted Kennedy for one and Senator Mario Biaggi for another. Much of the IRA finance came from an organisation called Noraid which collected cash in the guise of a charitable organisation. It took a long time for the US government to wake up to the fact that killing and maiming people with bombs was terrorism no matter the cause.

VP959
10th Dec 2014, 21:00
In case you think this is anti American, it's highly likely that MI6 were complicit in this too.

I'm sure that SIS, in one form or another, were most certainly complicit in this, even if it was only by passing on intelligence that led to detainees being treated this way, using intelligence that they knew full well had been obtained by unlawful methods, or by sanctioning the use of UK facilities for extraordinary rendition, in full, or partial, knowledge of what the CIA were doing.

evansb
10th Dec 2014, 21:11
There are four federal governments in the U.S.A.; The Department of Defense, The C.I.A., The Congress, and The Office of the President. They all p**s on each other while the F.B.I. watches.

con-pilot
10th Dec 2014, 21:25
There are four federal governments in the U.S.A.; The Department of Defense, The C.I.A., The Congress, and The Office of the President. They all p**s on each other while the F.B.I. watches.

You're sure about that are you?

It's been my experience working with the FBI (Famous But Ignorant), they not only mostly "p**s" on themselves but everyone else as well.

obgraham
10th Dec 2014, 21:25
I didn't come up with the following scenario, which is entirely hypothetical, but I think it bears thinking about:

The real issue here is about the RELEASE TODAY of the information we are talking about. Many of you want to see somebody locked up for these past events, and you would be happiest of all if it was Bush.

But think for another moment. Let's say that some soldiers, diplomats, executives, whatever, are killed overseas by some jihadi Joe or Jane, after releasing his "manifesto" about how he is retaliating for CIA torture. Maybe with a video to accompany it.

Well, we'll all be "sorry it happened" and all that, but well, "couldn't be avoided".

Now let's say that in 2024 there's another Senate Committee report about terrorists having killed Americans over the past 20 years. And the report points out that such killings spiked upon release of the 2014 report.

Are you going to go out and demand that Feinstein, and her crowd be charged with crimes? After all they knew (and she has agreed) that the release would harm more Americans. So they could be held criminally responsible.

There are unintended consequences to reports like these. Nothing positive will be gained.

Just a spotter
10th Dec 2014, 21:37
Slightly off the core topic, but the US aren't the only 'power' accused of using "enhanced interrogation techniques". From The Irish Times, 3rd Dec 2014

The Government is to ask the European Court of Human Rights to revise its judgment in a case involving controversial interrogation practices by the British army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles ... All 12 men were detained in 1971 and subjected to five sensory deprivation techniques at the Ballykelly British Army Base in Co Derry including prolonged hooding, continuous loud noise, sleep deprivation, food and water deprivation and forced stress positions.Government asks European court to revise ?Hooded Men? ruling (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-asks-european-court-to-revise-hooded-men-ruling-1.2022790)

On a note more pertinent note to the thread, from the same publication 10th Dec 2014

Shannon played vital logistical role in rendition circuits, say researchers. Up to 27 CIA detainee trips identified may have involved stopovers at Irish airportsShannon played vital logistical role in rendition circuits, say researchers (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/shannon-played-vital-logistical-role-in-rendition-circuits-say-researchers-1.2031609)

JAS

tartare
10th Dec 2014, 23:23
I must be dreadfully cynical.
I'd just assumed that being beaten to within an inch of your life, rubber hosed, threatened with mock executions etc. was a standard part of the arsenal of any OECD nation's intelligence services during interrogations - war or peacetime.
The tip toe - finger tip, blindfolded stress position stuff, the loud noises played through loudspeakers in concrete rooms - all par for the course and just the beginning I had thought.
In fact it wouldn't surprise me one iota if 6 were a lot more brutal than the CIA.
The British are capable of a degree of surprisingly cold, pragmatic callousness.
A scene from the TV series Spooks comes to mind.
A terrified, white faced young traitor, caught selling military secrets, sitting in front of a spy asks "What's going to happen to me??"
Gimlet eyed spook looks back at him and quietly says, "Bad things."

RatherBeFlying
11th Dec 2014, 00:23
Here in Canada, it's coming out that many detained on security certificates based on "evidence" extracted under torture.

Another Canadian citizen was shopped to the Sudanese authorities for torture, again based on "evidence" extracted under torture.

A Gitmo inmate who spent some dozen years under the tender ministrations of the CIA is now serving the remainder of his sentence in Canada. The government will not look very good for continuing to hold him after his torture file comes out.

Another Canadian was rendered to Syria. His US lawsuit was dismissed because of hiding behind "national security".

Cue the lawsuits -- the first dollars should come out of the pension funds of the torturers and their chain of command -- pensions are often not payable when incarcerated.

It wasn't a war crime when the US waterboarded Filipino rebels.

It was a war crime when the Japanese waterboarded US POWs.

It seems it's never a war crime when the winning side does it:mad:

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 01:06
That is why it pays to be the Winner and not a Loser.

Welcome to Life....deal with it!

It has ever been so and always shall.

mikedreamer787
11th Dec 2014, 01:12
I also share the same attitude -

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10858587_10152808904142221_6747368957589765944_n.jpg?oh=6642 0f471f72ab24a76a6ca65822a640&oe=55038657&__gda__=1427090241_1afc4117d5dea4f4cab909e7fadb4bb9They should've permanently waterboarded Abu Zubaydah
and that pr!ck Khalid Mohammed once the info extraction
was complete.

Either that or flamethrow 'em both and feed their charred
asses to the local pigs.

con-pilot
11th Dec 2014, 01:59
Justification for torture, if it can be justified, I guess is in of the eye of the beholder of just whose benefit that torture would be. With the obvious exception of the person being tortured.

This was discussed in great detail at another website I am a member of, with yells of outrage, accusations of people being the worse person that ever lived since Genghis Khan and of the same types of rude, false judgmental profiling that occurs here.

Two questions were posed, they were;

A. Your young son or daughter has been kidnapped by radical religious terrorists. The head of your young son or daughter will be cut off by a knife in two weeks. However, a small group of these radical religious terrorists have been captured, they know where your young and daughter is being held, but they will not talk when standard interrogation techniques are used.

Would you agree or approve of these radical religious terrorists being tortured to save the life of your son or daughter?


B. It has been confirmed that there is a nuclear bomb in London/New York City or any major city in your country, it is set to auto-detonate in one week. However, a small group of these radical religious terrorists have been captured that know the location of this nuclear devise, but they will not talk when standard interrogation techniques are used.

Would you agree or approve of these radical religious terrorists being tortured to reveal the location of this nuclear bomb, that will save the lives of millions?

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 03:01
Senator Feinstein and other Democrats are quite comfy with publishing the Report. The President supported that release which should indicate to any Idiot he supports both the release and the content of the report.

The current FBI Director and the CIA Director, both Obama Appointees, are named in that Report as being directly involved in the EIT Program to a great degree. Not as Interrogators but as policy Wonks.

Ed Henry of FOX News did not get an answer to his question that asked for an explanation of the patent contradiction in the various positions the Obama Administration and Obama himself is taking on this matter.

The Obama DOJ under Eric Holder (who is in Contempt of Congress you might recall) has stated there shall be no Criminal Prosecutions of anyone involved in the EIT Program.

So if there are Criminal Violations then why no Prosecutions?

VP959
11th Dec 2014, 09:02
My major concern here is that it appears that at least 22% of those tortured by the CIA were innocent of any crime or any involvement in terrorism.

So far it seems that few of those detained and tortured have been charged with any crime and found guilty.

This seems to indicate that this was an indiscriminate programme of torture, not the specific torture of known enemy combatants. That makes the world of difference, in my view, as to whether this was justified action.

One problem we have to deal with is that when an atrocity occurs, there is a very understandable desire for revenge and rapid retribution against the perpetrators. It seems that often this desire for retribution skews our normal judgement processes, and we a less diligent in assessing guilt or innocence.

We saw it here in the UK with terrorist acts committed by both sides during The Troubles. The most infamous probably being the Birmingham Six, who were arrested, interrogated, charged, found guilty and imprisoned for two pub bombs that killed 21 and injured 182. They weren't guilty, their only crime was being Irish, living in Birmingham and being acquainted with a man known to be an IRA member. The real perpetrators haven't yet been caught (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings ). It was said by one after they were released that the police "didn't care if we did it or not – that people right at the top needed convictions"

oldpax
11th Dec 2014, 09:07
Ever see the movie about the trails at Nuremburg?American made!

rh200
11th Dec 2014, 11:52
So far it seems that few of those detained and tortured have been charged with any crime and found guilty.

Bit hard, various technicalities involved, lawyers would have a field day with most of them.

This seems to indicate that this was an indiscriminate programme of torture, not the specific torture of known enemy combatants. That makes the world of difference, in my view, as to whether this was justified action.

It by no means would have been indiscriminate, they don't waste resources on indiscriminate. That doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong and get innocent people.

Regardless of that torture is illegal. That said, do you have an exact definition of torture? Can you get the exact definition and each exact case and determine if each one fell technically inside or outside the definition.

As people have said here, everyone has there own view of what constitutes torture, a bit like police shootings. I very much doubt people where executed at Nuremberg for sleep deprivation and loud music!

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 12:07
Only an Idiot would compare Nazi Atrocities to the CIA EIT Program.

Murdering MILLIONS of People, Looting most of Europe somehow just does not compare to being deprived on Sleep or being forced to listen to Loud Music.

I am quite surprised the Allies just didn't just shoot or hang them on the spot of their Capture. We played the Moral and Just thing and gave them a very fair Trial and a proper execution what very few that were condemned to Death....and then not all of the War Criminals met that fate.

The Australians did a far better job of dealing with Japanese War Criminals than did the rest of the Allies.

MagnusP
11th Dec 2014, 12:13
If the loud music was Justin Bieber, then that IS torture, and the Canadians are complicit.

Con-pilot's questions are pertinent here. A country's actions in response to a threat, particularly if imminent, are no different, other than in scale, from any of us beating the crap out of someone threatening our loved ones.

parabellum
11th Dec 2014, 12:24
The word 'torture' is being bandied about far too much. Many who have been in the armed forces will, at one time or another, been required to undergo a 'Resistance to Interrogation' course. It isn't torture, just bloody uncomfortable and frightening and the more tired and sleep deprived and disorientated you become the more likely you are to give up information, 72 hours is a ball park figure. Throwing someone against a plywood wall is done for effect, there is no injury just a lot of noise.


Extracting teeth, fingernails, beating etc. that is torture.

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 12:28
The whole situation has to be taken in Context unlike the newly released Report attempts to do.

911 caught the United States Government off guard, showed the intelligence failures and lack of communication between Law Enforcement and Intelligence services. That those problems were directly linked to Democrat Actions (remember Jamie Gorelick) and that sufficient information existed to know there was a second wave of attacks being planned, there was a perceived need to improve the acquisition and communication of actionable intelligence in order to be able to thwart those anticipated attacks.

To ignore the impact the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City had upon the psyche of the entire Country is a gross error when considering how the EIT Program came into being. Combined with the loss of Flight 93 which was destined for the Washington DC area and the American Airlines Airplane that hit the Pentagon, 911 was plainly the worst attack on the United States that ever occurred....it surpassed Pearl Harbor.

When we remember that some of those running around today making the most noise about the EIT Program were frequently briefed by the CIA on the Program and its progress. We have to ask why they had no objections in the past while all this was going on but now for some unfathomable reason are saying how evil the whole thing was. (Feinstein, Rockefeller, and a few others spring to mind).

All this smacks of petty partisan politics by the Democrats.

Otherwise, they would have been objecting to it when it was first proposed to them at the very first briefings they attended. They did not. Why?

Blacksheep
11th Dec 2014, 13:24
Guido Fawkes was broken on the rack to extract confession and get him to name his co-conspirators. Although he did reveal his real name, he didn't give out any useful information, because those who recruited him were careful not to reveal who his co-conspirators were. The majority of those who went into Guantanamo were just foot soldiers and knew very little.

Solid Rust Twotter
11th Dec 2014, 13:35
... knew very little.


Lots of very little is useful in confirming or refuting other intel, as well as giving you an outline of things not yet plainly seen. Trends can be picked up and gaps filled in.

Intelligence failures are generally those of the disseminators and users (read pollies and bureaucrats). The gatherers and analysts can only pass on what they have.

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 14:23
A lot of these techniques were used by the SS and the Gestapo.
SS and Gestapo also drank coffee. Is that now a crime?

I read the detailed article this morning.
I was subject to most of that treatment at SERE school, obviously in smaller doses than described, but a key thing to remember is:
I knew it was training
I knew it would be over eventually.

It still sucked.

Some of those positions held for long time will be a trial for anybody.

Sleep deprivation is one way to get someone to go loopy, but as some of the folks schooled in the methods of interrogation have already testified and opined over the past ten years, you risk the fruits of your interrogation being tainted or an utter mess if the subject is made loopy enough.

Since even within the ranks of the professional in that particular business the opinions are mixed, as a layman I can only say that the folks who put up with the Hanoi Hilton were impressive people.

I'll let the usual suspects continue with their foaming at the mouth.

Note: the release of this appears to be Feinstein getting some political payback on the CIA due to some of the back and forth with the Intelligence committee over the years.
And also: "It's all Bush's fault" is a handy default if you need a smokescreen for something.
So, the question you may wish to ask in terms of political strategy:
Why this piece of misdirection this week?
What is it that someone wants to have pushed off of the headlines this week?

I leave you to your own mulling over to arrive at an answer that makes sense to you.

MagnusP
11th Dec 2014, 14:27
Lonewolf, your comment reminds me of the idiot female lefty who, on 9/11, suggested it would be a "good day" to bury bad news about councillors' expenses. Odious woman.

rgbrock1
11th Dec 2014, 14:28
BB wrote:

The Australians did a far better job of dealing with Japanese War Criminals than did the rest of the Allies.

Not to mention what the Poles did to captured Nazi war criminals. They were brought to court, their crimes read out, the case was adjudicated and the guilty party summarily hung right in a corner of the court room.

haughtney1
11th Dec 2014, 15:09
interesting opinion piece (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/guess-who-else-tortured-people-like-the-cia-did-soviets-and-nazis-e65357a309b9)

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 15:25
It was interesting until the last sentence:
what it’s been all along. A group of sadists flogging prisoners in the dark while no one watched
Uh, no. All along it is the lead intelligence collection organ of the US government. Since inception. That is what the CIA is, writ large.

The point he further omits that has been in the open press since about 2005 was that within the US intelligence community there was significant disagreement on this very topic/practice. I guess this fellow has to cheapen his critique with a cheap shot: he couldn't help himself.

That criticism aside, that's a good article to read on the topic, and on what historical info was available to consider when pondering the utility of such a decision on whether or not to adopt such a practice.
(I'll suggest a few things were learned more recently in SE Asia that would also inform such decisions).

radeng
11th Dec 2014, 16:09
Who was Bush's Attorney General who said that in his legal opinion, torture to the point just short of causing organ failure was legal?

That always seemed a dubious argument to me. A guy I know who served in Vietnam said that it was always easier to hand prisoners to Koreans for interrogation - that way, the US could not be seen to be involved in torture....

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 17:00
Lowry pretty well sums up the Situation. Brennan, Director of the CIA, is coming onto TV today and refuting allegations about the lack of useful Intelligence coming from the EIT Program which is the core argument of the Feinstein Report.

She is as accurate in this Report as she has been on Assault Rifles.

Which means....not very!



Dianne Feinstein's Travesty

By RICH LOWRY December 10, 2014

The Senate Intelligence Committee spent roughly $50 million on its investigation into the CIA and apparently couldn’t find Michael Hayden’s phone number.

The committee portrays Gen. Hayden, the former CIA director, as a liar who deceived Congress about the agency’s interrogation program, yet the committee couldn’t be bothered to interview him.

That’s because it didn’t bother to interview anyone.

The committee’s chair, Dianne Feinstein, says such interviews were made impossible by Justice Department investigations into the people responsible for the interrogation program, but those investigations ended years ago.

The reality is that the committee didn’t want to include anything that might significantly complicate its cartoonish depiction of a CIA that misled everyone so it could maintain a secret prison system for the hell of it.

It isn’t an insult to call the resulting report partisan; it is a simple fact. Republicans stopped cooperating as soon as it became clear that Feinstein wanted a prosecutor’s brief, not a report tainted by any hint of fair-minded inquiry.

The Feinstein report scores some points. It makes plain that the CIA program wasn’t adequately controlled, especially at the beginning, that it went too far and that the agency became too invested — not unexpectedly, given normal bureaucratic imperatives — in defending it.

But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.

Even though its executive summary runs more than 500 pages, the report lacks basic context, specifically an account of the post-Sept. 11 environment in which nearly everyone expected another attack, and wanted to do everything possible to avoid it. The New York Times ran a piece in May 2002, saying that “there has been a drumbeat of warnings from top officials that further terrorist attacks, even a nuclear one, are all but inevitable.”

This is why the impeccably liberal Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, could at this time practically sound like the much-maligned Michael Hayden.

After the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003, Rockefeller said on CNN that we should be “very, very tough with him”; that he has information that will save American lives and that “we have no business not getting that information”; and that we should consider shipping him to a country with no laws against torture. “I wouldn’t take anything off the table where he is concerned,” Rockefeller declared, “because this is a man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last 10 years.”

The interrogation program was born against this backdrop. When we caught KSM, no one was saying, “Let’s give him some dates and olives and hope, once he finds out what nice people we are, he spills his guts and gives up Osama bin Laden’s location.”

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 17:26
I seem to recall Hayden having testified before Congress at some length a few years ago.

Were those transcripts not available to refer to?

obgraham
11th Dec 2014, 18:25
Here's another way to look at this nonsense:

The main complaint of the huggies, other than their natural aversion to anything beyond sitting down and kumbayah-ing with your enemy, is that the CIA didn't actually gain much useful information from their "EIT". Good thing, that, so we can all continue on our high horses.

But what if they had? What if they had direct evidence of a plot to torch the Lincoln Tunnel, the Lincoln Memorial, Harvard Law School, or the Senate Office Building? With names, places, and bags of C4 with detonators.

Well then we'd be singing a different tune, about how the CIA was wonderful, and scotched these plots.

So the real problem is that the CIA is either unable or unwilling to produce factual cases where they were successful by stringing a few jihadis up while they reverse end-rehydrated them.

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 18:25
CIA Director Brennan to hold a Press Conference in about 15 minutes to discuss the Report and is expected to challenge its findings re the usefulness of information gained from the EIT Program.

fitliker
11th Dec 2014, 18:52
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-George Orwell


For those who do not want to stand behind those rough men, please feel free to stand in front of them.

rgbrock1
11th Dec 2014, 19:05
fitliker:

Spot on, mate, spot on. :ok::D

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 20:47
Feinstein is so classless....her Twitter Comments while the CIA Director was speaking show her to be a very ugly Woman.

The only thing that keeps her out of Prison herself is the protection she is granted by the Constitution that lets her say anything she wants in the "Well of the Senate".

If Senators and Congressmen would just use that privilege to do "Good" and not just advance their selfish political agenda then this Country would be a lot better off.



"[CIA officers] did what they were asked to do in the service of our nation," Brennan said, in his first public response to a controversial report issued earlier this week by Senate Democrats.

The director, who was a top official within the spy agency under the George W. Bush administration when the interrogation tactics were used, disputed key findings in the report -- which claimed the "enhanced" tactics were not effective and accused the agency of misleading Congress.

Brennan claimed that detainees subjected to harsh methods produced "very useful, valuable intelligence." Whether that information could have been obtained with other methods, he said, is "unknowable."

He also said "the record simply does not support" the suggestion the agency intentionally misled officials about the program.

Further, Brennan said one of the most "frustrating" aspects of the report is it paints a picture of CIA officers as "untrustworthy."

"This in no way comports with my experience in the CIA," he said, during a rare press conference.

Brennan's response comes after several former Bush administration officials -- including ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Vice President Dick Cheney -- have blasted the report as biased and inaccurate. In an interview Wednesday with Fox News, Cheney called it "deeply flawed."

Brennan conceded Thursday that some aspects of the report were "sound and consistent" with their own findings. He said the agency was "unprepared" to launch the program and in some cases, officers used unauthorized and "abhorrent" techniques. He said he supported President Obama's decision to end "enhanced" techniques like waterboarding.

But he also lamented that the Senate intelligence committee did not interview CIA officers for its investigation. And he stressed that the agency's interrogation program was mostly conducted in accordance with legal guidance at the time. He tried to remind the nation that they were doing their best to protect Americans from another 9/11-style attack, recounting the fear that struck the nation that day.

"Never again, we vowed -- never again," Brennan said. "Al Qaeda was poised, ready and prepared to pursue its violent agenda."

This, he said, was the "backdrop" for the program. "There were no easy answers," Brennan said.

As Brennan spoke, intelligence committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who released the report, tried to rebut his comments on Twitter. She tweeted, "Covert authority did not include authorization to use coercive interrogation techniques," and tweeted that the techniques "don't work."

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 20:58
Brennan claimed that detainees subjected to harsh methods produced "very useful, valuable intelligence." Whether that information could have been obtained with other methods, he said, is "unknowable."
So, some journo uses scare quotes, and Feinstein twitters a sound byte.
If one actually listened to the guy who knows what was done and what they were able to use, well, he said they got some info they would not otherwise have had, info they could use.

So, It Doesn't Work is not a credible criticism.

Was it necessary to use those means?
While a question worth asking, the answer in any meaningful sense has been lost in the noise level since about 2004.

rh200
11th Dec 2014, 21:46
Who was Bush's Attorney General who said that in his legal opinion, torture to the point just short of causing organ failure was legal?

Could be a technicality. For example if I'm not mistaken the skin is an organ, does that mean if you break it thats organ failure? There's one discipline even more insidious and dubious than the intelligence world, and thats the legal profession:p

crippen
12th Dec 2014, 01:47
I wonder what is has done to the people actually inflictingthe pain on others?:confused:

baggersup
12th Dec 2014, 09:03
As someone who's watched the this Potomac Sideshow up close here for 40 years, I'm looking at this another way.

The Senate (Democratically controlled for just another month ahem) has dumped this highly controversial document into the public domain now. They knew it would create this kind of front-page, tv-loop reporting and discussion by those all over the world.

As some here correctly observed, they did it on the day that an incredibly destructive testimony was being given on the Hill by the architect of Obamacare. But I think for them this was just a twofer--they would have released it anyway.

But more importantly, this is the question Americans need to be asking themselves, IMHO, and it's not what they think about torture on principle.

The question should be: Why is the Administration courtesy of their Democratic controlled Senate waging an all-out war on our Clandestine services? Who within the Clandestine services are going to be most affected by this report, once the "stuff" starts flowing down hill and the bosses who sit behind desks over at Langley start to look for convenient scapegoats?

Will these careerists have to retire out or scapegoat some of our most experienced operatives? The ones with 20-30 years of deep field experience during the most critical time in the terror venue?

The scrambling to survive at the Agency after a report like this could end up gutting our critical clandestine services at a time when we've never needed them more.

So why gut them NOW? Who needs to see them gutted? Who wants to see the Agency in a permanent defensive crouch when they need to be going for the full-court press against the bad guys, especially with the emergence of ISIL.

And for those Agency staffers who survive the purge, will seeing some of their peers tried in a Federal court make them hold back on operations? Will they become more timid to survive?

So what's the long game goal here? Does a single Senator think we are safer today than the day before they released this report?

If they wanted to investigate, it all could have been done in closed hearings with tough love and serious with promises to the citizens that the Senate would serve its oversight job on the Agency and the torture issue without compromising national security.

So...who benefits from a highly weakened Agency and clandestine services?

Perhaps that's what the question should be.....

Blacksheep
12th Dec 2014, 10:03
To me, by definition, torture involves inflicting pain and injury to the person. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement in claustrophoblic conditions etc. are the exertion of psychological pressure. Sitting terrorist suspects down in a nice warm confortable room, with a cup of tea for a chat with the detective sergeant would be a complete waste of time.

A long serving police officer once told me he could get a confession out of any guilty party by psychological means, without laying a finger on them. But that was in a country where there is no limit on how long they can detain a suspect and there is no "habeas corpus".

People such as the fellow the BBC had on "The Breakfast Show" this morning are subversives. I have my own opinions on how to deal with subversives, but that is another subject. Suffice to say that I consider them to be on the side of those who seek to harm us. I don't feel any need for protection from the State, I need protection from our enemies.

Pinky the pilot
12th Dec 2014, 10:06
I really wasn't going to buy into this debate until I realised that in some things in life, you just cannot sit on the fence!

Boudreaux Bob; Your post, No 26 of this thread really says it all!
It brought back an image I saw, possibly in Time Magazine, of a Man and Woman holding hands as they jumped to their deaths on that day.

Like you, I don't give a shit how it was gathered!!:*

G-CPTN
12th Dec 2014, 11:46
Britain's security services were consulted before the report was 'issued' - but claim that any redaction requested was purely on the grounds of National Security and not to hide the involvement of the British.

UK Sought Changes To Senate CIA Torture Report (http://news.sky.com/story/1390474/uk-sought-changes-to-senate-cia-torture-report)

Lonewolf_50
12th Dec 2014, 13:09
baggersup has nailed it in one. :ok:

Blacksheep
12th Dec 2014, 13:18
Yes. Subversive tactics. Smoke and mirrors to destroy the defences and create what is in their view, an ideal world.

Utopia is a mental disease. It doesn't exist and never will.

Boudreaux Bob
12th Dec 2014, 13:26
Utopia does very much exist in the form of a very small village in Texas not all that far from San Antonio. If that is "utopia", I shall look elsewhere.

rgbrock1
12th Dec 2014, 13:40
Bob,

Here in "lower upstate NY" we have a village named "Valhalla". It is everything but that!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Dec 2014, 14:17
It doesn't work, and furthermore the CIA already knew it didn't work prior to 9/11, is what the report says.

The report is here: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

As the Study describes, prior to the attacks of September 2001, the CIA itself determined from its own experience with coercive interrogations, that such techniques "do not produce intelligence," "will probably result in false answers," and had historically proven to be ineffective.


The Committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism successes that the CIA has attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques, and found them to be wrong in fundamental respects. In some cases, there was no relationship between the cited counterterrorism success and any information provided by detainees during or after the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. In the remaining cases, the CIA inaccurately claimed that specific, otherwise unavailable information was acquired from a CIA detainee "as a result" of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, when in fact the information was either: (1) corroborative of information already available to the CIA or other elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community from sources other than the CIA detainee, and was therefore not "otherwise unavailable"; or (2) acquired from the CIA detainee prior to the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. The examples provided by the CIA included numerous factual inaccuracies.
In providing the "effectiveness" examples to policymakers, the Department of Justice, and others, the CIA consistently omitted the significant amount of relevant intelligence obtained from sources other than CIA detainees who had been subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques—leaving the false impression the CIA was acquiring unique information from the use of the techniques.

As to why the report was released, here are a couple of crimes which were named and shamed in the past.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

Boudreaux Bob
12th Dec 2014, 14:36
Fox,

Three former CIA Directors public statements contradict the Report.

The $50 Million Investigation did not conduct a single interview of anyone involved in the EIT Program.

The claims made by the Report are at the minimum "Suspect" as a result.

People being interrogated using any method provide false, inaccurate, information sometimes with the pure intent to deceive or mislead. That is a normal occurrence.

The Investigators then have to sort through it all and determine what is "Wheat" and what is "Chaff".

It is probably accurate to say that there is far more chance that false information will be given under Torture (that kind that involves real pain and suffering such as our POW's endured in North Vietnamese Prisons). A preponderance of EIT Program techniques do not rise to the standard we would accept as "Torture" (leastways reasonable people anyway).

The key thing to remember is we as a Nation, to include the Government, feared a second wave of Attacks by AQ or attacks that would have possibly used WMD.

We knew very little about the AQ organization, funding, and communications as well as their operational capability.

We needed that information.

My main concern all along was at some point due to the passing of time, any chance of getting actionable intelligence is lost and at that point there is no need for the use of the more extreme EIT Techniques.

Likewise I know there was a concern by this involved in the Gitmo Operation that there were people being held who posed no threat and were simple small fry caught up in the Net. Some had been handed over by Tribes hostile to them purely on Tribal Politics and not for Terrorism involvement.

As you will notice, a great many of the Gitmo Prisoners have been released with little fanfare as they were not seen to be of interest to anyone.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Dec 2014, 14:58
My own understanding, from Cold War era RtoI training (which included a lecture from one of your Hanoi Hilton residents), is that torture on suspects is basically pointless, but that torture of known combatants may yield useful gen if done early enough.

I have no problem with doing whatever is necessary to known combatants (KSM et al), but my understanding is that the CIA were torturing suspects, which I understand not to work, as well as being counterproductive in international terms.

The biggest problem here appears to be that Congress thinks the CIA was lying to Congress.

rgbrock1
12th Dec 2014, 15:08
The biggest problem here appears to be that Congress thinks the CIA was lying to Congress.

Shocks of all shocks I tell ya. :eek::eek::eek:

Lonewolf_50
12th Dec 2014, 15:25
My own understanding, from Cold War era RtoI training (which included a lecture from one of your Hanoi Hilton residents), is that torture on suspects is basically pointless, but that torture of known combatants may yield useful gen if done early enough. Right.
So, in some cases, torture works. In many cases, per Senator McCain's very public complaints going back into 2004/2005 on this matter (and that of others) it doesn't necessarily get you what you are looking for.

We seem to be in violent agreement. To simply say "it doesn't work" is a falsehood.

Now, with the experience our guys had gained over decades on the shortcomings of that approach, why is it that the administration put forth the position that it could and should be used anyway? (Hell, why did Jay Rockefeller get onboard when he was on the intel committee.)

I am making some guesses here.

I think it had to do with the nature of the threat (outlaws) and the internal shock to the psyche of key members of the administration (I am looking at you, VP Cheney) when the attack on our soil occurred. I think that shook the VP a lot harder than he'll ever admit.

IMO, it was the politically based approach of "we shall leave no stone unturned" to prevent another occurrence that led to "any measure, however inefficient, shall be taken in addressing this known threat."
See also TSA. :p
See also the creation of DHS, upon which further comments are :mad:

They didn't care how effective nor how inefficient a method for getting at and under the skin of our enemies was, nor how effective / efficient a protective measure was.
They'd do everything, and anything.
So they set out to do so.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Dec 2014, 16:14
As B.Bob said
We knew very little about the AQ organization, funding, and communications as well as their operational capability.

Which is what happens when you ignore HUMINT for shiny new satellites..

I think that also led to however inefficient morphing into however ineffective

Looks to me like Cheney and the CIA high-ups just plain panicked.

Boudreaux Bob
12th Dec 2014, 16:55
Congress worrying that the CIA lied to them?

Now that is rich!

Let's start with J. Rockefeller who we KNOW is lying.

D. Feinstein, conveniently ignores the content of Briefings given by the CIA and who was doing the Briefing, which can only question her credibility.

con-pilot
12th Dec 2014, 17:00
which can only question her credibility

Never knew she had any.

rgbrock1
12th Dec 2014, 17:14
I was just going to remark on that statement, Bob. Feinstein and credibility I thought were two mutually-exclusive words. :E

Boudreaux Bob
12th Dec 2014, 21:09
I suppose the Fifty Million Dollar Investigation that only looked at Documents overlooked some of these Documents or just ignored the content of them.

Feinstein and 118 other members of Congress are having some very selective memories over this situation.


CIA Docs Obtained by JW in 2010 Show Congress Approved of Enhanced Interrogation - Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/12/cia-docs-obtained-jw-2010-show-congress-approved-enhanced-interrogation/)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/defending_the_cia.html

Capetonian
13th Dec 2014, 08:25
Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?
Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!


Written by a British housewife to her daily newspaper:


'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York Sept 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in Washington , and in downtown Manhattan , and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank:

I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran..' Well, believe me!! you guessed it ............

I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:

'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. Our soldiers don't have that problem.'

I have another quote that I would like to add, AND........ I hope you forward all this.

Only seven defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The British Soldier.

3. The Canadian Soldier.

4. The US Soldier

5. The New Zealand Soldier

6. The Australian Soldier, and

7.The South African Soldier


One died for your soul, the other 6 for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THEM
AMEN!’

GIVE THIS LADY A STANDING OVATION. SHE HAS INDEED TICKED ALL THE BOXES

Isn't it interesting that so many people in the Western World feel this way, but not one of our politicians, who are supposed to represent us, ever have the guts to state the situation like it is?

We do not have strong politicians, just weaklings that bend in the wind.

VP959
13th Dec 2014, 08:52
The lady who wrote that letter is misinformed.

Does she care that 22% of those tortured weren't Taliban, and weren't enemy combatants, but were innocent of any crime?

Does she care that very few of the other caught and tortured have not been charged with any crime, presumably because there is insufficient evidence to prove that they are guilty?

If she cares about right and wrong, then she should also care about justice, which is the bedrock of our society, and not apparently believe that blind vengeance is right.

To stoop to the behaviour level of our terrorist enemies makes us worse than them, because we have an established justice system that we live by.

Amelia_Flashtart
13th Dec 2014, 09:18
Agreed - she is misinformed - or believes the BS fed to her by the media

Have spent the past 7 years in Afghanistan I can assure you that the following is untrue

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .

A priest holds mass at the Italian embassy every week - and the military chaplains officiate at Christian weddings - often attended by Muslim Afghans:ugh:

In 7 years I never heard of a single beheading for ANY crime in Afghanistan. Beheading is not one of the methods of execution either the Taliban or the government forces use

John Hill
13th Dec 2014, 11:22
Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York Sept 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Are you sure about that? Just when did it start?

baggersup
13th Dec 2014, 11:46
Another question the tax-paying citizens might want to know is....how did this report cost $40,000,000? WOT?

Seriously? HOW? It's a bloody report. How many airfares did they have to pay to bring people in for interviews?

Are they including Senate staffer time, people who are already on salary?

Was this job contracted out in full to some pork receiving pal of Feinstein's? For that sum, sounds as though all the leg work was contracted out to some Beltway bandit like somebody's pal or PAC contributor. That's the only feasible way a report could cost this sum. Done inhouse that would be impossible.

Bet it was a big contract Feinstein or somebody on her committee gave to somebody who had ex-gov employees with security clearances so they could access the stuff.

I hope some of my old newspaper colleagues FOIA that billing account to see where the money was spent--or ask the CBO if they an provide detail that isn't redacted.

Is ANYBODY on a decent news staff going to truth squad this report page by page? Wherever they can?

Every decent, experienced journalist who covers national security has sources they could go to to go through this report page by page and unpick it.

Hope they are doing that. And in the meantime, inquiring minds want to know where the 40 mill went. Even if the report is nothing but spin and a fantasy tale for full on attack on clandestine services, the money is real!

racedo
13th Dec 2014, 12:18
There is a stench from this report that will not go away.

Employing people whose sole job is to get ANY information means pretty much they will fabricate whatever is necessary to continue in the day job.

As noted on 1st page of this thread the FBI felt early on that AIT was counterproductive, idea was of course never shared in public. Simply because the FBI personnel involved would have been called TRAITORS and putting US lives at risk.

The Moral cowardice that exists means anybody questioning the States desire to hold more power and control more of your life means they automatically come under the headline of a threat to the existence of the country.

What is required is a complete cleanout and persecution of ANY personnel involved in this.

This report is not a surprise, what is a surprise is the lack of Morality that existed anywhere in Govt since 9/11 in wanting to follow the law.

It is not surprising that the enemies of the US were quickly questioning US Human Rights actions, what should be more worrying is in the reaction of its allies.

The report pretty much suggests that the sum total of all the data received was sweet :mad: all and none of it couldn't have been obtained elsewhere or by other methods.

9/11 changed the world, not because 3000 Innocent people died, many have died quicker in a shorter time but because it gave Governments a belief they had a right to remove all our freedoms by claiming it was for our safety.

airship
13th Dec 2014, 12:48
From Capetonian's quoted letter from a British housewife: Only seven defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The British Soldier.

3. The Canadian Soldier.

4. The US Soldier

5. The New Zealand Soldier

6. The Australian Soldier, and

7.The South African Soldier


One died for your soul, the other 6 for your freedom. What a totally self-centred and blitheringly ignorant individual (I could add more but I won't)...?! :ugh:

I don't know why Capetonian thought it worthwhile to post that letter.

But back to torture: they say that it all begins in childhood don't they? Using a magnifying glass to burn ants. Or pulling legs off daddy-long-legs. What useful information or intelligence might be obtained thus remains a mystery to me. Then progressing to larger creatures. And eventually...?! Let's face it, some people (and organisations) just enjoy not having any limit to their imagination. Fear is the key.

Boudreaux Bob
13th Dec 2014, 13:35
The "Stench" is the aroma of rotten Pork, Bovine like flatuence, and plain ol' Bullshit emanating from the Report and Diane Feinstein.

If she was so utterly opposed to this Program why did she not announce that from Day One when she and other Congressional Leaders were briefed on the Program?

After you folks who are so upset over the "Report" answer that one then you can start telling us about how evil the CIA was/is in this.

Ask Feinstein to explain why she did not take issue with the DOJ's Legal Opinions re the EIT Program when they FIRST heard of it.

Feinstein's moral outrage comes awfully late considering her long involvement in the Program. Considering the highly classified nature of the Program and the fact she was frequently briefed on the results and progress of the program, she has far more involvement than she admits.

If she wishes to pursue the allegation that the CIA lied to Congress and the President....then she should prove it.

Those who want to use this Report as the source of information to find fault with the CIA should at least ask honest questions of the Report, Feinstein, and the other Democrats who were briefed on the Program over the many Years it was in operation.

If you refuse to do that, you are being just as shallow as Feinstein.

VP959
13th Dec 2014, 15:39
I suppose the other point is that, over many hundreds of years, we've come to understand that information extracted under extreme duress is almost always unreliable.

Like a few others here I've sampled the delights of sleep deprivation, being held in stress positions, been subject to humiliation, buckets of cold water etc. Like a few others here I also realised that after surprisingly short period of such treatment I would have said absolutely anything if I thought it would get it to stop. Would I have told the truth? Probably not, I'd have tried to tell the interrogators what I thought they'd want to hear. They may have been some truth in it, but when you're at that limit of endurance you really will say absolutely anything.

I was humbled and surprised at how quickly my resolve not to say anything dissolved after being "captured" and exposed to few hours of non-violent interrogation techniques, and I suspect there are very few people who would hold out for more than a few days of being kept stressed, sleep deprived and in fear.

It's one reason that we've had so many cases over the years of false confessions, leading to innocent people being convicted of crimes that had nothing to do with. With some people it doesn't take much to get them to the point where they will admit to anything, far less time than most imagine. Just being interrogated continuously for many hours is enough to get some to say whatever they think their interrogator wants to hear.

If torture worked, we'd still be using it, as we did in the dark ages, but we've learned that it is too often counter productive to be useful.

racedo
13th Dec 2014, 16:30
Those who want to use this Report as the source of information to find fault with the CIA should at least ask honest questions of the Report, Feinstein, and the other Democrats who were briefed on the Program over the many Years it was in operation.

If you refuse to do that, you are being just as shallow as Feinstein.

Do you really want your country to be one where you sacrifice your laws and allow appointed people appoint others, answerable to nobody, to do as they wish with others and threaten anybody who stands against them.

What becomes acceptable in the shadows then becomes acceptable within less than a generation in the mainstream.

Should any Govt be able to pick random people up off the street in another country, deem them a threat with no requirement to provide any evidence or proof, transport them to what ever place they wish and interrogate them.

Boudreaux Bob
13th Dec 2014, 16:47
Race,

Should any Govt be able to pick random people up off the street in another country, (or in your own Country)deem them a threat with no requirement to provide any evidence or proof, transport them to what ever place they wish and interrogate them.

The question is "your" Country.

Yours has done this too.

You have a law on your books that allows Detention sans Trial for unlimited periods of time.

Deal with your own Laws and Morals first then talk to us will you?

obgraham
13th Dec 2014, 16:59
You all, of course, are jumping to the conclusion that everything in this senate report is true.

Why is it that you mistrust every other government report, but quickly conclude that this one must be true?

racedo
13th Dec 2014, 17:01
The question is "your" Country.

Yours has done this too.

You have a law on your books that allows Detention sans Trial for unlimited periods of time.

Deal with your own Laws and Morals first then talk to us will you?

Bob

I have and will always be opposed to detention without trial.
If you have the evidence then use it, if you haven't then that person is innocent as uncharged.

Claiming because another country does something allows you to commit torture is a bit weak.

airship
13th Dec 2014, 17:15
Perhaps john_smith was the "British housewife" who wrote the letter quoted by Capetonian...?! :uhoh:

VP959
13th Dec 2014, 17:18
In most cases I'm fully in favour of the rule of law. I believe that, in general, criminal charges should be proven in court beyond all reasonable doubt before punishment can be administered.

However, I'm more than happy with the suspension of the rule of law when it comes to Muslim terrorists. They do not deserve any protection. They should all be considered guilty and treated as such. I'm not interested in proof when it comes to them, and will not acknowledge that they have any human rights. Torture in their case should be a readily used option.

I tend to agree.

However, 22% of those captured, interrogated and allegedly tortured were NOT Islamic terrorists. That's where we need to be careful to apply such extreme interrogation techniques ONLY to those we KNOW to be enemy combatants.

I suspect that the true figure for non-enemy combatants/Islamic terrorists who have been subject to extreme interrogation techniques is higher than the 22% that have been released with no charges, as there are a large number still being held who have not been charged, tried and found guilty. It seems probable that at least some of them may not be enemy combatants/Islamic terrorists either.

This is largely where I have a problem with the approach that's been taken of detaining all and sundry, beating the sh*t out of them in the hope that some of them MAY be enemy combatants/Islamic terrorists that have useful information, and ignoring the significant proportion of innocent people who have been swept up in this dragnet.

Boudreaux Bob
13th Dec 2014, 17:28
Claiming because another country does something allows you to commit torture is a bit weak.

No such claim made and you know it.

The claim is and was....until your hands are clean then don't be pointing fingers.

Far too many here overlook that concept.

Do you suggest there is a Statute of Limitations on such conduct and that the "London Cage" can be forgotten?

If you do then where do we draw the line today?

If you don't like Gitmo and the imprisonment of folks there then how do you square your own Law that permits the same long term incarceration of Terrorist Suspects?

You cannot have it both ways. You wish to apply a standard to the Americans and the CIA but not the same to the UK . Why is that exactly?

racedo
13th Dec 2014, 17:41
No such claim made and you know it.

The claim is and was....until your hands are clean then don't be pointing fingers.

Far too many here overlook that concept.

Do you suggest there is a Statute of Limitations on such conduct and that the "London Cage" can be forgotten?

If you do then where do we draw the line today?

If you don't like Gitmo and the imprisonment of folks there then how do you square your own Law that permits the same long term incarceration of Terrorist Suspects?

You cannot have it both ways. You wish to apply a standard to the Americans and the CIA but not the same to the UK . Why is that exactly?

I apply the same standard to BOTH and find both lacking in any kind of Morality.

I have been quite happy to "discuss" and berate my MPs of various hues over the years for the actions be it supporting War in Iraq on a lie or selling arms to Indonesia when they were slaughtering East Timorese and everyone wanted to look the other way.

I see it no different now because I can pretty much guess that CIA appointed persons were not the only people in the room and various other nations personnel were there as well. If that is the case then any UK personnel should be subject to UK law without a get out clause.

airship
13th Dec 2014, 17:51
Why all the hand-wringing and folks unnecessarily exposing themselves as extremists of one or other persuasion here?!

Patience! One day when the ICC finally run out of African and Asian dictators / regimes to prosecute, they'll get round to establishing "the truth" in matters such as these in the 1st World... :ok: :uhoh:

wings folded
13th Dec 2014, 18:34
how do you square your own Law that permits the same long term incarceration of Terrorist Suspects?Which law do you have in mind?

Toadstool
13th Dec 2014, 18:49
That would be the law that allows "long term" detention for up to 28 days. Without the use of EIT.

Golly gosh. That makes Gitmo look like a holiday camp. Guilty as charged BB :{

obgraham
13th Dec 2014, 20:58
Yes, the ICC: 12 years, billions spent, and only 2 insignificant convictions. But plenty of bloviating by the elites of the world.

The US will never sign on to the ICC in its present form. The current administration would if it had the chance, but fortunately there is that impediment known as the Senate.

racedo
13th Dec 2014, 21:03
Patience! One day when the ICC finally run out of African and Asian dictators / regimes to prosecute, they'll get round to establishing "the truth" in matters such as these in the 1st World..

That will never happen as even now the ones going to ICC are specially selected as few Western Allies in those countries ever go there ................paymasters wouldn't like it.

racedo
13th Dec 2014, 21:05
The US will never sign on to the ICC in its present form. The current administration would if it had the chance, but fortunately there is that impediment known as the Senate.

US will never sign up to ICC in ANY form.

rh200
13th Dec 2014, 21:40
Put one of these on another thread on the topic, will give some of you something to hiss about:p

Scalia Weighs in on Torture Debate (http://time.com/3632108/torture-report-antonin-scalia/)

Scalia on torture morality: 'I don't think it's so clear at all' - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/politics/scalia-on-torture-death-penalty/)

Sop_Monkey
13th Dec 2014, 22:54
Here is the truth, as I see it.

Any country who is at war, declared or otherwise, or not, are going to use torture to extract information. Any country would be a fool not to.

If I was the boss and had access to a detainee who I had a good idea was with holding information that would put the lives of my fellow country men and women in danger I would certainly use every means at my disposal to extract that information. Any country who say they don't are BSing.

Remember, that lot declared war on the west. If they want a war, then let's give them a war. There are no rules in war, as you fight a war to win. Or is anyone going to try and tell me you fight a war to loose? There are only "winners" and looser's.

Capetonian
13th Dec 2014, 23:27
Don't yell at terrorist suspects, soldiers told - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11292578/Dont-yell-at-terrorist-suspects-soldiers-told.html)

Never mind torture, you can't even raise your voice to them. Poor little diddums.

Low Flier
14th Dec 2014, 05:49
There are no rules in war

Bullshit! Dangerous bullshit.

Many fascists hold the view there are no rules in war, even after the Nuremberg trials, but they are wrong.

Rape, murder and torture are all illegal, both in war and in peace. The rules of war apply to fascist nations just as much as to civilised nations.

John Hill
14th Dec 2014, 05:55
Remember, that lot declared war on the west.

When did they do that?

rh200
14th Dec 2014, 06:45
Rape, murder and torture are all illegal, both in war and in peace. The rules of war apply to fascist nations just as much as to civilised nations. Who makes those laws, and who are we to dictate morality?

If I remember correctly the Russians in WW11 rape their way across Germany, don't see to much justice happening to them.

There are only rules made by somebody, and then followed by somebody if its convenient.

Sop_Monkey
14th Dec 2014, 09:06
John

Let me try and refresh your memory. Some do suffer from selective amnesia. OBL and his disciples pre 911. Certainly on 911 he did. If 911 wasn't a declaration of war I don't what is. They don't wear uniforms so they don't adhere to the Geneva convention, so why should anyone else?

So, if torture is against the Geneva convention for example, then I take it non conventional weapons are also on the list. There is one hell of a lot of countries that are prepared to use them, as they have them in stock.

Does the enemy have to be at a specific geographical location? No and this lot are almost everywhere. They are among us.

John Hill
14th Dec 2014, 09:43
Sop Monkey, you cannot blame Osama Bin Laden for America's wars against Muslims that have been going on for 210 years or more.

Sop_Monkey
14th Dec 2014, 09:46
I do admire your "front" in mentioning the M word! I'd never have got away with that! :}

tony draper
14th Dec 2014, 11:25
Oh dont we in the west just love wearing the hair shirt and flagellating ourselves. :rolleyes:

fitliker
14th Dec 2014, 11:49
Is it silly season already ?

Checkboard
14th Dec 2014, 12:10
they don't adhere to the Geneva convention, so why should anyone else?
Ummm ... to maintain a moral standard? :ugh:

To show the world that there really are "good guys" and "bad guys" in a particular conflict, and that you are the "good guys"? :rolleyes:

Otherwise the conflict is just two sets of arseholes beating on each other. :suspect:

racedo
14th Dec 2014, 13:02
Who makes those laws, and who are we to dictate morality?

If I remember correctly the Russians in WW11 rape their way across Germany, don't see to much justice happening to them.

There are only rules made by somebody, and then followed by somebody if its convenient.

At a minimum Soviet losses were 27 million but even that number is disputed and viewed as being closer to 40 million................

UK Population was 46 Million so even taken lower figure the Russian lost 60% of population of UK, Russian population was 170 million so even equiavlent rate in UK would have been 7.5 Million dead.

The Russian soldiers raped their way across Germany but not every russian and not every woman was raped.

racedo
14th Dec 2014, 13:03
Some do suffer from selective amnesia. OBL and his disciples pre 911.

So when OBL was an ally of CIA what was that again ?
Who trained and fostered OBL ?

Hempy
14th Dec 2014, 13:13
The problem is that a country so God fearing that it made Jerry Falwell a multi-millionaire unfortunately only seem to recognise one passage from their own Bible - Matthew 5:38 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-38.htm).

Reminds me of those other religious zealots running around at the moment who are also using cherry-picked passages from their own 'Holy Book' as an excuse to do bad things. So it seems the opponents are evenly matched...morally speaking.

radeng
14th Dec 2014, 13:27
Perhaps the honest way would be to announce that the country is withdrawing from the Geneva Convention. Or would the Senate not allow that either?

ExXB
14th Dec 2014, 15:48
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/12/13/opinion/13chappatte/13chappatte-sfSpan.jpg

Lies, damn lies ...

wings folded
14th Dec 2014, 17:26
Quote:
how do you square your own Law that permits the same long term incarceration of Terrorist Suspects?

Which law do you have in mind?

Take your time, but an answer would be nice.

Sop_Monkey
14th Dec 2014, 19:00
racedo

To try and address your queries, we all back the wrong horse at times.

Your enemies enemy, is your friend?

wings folded
14th Dec 2014, 19:17
Boudreaux Bob,

You said:
You have a law on your books that allows Detention sans Trial for unlimited periods of time.

Deal with your own Laws and Morals first then talk to us will you?

Identify the law you refer to (all laws in the UK have a title and a date of promulgation, so it should be easy) and then we can talk about that law and questions of morals.

It is up to you to respond, if it be your will. So far you have not shown willing.

sitigeltfel
15th Dec 2014, 06:02
Sop Monkey, you cannot blame Osama Bin Laden for America's wars against Muslims that have been going on for 210 years or more.

Islam has been on a murderous rampage since the 7th century and only firm and uncompromising action has prevented it from overwhelming the civilised world. Todays politicians are showing no such resolve and have left the populace they are supposed to be protecting exposed to extreme danger. Islam has no truck with compassion and tolerance and views it as a weakness to be exploited. Imagine waking up in September 1939 to discover that millions of card carrying Nazis were living among you, embedded into your society and ready to surrender to their creed when the call came. That is where we are now John, and as events in Sydney unfold maybe some of the useful idiots will begin to wake up. Of course there are always their apologists and arse lickers who will champion their case because they have some axe to grind, or possibly some psychological problems that prevents reason from entering their souls. At the end of the day, the Islamists will not discriminate, and everyone's necks will be a target for the soldiers of Allah. They are getting closer John, feel any tingling around the throat yet?

Toadstool
15th Dec 2014, 09:59
Identify the law you refer to (all laws in the UK have a title and a date of promulgation, so it should be easy) and then we can talk about that law and questions of morals.

It is up to you to respond, if it be your will. So far you have not shown willing.

Thats because there is no law that says that. As I said previously, there is a law which allows for detention up to 28 days. The law for detention for unlimited time does not exist.


He doesn't respond because he is wrong. He has also argued that there are people on here who are more upset about EIT than they are at Muslim Terrorists beheading people. Again, he couldn't be more wrong.

wings folded
15th Dec 2014, 12:24
He doesn't respond because he is wrong. It is just possible that he is better informed than we are, in which case he merely has to identify the law he refers to.

Or, as you suggest, he is just wrong.

If he does not care to admit his error, his bleatings about "morality" will attract the sympathy they deserve.

mikedreamer787
15th Dec 2014, 18:08
“Since I was serving, the rules on interrogations have been tightened up because of the lawyers. We [the military] are no longer able to carry out tactical questioning. A good case to stuff all these bloody lawyers in a C130
and drop 'em out directly over Mosul. There they'll get
exactly what they deserve and no one'll give a rats ass.

rgbrock1
15th Dec 2014, 19:07
http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-12-15-1f2bbe6d_large.jpg