'Unconscionable': Top Republicans lash out ahead of release of CIA report

[Jeff]

Well here we go again, if the two parties ever worked together we may just get something done, but this report has no right going public, whether Dem or Rep certain things just shouldn't be for the average citizen to see.


Top Republicans are warning that the "unconscionable" release, by order of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, of a report on CIA interrogation techniques used on Al Qaeda suspects in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks could "endanger the lives of Americans" all over the world.
The report on the techniques, which some officials credit with helping track down Usama bin Laden and other terror leaders, is expected to be released late Tuesday morning. The White House and President Obama are backing the decision to release the report, despite warnings from lawmakers and some inside the administration that it could lead to a backlash against Americans.
Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jim Risch, R-Idaho, in a statement late Monday, called the move a “partisan effort” by Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They said the report is not “serious or constructive.”



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/09/reckless-and-irresponsible-top-republicans-lash-out-ahead-release-cia-report/

[fj1200]

Well here we go again, if the two parties ever worked together we may just get something done, but this report has no right going public, whether Dem or Rep certain things just shouldn't be for the average citizen to see.

Amen to that. The whole torture debate should have been handled behind closed doors.

[revelarts]

There should be no "debate" it's illegal, been that way for centuries.
Some died from the torture that's murder.
Those who ordered it should be exposed and go to jail.

done deal.

no one's above the law i'm told.

[Drummond]

Trust a Leftie to stir the pot, not caring about what may (& doubtless WILL) follow. This gives Al Q terrorists yet further 'excuse' to indulge in their favourite subhuman activities.

Two observations, though ..

1. At the end of the day, Al Qaeda needs no excuse at all to go around bombing the guts out of people (... literally ...). If they want to, they'll just do it. Surely 9/11 is one hell of an example proving that point ?

2. We really, I mean REALLY, need to get rid of all these sensitivities about how terrorist captives are treated !! It's THIS that Dems exploit, and use it as leverage for point-scoring, in the worst way. If ONLY everyone could see terrorists as the subhumans they truly are, then such 'debate' would never be necessary in the first place.

[aboutime]

There should be no "debate" it's illegal, been that way for centuries.
Some died from the torture that's murder.
Those who ordered it should be exposed and go to jail.

done deal.

no one's above the law i'm told.


rev. This is another total distraction, and most of us know it. It takes the political pressure off of Gruber, and all of the Illegal tactics being attempted by Obama. BUT YOU don't want to talk about those things. Do you?

[gabosaurus]

Well here we go again, if the two parties ever worked together we may just get something done, but this report has no right going public, whether Dem or Rep certain things just shouldn't be for the average citizen to see.


Of course it should be handled behind closed doors. The general public should not be allowed to know how cruel, heartless and incompetent the Bush administration torture policy was.
If you want to know the REAL reason why Isis formed, and why the Arab world holds the U.S. in such contempt, read the report.
All of you who supported the Bush torture plan, the blood is on your hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

[red states rule]

There should be no "debate" it's illegal, been that way for centuries.
Some died from the torture that's murder.
Those who ordered it should be exposed and go to jail.

done deal.

no one's above the law i'm told.

Rev it is NOT torture to squirt water down a terrorist's nose

It is NOT torture to deprive them of sleep

It is a FACT that only THREE terrorists were ever water boarded

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/11/exclusive-only/

It is also a FACT Dems like Pelosi were briefed and knew all about what was going on and did nto have a problem with it until they could use it to score political points

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

It is amazing how some will bend over backwards top protect these dirt bags who have no second thought on cutting heads off people and posting it on the internet

[red states rule]

Of course it should be handled behind closed doors. The general public should not be allowed to know how cruel, heartless and incompetent the Bush administration torture policy was.
If you want to know the REAL reason why Isis formed, and why the Arab world holds the U.S. in such contempt, read the report.
All of you who supported the Bush torture plan, the blood is on your hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

As I posted your beloved Dems knew all about what was going on and did not have a problem with it. Are they also "criminals"?

Now Gabby what would do it they had your daughter and you had one of the terrorists alone in a room. Would you use any and all means to find out where your daughter was or would you simply say "Pretty please"?

Now we can all enjoy the sound of crickets chirping as Gabby will move on and ignore the direct questions asked of her

[aboutime]

Gabby simply can't ignore blaming BUSH for her continued stupidity either.

[red states rule]

Gabby simply can't ignore blaming BUSH for her continued stupidity either.

Like most libs AT - Gabby ignores facts that hurts her position. Says "It's Bush's fault", and then when all else fails she pulls the race card from the bottom of the deck

[aboutime]

Like most libs AT - Gabby ignores facts that hurts her position. Says "It's Bush's fault", and then when all else fails she pulls the race card from the bottom of the deck


"Gabby and Obama sittin' in a tree, Watchin' Obama takin' a ..." That race card is all they have.

[red states rule]

"Gabby and Obama sittin' in a tree, Watchin' Obama takin' a ..." That race card is all they have.

and once asked a direct question Gabby ran away faster then Bill Clinton chasing a young intern around the Oval Office desk

[red states rule]

There should be no "debate" it's illegal, been that way for centuries.
Some died from the torture that's murder.
Those who ordered it should be exposed and go to jail.

done deal.

no one's above the law i'm told.

and Rev you do know it is also a FACT that the reason our troops killed OBL was due to the info we got by squirting water down the nose of terrorists

Or would you rather have OBL alive and plotting more attacks?

[aboutime]

rev has an absolute right to his opinion here, based on the same constitution our president is Bound By Law to obey in protecting ALL of the American people.

I guess rev would rather have enemies like ISIS, and the MEXICAN CARTEL'S able to travel, steal, and kill members of rev's family because "HE WANTED TO PLAY NICE WITH OUR ENEMIES?"

[gabosaurus]

The world reacts to the unconscionable acts of a disgraced presidency. Even Reagan would be appalled.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/guardian-view-on-us-torture-report-america-shame-disgrace


President Ronald Reagan signed the United Nations convention against torture in 1988 and the United States ratified it six years later in 1994. Seven years after that, in 2001, the US nevertheless started to use torture on a systematic basis

[Jeff]

Of course it should be handled behind closed doors. The general public should not be allowed to know how cruel, heartless and incompetent the Bush administration torture policy was.
If you want to know the REAL reason why Isis formed, and why the Arab world holds the U.S. in such contempt, read the report.
All of you who supported the Bush torture plan, the blood is on your hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

I think you are onto something, the reason they all where those turbans is because they can look into the future :rolleyes:

Yes these animals are all mad because of GW but yet none of this torture shit was even heard of until after 9/11, yea you remember where we where heading to work not giving them a second thought and they attacked :rolleyes:

[gabosaurus]

I think you are onto something, the reason they all where those turbans is because they can look into the future :rolleyes:

Yes these animals are all mad because of GW but yet none of this torture shit was even heard of until after 9/11, yea you remember where we where heading to work not giving them a second thought and they attacked :rolleyes:

Congratulations. That statement made no sense whatsoever.

[Jeff]

Congratulations. That statement made no sense whatsoever.

Congrats, you just explained the box of rocks comment from another thread

[jimnyc]

CIA Torture Report: Bush Was Kept in the Dark for YearsPresident George W. Bush was never briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency on the details of harsh interrogation techniques and secret detention of terror suspects for the first four years of its controversial program, and when he did find out the details, he was “uncomfortable” with some of the practices, according to a long-awaited report (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf) by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

[red states rule]

Hey Earth to Rev post # 7

Gabby post # - oh hell forget it. You never answer direct questions. You just toss out your crap then scatter

[red states rule]

CIA Torture Report: Bush Was Kept in the Dark for Years

President George W. Bush was never briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency on the details of harsh interrogation techniques and secret detention of terror suspects for the first four years of its controversial program, and when he did find out the details, he was “uncomfortable” with some of the practices, according to a long-awaited report (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf) by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

Why the hell all the outrage over THREE terrorists being water boarded and many other deprived of sleep?

I know lefties whine how "torture" is against the Geneva Convention - when the hell are terrorists covered under the Geneva Convention? When did they sign it? What uniforms do they wear? What single nation do they represent?

[Drummond]

rev has an absolute right to his opinion here, based on the same constitution our president is Bound By Law to obey in protecting ALL of the American people.

I guess rev would rather have enemies like ISIS, and the MEXICAN CARTEL'S able to travel, steal, and kill members of rev's family because "HE WANTED TO PLAY NICE WITH OUR ENEMIES?"

Agreed - Rev has his right to his opinion. Just as he also has the responsibility of seeing those opinions defeated by better ones, as and when those are offered.

[Drummond]

Why the hell all the outrage over THREE terrorists being water boarded and many other deprived of sleep?

I know lefties whine how "torture" is against the Geneva Convention - when the hell are terrorists covered under the Geneva Convention? When did they sign it? What uniforms do they wear? What single nation do they represent?

The Geneva Convention applies to human beings. Those terrorists we're told were 'tortured', DON'T QUALIFY AS SUCH.

If their actions, and their planned actions, don't prove that point ... then what on earth WOULD ???

I am so very heartily sick of seeing Lefties and their sympathisers bleat on about TERRORIST rights. WHAT ABOUT THEIR VICTIMS ?

At least, those terrorists got to SURVIVE - to EXPERIENCE what they 'did'. DID THE MAJORITY OF THEIR VICTIMS ? And, for those victims who did .. are they suffering debilitating conditions they will NEVER be free of ??

[Drummond]

Of course it should be handled behind closed doors. The general public should not be allowed to know how cruel, heartless and incompetent the Bush administration torture policy was.
If you want to know the REAL reason why Isis formed, and why the Arab world holds the U.S. in such contempt, read the report.
All of you who supported the Bush torture plan, the blood is on your hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

I've a serious question to pose, to which I'd like an honest answer.

Gabby --- seriously --- have you expended as much effort on behalf of the victims of Middle Eastern terrorism, as you have in attacking those who defend against them ?

Or do you just principally focus on finding ways to defend the 'rights' and 'views' of animals who attack, maim, and/or kill, the innocent ?

[revelarts]

Rev it is NOT torture to squirt water down a terrorist's nose

It is NOT torture to deprive them of sleep

It is a FACT that only THREE terrorists were ever water boarded

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/11/exclusive-only/

It is also a FACT Dems like Pelosi were briefed and knew all about what was going on and did into have a problem with it until they could use it to score political points

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

It is amazing how some will bend over backwards top protect these dirt bags who have no second thought on cutting heads off people and posting it on the internet

OK lets See how this Goes this time Red.
will you be intellectually honest? This is going to be factually pointed, nothing personal.

OK, you make a few Assertions
1. Waterboarding is not Torture.

But Red the US Gov't and State Dept admits that it is... when condemning OTHER gov'ts for doing it for years.
The leftist communist Documents the US stole the system from call it "torture".
the Navy's SERE training manual calls it "torture". the training is on how to resist "torture".
Navy SERE trainers specifically call it "torture" in congressional testimony.
Various US General's and FBI interrogators, call it "torture" in open letters to Bush in, testimony, in news reports.
US WW2 Nazi interrogators call it "torture" and condemn it.
the Police who used it on suspects in a jail in Texas while Bush was governor went to prison for it because it's 'torture'.
The Spanish Inquisition called it the water torture. And it's been known and condemned as such EVER SINCE ...until Bush did it.

I've got links to back it all up, (plus it's in old post here) but before i post any links on the above i'd like to know of ANY of these points above would make you say.
"well maybe i guess it is torture."
If you're not willing to admitted it then what's the point of posting links or "debating" if you NEVER intend to change your mind or move an inch when facts are given.
if you somehow "BELIEVE" that waterboarding, which has been called torture, been understood to be torture for 400 to 500 hundred years suddenly is not torture anymore because the U.S. gov't did it for a "good" reason". then what's the point of the discussion. You have changed the definition in YOUR mind. But there's no good reason to you're argument. It just not torture..to you. History be hanged. Dick Cheney, Bush's lawyers and Red said so. Exactly like the gov't's Newspeak in the book 1984 you've changed the definition of things and somehow expect everyone in the world to FORGET what it's always been or was yesterday.

this is the color BLUE.

You also say
2. Only 3 people were ever tortures or waterboarded or "enhanced" interrogated

Sadly more than 3
more than torture

DEATH UNDER U.S. INTERROGATION
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-s...stan-and-iraq/ (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-us-operatives-torture-detainees-to-death-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/)

Tom Dispatch.com, March 5, 2006
Title: “Tracing the Trail of Torture: Embedding Torture as Policy from Guantanamo to Iraq”
Author: Dahr Jamail

Faculty Evaluator: Rabi Michael Robinson
Student Researchers: Michael B Januleski Jr. and Jessica Rodas

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq October 25, 2005. Twenty-one of those deaths were listed as homicides. The documents show that detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy SEALs, Military Intelligence, and Other Government Agency (OGA).

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

The Department of Defense released the autopsy reports in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace....

For more info I'd like you look here...
Human Rights Investigator, Attorney John Sifton: Torture Investigation Should Focus on Estimated 100 Prisoner Deaths
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/human_rights_investigator_attorney_john_sifton

The CIA’s latest “ghost detainee”
http://www.salon.com/2007/05/22/cia_prisoner/
"....During the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example, some “ghost detainees” (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/17/ghost_detainees/index.html) were kept off the books at the military prison and hidden from the Red Cross. One of those prisoners, Manadel al-Jamadi, (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html) died during a CIA interrogation in a shower room at Abu Ghraib on Nov. 4, 2003. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology later ruled al-Jamadi’s death a homicide, caused by “blunt force injuries to the torso complicated by compromised respiration....”

U.S.: Soldiers Tell of Detainee Abuse in Iraq
Abusive Techniques Were Authorized, Soldiers’ Complaints Ignored
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/22/us-soldiers-tell-detainee-abuse-iraq

'US a police state, Obama consciously allows torture' – CIA veteran John Kiriakou
http://rt.com/usa/kiriakou-torture-whistleblower-prison-term-211/


Your 3rd and 4th points
About Dems and Pelosi Knowing all about it and No torture mean "protecting " dirt bags.:rolleyes:

I have no problem with seeing Pelosi in jail Red, how about you?

But the "dirt bags". So please tell me why do you consider sending people to prison some form of "bending over backwards "protection" RED? Do you want to be 'protected' by going to prison? Sheesh.

For 200+ years until the Bush Admin the U.S. military and justice systems were FINE with killing enemies in the field and imprisoning the captured. But now somehow it's considered "soft" or "protecting" the enemy not to torture? What utter faux macho BS. Torture doesn't mean your strong it means your a freakin criminal bully, abusive, tyrannical and sadistic. When the terrorist do it many call them sick animals but when we do it somehow it's justified and should never be mentioned to the U.S. public? what utter two-faced BS.

[Jeff]

Rev I agree with most of your post BUT we are noy fighting another army, we are fighting a bunch of animals and look how they treat the ones they catch, now we are to be bigger and I think we have been ( we haven't cut any one's head or genitals off and drug them around behind a jeep )

Rev I do here what you are saying but what we did even if it only saved one American life was well worth it IMO.

[revelarts]

Rev I agree with most of your post BUT we are noy fighting another army, we are fighting a bunch of animals and look how they treat the ones they catch, now we are to be bigger and I think we have been ( we haven't cut any one's head or genitals off and drug them around behind a jeep )

Rev I do here what you are saying but what we did even if it only saved one American life was well worth it IMO.

I have no problem with killing real and known terrorist at in progress of work in the field.
And Without question the terrorist are far worse than the U.S. forces ever have been. Or that terrorist and Isis etc. are using horrific torture methods .... as did the NAZi's. and the USSR.
But for some reason then we knew we didn't need to COPY them to win.
the ends don't justify the means.

If it didwWe could use the same principal to put cameras in every ones homes .. to protect just 1 child from abuse and murder. Or just use waterboarding on EVERY prisoner in the M.E. to protect just one soldier.

it just doesn't wash Jeff.
Plus there are many More reports that the fact that we used torture has HARMED more troops and U.S. personnel. I've heard one Interrogator from Iraq say that they've captured many terrorist who say they came from other countries to kill Americans are of BECAUSE the U.S. tortured.
Even General Patraus has said that torture has been counter productive in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Others have argued that it's "worked" therefore it's worth it
But there's already been other official investigations that have concluded that it's been of No use and that it was indeed torture.

[Drummond]

OK lets See how this Goes this time Red.
will you be intellectually honest? This is going to be factually pointed, nothing personal.

OK, you make a few Assertions
1. Waterboarding is not Torture.

But Red the US Gov't and State Dept admits that it is... when condemning OTHER gov'ts for doing it for years.
The leftist communist Documents the US stole the system from call it "torture".
the Navy's SERE training manual calls it "torture". the training is on how to resist "torture".
Navy SERE trainers specifically call it "torture" in congressional testimony.
Various US General's and FBI interrogators, call it "torture" in open letters to Bush in, testimony, in news reports.
US WW2 Nazi interrogators call it "torture" and condemn it.
the Police who used it on suspects in a jail in Texas while Bush was governor went to prison for it because it's 'torture'.
The Spanish Inquisition called it the water torture. And it's been known and condemned as such EVER SINCE ...until Bush did it.

I've got links to back it all up, (plus it's in old post here) but before i post any links on the above i'd like to know of ANY of these points above would make you say.
"well maybe i guess it is torture."
If you're not willing to admitted it then what's the point of posting links or "debating" if you NEVER intend to change your mind or move an inch when facts are given.
if you somehow "BELIEVE" that waterboarding, which has been called torture, been understood to be torture for 400 to 500 hundred years suddenly is not torture anymore because the U.S. gov't did it for a "good" reason". then what's the point of the discussion. You have changed the definition in YOUR mind. But there's no good reason to you're argument. It just not torture..to you. History be hanged. Dick Cheney, Bush's lawyers and Red said so. Exactly like the gov't's Newspeak in the book 1984 you've changed the definition of things and somehow expect everyone in the world to FORGET what it's always been or was yesterday.

this is the color BLUE.

You also say
2. Only 3 people were ever tortures or waterboarded or "enhanced" interrogated

Sadly more than 3
more than torture

DEATH UNDER U.S. INTERROGATION
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-s...stan-and-iraq/ (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-us-operatives-torture-detainees-to-death-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/)


For more info I'd like you look here...
Human Rights Investigator, Attorney John Sifton: Torture Investigation Should Focus on Estimated 100 Prisoner Deaths
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/human_rights_investigator_attorney_john_sifton

The CIA’s latest “ghost detainee”
http://www.salon.com/2007/05/22/cia_prisoner/
"....During the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example, some “ghost detainees” (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/17/ghost_detainees/index.html) were kept off the books at the military prison and hidden from the Red Cross. One of those prisoners, Manadel al-Jamadi, (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html) died during a CIA interrogation in a shower room at Abu Ghraib on Nov. 4, 2003. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology later ruled al-Jamadi’s death a homicide, caused by “blunt force injuries to the torso complicated by compromised respiration....”

U.S.: Soldiers Tell of Detainee Abuse in Iraq
Abusive Techniques Were Authorized, Soldiers’ Complaints Ignored
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/22/us-soldiers-tell-detainee-abuse-iraq

'US a police state, Obama consciously allows torture' – CIA veteran John Kiriakou
http://rt.com/usa/kiriakou-torture-whistleblower-prison-term-211/


Your 3rd and 4th points
About Dems and Pelosi Knowing all about it and No torture mean "protecting " dirt bags.:rolleyes:

I have no problem with seeing Pelosi in jail Red, how about you?

But the "dirt bags". So please tell me why do you consider sending people to prison some form of "bending over backwards "protection" RED? Do you want to be 'protected' by going to prison? Sheesh.

For 200+ years until the Bush Admin the U.S. military and justice systems were FINE with killing enemies in the field and imprisoning the captured. But now somehow it's considered "soft" or "protecting" the enemy not to torture? What utter faux macho BS. Torture doesn't mean your strong it means your a freakin criminal bully, abusive, tyrannical and sadistic. When the terrorist do it many call them sick animals but when we do it somehow it's justified and should never be mentioned to the U.S. public? what utter two-faced BS.

I totally agree with Jeff.

Revelarts, your argument rests on 'recognising' terrorists as 'human beings' .. but .... WHY ??? On what basis .. their savagery ? Their bloodlust ? Their .... 'humanity' ... ??

Perhaps you can view what the likes of Al Q and ISIS get up to as proof of their 'humanity' .. ??!?

I would like to see you, and other Lefties, expend as much effort defending terrorist VICTIMS, as you do the PERPETRATORS !!

How about it ? H'mm ??

[revelarts]

Bipartisan Report: U.S. Practiced Widespread Torture, Torture Has “No Justification” and Doesn’t Yield Significant Information, Nation’s Highest Officials Bear Responsibility
Posted on April 18, 2013 (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/bipartisan-report-u-s-practiced-widespread-torture-torture-has-no-jusification-and-doesnt-yield-significant-information-nations-highest-officials-bear-responsibility.html) by WashingtonsBlog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog)
We Can’t Just Look Forward … We Have to Admit What Went Wrong

Yesterday, a bi-partisan panel – co-chaired by the former undersecretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, former Republican congressman from Arkansas and NRA consultant (Asa Hutchinson) and former Democratic congressman and U.S. ambassador to Mexico (James Jones) – released a 577-page report on torture after 2 years of study.
Other luminaries on the panel include:
•Former FBI Director William Sessions
•3-star general Claudia J. Kennedy
•Retired Brigadier General David Irvine
•Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations, and U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Thomas Pickering

The panel concluded:
•“Torture occurred in many instances and across a wide range of theaters”
•There is “no firm or persuasive evidence” that the use of such techniques yielded “significant information of value”
•“The nation’s highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture”
•“Publicly acknowledging this grave error, however belatedly, may mitigate some of those consequences and help undo some of the damage to our reputation at home and abroad”
The panel also found:
•The use of torture has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive”
•“As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture”
•The Obama administration’s keeping the details of rendition and torture from the public “cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security”, and it should stop blocking lawsuits by former detainees on the basis of claiming “state secrets”

At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, co-chair Hutchinson said:
We found that U.S. personnel, in many instances, used interrogation techniques on detainees that constitute torture. American personnel conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Both categories of actions violate U.S. laws and international treaty obligations.

This conclusion is not based upon our own personal impressions, but rather is grounded in a thorough and detailed examination of what constitutes torture from a historical and legal context. We looked at court cases and determined that the treatment of detainees, in many instances, met the standards the courts have determined as constituting torture. But in addition, you look at the United States State Department, in its annual country reports on human rights (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/human_rights) practices, has characterized many of the techniques used against detainees in U.S. custody in the post-9/11 environment—the State Department has characterized the same treatment as torture, abuse or cruel treatment when those techniques were employed by foreign governments. The CIA recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions the United States has taken regarding human rights. The United States is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments.


There are those that defend the techniques of—like waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation, because there was the Office of Legal Counsel, which issued a decision approving of their use because they define them as not being torture. Those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the OLC itself. And even in its opinion, it relied not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture, but also on factual representations about how the techniques would be implemented, that later proved inaccurate. This is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policy makers relied upon it.

Based upon a thorough review of the available public record, we determined that, in application, torture was used against detainees in many instances and across a wide range of theaters.
***

And while our report is critical of the approval of interrogation techniques that ultimately led to U.S. personnel engaging in torture of detainees, the investigation was not an undertaking of partisan fault finding. Our conclusions about responsibility should be taken very simply as an effort to understand what happened at many levels of the U.S. policy making. There is no way of knowing how the government would have responded if a Democrat administration were in power at the time of the attacks. Indeed, our report is equally critical of the rendition-to-torture program, which began under President Clinton. And we question several actions of the current administration, as well. It should be noted that many of the corrective actions that—were first undertaken during the Bush administration, as well.


But the task force did conclude that the nation’s highest officials, after the 9/11 attack, approved actions for CIA and Defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. The most important decision may have been to declare the Geneva Convention did not apply to al-Qaeda and Taliban captives in Afghanistan (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/afghanistan) or Guantánamo. The administration never specified what rules would apply instead. The task force believes that U.S. defense intelligence professionals and servicemembers in harm’s way need absolutely clear orders on the treatment of detainees, requiring at a minimum compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. This was not done. Civilian leaders and military (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/military) commanders have an affirmative responsibility to assure that their subordinates comply with the laws of war (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/war). President Obama has committed to observe the Geneva Conventions through an executive order, but a future president could change it by the stroke of a pen.
***
The task force believes it is important to recognize that—that is—that to say torture is ineffective does not require a demonstration that it never works. A person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information. Nor does the fact that it may sometimes yield legitimate information justify its use. What values do America stand for? That’s the ultimate question. But in addition to the very real legal and moral objections to its use, torture often produces false information, and it is difficult and time-consuming for interrogators and analysts to distinguish what may be true and usable from that which is false and misleading. Also, conventional, lawful interrogation methods have proven to be successful whenever the United States uses them throughout history—and I have seen this in law enforcement, as well. We’ve seen no evidence in the public record that the traditional means of interrogation would not have yielded the necessary intelligence following the attacks of 9/11.
Retired Brigadier General David Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer and Army instructor in prisoner interrogation said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjtpqaFSGO0&feature=player_detailpage#t=3116s):
Public record strongly suggests that there was no useful information gained from going to the dark side that saved the hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of lives that have been claimed. There are many instances in that public record to support the notion that we have been badly misled by false confessions that have been derived from brutal interrogations. And unfortunately, it is a fact that people—people will just say whatever they think needs to be said if the pain becomes more than they can bear. Other people are so immune to pain that they will die before they will reveal what an interrogator may wish to know.
I’ll just say, in conclusion, that in 2001 the United States had had a great deal of experience with tactical and strategic interrogations. We had been very successful over a long period of time in learning how to do this and do it very, very well. Unfortunately, when the policies were developed that led us to the dark side, many of those who were involved in formulating those policies had no experience with interrogation, had no experience with law enforcement, had no experience with the military, in how these matters are approached. One of the most successful FBI (http://www.democracynow.org/topics/fbi) interrogators prior to 2001 was a guy named Joe (http://www.democracynow.org/appearances/joe) Navarro. And Joe is noted for having said—and he was probably one of the handful of strategic interrogators qualified to interrogate and debrief a high-value al-Qaeda prisoner. But Joe said, “I only need three things. If you’ll give me three things, I will get whatever someone has to say, and I will do it without breaking the law. First of all, I need a quiet room. Second, I want to know what the rules are, because I don’t want to get in trouble. And third, I need enough time to become that person’s best and only friend. And if you give me those three conditions, I will get whatever that person has to say, and I will get it effectively and quickly and safely and within the terms of the law.” So, we can do it well when we want to. We need to do more, looking at our history, to remind us what worked and why it worked, and not resort to what may seem at the time to be expedient, clever or necessary.
Indeed, top American military and intelligence interrogation experts from both sides of the aisle have conclusively proven the following 10 facts about torture (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/9-torture-myths-debunked.html):

1. Torture is not a partisan issue
2. Waterboarding is torture
3. Torture decreases our national security
4. Torture can not break hardened terrorists
5. Torture is not necessary even in a “ticking time bomb” situation
6. The specific type of torture used by the U.S. was never aimed at producing actionable intelligence … but was instead aimed at producing false confessions
7. Torture did not help to get Bin Laden
8. Torture did not provide valuable details regarding 9/11
9. Many innocent people were tortured
10. America still allows torture


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...rce-finds?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17781845-bush-era-torture-use-indisputable-guantanamo-must-close-task-force-finds?lite)

[Drummond]

Al Q and ISIS terrorists ARE NOT PEOPLE. Why can Lefties not grasp that ?

Revelarts, some honesty, please. WHY are you working so very hard to defend subhuman enemies of America ?

As for the reliability of information extracted via torture .. bin Laden's location was learned as a result of such methods. The White House - as the BBC is now tirelessly insisting - now denies the truth of that. It does so, NOW .. only NOW.

But this denial continues to be refuted. Even the BBC admits that.

So tell me, Revelarts. For the sake of forbidding torture, would you have preferred bin Laden to still be alive, unmolested, still Al Qaeda's revered figurehead ?

Give me an honest answer to that one, Revelarts.

[Jeff]

OK , I think we all agree this whole torture thing has been debated for quite some time now, and now we find out the latest report cost us ( the tax payers ) 40 million dollars basically to make GW's administration look bad, or as some will agree to take the heat off of what the nit wits in charge are doing now.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=3933226494001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[revelarts]

Al Q and ISIS terrorists ARE NOT PEOPLE. Why can Lefties not grasp that ?
Revelarts, some honesty, please. WHY are you working so very hard to defend subhuman enemies of America ?


Were the Nazis human? we gave them trials then hung or imprisoned them as humans who committed war crimes and horrific atrocities.
They believe they were a master race, taught it to their children, and wanted to subjugate and destroy the other sub human races.

But we stilled treated them as humans, which undoubtedly they were.
It's PURE DELUSION to de-humanism any group of people. And it's ALWAYS used as an excuse to treat them in ways you wouldn't treat others.

frankly in ways you wouldn't treat animals.



As for the reliability of information extracted via torture .. bin Laden's location was learned as a result of such methods. The White House - as the BBC is now tirelessly insisting - now denies the truth of that. It does so, NOW .. only NOW.

But this denial continues to be refuted. Even the BBC admits that.
So tell me, Revelarts. For the sake of forbidding torture, would you have preferred bin Laden to still be alive, unmolested, still Al Qaeda's revered figurehead ?
Give me an honest answer to that one, Revelarts.

1st of all Bin Laden death hasn't seem to stop anything.
Or are you saying that now that he's dead that terrorist are LESS active than when he was alive.

Concerning the nature of the intel that final got Bin Laden

Letter from CIA's Panetta May 9 2011.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Leon Panetta former CIA Director

"....Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin."

"...Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...F04G_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html)

[jimnyc]

They need to simply annihilate and kill these folks where they find them. If high ranking, take them back and use legal means to extract information. When done, place the scumbag back out in the field and then shoot him in the face. Either that, or just drop the largest bombs we have, short of nuclear, and wipe them all out. Simply eliminate any threats in a different manner. People don't mind if we kill on the battlefield, only if we waterboard and leave that person alive.

[glockmail]

1. This report is partisan. Therefore it can't be accurate.

2. Why is interrogation of these terrorists to ascertain their exact crimes bad, but drone strikes to kill them based on limited intelligence good?

[revelarts]

1. This report is partisan. Therefore it can't be accurate.

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. And Other reports, testimony etc has already come out and said the same.


2. Why is interrogation of these terrorists to ascertain their exact crimes bad, but drone strikes to kill them based on limited intelligence good?

"drone strikes to kill them based on limited intelligence" is NOT good. that's worse than torture.

look if the cops can kill a guy resisting arrest over a pack of cigarettes, Why is it so hard to find a REAL terrorist running from a couple of special forces with plans for a hijacking or a bomb intended for innocents.

why are we trying to kill people because they are part of the Islamic he-man America haters club and they went to dinner with the cousin of a guy that made a phone call about maybe one day doing something to kill Americans. that's BS.

Kill some real terrorist running or planting a bomb or lining up to shot and no one has a problem.

Kill some guy just waiting to get on the Bus with bomb PLANS in his pockets. well that's just murder. and Illegal.

Even if the guy hates Americans and British and fully intends to kill us all with is 1 house bomb. And if 3 weeks earlier he took the skin from a Jewish woman for lamp shape.
As Hard as i may be the only legal course is Arrest him at the bus stop put him on trial toss him in jail or execute him, DONE deal justice served.
It's called civilized justice, what we say we want the rest of the world to live up to.

I don't get the idea that serial rapist, serial Killers and sadistic kidnappers tortures here get arrested and trials but all human rights and civilized dealings are done outside of the U.S. Boarder in war zone Earth.

George Washington Didn't believe it neither did Reagan Both made statements and enforced rules against it.

[glockmail]

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. And Other reports, testimony etc has already come out and said the same.


"drone strikes to kill them based on limited intelligence" is NOT good. that's worse than torture.

look if the cops can kill a guy resisting arrest over a pack of cigarettes, Why is it so hard to find a REAL terrorist running from a couple of special forces with plans for a hijacking or a bomb intended for innocents.

why are we trying to kill people because they are part of the Islamic he-man America haters club and they went to dinner with the cousin of a guy that made a phone call about maybe one day doing something to kill Americans. that's BS.

Kill some real terrorist running or planting a bomb or lining up to shot and no one has a problem.

Kill some guy just waiting to get on the Bus with bomb PLANS in his pockets. well that's just murder. and Illegal.

Even if the guy hates Americans and British and fully intends to kill us all with is 1 house bomb. And if 3 weeks earlier he took the skin from a Jewish woman for lamp shape.
As Hard as i may be the only legal course is Arrest him at the bus stop put him on trial toss him in jail or execute him, DONE deal justice served.
It's called civilized justice, what we say we want the rest of the world to live up to.

I don't get the idea that serial rapist, serial Killers and sadistic kidnappers tortures here get arrested and trials but all human rights and civilized dealings are done outside of the U.S. Boarder in war zone Earth.

George Washington Didn't believe it neither did Reagan Both made statements and enforced rules against it.
1. I beg to differ. The Republican rebuttal.
2. I believe we're on the same page. I don't expect war criminals to be tried to the same level of proof that US citizens in ordinary criminal matters must be.

[jimnyc]

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. And Other reports, testimony etc has already come out and said the same.

Not on that specific point, but I'll tell you why the report is not accurate...

If you think for a second that when Obama stepped in and put a stop to "enhanced interrogation techniques", you're naive. Our spy groups have always done what was necessary to try and extract information and that will continue. All that's being done now is finding better ways to hide such actions, and appeasing the "people" by playing the blame game and claiming it won't happen again. And that's not pointing fingers at any one group or political affiliation, that's just the way it is.

Jack said it best when he talked about the necessary evils involved in protecting our troops and our country. Maybe not exactly, but it fits. :)

my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don’t want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

[jimnyc]

1. This report is partisan. Therefore it can't be accurate.


One doesn't necessarily follow the other. And Other reports, testimony etc has already come out and said the same.

Just adding this article to the debate:

Ex-CIA officials say torture report is one-sided, flawed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of former top-ranking CIA officials disputed a U.S. Senate committee's finding that the agency's interrogation techniques produced no valuable intelligence, saying such work had saved thousands of lives.

Former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, along with three ex-deputy directors, wrote in an op-ed article published on Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that the Senate Intelligence Committee report also was wrong in saying the agency had been deceptive about its work following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"The committee has given us ... a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation - essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks," they said.

The report concluded the CIA failed to disrupt any subsequent plots despite torturing captives during the presidency of George W. Bush.

But the former CIA officials said the United States never would have tracked down and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 without information acquired in the interrogation program. Their methods also led to the capture of ranking al Qaeda operatives, provided valuable information about the organization and saved thousands of lives by disrupting al Qaeda plots, including one for an attack on the U.S. West Coast that could have been similar to the Sept. 11 attacks.

More - http://news.yahoo.com/ex-cia-officials-torture-report-one-sided-flawed-134901457.html

[revelarts]

Not on that specific point, but I'll tell you why the report is not accurate...

If you think for a second that when Obama stepped in and put a stop to "enhanced interrogation techniques", you're naive. Our spy groups have always done what was necessary to try and extract information and that will continue. All that's being done now is finding better ways to hide such actions, and appeasing the "people" by playing the blame game and claiming it won't happen again. And that's not pointing fingers at any one group or political affiliation, that's just the way it is.

Jack said it best when he talked about the necessary evils involved in protecting our troops and our country. Maybe not exactly, but it fits. :)

my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don’t want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

Jack went to Jail i believe.

[jimnyc]

Jack went to Jail i believe.

That was all for public show - Jack was led out the back door and is likely sitting in Antigua with a Corona on the beach. :)

[jimnyc]

Sen. Bob Kerrey: Partisan torture report fails America

I regret having to write a piece that is critical of the Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Most of them are former colleagues and friends. I hope they will remain friends after reading this.

For eight years I served on this committee. I know how difficult and important the work of providing tough and fair oversight of our nation's $50 billion top-secret intelligence network.

I will wait until I have fully read and considered Tuesday's report to enter the debate over whether the CIA handled interrogation of detainees in an appropriate manner. Thanks to the 2005 and 2006 efforts of Senator John McCain I do not have to wait to be certain our interrogation policies and procedures are aligned with our core values.

I also do not have to wait to know we are fighting a war that is different than any in our country's past. The enemy does not have an easy to identify and analyze military. In the war against global jihadism, human intelligence and interrogation have become more important, and I worry that the partisan nature of this report could make this kind of collection more difficult.

I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.

When Congress created the intelligence committees in the 1970's, the purpose was for people's representatives to stand above the fray and render balanced judgments about this most sensitive aspect of national security. This committee departed from that high road and slipped into the same partisan mode that marks most of what happens on Capitol Hill these days.

I have participated in two extensive investigations into intelligence failures, once when Aldrich Ames was discovered to be spying for Russia after he had done substantial damage to our human intelligence collection capability and another following the 9/11 attacks. In both cases we were very critical of the practices of the intelligence agencies. In both cases we avoided partisan pressure to blame the opposing party. In both cases Congress made statutory changes and the agencies changed their policies. It didn't make things perfect, but it did make them better.

In both of these efforts the committee staff examined documents and interviewed all of the individuals involved. The Senate's Intelligence Committee staff chose to interview no one. Their rationale - that some officers were under investigation and could not be made available – is not persuasive. Most officers were never under investigation and for those who were, the process ended by 2012.

Fairness should dictate that the examination of documents alone do not eliminate the need for interviews conducted by the investigators. Isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them.

More here - http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/09/torture-cia-senate-intelligence-report-911-column/20088647/

[namvet]

Terrorists are nothing but criminals. use em for target practice

[Drummond]

Were the Nazis human? we gave them trials then hung or imprisoned them as humans who committed war crimes and horrific atrocities.
They believe they were a master race, taught it to their children, and wanted to subjugate and destroy the other sub human races.

But we stilled treated them as humans, which undoubtedly they were.

Granted, it's a little difficult to view Nazis as human. On balance, though, I'm inclined to see Nazis as human.

Nazism was a mixture of cult worship of a leader and a poisonous political philosophy. Between these, it's easy to see how sensibilities could've been warped.

More, though, warped or not, Nazis understood the value of law and order. They were capable of maintaining a cohesive Society.

Compare that with terrorists. For the most part, they're not Governmentally inclined, preferring to bomb and destroy those societies they happen to disagree with. Hamas is an exception, but in their case, they replace social cohesion with squalor designed to feed terrorist destruction. And perhaps most importantly, what underpins THEIR motivations is a core hatred of humanity ITSELF -- they're brutal to even their OWN people at times. No ... the subhumanity is more all-encompassing with terrorists. Why ? Because their suhumanity PERVADES WHAT THEY ARE, not just what's expected of them.


It's PURE DELUSION to de-humanism any group of people.

Kindly explain this.

Besides, I do not 'dehumanise' PEOPLE.


And it's ALWAYS used as an excuse to treat them in ways you wouldn't treat others.

Not an EXCUSE no ... it's a matter of appropriateness. Treating subhumans as human makes no sense. Subhuman entities wouldn't understand the true nature of it, and would exploit it, if possible, as weakness.


1st of all Bin Laden death hasn't seem to stop anything.

Prove it !

Fact is, you cannot know that's true. You just assume it is, because to do so is convenient to you.

How much planned terrorism never sees the light of day, because it's intercepted before it can be enacted ?

And how far do you take that principle, anyway ? You could say of ANY single terrorist that killing it changes nothing. Should you NEVER try ?

But ... I say that you have to start somewhere. And surely, bin Laden was an excellent choice !!

Or did you have reason to prefer he remained unmolested ?


Or are you saying that now that he's dead that terrorist are LESS active than when he was alive.

It's entirely possible, yes. You cannot knowingly claim otherwise !


Concerning the nature of the intel that final got Bin Laden

Letter from CIA's Panetta May 9 2011.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Leon Panetta former CIA Director

"....Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin."

"...Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...F04G_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html)

YET -- even your text admits that detainees DID play a part in the gathering of information ! It says...


....Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees ....


DID they, or did they not ?

Your piece contradicts itself. How come ?

Because it was disseminating concocted bias ? Bias that had been ordered, maybe ... ??

[Drummond]

Terrorists are nothing but criminals. use em for target practice

Criminals are human. I see no reason to grant terrorists such a form of status as that.

I say that terrorists are fit for extermination. Much as you'd lay rat poison for an infestation of same.

[revelarts]

... More, though, warped or not, Nazis understood the value of law and order. They were capable of maintaining a cohesive Society.

Compare that with terrorists....

a little of all of this is my reaction

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/confused_lion_king.gif

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/CZwEf.gif

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mshckd.gif

[fj1200]

So tell me, Revelarts. For the sake of forbidding torture, would you have preferred bin Laden to still be alive, unmolested, still Al Qaeda's revered figurehead ?

Fallacy: False dilemma. It's not either/or. Nobody suggested he be unmolested or not pursued.

[revelarts]

this Current report i haven't read up on, but as i said there have been several other reports and tesimonies in court and reports froms various places.

if you're willing to read them but the last official seriously unbiased report was in 2013



Bipartisan Report: U.S. Practiced Widespread Torture, Torture Has “No Justification” and Doesn’t Yield Significant Information, Nation’s Highest Officials Bear Responsibility
Posted on April 18, 2013 (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/bipartisan-report-u-s-practiced-widespread-torture-torture-has-no-jusification-and-doesnt-yield-significant-information-nations-highest-officials-bear-responsibility.html) by WashingtonsBlog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog)
We Can’t Just Look Forward … We Have to Admit What Went Wrong

Yesterday, a bi-partisan panel (http://detaineetaskforce.org/) – co-chaired by the former undersecretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, former Republican congressman from Arkansas and NRA consultant (Asa Hutchinson) and former Democratic congressman and U.S. ambassador to Mexico (James Jones) – released a 577-page report on torture after 2 years of study.
Other luminaries on the panel include: (http://detaineetaskforce.org/the-task-force/member-bios/)


Former FBI Director William Sessions


3-star general Claudia J. Kennedy


Retired Brigadier General David Irvine


Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations, and U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Thomas Pickering

The panel concluded (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17781845-bush-era-torture-use-indisputable-guantanamo-must-close-task-force-finds?lite):

“Torture occurred in many instances and across a wide range of theaters”


There is “no firm or persuasive evidence” that the use of such techniques yielded “significant information of value”


“The nation’s highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture”


“Publicly acknowledging this grave error, however belatedly, may mitigate some of those consequences and help undo some of the damage to our reputation at home and abroad”

The panel also found (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html):

The use of torture has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive”


“As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture”


The Obama administration’s keeping the details of rendition and torture from the public “cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security”, and it should stop blocking lawsuits by former detainees on the basis of claiming “state secrets”

At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, co-chair Hutchinson said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjtpqaFSGO0&feature=player_detailpage#t=678s):
We found that U.S. personnel, in many instances, used interrogation techniques on detainees that constitute torture. American personnel conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Both categories of actions violate U.S. laws and international treaty obligations......



so crapping on this new report doesn't really change the facts.
Anyone who WANTS TO KNOW can clearly discover that torture was done that it was/is illegal and btw useless.

[red states rule]

OK lets See how this Goes this time Red.
will you be intellectually honest? This is going to be factually pointed, nothing personal.

.

OK Rev once again how you can possible call squirting a little water down the nose of a terrorist, not letting them sleep, or playing loud rock music in their jail cell torture when they cut the heads off helpless men, women, and children is amazing. Of course the REAL difference is the SOB terrorist is alive and well unlike their victims Rev

You know what REAL torture is Rev? How about the families of those killed on 9-11 watching heir loved ones jump 90 stories to the pavement instead of being burned alive?

Or that empty chair at the Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner table?

Or the son and daughter without a parent at graduations or weddings?

Seems very few of those bellowing for the rights of terrorists seems to give a damn about what those folks go through every minute of their lives

You talk about trials for the terrorists. Well we did have trials after WWII and some Nazis and Japanese war criminals ended up swinging at the end of a rope. But thanks to bleeding hearts like you Rev many walked

One example is the Malemdy massacre where an SS Panzer division murdered 84 US POWS

The commanding officer Col Peiper and most of the surviving men under his command were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to hang. Then the bleeding hearts found out the poor little Nazis' were "mistreated" and they were let go after about 10 years in prison Rev

Do you call that justice?

Another example is Wernher von Braun. He was Hitler's rocket man who built the V2 rockets that killed thousands of civilians in London during WWII. At the work camps that built the rockets, perhaps hundreds of thousands were beaten, worked, and starved to death.

Did he go on trials for his crimes? Hell no he ended up at NASA!

Many Nazi war criminals walked away Rev. Few paid for their crimes - but we were better then they were. We took the "high" road

With all due respect Rev, what you fail to grasp is the only way to eradicate evil is to step on it like a cockroach

Also you are ignoring the fact that no terrorist is being water boarded or has been for years. Only THREE were and we did get valuable intel from the water boarding. I know you would rather not admit that - so be it. The Dems released this useless info strictly to score political points with the bleeding hearts that still think we can win this war under Marcus of Queensberry rules.

If you had your way Rev we would be not only handcuff those who are to keep us safe, the men and women who have kept this nation terror attack free would be in prison, while the terrorists would be free to commit more attacks.

But I suspect your campaign for better treatment of terrorists would go out the window in a heartbeat if you were in a room with a terrorist who knew where your wife and kids were and were about to be beheaded for US "war crimes".

And I doubt if you would asking him pretty please

Take care buddy

[red states rule]

Well here we go again, if the two parties ever worked together we may just get something done, but this report has no right going public, whether Dem or Rep certain things just shouldn't be for the average citizen to see.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/09/reckless-and-irresponsible-top-republicans-lash-out-ahead-release-cia-report/

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz121014dAPR20141210024610.jpg

[Drummond]

Fallacy: False dilemma. It's not either/or. Nobody suggested he be unmolested or not pursued.

I suppose I can concede this, FJ. After all, Navy Seals could've made all the effort to get to bin Laden that they did, to do just .. what ?

Punch him in the nose ?

Or would you Lefties have accused them of 'torture' if they had ?

Maybe they should've played safe (for the terrorists, not for them ! .. since terrorist welfare comes first !!) and attacked the compound with feather dusters .. ?!?

Two questions for you, FJ. Try not to duck them.

1. What do YOU say should've happened to bin Laden (were the US wrong to have killed him, for example) ?

2. Your 'One True Thatcherite' claim, in your avatar, is as hilarious as it is insulting. Are you ridiculously claiming you're her ONLY real supporter, anywhere on the planet ??

[Drummond]

this Current report i haven't read up on, but as i said there have been several other reports and tesimonies in court and reports froms various places.

if you're willing to read them but the last official seriously unbiased report was in 2013





so crapping on this new report doesn't really change the facts.
Anyone who WANTS TO KNOW can clearly discover that torture was done that it was/is illegal and btw useless.

Tell me, in your own words. What accounts for your absolute, unshakeable determination, to fight tooth and nail for terrorist welfare ???!?

Truly, don't you see this as massively insulting to all those who've been victims of that stinking vermin ??

[fj1200]

I suppose I can concede this, FJ. After all, Navy Seals could've made all the effort to get to bin Laden that they did, to do just .. what ?

Punch him in the nose ?

Or would you Lefties have accused them of 'torture' if they had ?

Maybe they should've played safe (for the terrorists, not for them ! .. since terrorist welfare comes first !!) and attacked the compound with feather dusters .. ?!?

Two questions for you, FJ. Try not to duck them.

1. What do YOU say should've happened to bin Laden (were the US wrong to have killed him, for example) ?

2. Your 'One True Thatcherite' claim, in your avatar, is as hilarious as it is insulting. Are you ridiculously claiming you're her ONLY real supporter, anywhere on the planet ??

So you concede that your argument is based on a false dilemma and then you proceed to dump more fallacies into your next post? Not exactly a winning position for you.

1. I have no problem with what happened to OBL.
2. Only here. Somebody needs to carry on her legacy and I'm sure she wouldn't want it entrusted to a parrot. Question answered so I hope you'll carry on with no more of your thread jacking. :)

[revelarts]

OK Rev once again how you can possible call squirting a little water down the nose of a terrorist, .....


Tell me, in your own words. What accounts for your absolute, unshakeable determination, to fight tooth and nail for terrorist welfare ???!?

Truly, don't you see this as massively insulting to all those who've been victims of that stinking vermin ??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ

[Drummond]

So you concede that your argument is based on a false dilemma and then you proceed to dump more fallacies into your next post? Not exactly a winning position for you.

Er'm ... actually, some sarcasm was involved. Sorry to see that you only recognise it when you're dishing it out ...


1. I have no problem with what happened to OBL.

Remarkable !!

OK, well, that's good news. Well done.


2. Only here. Somebody needs to carry on her legacy and I'm sure she wouldn't want it entrusted to a parrot. Question answered so I hope you'll carry on with no more of your thread jacking. :)

Since my posts still address the thread subject, I don't see that thread jacking is involved. Although ... I recognise that I'm debating with an expert at it, so .... (!) ...

But I fail to see how a Leftie could possibly be suited to 'carry on her legacy' !!!!

Perhaps you were joking .. ?

[Drummond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ

... and your actual ANSWERS, are ... ? ...

[red state]

1. This report is partisan. Therefore it can't be accurate.

2. Why is interrogation of these terrorists to ascertain their exact crimes bad, but drone strikes to kill them based on limited intelligence good?

SPOT ON! and Nam Vet brings out some good points as well (IF/WHEN) these animals have been connected to the actual CRIMES they have been charged with....USE THEM FOR TARGET PRACTICE or STRATEGIC MANNEQUINS within the cubicles that the S.E.A.L.S use for training to hit compounds like they did when they killed the head SOB, obl.

In Rev's defense, however, I believe the language of torture is clear. That isn't to say that I agree that the language is correct. On the contrary, these animals still have it better than our BEST (who are deprived of sleep, peace and their families for months and years at a time UNDER NO CHARGE other than being the BEST).

Our commandos have to eat the worse of stuff and are forced to take written exams without sleep to see when and how they will break. Our commandos are forced to tread water, run for miles with heavy loads and undertake the most difficult of tasks....all on empty stomachs and an @$$HOLE C.O. constantly breathing down their neck. So, I do NOT believe these scum are being tortured....I SEE them playing soccer, allowed to pray and allowed to eat ONLY that which their cult demands that they eat. All in all, I believe they have it pretty good. I do hate that their may "possibly" be a few at Gitmo who are innocent but that has YET to be proven to me. In fact, most who are "found innocent" or simply released, usually go right back to killing our BEST....whom I consider ALL to be commandos (whether they are cooks or demolition experts from privates to generals).


*I apologize if these points have already been made......I simply didn't see that they had and thought they needed to be addressed.

[fj1200]

Er'm ... actually, some sarcasm was involved. Sorry to see that you only recognise it when you're dishing it out ...

So you're not smart enough to recognize a fallacy when pointed out to you? OK, I was hoping for better I guess.


Remarkable !!

OK, well, that's good news. Well done.

Seeing as how I've never said otherwise it's a perfect example of your imagination being incorrect. You should learn from this.


Since my posts still address the thread subject, I don't see that thread jacking is involved. Although ... I recognise that I'm debating with an expert at it, so .... (!) ...

But I fail to see how a Leftie could possibly be suited to 'carry on her legacy' !!!!

Perhaps you were joking .. ?

I wouldn't see how a leftie would do that either but you being a big government advocate you seem to think you know something. :shrug: Thread jack away though, you know you can't help yourself.

[revelarts]

Tell me, in your own words. What accounts for your absolute, unshakeable determination, to fight tooth and nail for terrorist welfare ???!?
Truly, don't you see this as massively insulting to all those who've been victims of that stinking vermin ??

Why do we have the rule of law and the constitution at all Drummond?

[tailfins]

It annoys me when people think reading a news story makes them more expert than someone who spends a lifetime protecting our nation. This applies to right and left. Whether it's the "kill as many Muslims as we can" crowd or the "let's outlaw coercive interrogation methods", it would make more sense to let those who know what they are doing protect our nation. Enough second guessing from both the right and the left. It's time for both the left and right peanut gallery to stop being a distraction and let the professionals do their job.

[revelarts]

It annoys me when people think reading a news story makes them more expert than someone who spends a lifetime protecting our nation. This applies to right and left. Whether it's the "kill as many Muslims as we can" crowd or the "let's outlaw coercive interrogation methods", it would make more sense to let those who know what they are doing protect our nation. Enough second guessing from both the right and the left. It's time for both the left and right peanut gallery to stop being a distraction and let the professionals do their job.

The trained professionals are against torture
folks like Chenney and Bush lawyers promoted torture.
it was never requested by professional interrogators.

[red state]

The trained professionals are against torture
folks like Chenney and Bush lawyers promoted torture.
it was never requested by professional interrogators.

Of course, B.O.;s lil' minions, such as Gruber or whatever that SOB's name is, are often times labeled "professionals".

[tailfins]

Of course, B.O.;s lil' minions, such as Gruber or whatever that SOB's name is, are often times labeled "professionals".

You wait until evidence arises before accusing someone of being incompetent. Creating a work culture of fear is not productive. Gruber's poor judgement is obvious.

Furthermore, many experienced and knowledgeable people agree healthcare.gov is a failure. Also, a consumer is qualified to notice poor service and a bad deal which many have done with Obamacare. Any informed citizen should know that being compelled to buy a product is an abridgment of freedom.

[Drummond]

Why do we have the rule of law and the constitution at all Drummond?

Simple.

[Well, YOU have your Constitution .. I do not.]

As for rule of law .. or, YOUR Constitution .. that's easy. You have them for HUMAN BEINGS.

I hope that's clear, now.

[tailfins]

Simple.

[Well, YOU have your Constitution .. I do not.]

As for rule of law .. or, YOUR Constitution .. that's easy. You have them for HUMAN BEINGS.

I hope that's clear, now.

The US has already tried the concept of non-human and 5/9's human to pick cotton for no wages. It didn't work out so well and resulted in a civil war.

Having said that: It's the rules of war, not the Constitution that applies to offshore combatants.

[Drummond]

So you're not smart enough to recognize a fallacy when pointed out to you? OK, I was hoping for better I guess.

Correction: I'm not stupid enough to see your judgmentality as superior to mine.


Seeing as how I've never said otherwise it's a perfect example of your imagination being incorrect. You should learn from this.

If there's anything to learn, it's either (1) you're misrepresenting your true views, in order to pass yourself off as something you're not, or ... (2) you are actually a Leftie genuinely capable of veering away from automatic identification with the prevailing preferred line.


I wouldn't see how a leftie would do that either

Well, exactly. Your claim is ridiculous. That's my point !!


but you being a big government advocate

Now, here is one example of a Leftie incapable of breaking its agenda !! I've said time and again that I'm no such thing. I RECOGNISE that there are certain circumstances where such an approach is pertinent .. which is exactly what Lady Thatcher did, when in power (... so, you should be supportive of that ?) ! But I'm not an automatic advocate of it ... that is FAR from true.

You do what you MUST, when you MUST. It's that simple.

[Drummond]

The US has already tried the concept of non-human and 5/9's human to pick cotton for no wages. It didn't work out so well and resulted in a civil war.

Having said that: It's the rules of war, not the Constitution that applies to offshore combatants.

I think you're referring to old-time slavery, and North v South standards ? Since when were those PEOPLE, predisposed to terrorist bloodlust, and the exultant aftermath of same ??

Terrorists prove what they are. The only real difficulty is in getting everyone to recognise what's staring them in the face, and so to start thinking and behaving in the most appropriate way.

Oh, and as for 'civil war' ... terrorists already consider themselves to be at war with you. They are a ruthless, savage opponent. As you say - how does the Constitution apply to that - foreign - enemy ?

[fj1200]

Correction: I'm not stupid enough to see your judgmentality as superior to mine.

Clearly not since you're too stupid to know what a fallacy is and how only the intellectually dishonest like yourself use it. :)


If there's anything to learn, it's either (1) you're misrepresenting your true views, in order to pass yourself off as something you're not, or ... (2) you are actually a Leftie genuinely capable of veering away from automatic identification with the prevailing preferred line.

Yeah... I didn't think you were capable of introspection. Thank you for confirming. :)


Well, exactly. Your claim is ridiculous. That's my point !!

You're the one who thinks she would sell out her principles.


I've said time and again...

You've said time and again that you support big government. Do you need me to pull up the quotes?


As for rule of law .. or, YOUR Constitution .. that's easy. You have them for HUMAN BEINGS.

We have the Constitution for human beings, even the disgusting ones and even the mentally challenged ones. It's a shame that the UK doesn't have one as you don't think all human beings are entitled to protections.

[red states rule]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ

Rev you disappointment me. I thought we could have a back and forth and you go and pick a few words of my post, ignore my questions, and dismiss my examples of how past terrorists have been treated. It looks like you are trying to act like Prof FU Gruber. I thought more of you. Oh well so be it

[revelarts]

The US has already tried the concept of non-human and 5/9's human to pick cotton for no wages. It didn't work out so well and resulted in a civil war.

Having said that: It's the rules of war, not the Constitution that applies to offshore combatants.

The U.S. Rules of war from George Washington until Bush officially made torture a crime.
So even the rules of war have been trashed Tailfins



Rev you disappointment me. I thought we could have a back and forth and you go and pick a few words of my post, ignore my questions, and dismiss my examples of how past terrorists have been treated. It looks like you are trying to act like Prof FU Gruber. I thought more of you. Oh well so be it
RSR you ignored everything i wrote, you didn't address any of my points, and then you ask me the same questions and wonder why i don't reply?
c'mon RSR.

[red states rule]

The U.S. Rules of war from George Washington until Bush officially made torture a crime.
So even the rules of war have been trashed Tailfins



RSR you ignored everything i wrote, you didn't address any of my points, and then you ask me the same questions and wonder why i don't reply?
c'mon RSR.

Rev,

1) it is NOT torture to water board
2) terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention
3) We did obtain intel after water boarding that led us to the courier that led us to OBL
4) History shows that not crushing terror breeds more terror
5) I gave you examples of REAL torture Rev that do not seem interested in
6) All the things you have your shorts in a knot over we are not doing right now and have not done for years
7) Dems NEVER spoke to any of the folks who interrogated the terrorists. Sort of like Rolling Stone not talking to the alleged rapists (and that stork was crock as well)
8) And only THREE terrorists were ever water boarded Rev

So excuse me if I do not get why you and others are so worked up over this

[aboutime]

The U.S. Rules of war from George Washington until Bush officially made torture a crime.
So even the rules of war have been trashed Tailfins



RSR you ignored everything i wrote, you didn't address any of my points, and then you ask me the same questions and wonder why i don't reply?
c'mon RSR.


rev. Oh, how you demonstrate your immaturity, and ignorance here. Do you happen to know that during the George Washington years, where any of our enemies flew planes into tents, or log cabins? How bout crossing the Delaware on a cold December night, armed with WMD's like gas, and explosive vests, worn by children, and women?

Hint to all of you NON-VETERAN types out there. During war, where it's either you, or the other guy dies first. THERE ARE NO RULES OF WAR. And today's enemies like ISIS could care less about people like you rev, trying to convince them NOT to cut off your dumb head!

[tailfins]

rev. Oh, how you demonstrate your immaturity, and ignorance here. Do you happen to know that during the George Washington years, where any of our enemies flew planes into tents, or log cabins? How bout crossing the Delaware on a cold December night, armed with WMD's like gas, and explosive vests, worn by children, and women?

Hint to all of you NON-VETERAN types out there. During war, where it's either you, or the other guy dies first. THERE ARE NO RULES OF WAR. And today's enemies like ISIS could care less about people like you rev, trying to convince them NOT to cut off your dumb head!

Web searches are your friend:

Rules of war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

PS: The proper term is COULDN'T care less.

[revelarts]

Rev,

1) it is NOT torture to water board
2) terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention
3) We did obtain intel after water boarding that led us to the courier that led us to OBL
4) History shows that not crushing terror breeds more terror
5) I gave you examples of REAL torture Rev that do not seem interested in
6) All the things you have your shorts in a knot over we are not doing right now and have not done for years
7) Dems NEVER spoke to any of the folks who interrogated the terrorists. Sort of like Rolling Stone not talking to the alleged rapists (and that stork was crock as well)
8) And only THREE terrorists were ever water boarded Rev

So excuse me if I do not get why you and others are so worked up over this

please reread my 1st reply RSR.
It still looks like you didn't.

[namvet]

http://i59.tinypic.com/1zx62va.jpg

[aboutime]

http://i59.tinypic.com/1zx62va.jpg



"DITTO!" and http://icansayit.com/images/amen.jpg ON TARGET!

Any AMERICAN who cares. Should Never FORGET such images. Unless they are Ignorant.

[namvet]

"DITTO!" and http://icansayit.com/images/amen.jpg ON TARGET!

Any AMERICAN who cares. Should Never FORGET such images. Unless they are Ignorant.

to bad we can't spread some ebola over there and watch em drop like flies

[revelarts]

I'll repeat it here even though i suspect some might accuse me of not caring about the 911 victims later anyway.

I'd like all of those responsible for 911 named and tried and DEAD.
whoever they may be.

and Torture makes sense emotionally but it's wrong. simple as that. all the emotional appeals are powerful but not the basis for policy. There are 2 people I know that have been raped and i'd like to kill the rapist who are now free but that'd be wrong... wouldn't it?


How many times here have people repeated that basically no matter what a cop does you shouldn't "resist" etc. but have advised "there's a time and place to handle the issue" . Is that just because you can't beat the police or because it's the right thing to do. I suspect it's both. So the advise is to use the law stay withen the law correct? unless we are nation of 'thugs' that don't care about law and just get emotional and do what the heck we want because we feel justified because bad things have happened in the past.

Torture Doesn't help it hurts and makes 911 type events MORE likely not less.


General Petraeus – the former military commander overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – told (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35493976/ns/meet_the_press/) Meet the Press that torture is counterproductive:
I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on in the 101st Airborne Division we’re just going to–look, we just said we’d decide to obey the Geneva Convention, to, to move forward with that. That has, I think, stood elements in good stead. We have worked very hard over the years, indeed, to ensure that elements like the International Committee of the Red Cross and others who see the conduct of our detainee operations and so forth approve of them. Because in the cases where that is not true, we end up paying a price for it ultimately. Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables. They don’t go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility. Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given, the force of law by Congress, that that works.

General Petraeus is, of course, correct.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm)
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm) states:
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

Indeed, all of the top interrogation experts say that torture doesn’t work in providing information which will keep us safe (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-agree-torture-doesnt-work.html).





In fact, torture reduces our national security (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/torture-reduced-us-national-security.html):
General Petraeus said (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/general-patraeus-torture-is.html) that torture hurts our national security



The head of all U.S. intelligence said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104334.html):
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world,” [Director of National Intelligence Dennis] Blair said in the statement. “The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”





A top counter-terrorism expert says (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/02/leading-counter-terrorism-expert-and-former-high-level-official-slams-war-on-terror-and-questions-911.html) torture increases the risk of terrorism (and see this (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/terrorism-expert-keeping-detainees-in.html)).



One of the top military interrogators said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) that torture by Americans of innocent Iraqis is the main reason that foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraq in the first place (and see this (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/05/one-of-militarys-top-interrogators-says.html)).



Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html) that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool



A former FBI interrogator — who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects — says categorically that torture actually turns people into terrorists (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/10/fbi-interrogator-tor.html)



A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says (http://www.truthout.org/article/the-truth-is-out-cia-and-torture):
Torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.





A former US Air Force interrogator (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/12/when-we-torture-somebody-it-hardens.html) said that torture just creates more terrorists



A former U.S. interrogator and counterintelligence agent, and Afghanistan veteran (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/moveon-pushes-back-on-git_n_209047.html) said, “Torture puts our troops in danger, torture makes our troops less safe, torture creates terrorists. It’s used so widely as a propaganda tool now in Afghanistan. All too often, detainees have pamphlets on them, depicting what happened at Guantanamo.”



The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously stated (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004012):



“The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies … strengthened the hand of our enemies.”




Two professors of political science (http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jwalsh/cps3.pdf) have demonstrated that torture increases, rather than decreases, terrorism



So if you want to see more of this

http://oppositiontowarandoccupation.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/three_dead_american_soldiers.gif

keep RAH RAHing for more torture.

But they don't really show those picture on TV do they, even though it's been going on for 10 years .

[aboutime]

I'll repeat it here even though i suspect some might accuse me of not caring about the 911 victims later anyway.

I'd like all of those responsible for 911 named and tried and DEAD.
whoever they may be.

and Torture makes sense emotionally but it's wrong. simple as that. all the emotional appeals are powerful but not the basis for policy. There are 2 people I know that have been raped and i'd like to kill the rapist who are now free but that'd be wrong... wouldn't it?


How many times here have people repeated that basically no matter what a cop does you shouldn't "resist" etc. but have advised "there's a time and place to handle the issue" . Is that just because you can't beat the police or because it's the right thing to do. I suspect it's both. So the advise is to use the law stay withen the law correct? unless we are nation of 'thugs' that don't care about law and just get emotional and do what the heck we want because we feel justified because bad things have happened in the past.

Torture Doesn't help it hurts and makes 911 type events MORE likely not less.


General Petraeus – the former military commander overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – told (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35493976/ns/meet_the_press/) Meet the Press that torture is counterproductive:
I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on in the 101st Airborne Division we’re just going to–look, we just said we’d decide to obey the Geneva Convention, to, to move forward with that. That has, I think, stood elements in good stead. We have worked very hard over the years, indeed, to ensure that elements like the International Committee of the Red Cross and others who see the conduct of our detainee operations and so forth approve of them. Because in the cases where that is not true, we end up paying a price for it ultimately. Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables. They don’t go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility. Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given, the force of law by Congress, that that works.

General Petraeus is, of course, correct.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm)
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm) states:
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

Indeed, all of the top interrogation experts say that torture doesn’t work in providing information which will keep us safe (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-agree-torture-doesnt-work.html).






So if you want to see more of this

http://oppositiontowarandoccupation.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/three_dead_american_soldiers.gif

keep RAH RAHing for more torture.

But they don't really show those picture on TV do they, even though it's been going on for 10 years .



rev. How bout you begin using a little honesty here? Show, or tell everyone reading this thread where ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE is, or has been cheering...as you insist, for more torture.

You've made up your mind. Anyone who offers a different opinion, or view with regard to keeping OUR nation safe...in ways you don't like. That we are all wrong BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!???

[Drummond]

rev. How bout you begin using a little honesty here? Show, or tell everyone reading this thread where ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE is, or has been cheering...as you insist, for more torture.

You've made up your mind. Anyone who offers a different opinion, or view with regard to keeping OUR nation safe...in ways you don't like. That we are all wrong BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!???

Yes, that's nicely put.

I don't 'cheer' for more torture. But - especially considering that terrorist savages cannot qualify as human - I also see nothing to object to in it, either.

Revelarts: the terrorists you're fighting to defend would do MUCH worse to you, in a heartbeat, given half the chance .. and they'd celebrate their savagery afterwards. They themselves have absolutely no capacity to understand your viewpoint, and would consider it weakness that was exploitable for their purposes.

I don't 'cheer' for their torture. I just say that it doesn't matter if they ARE tortured. If just one life is saved through however extensive a torture program you can imagine, then that, of itself, justifies what happens.

Terrorists have value as sources of information. Beyond that, though, what good are they ? What can their lives possibly be worth ?

Revelarts, let me know if you're ever involved in exterminating any vermin. In consideration of your sensibilities, in response, do you agree I'd be justified in opening up a thread here based on the premise that you need to be pilloried for it, that the vermin you'd 'victimised', has 'rights' .. ?

[tailfins]

Terrorists have value as sources of information. Beyond that, though, what good are they ? What can their lives possibly be worth ?

Revelarts, let me know if you're ever involved in exterminating any vermin. In consideration of your sensibilities, in response, do you agree I'd be justified in opening up a thread here based on the premise that you need to be pilloried for it, that the vermin you'd 'victimised', has 'rights' .. ?

The beneficiaries are are irrelevant. What you don't understand is that the principle of inalienable rights gets adulterated. Take care of business without tainting the principles on which the US was founded.

[Kathianne]

Yep, in order to back up Drummond's pov one needs to accept two problematic givens:

terrorists aren't human
Constitution doesn't apply to the above non-humans or reactions to them. Thus the Constitution is irrelevant.

[LongTermGuy]

Yep, in order to back up Drummond's pov one needs to accept two problematic givens:

terrorists aren't human
Constitution doesn't apply to the above non-humans or reactions to them. Thus the Constitution is irrelevant.


***
"Human-Beings".....don't do the things muslim-Terrorists do....which `Mohammed` approves of....

[Jeff]

I'll repeat it here even though i suspect some might accuse me of not caring about the 911 victims later anyway.

I'd like all of those responsible for 911 named and tried and DEAD.
whoever they may be.

and Torture makes sense emotionally but it's wrong. simple as that. all the emotional appeals are powerful but not the basis for policy. There are 2 people I know that have been raped and i'd like to kill the rapist who are now free but that'd be wrong... wouldn't it?


How many times here have people repeated that basically no matter what a cop does you shouldn't "resist" etc. but have advised "there's a time and place to handle the issue" . Is that just because you can't beat the police or because it's the right thing to do. I suspect it's both. So the advise is to use the law stay withen the law correct? unless we are nation of 'thugs' that don't care about law and just get emotional and do what the heck we want because we feel justified because bad things have happened in the past.

Torture Doesn't help it hurts and makes 911 type events MORE likely not less.


General Petraeus – the former military commander overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – told (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35493976/ns/meet_the_press/) Meet the Press that torture is counterproductive:
I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on in the 101st Airborne Division we’re just going to–look, we just said we’d decide to obey the Geneva Convention, to, to move forward with that. That has, I think, stood elements in good stead. We have worked very hard over the years, indeed, to ensure that elements like the International Committee of the Red Cross and others who see the conduct of our detainee operations and so forth approve of them. Because in the cases where that is not true, we end up paying a price for it ultimately. Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables. They don’t go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility. Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given, the force of law by Congress, that that works.

General Petraeus is, of course, correct.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm)
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm) states:
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

Indeed, all of the top interrogation experts say that torture doesn’t work in providing information which will keep us safe (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-agree-torture-doesnt-work.html).






So if you want to see more of this

http://oppositiontowarandoccupation.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/three_dead_american_soldiers.gif

keep RAH RAHing for more torture.

But they don't really show those picture on TV do they, even though it's been going on for 10 years .


Rev I liked this post for just the bolded sentences, As for the rest if I believed we where actually torturing a real army ( shoving bamboo under finder nails ect... ) then I may agree with you, but the closes you come to torture ( IMO ) is water boarding and no I don't consider it to be, are folks going to die from it, not usually , it is a uncomfortable feeling of drowning that gets them talking, they are not a army so they aren't protected by the Geneva convention, what they are is a bunch of rabid animals that will kill UN armed woman and children, they will rip bodies apart and parade them around town, they have no value of life at all, know ask yourself this, is one of our servicemen worth some animal losing some sleep or having to endure loud music ? And remember these same folks felt it was fine to cut the heads off the enemies they caught and drag them behind a vehicle celebrating, all of a sudden it doesn't sound much like torture does it.

[red state]

I'm not a teacher or anything but; DOESN'T THE CONSTITUTION PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE and apply only to WE THE PEOPLE?

As Jeff kinda mentioned, its doesn't apply to others and the geneva convention applies to the treatment of captured soldiers of a standing Nation's soldiers.....not terrorists or war criminals. They have made any kind treatment to them NULL and VOID and represent no COUNTRY or army other than their HATE groups, CULT and EVIL atrocities.

At least cult leader, David Koresh's group were Americans on American soil.....and look what happened to them and those good people at RUBY RIDGE. And how about the mistreatment of those who lost their lives, dignity and well being during the governmental crimes during Katrina? Now those incidents could fall under a 'concern' about our Constitution........not the animals of an evil cult such as iSLUM.

Just saying.

[NightTrain]

This whole thing is a maneuver to divert attention from the slaughter the democrats just experienced and to begin rebuilding their narrative that Republicans are evil. It appears to be working.

Feinstein is merely doing Debbie Wassermann-Shultz's bidding.

[Drummond]

Yep, in order to back up Drummond's pov one needs to accept two problematic givens:

terrorists aren't human
Constitution doesn't apply to the above non-humans or reactions to them. Thus the Constitution is irrelevant.

I can't claim to be knowledgeable about the Constitution, as doubtless most Americans would be.

But ... I see no actual problem with either of the statements above.

To be a human being, you need the qualities of a human being. Terrorists are patently devoid of them.

And has been pointed out, the Constitution begins as a declaration stating, 'We The People'. Even ignoring WHICH 'people' ... it was obviously drafted to represent, and concern itself with, PEOPLE.

Terrorists, on those grounds alone, don't qualify. So there is, logically, NO coverage of terrorists in anything the Constitution has to say. It's irrelevant to them.

[revelarts]

<time class="published" datetime="February 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm">February 25, 2008 </time>
Jack Cloonan, who spent 25 years as an FBI special agent and interrogated members of al Qaeda, recently told Foreign Policy that he has “been hard pressed to find a situation where anybody” can say “that they’ve ever encountered the ticking bomb scenario” when interrogating terrorists. He said it is a “red herring” and “[i]n the real world it doesn’t happen.” Cloonan added that the Israelis, “who have been doing this for a long time,” have “never had a situation where it is quote ‘a ticking bomb.’” Watch it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdNhwFqhyU



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGRQY67VOA



.................................................. .................................................. ............

Matthew Alexander,
former senior military interrogator in Iraq, conducted or supervised over 1,300 interrogations.

AMY GOODMAN: You say that the use of torture was al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool.

MATTHEW ALEXANDER Iraq interrogator : Yes. When I was in Iraq, I oversaw the interrogations of foreign fighters. And those foreign fighters, the majority of them, said, time and time again, the reason they had come to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse of detainees at both Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. And this is not my opinion. The Department of Defense tracked these statistics. And they were briefed, every interrogator who arrived there, that torture and abuse was al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool.

And remember, these foreign fighters that came to Iraq, they made up 90 percent of the suicide bombers. They killed hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers. And so, this policy of torture and abuse did not make America safer. What it did was it caused the deaths of hundreds or thousands of American soldiers who are now buried at Arlington National Cemetery. So, this policy has been counterproductive in so many ways.

.....
MATTHEW ALEXANDER: Yeah, and it just — this is one of the things that surprised me most about the conversation, is this lack of faith in interrogators, that by some default, American interrogators aren’t good enough, and so we need these special tools to be able to break the law, to be able to do something that’s extremely immoral and forfeit the high ground, as one of my friends likes to say, so that we can do our jobs. And that’s an insult to us. Professional interrogators take that as a slap in the face. Any good interrogator who’s skilled in his profession understands the culture of the people he’s interrogating, respects that culture, uses it to his advantage by respecting it, knows that they don’t need torture to accomplish their mission. And this has been repeated time and time again. We don’t give exceptions to other career fields to break the law simply because their job is difficult. And interrogators don’t need those exceptions, either.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/4/former_military_interrogator_matthew_alexander_des pite

[Kathianne]

Here's the thing I was trying to bring to the discussion, if indeed this is a discussion; I think the release of the 'report' partisan rant, was wrong.

Even if anything described within actually rose to the level of 'torture', the whole program was vetted by DOJ and reported beforehand to the intelligence committees, including the one Udall and Feinstein are on.

What I am concerned about is the Democrats risking our agents, acting only on partisan retribution. With plenty of forethought, putting Americans at risk.

I'm also concerned when I hear self-proclaimed 'conservatives' saying that humans are not; saying that the Constitution can be trampled on, as long as by the 'right' reasons.

The Patriot Act is probably the most glaring reminder that the Constitution does matter. A lot.

An executive making immediate decisions regarding the safety of Americans does need to be able to act, without the group think of the entire Congress. They also need to be cognizant of the NEED to gather, listen, and consider the advice of The Joint Chiefs, leading intelligence committee members of Senate and House.

[jimnyc]

Torture Doesn't help it hurts and makes 911 type events MORE likely not less.

Apparently not fully true:

Ex-CIA officials say torture report is one-sided, flawed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of former top-ranking CIA officials disputed a U.S. Senate committee's finding that the agency's interrogation techniques produced no valuable intelligence, saying such work had saved thousands of lives.

Former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, along with three ex-deputy directors, wrote in an op-ed article published on Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that the Senate Intelligence Committee report also was wrong in saying the agency had been deceptive about its work following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"The committee has given us ... a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation - essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks," they said.

The report concluded the CIA failed to disrupt any subsequent plots despite torturing captives during the presidency of George W. Bush.

But the former CIA officials said the United States never would have tracked down and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 without information acquired in the interrogation program. Their methods also led to the capture of ranking al Qaeda operatives, provided valuable information about the organization and saved thousands of lives by disrupting al Qaeda plots, including one for an attack on the U.S. West Coast that could have been similar to the Sept. 11 attacks.

[revelarts]

that's interesting
it appears someones lying

Leon Panetta former CIA Director and John Brennan current CIA Director have both stated that it did not.
so have many others.
I guess you can choose who you want to believe and make up stories why one or all are lying.
If you just want to be partisan about the issue then we know which way it'll go. if you want to find the truth then it might be more work.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Leon Panetta former CIA Director in Letter to John McCain

"....Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin."

"...Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means...."

....In 2011, John Brennan agreed (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/obama-advisor-waterboarding-didnt-lead-to-bin-laden-kill/):
White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan Tuesday knocked down the myth that waterboarding provided crucial intelligence that led to the location of Osama bin Laden.
“So we’ve been talking about the different details and methods that lead up to this moment, and obviously there is word out today that waterboarding played a very big role or role in actually getting the information,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Brennan. “Is that the case?”
“Not to my knowledge,” Brennan explained.

Brennan is now the current director of the CIA.
Likewise, former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld – who had a big hand in the torture program (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/22/madden) – stated (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRumsfeld-gitmo-waterboarding-osamabinladen/2011/05/02/id/394820?s=al&promo_code=C30F-1):
“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”
Senator Lindsey Graham – a vocal proponent of waterboarding (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lindsey+Graham%22+waterboarding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)– said (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/senate-intel-chair-torture-did-not-lead-to-bin-laden-in-any-way.php):
This idea we caught bin Laden because of waterboarding I think is a misstatement. This whole concept of how we caught bin Laden is a lot of work over time by different people and putting the puzzle together. I do not believe this is a time to celebrate waterboarding, I believe this is a time to celebrate hard work.
The New York Times noted (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html):
“The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003,” said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. “It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there.”
Huffington Post reported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/administration-bin-laden-waterboarding_n_857529.html):
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, produced a 263-page report in 2009 on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody in the years following 9/11. He too dismissed the idea that the interrogation techniques used at that time were efficacious. “If they had any information under the Bush administration that could have led to bin Laden it would have been terribly neglectful for them not to use it,” Levin noted in an interview on the “Bill Press Show.”
The confirmation of the courier’s significance appears to have come in 2004, from an al Qaeda operative who was not waterboarded: Hassan Ghul.
Dan Froomkin argued (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/torture-may-have-slowed-h_n_858642.html) that – rather than helping catch Bin Laden – torture actually delayed by years more effective intelligence-gathering methods which would have resulted in finding Bin Laden:
Defenders of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.
But that sequence of events — even if true — doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.
“I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden,” said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.
It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier — information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, “they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us,” Alexander told The Huffington Post.
“We know that they didn’t give us everything, because they didn’t provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information,” he said.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...F04G_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html)

[Kathianne]

Brennan walked a fine line, acknowledging some actions of individuals were not those listed, but putting in context the lack of experience and need for quick actions at that time.

As for the conclusion you've come to, that he disagreed that EIT's were irrelevant regarding the taking down of bin Laden? He stuck with the unknown/unknowable:


...“Detainees who were subjected to EITs [enhanced-interrogation techniques] at some point during their confinement subsequently provided information that our experts found to be useful and valuable in our counterterrorism efforts,” the director said. “And the cause-and-effect relationship between the application of those EITs and the ultimate provision of information is unknown and unknowable.”

“But for someone to say that there was no intelligence of value — of use — that came from those detainees once they were subjected to EITs?” Brennan said. “I think that lacks any foundation at all.”

That intelligence of value apparently extended to the 2011 raid that killed 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. “Detainees who were subjected to enhanced-interrogation techniques provided information that was useful — and was used — in the ultimate operation to go against bin Laden,” Brennan said, before again adding that he is “not going to attribute that to the EITs” specifically.

[jimnyc]

that's interesting
it appears someones lying

That's what I told you the other day. None of us are hearing the entire truth, and I don't believe entirely the stories you're posting, I don't even fully believe the stories that I post myself! It's cover your ass time as this is blowing up in the faces of everyone. 3 former directors and 3 deputy directors - giving positive results. And never mind OBL for a moment, they are also stating that these interrogations saved THOUSANDS of lives. So even if they didn't get OBL as a result, maybe their techniques still saved thousands of lives. And also of course that the recent report is flawed and one sided.

Another thing to ponder is the amount of articles out there now accusing GWB of breaking the law. Some of these results state that he was even in the dark through a lot of this. But that doesn't stop others from continuing the accusations, without all of the facts.

And then what Kath has been reminding others of - that they were cleared for these techniques before hand. If approved prior, those on the hook, IMO, are those giving the approval, not those following orders.

My ONLY point is that we can't run with a few articles and swear it as the truth.

[revelarts]

That's what I told you the other day. None of us are hearing the entire truth, and I don't believe entirely the stories you're posting, I don't even fully believe the stories that I post myself! It's cover your ass time as this is blowing up in the faces of everyone. 3 former directors and 3 deputy directors - giving positive results. And never mind OBL for a moment, they are also stating that these interrogations saved THOUSANDS of lives. So even if they didn't get OBL as a result, maybe their techniques still saved thousands of lives. And also of course that the recent report is flawed and one sided.

Another thing to ponder is the amount of articles out there now accusing GWB of breaking the law. Some of these results state that he was even in the dark through a lot of this. But that doesn't stop others from continuing the accusations, without all of the facts.

And then what Kath has been reminding others of - that they were cleared for these techniques before hand. If approved prior, those on the hook, IMO, are those giving the approval, not those following orders.

My ONLY point is that we can't run with a few articles and swear it as the truth.

I agree with a lot of that.
but we can try to honestly asses what's more likely the truth. If we don't automatically try to make all about partisan politics.
but about the facts as best we can.

what are the facts when we look at the reports OVER THE YEARS we've gotten from interrogators , ambassadors, soldiers, CIA agents, FBI agents, red cross investigators, human rights workers, Gitmo lawyers, victims, the FOIA docs of abuse, of autopsies.

One thing that strikes me from those who defend torture is they often say 3 things at the same time.
1. it only happened to a few people 3 maybe,
2. it really wasn't torture and
3. it saved 1000's of lives.

that story seem false on it's face based on the multiply reports we have.


Concerning Brennan trustworthiness.
well he lied to congress about NOT spying on them and then "apologized"
He's also claimed that the CIA drone strikes have had no collateral damage. NONE. another proven lie.
he should have been fired long ago.

And frankly both Tennant and Breenan have self serving reasons to claim that the torture helped since it was done under their watch. and they may be libel .

But that's a 2ndary concern but a thing to note as we try to find the facts.
If we want to fnd them

[jimnyc]

One thing that strikes me from those who defend torture is they often say 3 things at the same time.
1. it only happened to a few people 3 maybe,
2. it really wasn't torture and
3. it saved 1000's of lives.

that story seem false on it's face based on the multiply reports we have.

The saving of lives seems also very likely as well, and also backed up by no less than 6 of the highest ranking CIA officials. And I know you disagree with me - but to me, that's what matters most, is saved American lives.

[revelarts]

The saving of lives seems also very likely as well, and also backed up by no less than 6 of the highest ranking CIA officials. And I know you disagree with me - but to me, that's what matters most, is saved American lives.

what about that it cost the lives of 100s or 1000s of soldiers as reported by the generals the d.o.d. and integrators in the field?
And the fact that the info could have been gotten (probably was ) by other methods

[Jeff]

This whole thing is a maneuver to divert attention from the slaughter the democrats just experienced and to begin rebuilding their narrative that Republicans are evil. It appears to be working.

Feinstein is merely doing Debbie Wassermann-Shultz's bidding.

BINGO

Give that man a cigar, NT you hit the nail right on the head, and a 40 million dollar diversion at that !!

[jimnyc]

what about that it cost the lives of 100s or 1000s of soldiers as reported by the generals the d.o.d. and integrators in the field?
And the fact that the info could have been gotten (probably was ) by other methods

I've given in and admitted that we are likely all being lied to, and that no one side is likely telling us the truth. But I'm a betting man, and I bet you'll continue to believe only what you want to hear, the things against torture. With that said, I don't see a point in the debate.

And we've been told simply going into a country was going to create more terrorists. Killing any of them would do the same. Family members are recruited when one was killed. They are going to kill because we're in another country. They are recruiting and killing unless we release certain prisoners. They are going to recruit if we don't help in Syria or other places in the past. If we continue with drones....

No matter what action is taken there is someone crying that it's creating more terrorists and enemies. I wonder what we were doing wrong just prior to 9/11? I know, I know, there was SOMETHING somewhere we were doing that caused US to create terrorists and therefore getting hit on that day.

These are terrorist scum. Anything short of giving them what they want and letting them kill - they will recruit more. There are Muslim terrorists being created all over the place. Look at ISIS - and am I to believe that its all because we waterboarded a few prisoners? Please, these people will recruit, use radical means and look for new ways to kill - if the wind blows the wrong way. Our beating information out of them hardly turned fine muslims around the world into psychotic terrorist monsters - they've been doing that LONG before we ever waterboarded one of their cockroach friends.

[revelarts]

I've given in and admitted that we are likely all being lied to, and that no one side is likely telling us the truth. But I'm a betting man, and I bet you'll continue to believe only what you want to hear, the things against torture. With that said, I don't see a point in the debate.

Jim if i found that the huge list of fbi, cia, army, interrogators , general Petraeus and other Generals, Admirals etc, WW2 nazi interrogators etc etc etc.... that ive listed here (and those that i haven't) saying the OPPOSITE of what i've found then
I would admit that people are saying torture works and is a good way to get answers but i would still say it's wrong.

that's what i would do.

I wouldn't pretend that just because i don't like it, that it doesn't work.
Cameras in every home would probably WORK at stopping a lot of child abuse but it's WRONG and unconstitutional.
that's what i would say.

But the thing is Jim I HAVE found tons of professionals that says torture is counterproductive in nearly every way.
so i have very SOLID reasons to take the stand i have Jim.

Other's here mainly just say that the terrorist deserve it.
Don't provide any evidence from professionals past or present in the field that say torture is the best way to get info or that it helps.
I've got plenty on my side side of the debate to work with overwhelmingly enough if people are honest about it.

[revelarts]

And we've been told simply going into a country was going to create more terrorists. Killing any of them would do the same. Family members are recruited when one was killed. They are going to kill because we're in another country. They are recruiting and killing unless we release certain prisoners. They are going to recruit if we don't help in Syria or other places in the past. If we continue with drones....

No matter what action is taken there is someone crying that it's creating more terrorists and enemies. I wonder what we were doing wrong just prior to 9/11? I know, I know, there was SOMETHING somewhere we were doing that caused US to create terrorists and therefore getting hit on that day.

These are terrorist scum. Anything short of giving them what they want and letting them kill - they will recruit more. There are Muslim terrorists being created all over the place. Look at ISIS - and am I to believe that its all because we waterboarded a few prisoners? Please, these people will recruit, use radical means and look for new ways to kill - if the wind blows the wrong way. Our beating information out of them hardly turned fine muslims around the world into psychotic terrorist monsters - they've been doing that LONG before we ever waterboarded one of their cockroach friends.

OK so you're saying

If we invade there country we create terrorist...
um if they invaded ours?

If we kill "them" we create terrorist...
well if we kill some bomber only those already in the club will be upset no new ones are created it's been shown in yeman and other countries if you kill the REAL terrorist the people even MUSLIMS like it. but if you kill some innocent
THEN we have a problem.

If we are in another country we create terrorist...
Depends on what the heck were doing there. INVADING to get unfound wmds?
yeah it was an unprovoked invasionto anyone not wearing red-white-n-blue sunglasses.
recruiting and killing unless we release certain prisoners.
This they are just going to have to live with
they can recruit all they like we don't release convicted felons/terrorist.
Who ever is making those demands goes on the watch/hit list.

They are going to recruit if we don't help in Syria.
That's just BSery and should be ignored


If we continue with drones..
Drones have killed far to many innocences and the passive Muslim is turned in to an enemy here for no good reason

Assuming they are all "terrorist scum" who can recruit other non invovled Muslims under any excuse doesn't fly.
It's lazy thinking. Not all Muslims are terrorist never have been. finding out the real motives is vital and can't be left to our stereotypes and just looking at the worse propaganda. the 9-11 report and other books talk about the real motivation and options.

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't pretend that just because i don't like it, that it doesn't work

I've yet to see you post a single thing that shows that waterboarding was effective in any way, shape or form. And yet 6 of some of the most recent and highest ranking CIA officials state that it has. Maybe it wasn't a 100% direct link to OBL, but they all say that it saved lives, and thousands of them. Their statements sounded as solid as anything else I've read. But yet you're betting the house on everything you've found and posted and more or less ignoring anything that supports such techniques, simply because you disagree with it. I'm not saying you're pretending, but it sure does seem like you are taking one side and dismissing the other.

[jimnyc]

OK so you're saying

If we invade there country we create terrorist...
um if they invaded ours?

If we kill "them" we create terrorist...
well if we kill some bomber only those already in the club will be upset no new ones are created it's been shown in yeman and other countries if you kill the REAL terrorist the people even MUSLIMS like it. but if you kill some innocent
THEN we have a problem.

If we are in another country we create terrorist...
Depends on what the heck were doing there. INVADING to get unfound wmds?
yeah it was an unprovoked invasionto anyone not wearing red-white-n-blue sunglasses.
recruiting and killing unless we release certain prisoners.
This they are just going to have to live with
they can recruit all they like we don't release convicted felons/terrorist.
Who ever is making those demands goes on the watch/hit list.

They are going to recruit if we don't help in Syria.
That's just BSery and should be ignored


If we continue with drones..
Drones have killed far to many innocences and the passive Muslim is turned in to an enemy here for no good reason

Assuming they are all "terrorist scum" who can recruit other non invovled Muslims under any excuse doesn't fly.
It's lazy thinking. Not all Muslims are terrorist never have been. finding out the real motives is vital and can't be left to our stereotypes and just looking at the worse propaganda. the 9-11 report and other books talk about the real motivation and options.

And you proved my point. Everyone has things they don't like and there are endless claims of what supposedly creates and/or recruits a new terrorist. It sounds like pretty much the only thing that will prevent more terrorists is to completely avoid these people, make believe they never exist and allow them to do what they please. The EXACT same kinds of wording "creating terrorists" and all that other BS was stated from day one. Simply going into war with ANYONE that involves Islam = creating more terrorists. Is there ANYTHING at all that we can do that WON'T create terrorists? No, there isn't.

This is like saying a cop shouldn't shoot a murderer if they catch up with him, as his brother then may go rogue and become a murderer too. I suppose we should allow the first murderer to go along his merry way, so we don't create another one.

[red state]

The saving of lives seems also very likely as well, and also backed up by no less than 6 of the highest ranking CIA officials. And I know you disagree with me - but to me, that's what matters most, is saved American lives.

Yes, FIRST, the lives of our BEST, then the lives of WE THE PEOPLE and everyone else can fall into place (with the scum at the VERY back of the line).

[aboutime]

Once again rev. Why do you pretend to love this nation when your words generally prove how much you actually hate having a Safe Place to live, and defend the very terrorists you want to protect with laws NOT EVEN OUR PRESIDENT obey's or follows. Yet you admire him, much the same way you admire terrorists?

[revelarts]

And you proved my point. Everyone has things they don't like and there are endless claims of what supposedly creates and/or recruits a new terrorist. It sounds like pretty much the only thing that will prevent more terrorists is to completely avoid these people, make believe they never exist and allow them to do what they please. The EXACT same kinds of wording "creating terrorists" and all that other BS was stated from day one. Simply going into war with ANYONE that involves Islam = creating more terrorists. Is there ANYTHING at all that we can do that WON'T create terrorists? No, there isn't.

This is like saying a cop shouldn't shoot a murderer if they catch up with him, as his brother then may go rogue and become a murderer too. I suppose we should allow the first murderer to go along his merry way, so we don't create another one.

"Like saying a cop..."

when did we become cops of the world Jim?
that's part of the problem.
We act like we're suppose to be able to walk into OTHER countries willy nilly and people are suppose to say thanks and if they don't we wonder what's wrong wit THEM.

If a terrorist comes here and does some crap we can go and take them and there friends down, ok sure. if the countries not co-oprative, but ONLY them and then get the heck out of dodge. it must be Surgical or we shouldn't do it.
We can't attack the whole NATION or their killers neighbors who we think don't like us and MIGHT get us ONE DAY.

But let me ask you one thing honestly.

if an American NEO-Nazi went to the Japan and kill a bunch of Jewish and Japanese people at a conference.
and we refused to help the Japanese or Israelis find the killers group in a fashion they liked. Would you be OK with the Israelis and Japanese drone striking your neighborhood and killing the guy's cousin.... and maybe some of your family and pets by accident?

thats a very strait forward question i'm not asking other caveats etc.

what would think?
would that be an EXCUSE for you to be pissed at the Israelis and the Japanese? Or would you love and respect them more with every bomb in the U.S. and more with every new set of Israelite troops busting in your neighbors doors looking for Neo Nazis, taking your guns and maybe sometimes raping the women in neighnorhood you heard a rumor?
Would you consider it a reason to join others against the NEO-Nazis or against Japan and Israel be a terrible situation wouldn't it?

That's much closer anology than your of cops chasing down a known murderer in his OWN city.

[aboutime]

"Like saying a cop..."

when did we become cops of the world Jim?
that's part of the problem.
We act like we're suppose to be able to walk into OTHER countries willy nilly and people are suppose to say thanks and if they don't we wonder what's wrong wit THEM.

If a terrorist comes here and does some crap we can go and take them and there friends down, ok sure. if the countries not co-oprative, but ONLY them and then get the heck out of dodge. it must be Surgical or we shouldn't do it.
We can't attack the whole NATION or their killers neighbors who we think don't like us and MIGHT get us ONE DAY.

But let me ask you one thing honestly.

if an American NEO-Nazi went to the Japan and kill a bunch of Jewish and Japanese people at a conference.
and we refused to help the Japanese or Israelis find the killers group in a fashion they liked. Would you be OK with the Israelis and Japanese drone striking your neighborhood and killing the guy's cousin.... and maybe some of your family and pets by accident?

thats a very strait forward question i'm not asking other caveats etc.

what would think?
would that be an EXCUSE for you to be pissed at the Israelis and the Japanese? Or would you love and respect them more with every bomb in the U.S. and more with every new set of Israelite troops busting in your neighbors doors looking for Neo Nazis, taking your guns and maybe sometimes raping the women in neighnorhood you heard a rumor?
Would you consider it a reason to join others against the NEO-Nazis or against Japan and Israel be a terrible situation wouldn't it?

That's much closer anology than your of cops chasing down a known murderer in his OWN city.



One name will cover it all for you rev. Neville Chamberlain. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for you.

[revelarts]

I've yet to see you post a single thing that shows that waterboarding was effective in any way, shape or form. And yet 6 of some of the most recent and highest ranking CIA officials state that it has. Maybe it wasn't a 100% direct link to OBL, but they all say that it saved lives, and thousands of them. Their statements sounded as solid as anything else I've read. But yet you're betting the house on everything you've found and posted and more or less ignoring anything that supports such techniques, simply because you disagree with it. I'm not saying you're pretending, but it sure does seem like you are taking one side and dismissing the other.

Jim as i mentioned I don't care if it was "effective" it's wrong. But they haven't proven it by a LONG shot.
compared to the 6 guys you mention i've posted apx 15 30 more that say tortures ineffective. heck it's in USAFM , but you only acknowledge you can't know whos telling the truth but your leaning to the 6 who reflex your partisan view.
But i'm just being biased?


U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:

"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn't work

The CIA's own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not "efficacious" in producing information

A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists

A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:

“The administration’s claims of having ‘saved thousands of Americans’ can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered — not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. … It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.”

The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn't work

A former US Air Force interrogator said that information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists

The number 2 terrorism expert for the State Department says torture doesn't work, and just creates more terrorists

A former high-level CIA officer states:

Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn't work.

A former CIA station chief in Pakistan who served at the agency for three decades doubts that torture saved any lives

Still don't believe it? These people also say torture doesn't produce usable intelligence:

Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."

Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."

Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."

Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that. "

Many other professional interrogators say the same thing (see this, this, and this).

In fact, one of the top interrogators in Iraq got information from a high-level Al Qaeda suspect not through torture, but by giving him cookies.

And top American World War 2 interrogators got more information using chess or Ping-Pong instead of torture than those who use torture are getting today.

And the head of Britain's wartime interrogation center in London said:
“Violence is taboo. Not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”

Indeed, one of the top military interrogators said that torture does not work, that it has resulted in hundreds or thousands of deaths of U.S. soldiers, and that torture by Americans of innocent Iraqis is the main reason that foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraq in the first place (in fact, the experts agree that torture reduces national security).

And - according to the experts - torture is unnecessary even to prevent "ticking time bombs" from exploding (see this, this and this). Indeed, a top expert says that torture would fail in a real 'ticking time-bomb' situation

And Dick Cheney's claim that waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed stopped a terror attack on L.A.? As the Chicago Tribune notes:

The Bush administration claimed that the waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed helped foil a planned 2002 attack on Los Angeles -- forgetting that he wasn't captured until 2003.

(see this confirmation from the BBC: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ... was captured in Pakistan in 2003")....
Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work → Washingtons Blog (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html)

Those 6 guys may have some info i don't have but I'd have to say with the above and the others i've posted it seems i'd have a sufficient reason to believe that torture is no good Jim.

will you admit that?
should i bet on it?

[Jeff]

How true, at least when you water board someone you get useful info from them and they live, Drone strikes just kill them ( and any innocents in the house ) dead and ya get no info, maybe this is what Obama wants ?



Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales believes President Barack Obama's employment of enemy-targeting drones is more damaging to the nation than the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation" in the grilling of suspected terrorists.

"It seems to me what's more harmful to this country are the drone attacks," Gonzalez said of the controversial unmanned, remotely piloted aircraft used in military strikes.

"Waterboarding may hurt our standing in the world community. The way the drone program is operated has equal damage — but even more so [because] when you kill a high-level operative, you lose the opportunity to gather intelligence and that's detrimental to our efforts."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alberto-Gonzales-drones-torture-report/2014/12/12/id/612765/

[aboutime]

Obama couldn't keep his promise about shutting down Gitmo. So, he uses Drones to kill. Knowing if the enemy is dead. They have no place to come to where punishment, or waterboarding might take place.

But Most Importantly. If Obama authorizes the Killing of the Enemy...in any way. He effectively prevents any member of the enemy forces from EXPOSING any of Obama's connections with the Muslim Brotherhood, or other ISIS/ISIL groups whom....Obama has been helping silently, by destroying our nation...one person at a time. And he started with our Military. The CIA, and FBI are following close behind as Obama and Angry Democrats attempt to destroy whatever is left of our Ability to DEFEND this nation.

It's as plain as the nose on anyone's face. But ignorance, selfishness, and stupidity are working overtime.

[revelarts]

How true, at least when you water board someone you get useful info from them and they live, Drone strikes just kill them ( and any innocents in the house ) dead and ya get no info, maybe this is what Obama wants ?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alberto-Gonzales-drones-torture-report/2014/12/12/id/612765/

Both are bad, drones probably worse.
hard to say which is more sadistic.
torturering suspects for exteneted periods or killing them by surprise as they are at a funeral or at home cooking.

[Jeff]

Both are bad, drones probably worse.
hard to say which is more sadistic.
torturering suspects for exteneted periods or killing them by surprise as they are at a funeral or at home cooking.

What you have to remember Rev is they are home cooking for others many times and although maybe these folks will follow in there footsteps we shouldn't kill them just on a maybe ( so we are killing innocents ) the scum we have in captivity are know terrorist ( notice I didn't say enemies , they aren't a army ) and deserve everything they get. Now they can avoid all that nasty torture, all they have to do is not be a terrorist, seems simple enough to me. I didn't want to live my life in jail so I am not a murder, kind of like 1 + 1 = 2

[revelarts]

What you have to remember Rev is they are home cooking for others many times and although maybe these folks will follow in there footsteps we shouldn't kill them just on a maybe ( so we are killing innocents )
Agreed



the scum we have in captivity are known terrorist...
the people captured and tortured/abused were not all "known" terrorist , they were often "suspected" terrorist or "accused " terrorist.
Some with assumed knowledge of xyz or giving "material support" to terrorist which might mean giving a ride, or meals to "suspect" terrorist.
Some of them were real terrorist but Bush himself ended up releasing about 75% or so of the people at Gitmo whom he at 1st called "the worse of the worse". Some are back at home licking there wounds NOT back in terror orgs.
and because we abused the ones that were Real terrorist we couldn't convict them because we can't use evidence that's been coerced and we didn't have ANY OTHER solid evidence from the field to make a cases stick!


( notice I didn't say enemies , they aren't a army ) and deserve everything they get. Now they can avoid all that nasty torture, all they have to do is not be a terrorist, seems simple enough to me. I didn't want to live my life in jail so I am not a murder, kind of like 1 + 1 = 2
As i've mentioned before many weren't terrorist, just suspects, wrong place wrong time wrong associates.
and of course ..as i've mentioned several times... torture and abuse is immoral, it's counter productive and is NOT the best way to get intel from a suspect or even known terrorist.
there are many terrorist in prison now in the U.S. who were never tortured, who gave tons of intel, and will never be on streets again. the NORMAL system WORKS, no need for any extra fake macho revenge movie BS.

[fj1200]

Granted, it's a little difficult to view Nazis as human. On balance, though, I'm inclined to see Nazis as human.

Nazism was a mixture of cult worship of a leader and a poisonous political philosophy. Between these, it's easy to see how sensibilities could've been warped.

More, though, warped or not, Nazis understood the value of law and order. They were capable of maintaining a cohesive Society.

Coward. That's exactly how some here have described Islam. You could at least have the courage to assign your warped worldview consistently.

Cohesive society. Comical.

[Drummond]

Coward. That's exactly how some here have described Islam. You could at least have the courage to assign your warped worldview consistently.

I will concede a similarity. I will not concede an exact parallel.

With Islam, the loyalty is more towards the creed itself than the leader of it (.. however much revered, however much Mohammed contributed to it). The Koran, all it says (&/or abrogates) is central to what matters to Muslims.

One couldn't have said the exact same thing for Mein Kampf. With Nazism, it had a living, despotic ruler at the helm. What he commanded, 'real time', was what counted at any one moment.


Cohesive society. Comical.

Why ?

[aboutime]

Coward. That's exactly how some here have described Islam. You could at least have the courage to assign your warped worldview consistently.

Cohesive society. Comical.


Funny stuff fj. The king of WARPED almost everything calling others a coward? You lose.

[Jeff]

Agreed


the people captured and tortured/abused were not all "known" terrorist , they were often "suspected" terrorist or "accused " terrorist.
Some with assumed knowledge of xyz or giving "material support" to terrorist which might mean giving a ride, or meals to "suspect" terrorist.
Some of them were real terrorist but Bush himself ended up releasing about 75% or so of the people at Gitmo whom he at 1st called "the worse of the worse". Some are back at home licking there wounds NOT back in terror orgs.
and because we abused the ones that were Real terrorist we couldn't convict them because we can't use evidence that's been coerced and we didn't have ANY OTHER solid evidence from the field to make a cases stick!


As i've mentioned before many weren't terrorist, just suspects, wrong place wrong time wrong associates.
and of course ..as i've mentioned several times... torture and abuse is immoral, it's counter productive and is NOT the best way to get intel from a suspect or even known terrorist.
there are many terrorist in prison now in the U.S. who were never tortured, who gave tons of intel, and will never be on streets again. the NORMAL system WORKS, no need for any extra fake macho revenge movie BS.

That is a great response Rev, but it is my belief that if you support terrorist you are just as bad, no they aren't lopping peoples heads off but they are supporting it, these people are not a army they are just a bunch of evil people and any way we can get info from them is OK with me, You do realize what they do to our brothers and sisters when they catch them don't ya, lets see watr boarding or head cutt off, personally I will pick the water boarding all day long.

[fj1200]

I will concede a similarity. I will not concede an exact parallel.

With Islam, the loyalty is more towards the creed itself than the leader of it (.. however much revered, however much Mohammed contributed to it). The Koran, all it says (&/or abrogates) is central to what matters to Muslims.

One couldn't have said the exact same thing for Mein Kampf. With Nazism, it had a living, despotic ruler at the helm. What he commanded, 'real time', was what counted at any one moment.

Coward.


Why ?

A coward's way out of stating what should be obvious. The Nazis were disgusting creatures with no regard for civilian lives who would kill in the streets or line their victims to be shot or gassed. You should have the guts to call them what your logic demands, them and the Imperialist Japanese; Were the Imperialist Japanese subhuman? I bet the Chinese have the guts to call it like it is.

[Drummond]

Coward.



A coward's way out of stating what should be obvious. The Nazis were disgusting creatures with no regard for civilian lives who would kill in the streets or line their victims to be shot or gassed. You should have the guts to call them what your logic demands, them and the Imperialist Japanese; Were the Imperialist Japanese subhuman? I bet the Chinese have the guts to call it like it is.

Part of the answer you deserve to have, has been given already. There's a enormous difference between being made to toe a line, by a living despot wielding real and potent power, versus just choosing to follow a creed shaped by a pervert, dead for centuries, therefore not capable of directly issuing orders !!!

And another enormous difference - which you're ignoring with some degree of determination ? - is that many of those subject to the whims of a despotic, LIVING, master ... were in that position as being part of a organised social structure allowing them no choice whatever. Compare that to Muslim terrorists who work outside of social structures, whose actions can be defined by their purposeful intention to do DAMAGE to the society in which they're based.

In one example ... force of circumstances shape conduct. In the other, chosen adherence to a creed shaped by someone dead for centuries.

[fj1200]

Part of the answer you deserve to have, has been given already. There's a enormous difference between being made to toe a line, by a living despot wielding real and potent power, versus just choosing to follow a creed shaped by a pervert, dead for centuries, therefore not capable of directly issuing orders !!!

And another enormous difference - which you're ignoring with some degree of determination ? - is that many of those subject to the whims of a despotic, LIVING, master ... were in that position as being part of a organised social structure allowing them no choice whatever. Compare that to Muslim terrorists who work outside of social structures, whose actions can be defined by their purposeful intention to do DAMAGE to the society in which they're based.

In one example ... force of circumstances shape conduct. In the other, chosen adherence to a creed shaped by someone dead for centuries.

Is that what it takes to have zero intellectual credibility? Plenty of those terrorists are directly made to "toe a line" by despotic "Imams" who work inside of social structures. But you may be right, the Nazis were able to efficiently organize society well enough to attempt to eliminate an entire race of people. Efficient genocide; the sign of advanced subhumanity. :rolleyes: I don't ignore that you're a cherry-picking coward in applying your disgusting ideology.

Do you remember when I had to inform you of British history?

'They seized three-year-old children and shot them': Darkest atrocities of the Nazis laid bare in the secretly recorded conversations of German prisoners of war

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204160/Darkest-atrocities-Nazis-laid-bare-secretly-recorded-conversations-German-prisoners-war.html#ixzz3MBb5xj8x
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)