• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou is sentenced to 30 months in prison for leaks

j-mac said:
:lol: What's the matter? damage your cred to have points of agreement with a conservative? How sad.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I just wanted to be clear concerning the extent of our agreement.

I did not intend it to be provocative or offensive
 
Torture is immoral, unreliable and illegal, and revealing it to the public through the press is the right thing to do. Much of the false information that was used to justify the attack and occupation of Iraq came from tortured prisoners. Assuming that all of his actions were genuinely done to reveal the use of torture, then he deserved whistleblower protection and should be considered a hero. The judges opinion on whether it was whistleblowing or not is not authoritative for me. None of the news stories I read indicated that the government showed that he took action for personal gain or to benefit outside interests.
 
j-mac said:
Then she and her husband should be the ones convicted for outing her...After all the moment she gave the interview with the magazine she was out....But like I said this isn't about her....And using her is only deflection from the thread.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. It is an exact duplication of the incident, separated by time and politics. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent exposed by the White House, not by herself until after it was public knowledge and it was entirely political. Pots and kettles calling owls green?
 
Hard Truth said:
Torture is immoral, unreliable and illegal, and revealing it to the public through the press is the right thing to do. Much of the false information that was used to justify the attack and occupation of Iraq came from tortured prisoners. Assuming that all of his actions were genuinely done to reveal the use of torture, then he deserved whistleblower protection and should be considered a hero. The judges opinion on whether it was whistleblowing or not is not authoritative for me. None of the news stories I read indicated that the government showed that he took action for personal gain or to benefit outside interests.
Click to expand...


So, you don't accept Judges verdicts as valid, if YOU don't agree with them? Who appointed you supreme overseer of justice in this country?
 
DaveFagan said:
Au contraire. It is an exact duplication of the incident, separated by time and politics. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent exposed by the White House, not by herself until after it was public knowledge and it was entirely political. Pots and kettles calling owls green?
Click to expand...

Except in the Plame case, the real person who "outed" a CIA employee that was covert at one point, but no longer was, never was prosecuted by Fitzgerald in the case even though he knew who outed her, Richard Armitage, early on in the investigation....Libby was a process charge to justify a massive waste of time and money.

I will agree with you that any CIA worker that at any time in their career was covert, probably best not to be talking to the press about that person, whether they are currently covert or not, but we are talking letter of the law here, and at the time her name was leaked by Colin Powell's Cos, Armitage, she and her husband was all over DC at parties dropping the covert experience, giving interviews to Vanity Fair, Showing up to work day in, day out at CIA HQ. Anyone who wanted to know where she worked would only have to have talked to her, Wilson, her tea sipping husband, or simply seen her enter CIA HQ monday thru friday.
 
sangha said:
No, not at all. I just wanted to be clear concerning the extent of our agreement.

I did not intend it to be provocative or offensive
Click to expand...


I didn't take it as such....Just having a little fun....
 
While it would be justifiable to leak information about torture as a whistleblower, leaking the names of undercover agents was not justified under the circumstances. John Kiriakou broke the law and his 30 month sentence is reasonable.

My problem with the whole situation is that people who committed acts of torture aren't even being charged. Justice is clearly not the motivation here, as even heinous crimes are tolerated provided they are met with political sanction. Turning a blind eye to a major evil while trumpeting the punishment of a minor one is little more than hypocrisy and corruption.
 
rathi said:
While it would be justifiable to leak information about torture as a whistleblower, leaking the names of undercover agents was not justified under the circumstances. John Kiriakou broke the law and his 30 month sentence is reasonable.

My problem with the whole situation is that people who committed acts of torture aren't even being charged. Justice is clearly not the motivation here, as even heinous crimes are tolerated provided they are met with political sanction. Turning a blind eye to a major evil while trumpeting the punishment of a minor one is little more than hypocrisy and corruption.
Click to expand...

Who do you see as being responsible for "committed acts of torture"?
 
j-mac said:
Who do you see as being responsible for "committed acts of torture"?
Click to expand...

In order of responsibility: people who ordered acts of torture, people who personally committed acts of torture and the people who aided and abetted them. Although obviously politically impossible, it would be legally and ethically justifiable to include both the former and sitting president of the united states. Realistically, I would like there to be an investigation and a few lower level scapegoats thrown in prison and a few high level guys fired. I'm not holding my breath for anything to happen though.
 
rathi said:
In order of responsibility: people who ordered acts of torture, people who personally committed acts of torture and the people who aided and abetted them. Although obviously politically impossible, it would be legally and ethically justifiable to include both the former and sitting president of the united states. Realistically, I would like there to be an investigation and a few lower level scapegoats thrown in prison and a few high level guys fired. I'm not holding my breath for anything to happen though.
Click to expand...



And what other than possibly make you feel better about the system, would that accomplish? And what do you believe in the big picture it would do?
 
j-mac said:
So, you don't accept Judges verdicts as valid, if YOU don't agree with them?
Click to expand...

The verdict may be legally valid, that doesn't mean it was correct. Many judicial decisions are overturned on appeal and many convictions are later revealed to be wrong. I would have a bit more confidence in the decision if it came from a jury, but juries also make mistakes.

By the way, the final charge for the conviction was chosen as part of a plea bargain, which means that charge was not necessarilly the most appropriate one, just the one that the defense and prosecution could accept.

j-mac said:
Who appointed you supreme overseer of justice in this country?
Click to expand...
I didn't get the appointment, which is why all I can do is contribute to organizations that support the constitution and oppose torture, write letters to elected officials and post my opinions on internet forums. Did you get the appointment?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
And what other than possibly make you feel better about the system, would that accomplish? And what do you believe in the big picture it would do?
Click to expand...

End the cruel, immoral practice of torture.
Protect the USA's constitition. (remember the concept of cruel and unusual punishment?)
Demonstrate that government officials are required to obey the law and should be held accountable for their actions.
Respect and comply with international law, so that other countries will be more likely to follow our example.
Reduce the chances that our military personnel will be tortured if captured by our opponents.
Improve the USA's tarnished international image.
Reduce a source of unreliable intelligence.
Increase respect for government amonst our citizens.
Stop the spread of torture to other uses, such as other crimes and political uses.
Reduce the number of sadists in positions of power.
Save innocent people form torture.

In m view, if anyone knows of a genuine ticking timebomb situation that requires the use of torture to obtain information, they should do what is necessary. If they use torture they should be put on trial for their crime. If their justification is legit, they will not be convicted.

The USA survived for over two hundred years without legalized torture. I believe we can continue to survive without it. I will accept the risk of occassional terrorist attack in exchange for living in a free country where citizens have little fear of being tortured, imprisoned without trial, or murdered by their governement. Look at the history of governments that routinely use these techniques and see if they are the type of societies that you would want to live in.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
And what other than possibly make you feel better about the system, would that accomplish? And what do you believe in the big picture it would do?
Click to expand...

1) It would deter people from committing further acts of torture, knowing that you would actually be punished for it.
2) It would demonstrate that our justice systems actually upholds the law, and that crimes are still crimes, even when perpetrated by the highest levels of our government.
3) It would check the massive loss of civil and human rights over the last decade, in which the government has decided it can spy upon, torture and kill people with impunity.
4) Finally, people who think its acceptable to torture others would no longer be in positions of power.
 
I am a NIMBY when it comes to torture. Just as long as it happens offshore, whatever.
 
Fisher said:
I am a NIMBY when it comes to torture. Just as long as it happens offshore, whatever.
Click to expand...

Torture is OK as long as you don't have to hear the screams?
 
Hard Truth said:
Torture is OK as long as you don't have to hear the screams?
Click to expand...

As long as it is not within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
 
Fisher said:
As long as it is not within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

So I suppose Auschwitz wasn't a problem because it wasn't within the jurisdiction of Germany? That's not an acceptable legal or ethical argument.
 
Fisher said:
As long as it is not within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Basic human rights should be respected everywhere. The international treaties regarding prisoners of war, prohibiting torture and respecting human rights that the USA ratified have the force of law and should apply everywhere. Shipping legal USA residents to outside the USA to circumvent constitional protections should be ruled illegal. All prisoners should be categorized as either POWs or criminals and treated within the established legal constraints for the category. I don't accept the argument that the treatment of certain people should be outside of these two categories and exempt from established legal protections.
 
rathi said:
So I suppose Auschwitz wasn't a problem because it wasn't within the jurisdiction of Germany? That's not an acceptable legal or ethical argument.
Click to expand...

Comparing water boarding with gas chambers is a bit of a stretch.

Hard Truth said:
Basic human rights should be respected everywhere. The international treaties regarding prisoners of war, prohibiting torture and respecting human rights that the USA ratified have the force of law and should apply everywhere. Shipping legal USA residents to outside the USA to circumvent constitional protections should be ruled illegal. All prisoners should be categorized as either POWs or criminals and treated within the established legal constraints for the category. I don't accept the argument that the treatment of certain people should be outside of these two categories and exempt from established legal protections.
Click to expand...

I don't know what basic human rights are. I do know what jurisdiction is and I reject International Law since I don't get a vote in it.
 
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, so long as they live in the USA and not one of those foreign countries. People here are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Those other guys, not so much.

God loves us, you know.
 
Fisher said:
Comparing water boarding with gas chambers is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

Its an extremely accurate comparison. We put people on trial for waterboarding after WW2 right alongside those who had operated gas chambers. Torture was not considered acceptable even during the most destructive war this world had ever seen. It was seen as unconscionable by the same people who had justified firebombing Dreseden and dropping two nuclear weapons on Japan.

I don't know what basic human rights are. I do know what jurisdiction is and I reject International Law since I don't get a vote in it.
Click to expand...

International law has nothing to do with it. Torture is violation of U.S. law and the jurisdiction issue is made up nonsense.
 
rathi said:
Its an extremely accurate comparison. We put people on trial for waterboarding after WW2 right alongside those who had operated gas chambers. Torture was not considered acceptable even during the most destructive war this world had ever seen. It was seen as unconscionable by the same people who had justified firebombing Dreseden and dropping two nuclear weapons on Japan.

International law has nothing to do with it. Torture is violation of U.S. law and the jurisdiction issue is made up nonsense.
Click to expand...

To you it is an accurate comparison, to me it is "made up nonsense".

Clearly you are right about the latter being illegal since the WH authorized a lot of this stuff and reauthorized it with the new President :roll:
 
Fisher said:
To you it is an accurate comparison, to me it is "made up nonsense".

Clearly you are right about the latter being illegal since the WH authorized a lot of this stuff and reauthorized it with the new President :roll:
Click to expand...

The WH authorizing something does not make it legal, just ask Richard Nixon.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The WH authorizing something does not make it legal, just ask Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

And people sitting in a backroom at a summit agreeing to something doesn't make it illegal either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom