- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,652
- Reaction score
- 39,916
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
But we can't, at least not with anything like solid evidence. That's been Boo's point over and over and he's right.
I've cited for Boo the multiple times that that program did, in fact, produce actionable intelligence that saved lives. Thus far his point has been that you can't disprove the counterfactual (that we couldn't have produced that intelligence via other means); which is to say, it raises an impossible burden of proof, to take all possible futures and demonstrate their falsity. So he's right only to the extent that you are willing to accept a standard that denies all possibility of knowledge.
Well then maybe the CIA should talk to them, so they can share the success stories with journalists and Congress.
:shrug: unlikely. they're the "quiet" professionals, contra some of our SEALs. But the CIA would know who they are, and where to find them. They're the CIA, after all.
I'm not making a partisan argument - haven't mentioned parties a single time. But since you've brought it up, where are the civil liberties GOPers? Or is torture a new right for libertarians - what could go wrong making torture a tool of government. Hey, small and limited and free to torture if the ends are just!!
It was Senate Democrat Bob Kerrey, formerly of the Intelligence Subcommittee, who stated that the report was partisan hackery rather than an attempt to produce something that would lead to better governance. Additionally, Democrat-appointed and Democrat-approved CIA leadership have pointed to the reports multiple falsities and it's unwillingness to gather all the relevant data. Perhaps you should take that up with them.
As for the GOPers :shrug: It's interesting - ole Rand Paul has been pretty quiet thus far on this.
The obvious answer is that lots can go wrong with the EIT program - specifically the normalization that George Freidman spoke of. The countering program is that Lots MORE can go wrong with a nation that takes those tools off the table. It's the strategic mirror to the overly restrictive ROE's that put our troops in danger downrange.
I've tried to find the evidence and other than bare assertions, haven't located it.
So.. other than bipartisan testimony from those who would be in a position to know, we don't have any evidence? What evidence are you looking for?
It's more than that - the cases cited as proof all have huge holes in them and are at best thin evidence. So why the vigorous assertions that there is all this compelling evidence? It's not the cases we know about, so what alternative can you come up with except that there are cases we do NOT know about?
To simply discredit the uniform, bipartisan testimony from those who would be in a position to know as they provide specifics as "at best thin evidence" I'll admit, I don't get. Are you looking for some kind of reversal of courtroom rules - prove their innocence beyond all shadow of a doubt?
Of course, human rights aren't restricted to Americans. If so they're not human rights, but rights of U.S. citizens, and we're a long way from "we hold these truths...all men" to "some men, if they are U.S. born or became citizens, have some rights unless we determine that stripping them produces a short term benefit...."
Yup. For example, we're willing to strip the rights of our citizens when we Draft them. And we are willing to choose to protect the rights of our citizens over the rights of the citizens of other nations, especially when it is those foreign citizens who are placing our own at risk and setting up the conflict in the first place.