• 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!

Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

The whole premise of this Story is the Criminal Proscecution of the C.I.A.,,, for the Interrogations of trash like this...He happens to one of the scum that's Highlighted.:roll:
Maybe the Libs are worried over some other sleaze-ball then...:lol:
It could be about the rule of law etc and not about any person in particular.
Obviously, YMMV.
 
"Just folliwng orders", isn't a defense, true, but as hiswoman pointed out it isn't about following, "orders", it's about following the, "rules", as they knew them.
A distinction without a difference
There was no reason for these agents to think they were conducting themselves in a manner that was contrary to standing SOP and policy of the United States government for over 40 years.
Funny that they should have asked for explicit clarification for a decades old policy. Also it should be noted that teh WH made special efforts to produce documents to explain the legal basis of a decades old practice.
Maybe you are somewhat mistaken.
YMMV
 
To do whatever is necessary, even if that leads to false information that could misdirect, or even kill thousands? Torture is not just immoral, or illegal, but also the absolute worst tactic to use when trying to gather information.

I wish some would someday wake up and smell the coffee of reality, but the most precise intelligence we have gotten to date was gathered through interrogations by FBI professional interogators who did not need to use harsh treatments.

I think it would be of interest for people to know that the most celebrated interrogator in Word War II was a German named Hanns Scharff who:


On the other hand, we did send Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi to Egypt where the result was the now knowingly false Iraq-al-Qaeda connections. That worked out real well didn't it?
Powell aide says torture helped build Iraq war case

Do nothing isn't an option. And we've already had thousands killed. If I knew that our Intelligence people had a known Terrorist in custody that had info that could stop the slaughter of 1000's of our people...And they didn't use all means at their disposal to retreive that Info,,,then, I'd demand they be Prosecuted. But NOT for doing their Duty.:roll:
 
Do nothing isn't an option. And we've already had thousands killed. If I knew that our Intelligence people had a known Terrorist in custody that had info that could stop the slaughter of 1000's of our people...And they didn't use all means at their disposal to retreive that Info,,,then, I'd demand they be Prosecuted. But NOT for doing their Duty.:roll:

Except I think you have watched 24 too much. Turn off the TV for once and actually listen to what the professionals have said, repeatedly for years now, that these "24" moments just do not exist. If one did exist, nothing changes, as "enhanced" interogation methods simply do not work, got that? They do NOT work. This is a fantasy idea fit for TV world, but we are talking about the real world. Ali Soufan got Abu Zubaydah to talk, without resorting to any "enhanced" techniques, but rather by using the same methods law enforcement have used for decades.

Israel, which has a longer history than anyone in dealing with terrorism, and your "24" fantasy, has long since stopped using torture. What they have found is that regular investigative work, just like the FBI and police do everyday, is more effective. It really is simple, and not rocket science for god's sake.
 
as "enhanced" interogation methods simply do not work, got that? They do NOT work
Admiral Dennis Blair disagrees with you. He is on record as saying they did work.

Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

Leon Panetta believes they can work, and indicated as such in his confirmation hearing.

Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation

Even Dear Leader acknowledges the techniques work.

Obama Calls It "Torture" on Prime Time | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

"And that's why I put an end to these practices. I'm absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do - not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways - in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are," Obama said, speaking about his decision to outlaw torturous interrogation techniques during his first days in office.
 
Admiral Dennis Blair disagrees with you. He is on record as saying they did work.

Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says

Leon Panetta believes they can work, and indicated as such in his confirmation hearing.

Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation

Even Dear Leader acknowledges the techniques work.

Obama Calls It "Torture" on Prime Time | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

And yet none of the people quoted above stated that any of these method actually yielded actionable intelligence that stopped any plots. Which is the whole reasoning many on the right have used to defend them. Obama clearly said the same information could have been yielded by regular methods. Blair stated we got organizational information on Al-Qaida which is the same kind of information we could have gotten through normal interrogations.

The fact is torture is illegal under US and international Law. Even Saint Ronnie was against torture:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Lets not forget to mention that waterboarding is a technique we picked up from the Koreans during the Korean war which was used to elicit false confessions from POWs. Waterboarding is not a successful method of interrogation and it was such a touchy subject the FBI was told once it was used to stay away from it by Director Mueller. Even the CIA had qualms to the point that they asked for legal cover after they had already begun.

Besides waterboarding several cases of detainees have been killed by other extreme methods used at Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and the military has several active investigations into their deaths. What we must remember as a civilized country is that many of these detainees have not been charged with a crime yet. Until they are they are detainees. Also a fair amount of the detainees came from when we offered bounties to warlords, who in turn turned over random people fro the money.

Torture is abhorrent to civilized society and once upon a time the majority found it not to even be a subject worth discussing. It is against our values.
 
This is not political...this is about our restoring country's integrity. Our country's ability to look beyond politics and DO THE RIGHT THING. These investigations are needed to heal the country...It is not about covering up people's lies and deceit...it is not about politicians using good troops to carry out evil unlawful acts and then cowar behind those very troops who were following the orders of those very politicians who are doing the cowaring.

This process might just hurt alittle but in the end we will all be better off for it.

Not political? This is nothing but political.

What is going to be created, is an environment where people are doing nothing more than CYA. When you have a group of people conducting CYA strategies and only doing the minimum so they don't get fired, nothing will get done. WOuld you run a business with people who only do the minimum?
 
A distinction without a difference
Funny that they should have asked for explicit clarification for a decades old policy. Also it should be noted that teh WH made special efforts to produce documents to explain the legal basis of a decades old practice.
Maybe you are somewhat mistaken.
YMMV

Maybe you can prove me wrong? I dunno if you can, but maybe.
 
Not political? This is nothing but political.

What is going to be created, is an environment where people are doing nothing more than CYA. When you have a group of people conducting CYA strategies and only doing the minimum so they don't get fired, nothing will get done. WOuld you run a business with people who only do the minimum?

Would you run a business using strategies that have been proven not to work? Would you run a business that skirts around the law? This isn't CYA, CYA was when Bush told the aide during the August memo that he had covered his ass by telling him about it. What's illegal is still illegal apdst
 
This isn't a very sound line of reasoning.

I disagree. If do as my employer asks, so long as what he/she asks is legal, I should not be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so. If the legality of those duties changes at a later date, I should not be prosecuted for performing those duties during the time they were legal.
 
I disagree. If do as my employer asks, so long as what he/she asks is legal, I should not be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so. If the legality of those duties changes at a later date, I should not be prosecuted for performing those duties during the time they were legal.

But that's the thing the legality of the duties didn't change only the duty itself. The legality of it has remained constant. If your employer tells you something is legal when its not that doesn't make you any less culpable.
 
But that's the thing the legality of the duties didn't change only the duty itself. The legality of it has remained constant. If your employer tells you something is legal when its not that doesn't make you any less culpable.

Let us know when the Islamic suicidal Fanatics still trying to kill us,,,decide to listen to you.:lol: They'd laugh in your face,,,and then cut your throat. All the while yelling Allahu Akbar.
 
I disagree. If do as my employer asks, so long as what he/she asks is legal, I should not be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so. If the legality of those duties changes at a later date, I should not be prosecuted for performing those duties during the time they were legal.
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution precludes the enacting of ex post facto laws. Congress is prohibited from criminalizing an act after the fact then prosecuting the original actors.

The deed done in 2003 is not retroactively made criminal in 2009--no amount of pontification or prevarication by Queen Nancy or any other Anti-Republican can alter that Constitutional reality.
 
Would you run a business using strategies that have been proven not to work? Would you run a business that skirts around the law? This isn't CYA, CYA was when Bush told the aide during the August memo that he had covered his ass by telling him about it. What's illegal is still illegal apdst

Making everyone afraid for their job, because of some unknown BS don't work. That's personel management 101.

You're sending a message to all the people who serve in the intel services, as well as the military, that their government won't back them up for doing what the government told them to do. There's no more a disfunctional way to run things than that.
 
Let us know when the Islamic suicidal Fanatics still trying to kill us,,,decide to listen to you.:lol: They'd laugh in your face,,,and then cut your throat. All the while yelling Allahu Akbar.

Let me know when suicidal fanatics have actually tried to kill you. I remember 9/11 pretty vividly and remember walking around the city the following week seeing all the missing persons posters but that doesn't make me live my life in fear. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about things.
 
Making everyone afraid for their job, because of some unknown BS don't work. That's personel management 101.

You're sending a message to all the people who serve in the intel services, as well as the military, that their government won't back them up for doing what the government told them to do. There's no more a disfunctional way to run things than that.

Short and sweet,,, & Straight to the point.
 
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution precludes the enacting of ex post facto laws. Congress is prohibited from criminalizing an act after the fact then prosecuting the original actors.

The deed done in 2003 is not retroactively made criminal in 2009--no amount of pontification or prevarication by Queen Nancy or any other Anti-Republican can alter that Constitutional reality.

The deed of torture was already criminal pre-2003. Nothing changes long standing US law
 
Making everyone afraid for their job, because of some unknown BS don't work. That's personel management 101.

You're sending a message to all the people who serve in the intel services, as well as the military, that their government won't back them up for doing what the government told them to do. There's no more a disfunctional way to run things than that.

Unknown BS? You're sending a message that there are no rules and that the rule of law we have in this country shouldn't apply to anyone in government. They knew the law before they did it. That's why we have laws for conscientious objectors. Many in the CIA and FBI quit because of being told to do things illegal. Many in the FBI were prepared to quit over the Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft hospital visit. If your boss tells you to do something which you know is illegal that doesn't provide you any cover
 
Not political? This is nothing but political.

What is going to be created, is an environment where people are doing nothing more than CYA. When you have a group of people conducting CYA strategies and only doing the minimum so they don't get fired, nothing will get done. WOuld you run a business with people who only do the minimum?

I certainly wouldn't run a business where the employees torture people just because someone told them to. Protecting the torturers is not a good enough excuse to end this investigation.
 
The deed of torture was already criminal pre-2003. Nothing changes long standing US law

Yeah, and torture has specific elements, all of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing which has come to light satisfies that.
 
Yeah, and torture has specific elements, all of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing which has come to light satisfies that.

They admitted to waterboarding. Waterboarding was prosecuted by the United States in WW2 as a war crime when the Japanese used it. Waterboarding was prosecuted in this country in 1983 when a texas sheriff and 3 of his deputies used it. Reagan's DOJ prosecuted the case. So yes torture is torture and we did torture in contravention of US and International Law
 
The deed of torture was already criminal pre-2003. Nothing changes long standing US law
Exactly why waterboarding was not and is not a crime. No laws were broken--it is only that Queen Nancy and her sock puppet in the White House Dear Leader need distractions to avoid being called to account for their inability to govern and lead this nation.
 
Exactly why waterboarding was not and is not a crime. No laws were broken--it is only that Queen Nancy and her sock puppet in the White House Dear Leader need distractions to avoid being called to account for their inability to govern and lead this nation.

You didn't make any sense Celtic. Waterboarding is a crime and is illegal in this country. This has nothing to do with "dear leader". Waterboarding is a war crime that we've prosecuted since WW2 and is something we've prosecuted in this country under Reagan.
 
They admitted to waterboarding. Waterboarding was prosecuted by the United States in WW2 as a war crime when the Japanese used it.
On prisoners of war. The terrorists warehoused at Gitmo are not prisoners of war, and thus this precedent does not apply.

Waterboarding was prosecuted in this country in 1983 when a texas sheriff and 3 of his deputies used it. Reagan's DOJ prosecuted the case.
Against criminals being interrogated as part of a criminal investigation. The terrorists warehoused at Gitmo are not criminals, confessions are not being sought, and so this precedent also does not apply.
So yes torture is torture and we did torture in contravention of US and International Law
Torture is torture. Waterboarding is not torture, and even if it were, torturing terrorists violates no international law.
 
They admitted to waterboarding. Waterboarding was prosecuted by the United States in WW2 as a war crime when the Japanese used it. Waterboarding was prosecuted in this country in 1983 when a texas sheriff and 3 of his deputies used it. Reagan's DOJ prosecuted the case. So yes torture is torture and we did torture in contravention of US and International Law

You apparently don't understand what "elements" are and how the facts of each case must establish them beyond a reasonable doubt. Labels like "waterboarding" are meaningless.
 
Back
Top Bottom