• 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!

Justice Dept. Report Advises Pursuing C.I.A. Abuse Cases

Well, I mean, you're gonna get a ticket.

If you got the gift of gab, then yea, I guess its possible to get out of it.

But I thought we were talking about national issues here, not traffic tickets.

Oh man!!:lol:

What's the difference?? (You either abide by the law or you suffer the consequences...whether they are national or local.)

Your spirit argument is really just silly.
 
I'm not a believer in my country right or wrong.
Americans don't torture..Americans don't use drills on prisoners....Americans don't do mock executions.......Nazi's Do!

If we hired Blackwater mercenaries to commit war crimes in our name, then they are war criminals & should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law & as high up as the orders were issued. (does anyone think General/President Eisenhower would have done those things?....HELL NO!!

It's wrong for the government to tell these men, "get the info...our country's safety depends on it", then turn around and prosecute them for it.

Not is that wrong, but it does little for the DOJ's credibility when they want to prosecute something so vague, yet turn their noses up at an obvious case voter intimidation.
 
It's wrong for the government to tell these men, "get the info...our country's safety depends on it", then turn around and prosecute them for it.

Not is that wrong, but it does little for the DOJ's credibility when they want to prosecute something so vague, yet turn their noses up at an obvious case voter intimidation.

So "I was just following orders" is as good defense for anything...if you're defending the safety of your country?

Really??....ANYTHING????


No...What's really "wrong" (& illegal) is to follow illegal orders. (Many soldiers have been hung for doing that)
 
Last edited:
You said anyone not defending the rule of law was unAmerican. Ever hear of Japanese Americans interment camps?

Lincoln establishing marshal law?


I never said that, another poster did...Devil505

Try reading the thread again.

You're asking the wrong poster.
 
Last edited:
Oh man!!:lol:

What's the difference?? (You either abide by the law or you suffer the consequences...whether they are national or local.)

Your spirit argument is really just silly.

The difference is obvious.

One is a meaningless traffic ticket, the other is a nation's body, heart and soul.
 
Gotta feel bad for the CIA folks, now they gotta fear that the next administration will decide what they were doing was "illegal" and come after them.

From my reading of the article, these are going to be people who exceeded the law as it was interpreted under Bush. RightinNYC might be able to clarify if I understand that correctly. If that is the case, your objection is moot, as it is not the case in these prosecutions.

The original investigation was done in 2004 by the CIA itself.

Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said Sunday that the Justice Department recommendation to reopen the cases had not been sent to the intelligence agency. He added: “Decisions on whether or not to pursue action in court were made after careful consideration by career prosecutors at the Justice Department. The C.I.A. itself brought these matters — facts and allegations alike — to the department’s attention.”

...

There has never been any public explanation of why the Justice Department decided not to bring charges in nearly two dozen abuse cases known to be referred to a team of federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., and in some instances not even the details of the cases have been made public.

The above quote from the article is important. It's not a witch hunt after the fact due to the changing administration and changed interpretations of laws.
 
So "I was just following orders" is as good defense for anything...if you're defending the safety of your country?

Really??....ANYTHING????

Of course not, anything. But I think it's a perfectly good defense when you're accused of doing nothing more than twisting some dude's arm, or depriving him of sleep to get some vital information out of him. I remind you again, these guys didn't gas millions of people. They only roughed a few terrorists.
 
Of course not, anything. But I think it's a perfectly good defense when you're accused of doing nothing more than twisting some dude's arm, or depriving him of sleep to get some vital information out of him. I remind you again, these guys didn't gas millions of people. They only roughed a few terrorists.

Suppose the facts prove you wrong?
Suppose an investigation proves that CIA contractors actually tortured some prisoners to death? (would that change your thinking at all?)

Edit:

&..BTW..Since Nuremberg...."I was just following orders" is no defense at all.

Soldiers & civilians working for our government are only required to follow LEGAL orders, not illegal ones.
 
Last edited:
Suppose the facts prove you wrong?
Suppose an investigation proves that CIA contractors actually tortured some prisoners to death? (would that change your thinking at all?)

Yes, that would be different. However, if they had actually killed someone in an interrogation, there's no doubt we would have heard about it, by now.
 
Yes, that would be different. However, if they had actually killed someone in an interrogation, there's no doubt we would have heard about it, by now.

I applaud your integrity is seeing the difference.
As far as tortured to death accusations.......I habve heard these accusations already. Idf you do a 5 minute Google search you will find them too.
Have they been PROVEN?.....No (not yet anyway)
Are they out there?...Yes
 
Yes, that would be different. However, if they had actually killed someone in an interrogation, there's no doubt we would have heard about it, by now.

According to the article, that is one of the allegations.
 
According to the article, that is one of the allegations.

Any deaths that occured during an interrogation should certainly be investigated, but I think that that is as far as it should go. I'm totally opposed to investigating operators just because they weren't as nice to a prisoner as some folks think they should be.

I also believe that information attesting to the effectiveness, or the lack of, wichever may be the case, should be made public to see if the operations actually yielded credible information. If it can be proved that it was all for naught, then it would lend more credibility to the DOJ's case.
 
Any deaths that occured during an interrogation should certainly be investigated, but I think that that is as far as it should go. I'm totally opposed to investigating operators just because they weren't as nice to a prisoner as some folks think they should be.

.

So if we cut off both arms & legs & poked out the eyes of a prisoner, that would be OK & should not be punished because he lived? (do you really believe that??)
 
So if we cut off both arms & legs & poked out the eyes of a prisoner, that would be OK & should not be punished because he lived? (do you really believe that??)

You're just being rediculous, but, the question still sands: did it reveal any good intel? If so, then I say **** it, do whatcha gotta do.

Would that being going too far? Yeah, sure it would. Do I have any sympathy for the terrorists? Not a lick.
 
I also believe that information attesting to the effectiveness, or the lack of, wichever may be the case, should be made public to see if the operations actually yielded credible information. If it can be proved that it was all for naught, then it would lend more credibility to the DOJ's case.


If the Bush administration could have proved that torture was effective, they would have "Leaked" details when they were in power. Come on......You aren't THAT naive...are you?
 
You're just being rediculous, but, the question still sands: did it reveal any good intel? If so, then I say **** it, do whatcha gotta do.

Would that being going too far? Yeah, sure it would. Do I have any sympathy for the terrorists? Not a lick.


Wow...What a dangerous amount of power you are willing to give up, to be used in your name against people who had no proof presented that they were terrorists. Many of whom were not picked up on any battlefield & had very tenuous evidence against them. (many were Kids!)
I applaud you for your honesty as many would agree with you but not have the guts to admit it........

BUT

I abhor your thinking which is totally un_American imo.
 
Last edited:
Wow...What a dangerous amount of power you are willing to give up, to be used in your name against people who had no proof presented that they were terrorists. Many of whom were not picked up on any battlefield & had very tenuous evidence against them. (many were Kids!)
I applaud you for your honesty as many would agree with you but not have the guts to admit it........

BUT

I abhor your thinking which is totally un_American imo.

I'm all about winning and if we have to beat up a few prisoners to do that, then I'm all for it. Out there in the big bad world, there are no points for second place and sure as hell not for good sportsmanship.
 
I'm all about winning and if we have to beat up a few prisoners to do that, then I'm all for it. Out there in the big bad world, there are no points for second place and sure as hell not for good sportsmanship.

I hear you & you may very well represent the majority here but.........What would make us different from the Nazi's or the Viet Cong or the North Koreans or the Communist Chinese ...... if we all thought like you claim to.

I'll go out on a limb here & bet that,if you give it some REAL thought.....You would soften your stance.

Just a hunch!;)
 
I hear you & you may very well represent the majority here but.........What would make us different from the Nazi's or the Viet Cong or the North Koreans or the Communist Chinese ...... if we all thought like you claim to.

I'll go out on a limb here & bet that,if you give it some REAL thought.....You would soften your stance.

Just a hunch!;)

There's alot more stuff that makes us different than the Nazis and the Commies. Alot!

If we lose to the bad guys, then there surely won't be anything to seperate us from them.

It ain't about looking cool, it's about winning.
 
Any deaths that occured during an interrogation should certainly be investigated, but I think that that is as far as it should go. I'm totally opposed to investigating operators just because they weren't as nice to a prisoner as some folks think they should be.

I also believe that information attesting to the effectiveness, or the lack of, wichever may be the case, should be made public to see if the operations actually yielded credible information. If it can be proved that it was all for naught, then it would lend more credibility to the DOJ's case.

As I understand it from the article and the OPs comments, it's not investigating people for not being nice, it's prosecuting people alleged to have violated the law as it was interpreted under Bush. I don't believe in prosecuting people who followed the law as Bush interpreted it, but those who exceeded even that are fair game.

Now, hold onto your hat for this next part. Sitting down? Good...I pretty much totally agree with your second paragraph. I don't think we can have an effective debate on EIT's without knowing, publicly, how effective they where.
 
people alleged to have violated the law as it was interpreted under Bush.

And, I think that's really what it all boils down to. It's really about Bush, only a different angle of attack.
 
And, I think that's really what it all boils down to. It's really about Bush, only a different angle of attack.

Actually, I don't think so. If they wanted to make it about Bush, they would go after those who did not exceed the law as Bush interpreted it as well.
 
Actually, I don't think so. If they wanted to make it about Bush, they would go after those who did not exceed the law as Bush interpreted it as well.

Of course it's about Bush. Their first assault was directed at the top and they looked like fools. Now, they're starting at the bottom and hoping that the trail ends at Bush. They're hoping for a little CYA among the ranks and will be making deals with whomever sings the loudest. Think about it, when the Feds goes after the mafia, they don't want that dealer out on the street. They want the guy he works for, then the guy that that guy works for and so on, until they get to the head honcho. When the FBI went after the Gotti Family, they were gunning for Gotti, not his street people. This is the same tactic.
 
Back
Top Bottom