• 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!

Should the Report on Torture Be Released Publicly?

Should The Torture Report be Released Publicly?

  • Total voters
    90
tacomancer said:
yes, talk to all involved, not just witnesses, use the UN and the red cross to monitor. open all records along with the report itself. This would be a good format.
Click to expand...

Ah, but then if these guidelines weren't followed and then they still put out a report. Should they not be hooked up for bringing false and misleading statements? What about for endangering others lives?
 
Beaudreaux said:
They already do. There's nothing I can do about it. In fact, they even behead their prisoners - something that I feel any of us would find impossible to prove that the US has ever done.

To compare what the US has done, to what a terrorist would do, is insulting to anyone like me that is a vet, especially those of us that are disabled because of our service, due to enemy fire. (just saying, so you know next time)
Click to expand...

Where did I say that Americans use the exact torture as groups like ISIS? Please, humor me, because that is no where close that what I had written. I had asked you if you'd be okay with ISIS using the same torture methods as the American military used under Bush. Apart from the usual 'non-torture' (as YOU say) of water boarding and sleep deprivation, I ask again would YOU be okay with ISIS doing the following to American soldiers (including family members):

One detainee faced particularly rough treatment in late 2005. Per the report: "According to CIA records, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi was subjected to nudity, dietary manipulation, insult slaps, abdominal slaps, attention grasps, facial holds, walling, stress positions and water dousing with 44 degree Fahrenheit water for 18 minutes. He was shackled in the standing position for 54 hours as part of sleep deprivation, and experienced swelling in his lower legs requiring blood thinner and spiral ace bandages.
"He was moved to a sitting position, and his sleep deprivation was extended to 78 hours. After the swelling subsided, he was provided with more blood thinner and was returned to the standing position. The sleep deprivation was extended to 102 hours. After four hours of sleep, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi was subjected to an additional 52 hours of sleep deprivation, after which CIA Headquarters informed interrogators that eight hours was the minimum rest period between sleep deprivation sessions exceeding 48 hours. In addition to the swelling, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi also experienced an edema on his head due to walling, abrasions on his neck and blisters on his ankles from shackles."
Click to expand...

OR

8. "At least five CIA detainees were subjected to 'rectal rehydration' or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity," the report said. More specifically, "Majid Khan's 'lunch tray' of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins was 'pureed' and rectally infused."
Click to expand...

Please answer my question and please stop deflecting.
 
Sabanist said:
Libs will love it, they hate america. Not loony people will see it for what it is. Desperation for one last "blame bush" fest. If anyone is hurt by this release, hope the dems are happy.

Ftr i have no issue with any actions the cia took during the ksm interrogations
Click to expand...

So you'd be perfectly fine with American soldiers being treated the same exact way?
 
MMC said:
Ah, but then if these guidelines weren't followed and then they still put out a report. Should they not be hooked up for bringing false and misleading statements? What about for endangering others lives?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, it depends on whether the report was written in good faith or not. Right now there is no reason to doubt the good faith and honest effort of the writers. Them belonging to one political party or another does not matter for this determination.
 
MMC said:
Our government has more to fear from the people.....than the people do from our government.
Click to expand...

Not currently, but it should. When the government fears the People, there is liberty. When the People fear the government, there is tyranny.
 
cpwill said:
So what do you think the impact of that would be, were it in the report?
Click to expand...

Not significant, because it isn't a secret and it is already well known throughout the world. It is the people of the USA who are most in the dark (or in denial) about our government's activities.
 
tacomancer said:
Not necessarily, it depends on whether the report was written in good faith or not. Right now there is no reason to doubt the good faith and honest effort of the writers. Them belonging to one political party or another does not matter for this determination.
Click to expand...

I believe there may be some reasons to doubt the good faith and honest effort of the writers.

CIASavedLives
 
MMC said:
;)

Gul Rahman, a suspected extremist, got his first taste of enhanced interrogation in late 2002 with two days of sleep deprivation, total darkness, isolation and "rough treatment." Rahman was then shackled to a wall in his cell, forced to rest on a bare concrete floor in only a sweatshirt. The next day he was dead. A CIA review and autopsy found he died of hypothermia.

Justice Department investigations into that and another death of a CIA detainee resulted in no charges....snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...leases-scathing-report-cia-interrogation.html
Click to expand...

OK. So that's one. Out of how many? I'm still betting on a very small percentage, and this is the real world; the rough and tumble world of international spooks, international aggression and extremist groups who behead people.

Nice to have ideals and all, provided they don't hobble you operating and surviving in the real world. Survival and practicality need to have a place in this too.
 
annata said:
I do not think they can be any more angered....
Click to expand...

I have changed my mind about this. The people need to know what happened. You are right about our enemies being more angered.
 
Sabanist said:
They are currently treated worse when captured by terrorists. So...
Click to expand...

You. Did. Not. Answer. My. Question.

Your torture excusers are predictable as hell. Y'all talk a big game, saying it's not a big deal at all (pffftttt... waterboarding is torture for ******s!111!!) but not a one of you will admit that you think it would be okay with American soldiers being treated in the same manner. C'mon, Sabanist... be the first!
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Indeed. The Geneva conventions have a clear gap in them, as it didn't foresee that type of warfare at the time that it was drafted and agreed to. And the UN, and international agreements haven't kept up nor even started to catch up. These Unlawful combatant/Terrorist fall through the cracks.

This is what drove the Bush administration to create Gitmo, and hold them there. This is also why Obama couldn't close Gitmo when and how it wanted to.

Gitmo is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world for Unlawful combatant/Terrorist that aren't covered in any other way.
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason Gitmo hasn't been closed was because the GOP-led House refused to fund the closure. That's the ONLY reason.
 
If releasing these reports endangers American lives then the answer is no.
 
Middleground said:
You. Did. Not. Answer. My. Question.

Your torture excusers are predictable as hell. Y'all talk a big game, saying it's not a big deal at all (pffftttt... waterboarding is torture for ******s!111!!) but not a one of you will admit that you think it would be okay with American soldiers being treated in the same manner. C'mon, Sabanist... be the first!
Click to expand...

Ok very well, im not ok with any of it. However if the terrorists employed tactics we used rather than the ones they currently use then yea, im good
With it.

Now you, would you rather see more attacks on americans rather than the waterboarding if ksm?

Be the first!!
 
Sabanist said:
Ok very well, im not ok with any of it. However if the terrorists employed tactics we used rather than the ones they currently use then yea, im good
With it.

Now you, would you rather see more attacks on americans rather than the waterboarding if ksm?

Be the first!!
Click to expand...

I knew it. Thanks for your honesty. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

And your question posed to me makes zero sense unless your prove to me that waterboarding (or torture) causes less attacks on American soldiers.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The ONLY reason Gitmo hasn't been closed was because the GOP-led House refused to fund the closure. That's the ONLY reason.
Click to expand...

OK, so you'd have brought them onto the US shores, and the entire expensive, long, and drawn out legal process that this would entail?

You have a bottomless pit of money to pay for all that? Something on the order of $20M per detainee? For legal rights that these people aren't even entitled to?

And at the end of all that, to release them from custody, probably in neighborhood where innocent civilians live?

This seems like madness to me.
 
eohrnberger said:
OK, so you'd have brought them onto the US shores, and the entire expensive, long, and drawn out legal process that this would entail?

You have a bottomless pit of money to pay for all that? Something on the order of $20M per detainee? For legal rights that these people aren't even entitled to?

And at the end of all that, to release them from custody, probably in neighborhood where innocent civilians live?

This seems like madness to me.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. The only reason why Gitmo is not opening up the Human Rights Tribunal to go after the United States is because Gitmo falls out of the signatory regions, that's it. It's a grey area, legally speaking. Morally speaking, we all know what's going on there and that it's against everything the United States says it stands for. The point is that we are supposed to be above this gulag behavior, not partaking in it.

More than likely, Gitmo is a place where top U.S. informants are being held, otherwise they would spill the beans to the whole western media about this entire corrupt operation. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, etc.

Look at the position the U.S. government is in. We can't let them go because, yes, they will run right to the nearest rebels and tell horror stories of OUR dishonor, which will just embolden our enemies. Yet the government won't just try them in U.S. courts because they will air ALL of our dirty laundry.

The people in Gitmo will be, in some form or another, in our custody forever, probably until they die. The other options present huge risks to the government. Forget our national "safety", it's not about that. Our safety was blown years ago. This is about protecting the asses of our government. If we knew half of their dirty ops, there would be a revolution tomorrow.
 
Northern Light said:
You're missing the point. The U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. The only reason why Gitmo is not opening up the Human Rights Tribunal to go after the United States is because Gitmo falls out of the signatory regions, that's it. It's a grey area, legally speaking. Morally speaking, we all know what's going on there and that it's against everything the United States says it stands for. The point is that we are supposed to be above this gulag behavior, not partaking in it.

More than likely, Gitmo is a place where top U.S. informants are being held, otherwise they would spill the beans to the whole western media about this entire corrupt operation. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, etc.

Look at the position the U.S. government is in. We can't let them go because, yes, they will run right to the nearest rebels and tell horror stories of OUR dishonor, which will just embolden our enemies. Yet the government won't just try them in U.S. courts because they will air ALL of our dirty laundry.

The people in Gitmo will be, in some form or another, in our custody forever, probably until they die. The other options present huge risks to the government. Forget our national "safety", it's not about that. Our safety was blown years ago. This is about protecting the asses of our government. If we knew half of their dirty ops, there would be a revolution tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. It is my understanding that the Geneva Convention doesn't cover the terrorists / Islamic extremist militants. It does speaks to civilians and it speaks to captured uniformed military personnel. It even speaks to uniformed militia. I don't think it speaks to non-uniformed Unlawful combatant / Terrorist, although the closest I think, my best guess, might be spy, aren't they summarily executed?

And what are you going to do with them? Their own countries of origin don't want them back. The countries they want to go to don't want them there. They are literally men without countries now. How about we turn them lose in your back yard?

Through their heinous actions they've removed themselves from the community of mankind. What to do with them now?
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, I know that the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. It is my understanding that the Geneva Convention doesn't cover the terrorists / Islamic extremist militants. It does speaks to civilians and it speaks to captured uniformed military personnel. It even speaks to uniformed militia. I don't think it speaks to non-uniformed Unlawful combatant / Terrorist, although the closest I think, my best guess, might be spy, aren't they summarily executed?

And what are you going to do with them? Their own countries of origin don't want them back. The countries they want to go to don't want them there. They are literally men without countries now. How about we turn them lose in your back yard?

Through their heinous actions they've removed themselves from the community of mankind. What to do with them now?
Click to expand...

"The enemy combatant" is a recent invention of the Bush II administration used to justify violating the Geneva Conventions. A person is either a criminal or POW, there is no legitimate justification for this new category.

"...Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3)...." ICRC commentary on Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949: Part I : General provisions: Conflicts no of an international character as cited by Wikipedia
 
Middleground said:
I knew it. Thanks for your honesty. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

And your question posed to me makes zero sense unless your prove to me that waterboarding (or torture) causes less attacks on American soldiers.
Click to expand...

The cia released statements today that the enhanced interrogations worked and led to actionable intelligence.

You. Did. Not. Answer. My. Question
 
Hard Truth said:
"The enemy combatant" is a recent invention of the Bush II administration used to justify violating the Geneva Conventions. A person is either a criminal or POW, there is no legitimate justification for this new category.

"...Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3)...." ICRC commentary on Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949: Part I : General provisions: Conflicts no of an international character as cited by Wikipedia
Click to expand...

OK, so let's say they are POWs then.
Their next stop after being captured would be a POW camp.
So that'd be Gitmo.
POWs are detained until the war is over, right?
Well, the war on terrorism is still on.
So . . . . the POWs stay in the POW camp then?
 
Misterveritis said:
Sometimes bad things need to happen to bad people. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation sound like good tools to use against the bad guys.
Click to expand...

Pretty small-minded, abandoning ethics, morality and rules of civilized behaviour and giving thugs the go-ahead to use brutal techniques that do not work for the sake of being seen to be tough on terror. The only thing torture produces is the satisfaction of the torturer. Your people. That, and permission.
My dad used to caution me that I was, partly, known by the company I kept. Go stand over there beside China, North Korea, Nigeria, Kampuchea and the rest of your peers.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, I know that the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention. It is my understanding that the Geneva Convention doesn't cover the terrorists / Islamic extremist militants. It does speaks to civilians and it speaks to captured uniformed military personnel. It even speaks to uniformed militia. I don't think it speaks to non-uniformed Unlawful combatant / Terrorist, although the closest I think, my best guess, might be spy, aren't they summarily executed?

And what are you going to do with them? Their own countries of origin don't want them back. The countries they want to go to don't want them there. They are literally men without countries now. How about we turn them lose in your back yard?

Through their heinous actions they've removed themselves from the community of mankind. What to do with them now?
Click to expand...

Terrorists are called non-state actors, which is convenient for us because we get to invade the entire world without ever declaring war in order to get to these "terrorists".

What we are supposed to do with them? I don't know... I guess just create prisons all over the place in grey zones to dump them in indefinitely? Seems to be the status quo these days.

It doesn't matter if their own countries want them or not. They are citizens of somewhere, and somewhere should deal with them. But that's not the reason why we're detaining them. We deport other people's problem all the time, it's also our status quo. We're holding them because they know our dirty little secrets.

All this legal minutiae is pointless. We should not be torturing anyone. It's against our stated principles as a country. The least we could do is hide it better. Our government has zero shame anymore... it all just hangs out.
 
Grand Mal said:
Pretty small-minded, abandoning ethics, morality and rules of civilized behaviour and giving thugs the go-ahead to use brutal techniques that do not work for the sake of being seen to be tough on terror. The only thing torture produces is the satisfaction of the torturer. Your people. That, and permission.
My dad used to caution me that I was, partly, known by the company I kept. Go stand over there beside China, North Korea, Nigeria, Kampuchea and the rest of your peers.
Click to expand...

Thugs are doing worse without our go ahead and have been for decades.

It does work as reported by the cia today.

Its only common sense. The left says "theyll say anything to make it stop"

The reality is every source of info is cross checked. You never act on a single piece of intel. If i am waterboarding you and you tell me somethin i know is a lie, you will get it worse. The question is are you willing to roll that dice? I think not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom