• 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
Your poll results show by a more than 2-to-1 vote that the report should have been released.
Let this be the beginning of the DEM reawakening on how to fight the GOP messaging war .


A Demo awakening?
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif



And to think.....that was just with the Demos Report.
 
An early Christmas gift for ISIS recruiters.
If that be the case, then drone strikes and GTMO are the recruiting gifts that keep on giving!
 
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.

:lol: information is the most easily traded resource; the idea that foreigners know things about our governments' activities that we are kept in the dark about is unsupportable at best.
 
Then why did BO Peep say that Americans in certain countries would have more of risk. Why did they say they were concerned about that?

You weren't going to try and deny that this report would raise the risk of harm on Americans, were you?

Do you even know anything about warfare?


Sure....but what you are failing to understand or recognize is that it is the BEHAVIOR contained in the reports that is causing the risk. If the report indicated that the US had maintained its high standards of decency there would be no risk.
 
If it was so " immoral " why didn't the Democrats in the House intelligence committee do something about it when they were thoroughly briefed by the CIA ?

Pelosi and Company were well aware that these enhanced interrogation techniques were being used .

What did they do to put a stop to them ?

Any democrats that condoned the behavior as just as bad as Bush/Cheney. Utlimately however....it was Bush/Cheney that instigated the use,
 
Alright, whether it works or not, is that the only consideration? I mean, what is it you're fighting against? What's the difference between you and your enemies?

My enemies are not having their heads chopped off on video, or having their corpses dragged through the streets.

If one civilian or allied life can be saved by denying my enemies some sleep, then thats success
 
Sure....but what you are failing to understand or recognize is that it is the BEHAVIOR contained in the reports that is causing the risk. If the report indicated that the US had maintained its high standards of decency there would be no risk.

Really.....what policy is the report changing? What does the report do.....other than harm American Interests and personnel?
 
Sure....but what you are failing to understand or recognize is that it is the BEHAVIOR contained in the reports that is causing the risk. If the report indicated that the US had maintained its high standards of decency there would be no risk.

Or if bo and co didnt grand stand. There was no point in this release other than to cause trouble. Thanks libs, hope yall are satisfied when a protest breaks out and people are killed
 
IIRC, Bush had a timeline in which the Iraqis had to follow.

A timeline is much different than dictating the composition and personnel of another sovereign nation's government.

Might very well have been a 'here's what we'll commit to' or 'here's what we were thinking', type of a plan, as a starting point, as we all realize that no plan is accurate beyond the first contact with the enemy, at least when cast into military terms, but you get the idea, I'm sure.
 
I know that we're in an ends justifies the means situation now, where we have to follow through with our corrupt and ridiculous plans that were already initiated. That's kind of how the government gets way with continuing to do the same old crap. "Well, we started it, now we might as well finish it." But the argument for non-state actors works both ways. We can't invade every country on earth to suss out anyone who opposes us, and terrorism is never ending. ISIS has shown us that even after our protracted theater in the Middle East, our enemies can still rebound and pose a serious threat to us. Yes perhaps Obama withdrew the troops to early, but really, the Middle East has a history of resiliency against its enemies. No war will be lengthy enough to really quell the cultural dissent, and the amount of damage we have done to their civilizations will ensure that they hate us for the foreseeable future. This is a battle that we CANNOT win, and I'm not saying that because I'm anti-war, but because I'm a pragmatist. We are bankrupting our nation trying to take water out of the ocean.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. It's not like the tortures are in the spirit of the law, even though we can defend it using the precise wording of the treaty system.The human touch in our system of governance is lost when everything gets boiled down to pure semantics. But I guess that's what happens when government is made up of mostly lawyers and business people.

If you really believe that this is a battle that we cannot win, I suggest that you save time and start adopting Sharia law now, rather than later. Get used to being beheaded for not being Muslim or believing in Islam.

We can see the throes of this in the heavily Muslim immigrated EU countries, such as France, Germany and the UK. They've got a hell of a problem in that this Islamic radicalism is not only present in the first generation immigrants, it's also starting to show up in the second generation of immigrants, which have not really assimilated into the local culture as expected and depended on.

The Islamic extremists's stated goal is to spread Islam to all countries, and make it the majority religion in all countries.

What's the most pragmatic response to the threat of being killed by Islamic extremists?
What's the most pragmatic response to the threat of displacing the culture of all non-Islamic countries?
 
Any democrats that condoned the behavior as just as bad as Bush/Cheney. Utlimately however....it was Bush/Cheney that instigated the use,

Well, now you are speaking about all the Democrats that were in the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate. So that'd be Feinstein herself, and I don't buy for a minute her claim that 'she didn't know'. She was briefed extensively and repeatedly in these committee hearings by the CIA.

So say hello to your Democratic leadership, and you can lump them right in with Bush / Cheney on this count.
 
The US doesn't run around talking about being morally Superior.....except when the left has power. Maybe you should tell ALL those in your Party. Never to discuss morals and values. Especially since most the left has a problem with ethics while not having any Real Heart.

Yes, that would be the majority of the left. Weakness defined!!!!!

seems i hear "American exceptionalism" quite a bit when republicans are in power
that little phrase is used to justify doing those things that no other nation on the planet would be able to get away with
 
seems i hear "American exceptionalism" quite a bit when republicans are in power
that little phrase is used to justify doing those things that no other nation on the planet would be able to get away with



Yeah I hear it to when it comes to American business and the Military. But that is to be expected. Of course we have heard BO out speaking about how exceptional we are too.

As he told those overseas. Always there with an open hand to help. From food to disaster relief and saving lives to even fighting terrorists and bringing them to justice.

Were not those his words?

Has he not ran around and tried to show and tell all how exceptional our troops are?
 
Yeah I hear it to when it comes to American business and the Military. But that is to be expected. Of course we have heard BO out speaking about how exceptional we are too.

As he told those overseas. Always there with an open hand to help. From food to disaster relief and saving lives to even fighting terrorists and bringing them to justice.

Were not those his words?

Has he not ran around and tried to show and tell all how exceptional our troops are?

only NOT the ones conducting torture and those who authorized/directed it
the phrase 'American exceptionalism' was co-opted by the neocons to justify engaging our nation in immoral acts
 
only NOT the ones conducting torture and those who authorized/directed it
the phrase 'American exceptionalism' was co-opted by the neocons to justify engaging our nation in immoral acts

So are you trying to say that BO wasn't out running around using the same term? That those overseas still were hearing the same ole same ole, Right?
 
So are you trying to say that BO wasn't out running around using the same term? That those overseas still were hearing the same ole same ole, Right?

what i am actually saying is thank you for acknowledging there was no conspiracy/scandal between gruber and the white house
and it is the neocons bandying about with the 'American exceptionalism' phrase to justify the moral wrongdoing/torture committed in the name of our country
 
what i am actually saying is thank you for acknowledging there was no conspiracy/scandal between gruber and the white house
and it is the neocons bandying about with the 'American exceptionalism' phrase to justify the moral wrongdoing/torture committed in the name of our country

Yeah and I think you were given an answer in that thread. Although, they were talking about what was facts, which Gruber agreed upon due to him making the admissions.

But really Gruber has nothing to do with the Torture report. Certainly not about exceptionalism either. Just sayin. :mrgreen:
 
I haven't got time to read the entire thread, but nowhere do I see any ties to American exceptionalism;
either the classic sense before WWII, or modern meaning
 
Well, now you are speaking about all the Democrats that were in the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate. So that'd be Feinstein herself, and I don't buy for a minute her claim that 'she didn't know'. She was briefed extensively and repeatedly in these committee hearings by the CIA.

So say hello to your Democratic leadership, and you can lump them right in with Bush / Cheney on this count.
yep. she was part of the "Gang of 8"
 
Although it goes against my better judgement due to humanitarian reasons..I think your politicians should have just kept shtum..what purpose will it serve now?

It will only serve to inflame an already inflammatory situation..

You must be really looking forward to the compensation claims..
 
Although it goes against my better judgement due to humanitarian reasons..I think your politicians should have just kept shtum..what purpose will it serve now?

It will only serve to inflame an already inflammatory situation..

You must be really looking forward to the compensation claims.
.



What power on this planet is going to force the U.S. government to pay compensation to anyone for anything?

Fill us in.


I don't believe that it will ever happen.


I'm not saying that it might not be deserved in a few cases. I'm just saying that it's not going to happen.
 
What power on this planet is going to force the U.S. government to pay compensation to anyone for anything?

Fill us in.


I don't believe that it will ever happen.


I'm not saying that it might not be deserved in a few cases. I'm just saying that it's not going to happen.

Come off it..America is going to pay for every little toenail pulled out..unless they have some real good evidence that those people they tortured were ''terrorists!''

Torture is not one of the crimes covered by the statute directly, but it may be arguable that the individual acts committed by CIA agents amounted to crimes against humanity as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population on the basis that the torture was part of a policy committed against a great number of victims or in a systematic way) and subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
 
Come off it..America is going to pay for every little toenail pulled out..unless they have some real good evidence that those people they tortured were ''terrorists!''

Torture is not one of the crimes covered by the statute directly, but it may be arguable that the individual acts committed by CIA agents amounted to crimes against humanity as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population on the basis that the torture was part of a policy committed against a great number of victims or in a systematic way) and subject to the court’s jurisdiction
.




What you have said here is 100% total BS because there is no power on this planet that can force the USA to do anything that it doesn't want to do.
 
What you have said here is 100% total BS because there is no power on this planet that can force the USA to do anything that it doesn't want to do.

The USA REDEFINED what "torture" was, in order to be able to pontificate that they did not "torture" people...
 
Back
Top Bottom