• 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!

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

Another summary can be found here: Summary: Key findings in CIA torture probe | Al Jazeera America

Its also key to note that this release is the heavily censored and redacted report...

The CIA knew what they did was illegal, selected people from the media to ensure that they were shown in a positive light, played russian roulette with prisoners, threatened their families, waterboarding to near death, if a detainee died noone was held responsible, mock executions. Hell what else did they do that they are not sharing with us.
 
Here's the point:

The torture report released Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the CIA deceived the nation with its insistence that the harsh interrogation tactics had saved lives. It says those claims are unsubstantiated by the CIA’s own records.

Senate report: Harsh CIA tactics didn't work | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour

Whine about left and right all you want, the point is still the point.

That's always been the contention of the liberal left like yourself Joe...Nothing has changed with this highly partisan, and politically timed report. The report means nothing, they just did it to endanger CIA lives, because they hate them, they always have.
 
Democrat politicians issue a report that says it didn't work? If it did work, they certainly admit it?

Someone would have a report saying it did. Again, why do you believe something absent evidence?
 
So it's okay to endanger the lives of CIA agents to appease someone (humanity? Liberals? Al Qaeda?), but everyone was weeping when Valerie Plame's name was outed, and her life wasn't even in danger because of it.

Interesting hypocrisy.
 
That's always been the contention of the liberal left like yourself Joe...Nothing has changed with this highly partisan, and politically timed report. The report means nothing, they just did it to endanger CIA lives, because they hate them, they always have.

It's evidence on the contention, something your side lacks. Again, just present evidence of working. Countless times I have presented verifiable evidence of it not working. At least match me, and then we might have a debate.
 
Another summary can be found here: Summary: Key findings in CIA torture probe | Al Jazeera America

Its also key to note that this release is the heavily censored and redacted report...

The CIA knew what they did was illegal, selected people from the media to ensure that they were shown in a positive light, played russian roulette with prisoners, threatened their families, waterboarding to near death, if a detainee died noone was held responsible, mock executions. Hell what else did they do that they are not sharing with us.

There are links in the site linked below to reports countering the claims made in the Democrats review of documents. Appears to be a rather thorough review of facts and context. Perhaps the Democrats should have applied similar standards to their effort.

CIASavedLives
 
Another summary can be found here: Summary: Key findings in CIA torture probe | Al Jazeera America

Its also key to note that this release is the heavily censored and redacted report...

The CIA knew what they did was illegal, selected people from the media to ensure that they were shown in a positive light, played russian roulette with prisoners, threatened their families, waterboarding to near death, if a detainee died noone was held responsible, mock executions. Hell what else did they do that they are not sharing with us.

Further, instructions regarding techniques, including the use of dogs, came from the highest offices in the government.

Abu Ghraib and the trials of the several (2?) enlisted men punished made that pretty plain to see.
 
It's evidence on the contention, something your side lacks. Again, just present evidence of working. Countless times I have presented verifiable evidence of it not working. At least match me, and then we might have a debate.

Bin Laden was killed in part as a direct result of intel we garnered from this interrogation technique.
 
thank god this is probably the last time anyone will have to listen to another speech from that old bag Pelosi.

it took the liberals a decade to officially call it torture. congratulations. If the terrorists hit us TOMORROW I hope the CIA does the exact same thing(minus the one death). If they find a suspected terrorists give him the whole "torture" menu. then twice on Sunday.

It may have taken some of the Democrat centrists in Congress and the Senate this long, but liberals were denouncing use of torture since at least the Neuremberg trials and pushed for the treaties that banned it. Liberals were raising the issue of torture in South Viet Nam in the 1960s, Chile and Argentina in the 1970s and protested at the School of the Americas ( a torture school for the USA's allies) since the 1980s dirty wars in Central America. The ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been working to end imprisonment without trial, imprisonment for political views, and the use of torture for decades and have been popular with liberals since the beginning.
 
"Extraordinary rendition or irregular rendition is the government sponsored abducting and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another.[1] In the United States President Clinton authorized extraordinary rendition to nations known to practice torture, called torture by proxy.[2] Under the subsequent administration of President George W. Bush, the term became associated with transferring so-called "illegal combatants" (often never charged with any crime) both to other countries for torture by proxy, and to US controlled sites for a torture program called enhanced interrogation.[3][4][5][6] Extraordinary rendition continued with reduced frequency in the Obama administration: those abducted have been interrogated and subsequently taken to the US for trial.[7][8]

Extraordinary rendition remains a violation of international law and due process. In July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights condemned the government of Poland for participating in CIA extraordinary rendition, ordering Poland to pay restitution to men who had been abducted, taken to a CIA black site in Poland, and tortured.....

By 2005, critics alleged that torture was used against subjects with the knowledge or acquiescence of the United States (a transfer of anyone to anywhere for the purpose of torture is a violation of US law). In addition, some former detainees claimed to have been transferred to other countries for interrogation under torture, such as the Australian citizen Mahmdouh Habib. In December 2005 Condoleezza Rice (then the United States Secretary of State) stated that:[12]

“the United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured."

The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) runs a global apprehension and incarceration operation of suspected terrorists, known as “extraordinary rendition”, which began under the Bill Clinton administration and developed further under the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks. From 2001 to 2005 CIA officers captured an estimated 150 people and transported them around the world.[13][14][15][16]

Under the Bush administration, rendered persons were reported to have undergone torture by the receiving countries. Journalists, civil and constitutional rights groups, and former detainees have alleged that this occurred with the knowledge or cooperation of the administrations of the United States and the United Kingdom.
Wikipedia

"Media coverage has included the nation's leading outlets and resulted in a Pulitzer Prize for exposing controversial features of the government's counterterrorism campaign:

"Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake," by Dana Priest; The Washington Post (December 4, 2005)
"German's Claim of Kidnapping Brings Investigation of U.S. Link," by Don Van Natta, Jr. and Souad Mekhennet; The New York Times (January 9, 2005)
"CIA Flying Suspects to Torture?" 60 Minutes (March 6, 2005)
"Outsourcing Torture," by Jane Mayer; The New Yorker (February 14 and 21, 2005)
"Aboard Air CIA," by Michael Hirsh, Mark Hosenball and John Barry; Newsweek (February 28, 2005)..."
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/extraordinary-rendition-depth#mediacoverage
 
It is my understanding that Bush put a stop to it before he left the presidency.

It's my understanding that the only acknowledged instance of "enhanced interrogation" was one prisoner having been waterboarded. From that admission sprung all sorts of denials that waterboarding was torture.
 
The report didn't call it "torture". Feinstein did not call it "torture". Why are you contradicting the report?

Feinstein specifically wrote in the report:

While the Office of Legal Counsel found otherwise between 2002 and 2007, it is my personal conclusion
that, under any common meaning of the term, CIA detainees were tortured.

You may disagree with the report, but there it is.
 
So, progs...if, per your duplicitous elites, Muslims get all crazed and murdery over an obscure YouTube video...or a Florida preacher's Koran burning will spark murderous mayhem all over the Middle East.....
 
It's my understanding that the only acknowledged instance of "enhanced interrogation" was one prisoner having been waterboarded. From that admission sprung all sorts of denials that waterboarding was torture.


I really do not know what I would do when it came to water boarding, speaking as a retired military man. It would probably depend on the situation. If water boarding would save the lives of fellow soldiers or at least the possibility I know I would be very tempted even knowing it was wrong or even if ordered not too.

It may have all boiled down to what is a fellow soldiers life or lives worth? Luckily I never had to make that decision.

Did it saves lives? Only those involved and knowing what intel was learned and how acurate can answer that question.
 
There are links in the site linked below to reports countering the claims made in the Democrats review of documents. Appears to be a rather thorough review of facts and context. Perhaps the Democrats should have applied similar standards to their effort.

CIASavedLives

Im sure this website is very objective
:roll:

Exclusive: Former Spies Launch

More spin by the CIA.
 
That's always been the contention of the liberal left like yourself Joe...Nothing has changed with this highly partisan, and politically timed report. The report means nothing, they just did it to endanger CIA lives, because they hate them, they always have.

No, the purpose of this report is to expose a government organization which snatched, detained, tortured, and murdered people in the shadows and lied to the President, Congress, their own Inspector General, and the American people about it for years. The only highly partisan aspect of the release of these facts is the opposition to it. I find it hard to believe that any conservative actually believes that any arm of the State should be permitted to operate this way.
 
Then present evidence of it working. That's all anyone who says it works has to do.

If reams of released information and the testimony of everyone who actually put the intelligence into action isn't going to convince you, nothing is. Hell, there have been entire books written on this.
 
Haven't we really known about torture all along?
And, won't it still be denied in some camps?

It's generally denied by the same folks who pretend to spout out about the constitution to the rest of us.
 
How many executions have they committed compared to all of the other nations on Earth? I am pro torture when it is necessary. Diane Fienstien is a dilapidated, old, senile bitch.

Pay attention Anthony60... THIS is what "politics above all" looks like.
 
Actually its the opposite of that, it was a perfectly okay practice 10 years ago now being called another named and condemned

The report shows that 10 years ago the CIA and Dick Cheney and such were lying out their arses about the whole thing. So no, it wasn't okay 10 years ago. It was obfuscated 10 years ago and you seem to love it no matter what name it's called.
 
Yes it is the Geneva convention only provides protections to lawful combatants, terrorists are considered unlawful combatants

Again... just rename things to dodge law. Don't ever speak of the constitution in any manner ever again. You have no credibility in that area now.
 
Back
Top Bottom