• 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...

Then I guess they should have been asked so their reply could have been put into the record for the report.

Like I said, let the excuses begin, but the claims are known. What we have is the results. Bottom line, no results to show.

How do you know if they didn't ask.
It doesn't occur to you that the Senate Dem staffers started with a conclusion and included only what supported it in the report?Otherwise they would have at least tried to make it appear honest.

I don't think so. This was pretty clear from the beginning. Remember no one was ever able to say when and where anything ever did anything, and when they did, it proved false. People had to willingly suspend disbelieve to accept torture worked to start with. There was tons of evidence prior to show that it didn't. We had clear examples of where it failed that could be shared, even during this time period (see al Libi).


Well lookee here ... today from a big time Dem, no less ...

"I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it."
...
"... The Senate's Intelligence Committee staff chose to interview no one. Their rationale - that some officers were under investigation and could not be made available – is not persuasive. Most officers were never under investigation and for those who were, the process ended by 2012. "

"Fairness should dictate that the examination of documents alone do not eliminate the need for interviews conducted by the investigators. Isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them."


"... I do not need to read the report in full to know this: We have not been attacked since and for that I am very grateful. "

Sen. Bob Kerrey: Partisan torture report fails America
 
That they are verifiable. A couple were proven false, and others not verifiable, only claimed.

Oh, so you are referring to the Democrats report.

I was expecting something specific about the reports linked through the site I posted a link to.
 
Because it is well written and informative.

But would you recommend it if it ran contrary to your beliefs? If it didn't change your opinion can I assume you completed the book without changing your opinion?

I am just asking because I have done a lot of soul searching over the years and have stopped recommending books I have read that didn't change me because I realize if I didn't come out the other end with a different view point that I started with then most of my opinion on the quality of the read were likely the result of personal bias.
 
Last edited:
Well lookee here ... today from a big time Dem, no less ...

"I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it."
...
"... The Senate's Intelligence Committee staff chose to interview no one. Their rationale - that some officers were under investigation and could not be made available – is not persuasive. Most officers were never under investigation and for those who were, the process ended by 2012. "

"Fairness should dictate that the examination of documents alone do not eliminate the need for interviews conducted by the investigators. Isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them."


"... I do not need to read the report in full to know this: We have not been attacked since and for that I am very grateful. "

Sen. Bob Kerrey: Partisan torture report fails America

Reduced to quoting people instead of presenting actual evidence. This tactic is always a :failpail:
 
But would you recommend it if it ran contrary to your beliefs?

As long as it was accurate, yes. I'm open to having my mind changed. But you do have to present actual evidence. In this case, verifiable evidence of success. I can provide two verifiable examples of where it failed us. You should be able to at least match that.
 
Oh, now you are worried about Objectivity? How does that work with Feinstein's One sided Report and when they admit they didn't speak to any witnesses?

Going over 6 million pages of documents for over 3 years...

Also you complain about they werent interviewed, well on page 35 you will find this:
2i1nu6t.jpg
They refused to compel with the investigation. But hey, we should just believe the CIA right? Afterall its not like they didnt lie to the American public, Congress, or tried to spy on Congress during the investigation. We gotta trust the CIA, they are the "objective" ones in this whole shabang..
 
what would you accept as evidence?

Verifiable evidence of torture working. I can give you al Libi and the testimony we got from him was false. This is verifiable. I can provide the innocent taxis driver we killed in Afghanistan during torture. Again, verifiable. I expect you do the same. Not that someone said it worked, but verifiable and that we did not get any other way (in the past some presented what we actually got first before torture).
 
I understand that completely. In it's most brutal, it is still different.

Why? Wars are won and lost far from battlefields. If inflicting physical pain (short of death mind you) can save lives, then in my opinion, the right of that person not to suffer physical pain is exceeded by the peoples lives saved to continue living.

Ultimately, preventing people from dying always is a priority.
 
I'm sure it is likely just as objective as the no interview Democrat led review of documents. Perhaps you could take a moment to review the reports linked at the site. I found them an interesting counter to what the Democrats gleaned from their documents only effort.
See post #232
 
Going over 6 million pages of documents for over 3 years...

Also you complain about they werent interviewed, well on page 35 you will find this:
2i1nu6t.jpg
They refused to compel with the investigation. But hey, we should just believe the CIA right? Afterall its not like they didnt lie to the American public, Congress, or tried to spy on Congress during the investigation. We gotta trust the CIA, they are the "objective" ones in this whole shabang..


See post 205, Peter Baker NY Times.
 
Why? Wars are won and lost far from battlefields. If inflicting physical pain (short of death mind you) can save lives, then in my opinion, the right of that person not to suffer physical pain is exceeded by the peoples lives saved to continue living.

Ultimately, preventing people from dying always is a priority.

Because you have someone not fighting, but capture. Someone without the ability to defend or even try. You have to get another human being to inflict on another in a systematic and cruel way. It's more deliberate. It's more harmful to both the tortured and the person doing the torturing. It lasts with people far more than battle.

And again, no one is prevented from dying. No evidence of that claim has been presented. It's a myth some simply want to believe.
 
See post 205, Peter Baker NY Times.

Ok... Read the report itself. The CIA told the committee they would not compel with them, wont let anyone be interviewed. This is the CIA telling the committee themselves... Go to page 35 of the report if you dont believe me... They refused to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee and instead spied on them...
 
See post #232

LOL

Well, dang, that covers it all.

Remarkable what passes for facts to those who have already decided. Why bother even using the Democrats view of documents in what is in effect a unilateral report?

I would encourage you to follow those links I referenced, but I suspect your agenda wouldn't allow such an effort to be made.
 
LOL

Well, dang, that covers it all.

Remarkable what passes for facts to those who have already decided. Why bother even using the Democrats view of documents in what is in effect a unilateral report?

I would encourage you to follow those links I referenced, but I suspect your agenda wouldn't allow such an effort to be made.

:roll: Yup. Links? You mean Link. The link that is ran by CIA employees, and CIA spies? Are these the same CIA employees that lied to the American public? The Congress? Refused to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committees report? The same employees that instead of cooperating decided to spy on the Senate Intelligence Committee?
 
:roll: Yup. Links? You mean Link. The link that is ran by CIA employees, and CIA spies? Are these the same CIA employees that lied to the American public? The Congress? Refused to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committees report? The same employees that instead of cooperating decided to spy on the Senate Intelligence Committee?

No. The link that contains two other links that would be of interest to objective rational people. I can see why you would avoid them. No need to clutter a biased conclusion with additional facts.
 
Verifiable evidence of torture working. I can give you al Libi and the testimony we got from him was false. This is verifiable. I can provide the innocent taxis driver we killed in Afghanistan during torture. Again, verifiable. I expect you do the same. Not that someone said it worked, but verifiable and that we did not get any other way (in the past some presented what we actually got first before torture).


Sounds like you and the Dem staffers have it covered.
No matter what anyone showed you/them you/they could refuse to accept it with SOME excuse.
And actually, I believe your/their excuse is "well, we would have gotten that information anyway" ... that one really closes the book nicely.

What about no interviews and working backward from the conclusion?
That was okay too?
 
No. The link that contains two other links that would be of interest to objective rational people. I can see why you would avoid them. No need to clutter a biased conclusion with additional facts.

:lamo Which links to what? A bunch of CIA employees writing op-eds! Hey! Maybe instead of writing op-eds now maybe when they had a chance to go in front of the senate intelligence committee they should of went... Naaa they instead decided to spy on the committee instead.
 
Ok... Read the report itself. The CIA told the committee they would not compel with them, wont let anyone be interviewed. This is the CIA telling the committee themselves... Go to page 35 of the report if you dont believe me... They refused to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee and instead spied on them...

What part don't you understand about not crossing a Judicial Inquiry that could result in criminal charges? Do you think that has anything to do with it?
 
Both parties would have preferred this report to NOT be released, to remain swept under the rug where it had been for years.

That's because both parties enabled such practices by looking the other way when it happened. General Taguba admitted that back in 2008.

America's moral compass has been spinning for quite some time now. Never look to the government for moral guidance.
 
It does remind one of Church, back in the 70's going after the CIA, doesn't it?

Some of this has to do with the CIA putting Benghazi on the State Dept, which was acting extension of BO peep.

There was absolutely NO reason other than political, to release this report now. Also to draw heat off BO and his Team.

Did you see the poll from yesterday or the day before on how many Americans want BO sued?

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

:agree: It might have had more meaning if it hadn't been "coincidently" released at the same time Gruber was testifying about how the ACA - which the majority of people still don't like - was dreamed up. This stupid political move not only makes our enemies drool with glee over how they can use this as propaganda to further enrage their followers who probably don't know this is very old news about something that happened years ago, but it endangers our country today. WTH was Feinstein thinking? Has she forgotten about Clinton bombing aspirin factories in Iraq to try to cover his butt to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Is this what personal self preservation looks like when you're guilty of something and you get caught - and these are the people we choose to lead our country? Is there anyone left in DC with morals?
 
Going over 6 million pages of documents for over 3 years...

Also you complain about they werent interviewed, well on page 35 you will find this:
2i1nu6t.jpg
They refused to compel with the investigation. But hey, we should just believe the CIA right? Afterall its not like they didnt lie to the American public, Congress, or tried to spy on Congress during the investigation. We gotta trust the CIA, they are the "objective" ones in this whole shabang..

Do you know how that emails from only 64 people were requested by the Democrats "to support the review of a program that spanned eight years and spanned hundreds of government employees". (The parenthesis are there because the sentence is contained in one of the reports you refuse to look at).

Did you know the following (again from the record you refuse to review):

Committee reviews of this magnitude typically involve interviewing the relevant witnesses. Here, these relevant witnesses were largely unavailable due to the Attorney General's decision to re-open a preliminary criminal review in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. When DOJ closed this investigation in August 2013, however, the committee had a window of opportunity to invite these relevant witnesses in for interviews, but apparently decided against that course of action. The lack of witness interviews should have been a clear warning flag to all Committee members about the difficulty of completing a truly "comprehensive" review on this subject.​


Perhaps the Democrats should have saved the time and just waved a wand over the 6 million documents and then had the Democrat staff write up their "findings".
 
:lamo Which links to what? A bunch of CIA employees writing op-eds! Hey! Maybe instead of writing op-eds now maybe when they had a chance to go in front of the senate intelligence committee they should of went... Naaa they instead decided to spy on the committee instead.

You know, if you want to maintain some shred of credibility, you'd a least visit the site for a half second so it doesn't look so obvious you are clueless about this whole issue.

Rant on, but it's only impressing the uninformed who embrace that level of knowledge.
 
Haven't we really known about torture all along?
And, won't it still be denied in some camps?

No. We knew there had been a few incidents, where the permitted severity had been over stepped. There was talk of three or four cases. If, and I have just started reading the study, it turns out to be as wide spread the reports are saying, it is no longer a case of a few bad apples. The Administration, Justice, Judges and probably Senators seem to have known that it was going on, endorsed it and lied to the country. All of these things are intolerable in a democracy. If this turns out to be the case, it is far worse than the torture itself, bad as that might be.
 
Back
Top Bottom