• 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...

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.

Once again, as even you yourself acknowledged, in modern combat most of the people "killed in battle" are utterly helpless and defenseless as well.

I suppose you are right that something lasts "far more than battle", because virtually all of the people the U.S. hurt lived through it.

And from the report everyone is talking about, ONE person in U.S. custody is referred to as dying.

Do you really think that someone who is waterboarded suffers more than a guy in an SUV hit by a Hellfire missile? Or that the guy in the SVU is any less helpless when killed by a missile he can't see fired from a drone he has no idea is there than a guy strapped down in a prison?
 
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, it's called being through, and making sure the claim is backed you properly. As for the interviews see what DemSoc put up above.
 
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.

Exactly.
But, if there can be any political advantage to releasing the report, then they're willing to do it, then spin it so fast that it makes people dizzy just watching it. It's all the fault of the Republicans! It saved American lives! It wasn't really "torture", but (insert made up name here)!

The bottom line is that losing the moral high ground was not worth any information that might have come from torturing prisoners, and that any information so obtained is always suspect. America's enemies and her citizens (at least the ones who have been paying attention) have known all along that torture included more than the one individual having been waterboarded. Now, the cynics among us have had our cynicism confirmed by knowing beyond any doubt that we were lied to.
 
Once again, as even you yourself acknowledged, in modern combat most of the people "killed in battle" are utterly helpless and defenseless as well.

I suppose you are right that something lasts "far more than battle", because virtually all of the people the U.S. hurt lived through it.

And from the report everyone is talking about, ONE person in U.S. custody is referred to as dying.

Do you really think that someone who is waterboarded suffers more than a guy in an SUV hit by a Hellfire missile? Or that the guy in the SVU is any less helpless when killed by a missile he can't see fired from a drone he has no idea is there than a guy strapped down in a prison?

Yes, an innocent person died. Not a combatant. Not even collateral damage (a sickening term). But a poor guy trying to take care of his family who was turned in by the actual enemy to gain acceptance with our troops and get intel he used against us. The poor family man was just handy. We killed him.

But that's just another trouble with torture. I believe the report says at least 26 innocent people were tortured.

As for the waterboarding, I believe it often lasts longer, as the CIA reports. War makes everyone the bad guy, true enough. But torture is saying not only are we bad, but we're evil. It's not a necessarily part of war, especially since there are far more effective methods.
 
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?
Absolutely did. Thats what my post stated of page 35 of the report... So that is the reason why they didnt get to interview any of the CIA officials... But then again its important to notice that the Senate Intelligence Committee did however have access to the "CIA’s own internal evaluation of its interrogation practices. Known as the Panetta Review (after then CIA Director Leon Panetta), the report came to some critical conclusions that matched the Senate’s conclusions." http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/whose-fault-is-it-cia-werent-interviewed . So they did have access to documents
 
No, everything you have ever linked has been disputed. Not verifiable.
By your counterfactual "well we don't know we couldn't have gotten the same information with other means" positions. But if you'd like to know more specifics, feel free to follow that link or actually look up what the people who were involved in the program have said about it. There is a good reason why the Senate Democrats refused to include their testimony and evidence in their report. Because, as even Democrats admit, they were looking for a partisan report, not necessarily a holistic or truthful one.
Killing in battle is one thing. Torturing is another.
Yes, and he was complaining that we droned an American citizen just because the guy was a member of AQAP and connected to multiple attacks on the homeland.
And many here, admittedly not you, throw their morals out the door on this issue. They ignore the evil in torture, and run with their hatred. They only changed when it concerned Obama.
:shrug: actual torture (which I do not believe we engaged in) does indeed have evil in it. So does killing people in their sleep, which we do, and most of what goes on in warfare - especially the kind of war that we are in now, against non-state networks who hide among civilians. There are very few black and white decisions available out there. Would you say torturing a terrorist to stop an attack is more or less morally questionable than the decision to accept the deliberate mass-killing of enemy civilian populaces during WWII? :shrug:
As for you, you seem a true believer. The only thing that bothers me is I have talked with two here who are haunted by what what they saw in terms of torture. I'm sad they have to suffer, and torture harms even those who are doing the torture, but glad to see they still have the humanity to know the evil in what was done. When you can no longer see it, something of the human being is lost.
I'd roughly concur with the sentiment behind this. The actual torture I've run across, yeah, bothered me then and I still have mixed feelings about it now. It probably saved my life once, I'll admit to being somewhat okay with my children having a father, my wife a husband.
 
Last edited:
I thought the left was soooo concerned about getting the terrorists mad, and creating more terrorists. Why did the democrats release this report and endanger American live around the world? Haven't they seen enough beheadings yet?

I am afraid, if what seems to be in the report is true, that it was necessary to publish it. American citizens need to know if their employees are breaking the law and lying to them. I can hardly believe that the guys at the CIA were as stupid as it now seems.
 
especially since there are far more effective methods.

It would be highly effective is we just used nuclear weapons to leave the entire Arab world a smoking crater.

"Effective" does not equal "moral".

And I still find it difficult to understand why SIMULATING drowning is morally worse that blasting them apart with missiles?
 
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.

We knew that there had been one incident, that is to say, our dear leaders admitted to one incident. Anyone who has been following the so called "war on terror" has known all along that we were being fed a load.

And you're right: That is even worse than the torture itself.

And the fact that we've come to expect being lied to by our own government is worse yet.
 
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?



Mornin Lady P.
hat.gif
Well the truth is the Democrats have to make their move now. As they wouldn't have a chance with the Repubs in control. Then things like talking to witnesses and or getting depositions would take place. You know some of the ethical methods.

Oh and she knows what she is thinking.


Obama confronts Bush legacy with report's release.....

For President Barack Obama, the long-delayed release of a scathing Senate report on harsh CIA interrogations underscores the degree to which the legacy of George W. Bush's national security policies has shadowed the man elected to change or end them.

It's been a lot harder to move certain things than they anticipated," said Ken Gude, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a White House-aligned think tank. "There have been other areas in which they intentionally have not made much progress." For White House supporters, the question now is whether the final two years of Obama's presidency will bring about other significant shifts away from Bush's national security legacy.

"This is going to be the defining issue of the president's last two years in office on national security policy," Gude said, "whether he can genuinely pass on to his successor a changed and reformed foreign and security policy or whether we're still mired in some of the same old debates that at that point will be 15 years old."....snip~

Obama confronts Bush legacy with report's release

Even the leftist AP writer Julie Pace knows what its all about. ;)
 
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.

I do not know about torture ie I believe it must remain forbidden. But the things allowed by the handbooks and legal opinions seemed okay to me. As it now looks, however, the law has been systematically broken and our representatives and government personnel have systematically lied to us. That will not work.
 
No, it's called being through, and making sure the claim is backed you properly. As for the interviews see what DemSoc put up above.

heh heh, serendipitous typo there.

And see Ocean's reply.
They didn't even interview the CIA chiefs and the JD excuse was no more.
What else ya got?
 
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.

I did. Lets view some of these links you are upholding.
First link from Politico is by JOHN DEUTCH. Who is JOHN DEUTCH? He "was a member of President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for President George H.W. Bush and Director of Central Intelligence in the Clinton administration. ".

Next link is Mike Rogers, GOP Chairman of Intelligence, press release, nothing really of substance, just saying "naughty naughty report".

Next link is a Wall-Street Journal article, which is written by " former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes". Golly gee!

Next link is "W", yea we dont even have to go there.

Next link is CBS interview with former CIA Director Michael Hayden...

Next link is a Washington Post article written by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. who "is a 31-year veteran of the CIA.".

Next link is a Morning Joe interview with Michael Hayden who was the Director of the CIA.
 
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.

Good morning, Henry David. :2wave:

Moral guidance from the government? Moral and government don't belong in the same sentence, IMO, as we are seeing. There's a good reason why Congress and the POTUS have such low approval ratings - no one trusts them to do anything except further their own interests, which far too often conflict with what the people of this country want. Then to top it off, we're told that this is what they've decided to do, and get used to it and STHU with the questions and complaining - it's for our own good! Gee, aren't we the lucky ones? :2mad:
 
Mornin Lady P.
hat.gif
Well the truth is the Democrats have to make their move now. As they wouldn't have a chance with the Repubs in control. Then things like talking to witnesses and or getting depositions would take place. You know some of the ethical methods.

Oh and she knows what she is thinking.


Obama confronts Bush legacy with report's release.....

For President Barack Obama, the long-delayed release of a scathing Senate report on harsh CIA interrogations underscores the degree to which the legacy of George W. Bush's national security policies has shadowed the man elected to change or end them.

It's been a lot harder to move certain things than they anticipated," said Ken Gude, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a White House-aligned think tank. "There have been other areas in which they intentionally have not made much progress." For White House supporters, the question now is whether the final two years of Obama's presidency will bring about other significant shifts away from Bush's national security legacy.

"This is going to be the defining issue of the president's last two years in office on national security policy," Gude said, "whether he can genuinely pass on to his successor a changed and reformed foreign and security policy or whether we're still mired in some of the same old debates that at that point will be 15 years old."....snip~

Obama confronts Bush legacy with report's release

Even the leftist AP writer Julie Pace knows what its all about. ;)

Of course. It's about exposing torture, but blaming it on the Republicans.

Hope and change? What a crock. Nothing has changed. Obama is Bush III.
 
heh heh, serendipitous typo there.

And see Ocean's reply.
They didn't even interview the CIA chiefs and the JD excuse was no more.
What else ya got?

You are asking for us to trust the CIA on this?

Trust and the CIA do not exist in the same demension.
 
You are asking for us to trust the CIA on this?

Trust and the CIA do not exist in the same demension.

What's the alternative - trust Congress? I think trust in any government institution is and should be suspect given their bad track record of lying to the American people.
 
I did. Lets view some of these links you are upholding.
First link from Politico is by JOHN DEUTCH. Who is JOHN DEUTCH? He "was a member of President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for President George H.W. Bush and Director of Central Intelligence in the Clinton administration. ".

Next link is Mike Rogers, GOP Chairman of Intelligence, press release, nothing really of substance, just saying "naughty naughty report".

Next link is a Wall-Street Journal article, which is written by " former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes". Golly gee!

Next link is "W", yea we dont even have to go there.

Next link is CBS interview with former CIA Director Michael Hayden...

Next link is a Washington Post article written by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. who "is a 31-year veteran of the CIA.".

Next link is a Morning Joe interview with Michael Hayden who was the Director of the CIA.

I have no idea what you are going on about.

There are two links at the top of the home page from CIASavedLives.

One provides a PDF download of the Senate Minority Report, and the other to a PDF download of the CIA Rebuttal. Both contain specific reference to the Democrats process as well as other relevant information.

Even if there was some confusion over the links I was referencing, the fact you didn't list them is all the more evidence needed to understand your bias and agenda driven effort here.
 
Of course. It's about exposing torture, but blaming it on the Republicans.

Hope and change? What a crock. Nothing has changed. Obama is Bush III.

I don't think that bush knew about the torture program until it was already in effect.

The real blame has to fall on the CIA
 
Absolutely did. Thats what my post stated of page 35 of the report... So that is the reason why they didnt get to interview any of the CIA officials... But then again its important to notice that the Senate Intelligence Committee did however have access to the "CIA’s own internal evaluation of its interrogation practices. Known as the Panetta Review (after then CIA Director Leon Panetta), the report came to some critical conclusions that matched the Senate’s conclusions." http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/whose-fault-is-it-cia-werent-interviewed . So they did have access to documents


Here is another problem with the Demo Report.


In the minority report, it says that the majority report that Senator Feinstein released today includes indications of political consideration. Specifically, it says we found indications of political considerations within the study, for example, the study uses out of context quotes from certain minority members to suggest incorrectly that they supported certain positions taken by the study. The study omits additional comments by the same members which contradict the out of context statements <<<<< Here is the other problem that comes in when thinking for others. :Oopsie


Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

You can have debates about whether they were effective or not. All that kind of stuff, you can debate it ad nauseum. But you don’t have to release this report with all these gruesome details, which serves to simply sensationalize the whole debate. And again, as I stressed earlier, and I think this is the big damage being done here, this is really providing fodder for the propaganda mills of our enemies, just as the revelations of Edward Snowden have done, and just as the revelations of Bradley Manning, and just as, you know, the revelation of Abu Ghraib did in 2004. Those also became prime recruiting tools for al Qaeda. That’s not to say that the underlying conduct can certainly be wrong, and there’s no question in the case of Abu Ghraib, conduct was wrong. It was not one of these approved interrogation programs. But you can still object to the conduct, you can still hold people accountable if you need to without releasing these kinds of sensational details, which harm American national security interests, and harm our ability to fight terrorism here and now......snip~
 
Last edited:
By your counterfactual "well we don't know we couldn't have gotten the same information with other means" positions.

But if you'd like to know more specifics, feel free to follow that link or actually look up what the people who were involved in the program have said about it. There is a good reason why the Senate Democrats refused to include their testimony and evidence in their report.

Let's keep this breaking up to a minimum as i don't want you to get lost and start misrepresenting something.

And over the years, I have looked up every claim. I've followed every link. And read the what Demsoc posted. You'll see a different explanation.



Yes, and he was complaining that we droned an American citizen just because the guy was a member of AQAP and connected to multiple attacks on the homeland.

You got lsot already. This doesn't speak to anything I said, at least not as written.



:shrug: actual torture (which I do not believe we engaged in) does indeed have evil in it. So does killing people in their sleep, which we do, and most of what goes on in warfare. There are very few black and white decisions available out there. It is also (unfortunately) effective, which is why people do it.
No we did engage in torture. The effort to redefine torture was in itself evil. And while there are no good guys in war, it is still different than torture which requires a much more personal and sadistic act.



I'd roughly concur with the sentiment behind this. The actual torture I've run across, yeah, bothered me then and I still have mixed feelings about it now. It probably saved my life once, I'll admit to being somewhat okay with my children having a father, my wife a husband.

One of the fellows I talked to at first said it didn't bother him. His wife gave an odd look. I questioned the look. She talked about how he didn't sleep at night. He began talking about the things he had done, and largely the redefined things you speak of, and finally admitted it was why he couldn't sleep. I only listened.

I can't speak for you and won't, but what we did is and always has been torture. When we first started talking about this, there was a post with the CIA handbook on this. I can't find it now, but hopefully you'll remember it. In that text they said waterboarding, stress positions and the like were more damaging with longer lasting problems that torture that emphasized violence. And just as ineffective.
 
What's the alternative - trust Congress? I think trust in any government institution is and should be suspect given their bad track record of lying to the American people.

At least congress is answerable to the votes of the American people.

The CIA is by its very nature a shadow orginization.
 
You are asking for us to trust the CIA on this?

Trust and the CIA do not exist in the same demension.

Doesn't matter if you trust 'em.
The Dem staffers didn't even try to talk to them.
That says you can't trust the Dem staffers any more than Gruber's practiced apology.
 
It would be highly effective is we just used nuclear weapons to leave the entire Arab world a smoking crater.

"Effective" does not equal "moral".

And I still find it difficult to understand why SIMULATING drowning is morally worse that blasting them apart with missiles?

Because you look at with eyes that lack enough knowledge. it is not simulation by the way. It is actual drowning. We just don't let them die. And we do it over and over. Being blasted apart ends. Done. The suffering over. And even those who live with physical damage, the effects are often less devastating according to those who study it.
 
Back
Top Bottom