• 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...

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

It's entirely possible that he didn't know. The war on terror was not his baby anyway, but was being run by Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.
 
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.
They were neither. Instead they very carefully and very scrupulously followed the exact instructions issued to them by the Justice Department to make sure that they did not break the law.
 
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?

Was no more? Seems it set the precedence. That said, as I said, the documents tell the story, don't they? Are you suggesting they had success but put in the offical documents that they didn't? For what purpose?
 
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.


Oh dear ... For the sake of his health I hope Boo doesn't get wind of that CIASavedLives link.
 
Was no more? Seems it set the precedence. That said, as I said, the documents tell the story, don't they? Are you suggesting they had success but put in the offical documents that they didn't? For what purpose?

the JD excuse was used to explain why the Dem staffers didn't interview anyone from the CIA ... THAT JD excuse.
And wouldn't it have been so very cool to find out if the documents really did tell the story by talking to the people involved?
As a result we're left with a report as valuable as a Rolling Stone UVA story.
 
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).
What document is that?
And did you know that they had access to not only the Pannetta reviews documents/interviews and analysis, but also access to 6 million documents?


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.

They used 100's of prior interviews, it was originally planned to interview CIA officials, but because of a DOJ investigation the CIA decided not to allow officials to be directly interviewed by the committee, so then the committee decided to only use cables, documents, and past interviews.
Its also important to note if this was "some slam piece" (which many in the GOP are saying), wouldnt they want to directly interview detainees who have underwent this torture?

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.
Use that word comprehensive... Over 6 million documents and cables analyzed.. Seems pretty comprehensive. Hell just as about comprehensive you are gonna get when the CIA is spying on you while your conducting the research.


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".
:naughty Nothing like trying to discredit a report just cuz Dems did it.
 
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.

And that is why it must go further.
 
What document is that?
And did you know that they had access to not only the Pannetta reviews documents/interviews and analysis, but also access to 6 million documents?



They used 100's of prior interviews, it was originally planned to interview CIA officials, but because of a DOJ investigation the CIA decided not to allow officials to be directly interviewed by the committee, so then the committee decided to only use cables, documents, and past interviews.
Its also important to note if this was "some slam piece" (which many in the GOP are saying), wouldnt they want to directly interview detainees who have underwent this torture?


Use that word comprehensive... Over 6 million documents and cables analyzed.. Seems pretty comprehensive. Hell just as about comprehensive you are gonna get when the CIA is spying on you while your conducting the research.



:naughty Nothing like trying to discredit a report just cuz Dems did it.

Nothing like trying to promote a report just cuz Dems did it.

Read the Minority Report, or just keep drinking the kool-aid
 
Here is another problem with the Demo Report.
Nothing like getting a self described neo-con to blast a report that proves we tortured people....

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
And what quotes are these? Any specifics?

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~

You dont want propaganda for your enemies, dont ****ing torture people. Pretty simple. Dont want jihadists going around screaming that we torture people? DONT DO IT. Simple.
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
-Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
 
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?

Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

What is the real reason for what's currently going on with the release of this report? This is so one-sided that it's useless as a distraction, if that's what they were aiming for. Remembering that nearly 3000 people died on 9-11, it's logical to assume that the CIA was told to do whatever was necessary to learn if there were further attacks planned. That wasn't a wrong decision to make, IMO. It would have been derelict if it hadn't been done!

To now attempt to use this as a club against our intelligence division, at a time when terrorists are gaining ground worldwide, not only works against protecting our people worldwide, it shows us that we are dealing with animals who behead people who don't agree with them. Are we now supposed to invite them to tea, and have "empathetic" conversations with them to learn how we may become friends? Sorry, Not in my world!
 
They were neither. Instead they very carefully and very scrupulously followed the exact instructions issued to them by the Justice Department to make sure that they did not break the law.

That was exactly my understanding with the exception of three or four cases. What this report is saying, however, is that the infractions were graver and more frequent to the point of being systematic. I will know better, what to think in a few days, when I have had time to trufge through the report.
 
Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

What is the real reason for what's currently going on with the release of this report? This is so one-sided that it's useless as a distraction, if that's what they were aiming for. Remembering that nearly 3000 people died on 9-11, it's logical to assume that the CIA was told to do whatever was necessary to learn if there were further attacks planned. That wasn't a wrong decision to make, IMO. It would have been derelict if it hadn't been done!

To now attempt to use this as a club against our intelligence division, at a time when terrorists are gaining ground worldwide, not only works against protecting our people worldwide, it shows us that we are dealing with animals who behead people who don't agree with them. Are we now supposed to invite them to tea, and have "empathetic" conversations with them to learn how we may become friends? Sorry, Not in my world!

The task is to eradicate the cockroaches.

Not to become like the cockroaches.
 
Oh dear ... For the sake of his health I hope Boo doesn't get wind of that CIASavedLives link.

Boo has sen it: From the report:

Although CIA gradually became more knowledgeable about and selective in its use of enhanced interrogations techniques, we agree fully with the Study's critique of the Agency's
failure to perform a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of those techniques.

And notice the word role in this: As such, the information CIA obtained from these detainees did play a role-in combination with other streams of intelligence-in finding the al-Qa'ida leader.

They speak from the perspective of not wanting to be seen in a poor light. The rebuttal goes on to say they could not honestly state they couldn't have gotten the information any other way. So, it doesn't show verifiable evidence that torture was effective. And they never studied to find out if it was.
 
Nothing like trying to promote a report just cuz Dems did it.

Read the Minority Report, or just keep drinking the kool-aid

Its all kool-aid! We didnt torture people! Oh wait did we? No it was enhanced interrogation! This study is all a lie! Dont believe the over 6 million documents they analyzed or interviews! The CIA has nothing to hide, they just spied on the committee for fun!
 
the JD excuse was used to explain why the Dem staffers didn't interview anyone from the CIA ... THAT JD excuse.
And wouldn't it have been so very cool to find out if the documents really did tell the story by talking to the people involved?
As a result we're left with a report as valuable as a Rolling Stone UVA story.

I would love to see any documents that actually support the claims. But none have been presented in all these years.
 
Maybe its just me.

But I would rather be alive, even if I had been hurt and was suffering nightmares..........than dead.

How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond me.
 
Boo has sen it: From the report:

Although CIA gradually became more knowledgeable about and selective in its use of enhanced interrogations techniques, we agree fully with the Study's critique of the Agency's
failure to perform a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of those techniques.

And notice the word role in this: As such, the information CIA obtained from these detainees did play a role-in combination with other streams of intelligence-in finding the al-Qa'ida leader.

They speak from the perspective of not wanting to be seen in a poor light. The rebuttal goes on to say they could not honestly state they couldn't have gotten the information any other way. So, it doesn't show verifiable evidence that torture was effective. And they never studied to find out if it was.

:shock:

:doh

Nice spin. But there is far more to what is stated in the minority report about information gathered than what you've implied here.
 
Are we really still debating as to whether prisoners were tortured? No kidding?

Now, the debate is over. The remaining question is whether the "scathing report" that was just issued is simply the tip of the iceberg.
 
Its all kool-aid! We didnt torture people! Oh wait did we? No it was enhanced interrogation! This study is all a lie! Dont believe the over 6 million documents they analyzed or interviews! The CIA has nothing to hide, they just spied on the committee for fun!

So, I take it you've decided not to read the Minority Report. Credibility Level confirmed! :thumbs:
 
Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

What is the real reason for what's currently going on with the release of this report? This is so one-sided that it's useless as a distraction, if that's what they were aiming for. Remembering that nearly 3000 people died on 9-11, it's logical to assume that the CIA was told to do whatever was necessary to learn if there were further attacks planned. That wasn't a wrong decision to make, IMO. It would have been derelict if it hadn't been done!

To now attempt to use this as a club against our intelligence division, at a time when terrorists are gaining ground worldwide, not only works against protecting our people worldwide, it shows us that we are dealing with animals who behead people who don't agree with them. Are we now supposed to invite them to tea, and have "empathetic" conversations with them to learn how we may become friends? Sorry, Not in my world!


Well since you ask a rhetorical question I'll give you a speculative answer.
The Dems got slammed in the election last month so they need to energize their base.
But why with something so far out of left field as this, you might ask?
Well, maybe they see that Hillary is such a crappy candidate that they need to go with someone stronger ... someone who absolutely would energize the media on her side ... someone who would be a first ... someone who is just as far out in left field as this report and the NYT are.
Now who would that be?
 
Nothing like getting a self described neo-con to blast a report that proves we tortured people....


And what quotes are these? Any specifics?



You dont want propaganda for your enemies, dont ****ing torture people. Pretty simple. Dont want jihadists going around screaming that we torture people? DONT DO IT. Simple.
“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
-Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence.



Oh did you mean Feinstein and her staff members trying to do thinking for others. Also not calling for any depositions?

What part about sensationlization don't you get? Like he says at the end.




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~



Seems even a Neo Con can get it Right. :mrgreen:

Whats funny is how you talk about others and their Objectivity while defending Feinsteins Report which is completely without any Objectivity whatsoever.
 
I would love to see any documents that actually support the claims. But none have been presented in all these years.

So you would like to see something published that explicitly explains CIA methods & practices.
Well, okay, but you have to promise that ISIS et al won't see it too.
 
:shock:

:doh

Nice spin. But there is far more to what is stated in the minority report about information gathered than what you've implied here.


Not much. They claim some success but offer little in support. And as we have looked at those before, we know they are less that convincing. We had much of the information already through other means. Saying they got more is not the same as showing they got more. And the bottom line is they neither studied nor can state how effective it was or wasn't. They just "feel" that it was. That's hardly enough.
 
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.

Yes, yes... why save lives if it means putting a murdering, terrorist, sub-human in a diaper? or perhaps listen to music they don't like after bedtime? Totally worth it. Imagine all the money we are saving in Pampers now. Our loved ones can be blown to little bits with a smile on their collective faces due to this kind of thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom