The same CIA that missed the fall if the Berlin Wall, 911 etc., was sure there were WMD's in Iraq?
I am surprised you would take their word at face value. Of course they are going to say that, would you expect them to say. "yeah, what we've been doing isn't really effective but it's fun?
The Senate committee was both parties. I heard no dissent in fact both Republicans and Democrats are behind it. Anything that congress can agree on has to have merit.
To me, the CIA does not and never has.
The same CIA that missed the fall if the Berlin Wall, 911 etc., was sure there were WMD's in Iraq?
I am surprised you would take their word at face value. Of course they are going to say that, would you expect them to say. "yeah, what we've been doing isn't really effective but it's fun?
The Senate committee was both parties. I heard no dissent in fact both Republicans and Democrats are behind it. Anything that congress can agree on has to have merit.
To me, the CIA does not and never has.
That is a pretty absurd reply.Bush euphemisms and propaganda may satisfy your mind and intellect, but not mine. Torture is torture, no matter what political euphemisms are used.The constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.
Enhanced interrogation is not done as punishment.
Are you suggesting that rape is OK as long as it is not done as punishment?
OMG, such simple minds....
I agree with everything you said here.
I think Obama will ignore it to the best of his ability. He didn't want it released (neither did Kerry, nor Brennan, and so on). If something bad comes out of it, he wants no part of it. There have been no attacks on this country since 2001. Obama isn't stupid. He doesn't want that to change while he's in the WH. He'll let Feinstein and company take ownership of this.
That is a pretty absurd reply.
Do we have laws that cover rape? Yep! We sure do.
Hence your reply is absurd.
And if rape was employed as punishment for a crime it would be ruled unconstitutional.
And way to miss the point that EIT are not done as punishment. :doh
If it had been the argument would be solid, but as it wasn't, the argument is as unsound as it is infirm.
And that isn't a euphemism. :doh
News break for you--we also have laws that cover torture.
Waterboarding and loud music wasn't considered a torture at the time.
News break for you. Read the thread. The comment was about it being unconstitutional. It isn't. It wasn't done as punishment.News break for you--we also have laws that cover torture.
... try to keep up.
Your argument was unsound. The Constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.
What you are looking for is passed legislation which has become Law or in it's stead, a Treaty obligation. Which while authorized by the Constitution, is not itself a Constitutional argument.
It wasn't considered torture.Hogwash.
If it were done to you, you would consider it torture. It IS torture.
News break for you. Read the thread. The comment was about it being unconstitutional. It isn't. It wasn't done as punishment.
You really should have read the thread. D'oh! :doh
:dohIt is unconstitutional because if nothing else, it is criminalized by International Law to which we are signatory. That's covered in Article VI of the US Constitution. You should check it out.
... try to keep up.
Your argument was unsound. The Constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.
What you are looking for is passed legislation which has become Law or in it's stead, a Treaty obligation. Which while authorized by the Constitution, is not itself a Constitutional argument.
Spa treatment?It wasn't done as punishment.
:doh
I see you are stil not pauying attention.
It was already repeated for you once, but I will do it again. I will even make it bigger for you so you can't miss it.
My spelling is not an issue here. But thanks for pointing it out. The errors been corrected.You're not even spelling correctly. And the sophistry you present makes you consistent. :roll:
Spa treatment?
"...purposes of interrogation" does not equate to "not punishment". It can still be punishment/torture regardless the 'purpose' or what they hoped to gain from it.Do you not know the subject material?
Have you not read the thread?
It was done for purposes of interrogation. Not punishment.
There is no Constitutional argument as it was not done as punishment.
Hogwash.
If it were done to you, you would consider it torture. It IS torture.
Why are you not paying attention?"...purposes of interrogation" does not equate to "not punishment". It can still be punishment/torture regardless the 'purpose' or what they hoped to gain from it.
All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.
It's not clear, however, how human rights officials think these prosecutions will take place, since the Justice Department has declined to prosecute and the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court.
Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said it's "crystal clear" under international law that the United States, which ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, now has an obligation to ensure accountability.
"In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture ? recognized as a serious international crime ? they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency," he said.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hopes the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques at secret overseas facilities is the "start of a process" toward prosecutions, because the "prohibition against torture is absolute," Ban's spokesman said.
Ben Emmerson, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said the report released Tuesday shows "there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration, which allowed (it) to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law."
He said international law prohibits granting immunity to public officials who allow the use of torture, and this applies not just to the actual perpetrators but also to those who plan and authorize torture.
UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture - ABC News
The only CIA agent who has been jailed to date for anything to do with torture is John Kiriakou, for whistleblowing on the CIA torture program.
You are equating the US Constitution to "International Law"? Are the democracies the only members subject to this 'international law'? It seems to be ignored by most members.It is unconstitutional because if nothing else, it is criminalized by International Law to which we are signatory. That's covered in Article VI of the US Constitution. You should check it out.
That may have to be repeated several times during this thread. This begs the question of why are people guessing at their own Constitution and deciding against their own country?.:doh
I see you are still not paying attention.
It was already repeated for you once, but I will do it again. I will even make it bigger for you so you can't miss it.
Nobody gives a damn what the UN says. They are an impotent bunch of posers on a ridiculously expensive never-ending boondoggle. As far as solving "world problems",.they're worse than useless