• 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!

CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Central Intelligence Agency had explicit guidelines for “human experimentation” – before, during and after its post-9/11 torture of terrorism detainees – that raise new questions about the limits on the agency’s in-house and contracted medical research.

Sections of a previously classified CIA document, made public by the Guardian on Monday, empower the agency’s director to “approve, modify, or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research”. The leeway provides the director, who has never in the agency’s history been a medical doctor, with significant influence over limitations the US government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people.
CIA director George Tenet approved abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, designed by CIA contractor psychologists. He further instructed the agency’s health personnel to oversee the brutal interrogations – the beginning of years of controversy, still ongoing, about US torture as a violation of medical ethics.
But the revelation of the guidelines has prompted critics of CIA torture to question how the agency could have ever implemented what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” – despite apparently having rules against “research on human subjects” without their informed consent.


Read more @: CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation

Why arent those who are responsible for such inhumane, evil, and just outright criminal activities in jail? Why are they being given a free pass? This is freaking outrageous.
 
Read more @: CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation[/FONT][/COLOR]
Why arent those who are responsible for such inhumane, evil, and just outright criminal activities in jail? Why are they being given a free pass? This is freaking outrageous.

Probably because the general rules were not criminal. You are right, of course, that the people that broke the law should go to jail. But there were relatively few of them. Luckily.
 
Many americans and most of the government condone torture, as long as it's not to anybody they know.

The legal principles developed at Nuremberg are now considered quaint and out of style.
 
Many americans and most of the government condone torture, as long as it's not to anybody they know.

The legal principles developed at Nuremberg are now considered quaint and out of style.

You think so? I doubt that. But I am sure that there are people that might believe so.
 
You think so? I doubt that. But I am sure that there are people that might believe so.

CRUE's post following your illustrates what I meant. Most folks I know, most of them 'christian', don't really care about torture. If anything, they support it because it is commonly practiced on muslims.
 
The United States is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture, and the provisions it agreed to were ratified by the Senate and codified in section 2340 of the U.S. Code. The United States has not authorized the torture of anyone. The enhanced interrogation techniques the Defense Dept. proposed to use in 2002, including waterboarding, were modeled on techniques the U.S. itself had used on thousands of servicemen as part of their survival training. The purpose was to give men most likely to be captured some experience of what they might expect if captured by certain enemies.

The Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel, which contains some of its best lawyers, thoroughly evaluated the proposed techniques and concluded that they did not violate any applicable U.S. laws, including section 2340. I have read their memos, and they are as good as legal research gets. If it can be shown that any U.S. official administered those interrogation techniques in a way that was not approved, that person should be disciplined. But so far, I have not seen any reliably documented instances of any acts that constituted torture under U.S. law.

Interrogation can be very painful and coercive, both physically and mentally, and yet not constitute torture under our laws. There has to be room for enough coercion to get results--the whole idea was the make murdering jihadist war criminals reveal what they knew, and with more attacks in the works, we had to find out that information fast. These mangy mutts got off damned easy. The only good reason not to have tried them before a military tribunal and executed them, after they had coughed up their secrets, was that once their pals found out they would be killed anyway they would probably not reveal anything.

May the U.S. send every Islamic jihadist son of a whore it can find to hell as soon as possible, and may the America-haters who carry water for them join them there.
 
Last edited:
I have no fear, because I am plenty willing to do my self whatever anyone may attempt to do to me or my family.

Except your doing all of it out of justification of.....
 
The United States is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture, and the provisions it agreed to were ratified by the Senate and codified in section 2340 of the U.S. Code. The United States has not authorized the torture of anyone. The enhanced interrogation techniques the Defense Dept. proposed to use in 2002, including waterboarding, were modeled on techniques the U.S. itself had used on thousands of servicemen as part of their survival training. The purpose was to give men most likely to be captured some experience of what they might expect if captured by certain enemies.

The Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel, which contains some of its best lawyers, thoroughly evaluated the proposed techniques and concluded that they did not violate any applicable U.S. laws, including section 2340. I have read their memos, and they are as good as legal research gets. If it can be shown that any U.S. official administered those interrogation techniques in a way that was not approved, that person should be disciplined. But so far, I have not seen any reliably documented instances of any acts that constituted torture under U.S. law.

Interrogation can be very painful and coercive, both physically and mentally, and yet not constitute torture under our laws. There has to be room for enough coercion to get results--the whole idea was the make murdering jihadist war criminals reveal what they knew, and with more attacks in the works, we had to find out that information fast. These mangy mutts got off damned easy. The only good reason not to have tried them before a military tribunal and executed them, after they had coughed up their secrets, was that once their pals found out they would be killed anyway they would probably not reveal anything.

May the U.S. send every Islamic jihadist son of a whore it can find to hell as soon as possible, and may the America-haters who carry water for them join them there.

Pure sophistry, John Yoo style. :roll:
 
Pure sophistry, John Yoo style. :roll:

That's awfully facile. You confine yourself to a drive-by bleat, because you are afraid to lace on the gloves and climb into the ring. Instead of just asserting that what I said is sophistry, why don't you tell us specifically which points of law Jay Bybee and John Yoo got wrong, in which of their memos on this subject, and explain why you think their legal analysis of each point was incorrect? I'll tell you why--it's because you have never read a single sentence of even one of those documents, and would not have understood it if you had tried.

I have read those memos, and also quite a few others that are part of the thousands of pages of government documents on this subject. As someone who has written legal research memos on difficult subjects, I know what's involved--and the quality of the analysis of this subject by the Office of Legal Counsel is as good as it gets. Because section 2340 had only been on the books for several years, there was not even one case construing it, and that made the task of determining what constituted torture under U.S. laws even harder. But determine it Bybee and Yoo did, and having analyzed their memos pretty closely, I believe they got it right. I don't think any of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, even came very close to being torture under the law.

You do not know the first thing about this subject, so you swallow whole some witless anti-American propaganda you read in Mother Jones, or saw on MSNBC. The intellectual quality of the "analysis" by the usual lump in the lumpenproletariat is roughly this: "Woah, man, they like tortured those dudes at Gitmo really bad! Put water up their nose and s***, just for the crime of being Muslim!" Millions of these malcontent ignoramuses now infest this country, loathe it just like their fellow statist in the White House does, and are eager to believe anything bad about it. Their resentment of America gives them common cause with the Muslim jihadists who want us all dead.

I'd like once again to recommend a book by Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor. Mr. McCarthy played an important role in convicting and sending to prison Abdel "The Blind Sheikh" Rahman for his part in the conspiracy that resulted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The title is The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America".
 

Nobody forgot, but you don't have to become a monster to fight them.

I say I don't care what happens those at Guantanamo.
I have no fear, because I am plenty willing to do my self whatever anyone may attempt to do to me or my family.

Your position could theoretically be rational if we were absolutely certain that everyone in Guantanamo was a violent terrorist, but we don't have any such guarantee. In fact, the vast majority of all Guantanamo inmates have been released with no charge whatsoever. I think in your case it's not just fear, but mixed in with a large portion of pure hatred. You hate them so much you don't even care if they're guilty or not.
 
My heart just bleeds peanut butter for these poor, abused, asswipes that would just as soon blow up my children as to look at them.

I give 'em all a big ol' wah, wah, wah.... :2bigcry:
 
Read more @: CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation[/FONT][/COLOR]
Why arent those who are responsible for such inhumane, evil, and just outright criminal activities in jail? Why are they being given a free pass? This is freaking outrageous.

Here's why. Somebody has to be prosecuted. Unless that person is a complete rogue( doubtful), there are going to be all kinds of people dragged into it, from both parties. If one party had their hands clean and could point the finger the other, the situation but be different. But generally , people don't call for prosecutions of themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom