• 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's 'Harsh Interrogations' Exceeded Legal Authority, Report Finds

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - A classified U.S. Senate report found that the CIA's legal justification for the use of harsh interrogation techniques that critics say amount to torture was based on faulty legal reasoning, McClatchy news service reported on Thursday.

The Central Intelligence Agency also issued erroneous claims about how many people it subjected to techniques such as simulated drowning, or "water boarding," according to the news service, citing conclusions from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report obtained by McClatchy.

The report also concluded that the CIA used interrogation methods that were not approved by its own headquarters or the U.S. Justice Department, impeded White House oversight and actively evaded oversight both by Congress and its own Inspector General.

The CIA also provided false information to the U.S. Justice Department, which used that information to conclude that the methods would not break the law because those applying them did not specifically intend to inflict severe pain or suffering, the report added.

Human rights activists called for the immediate declassification of the entire document.



Read more @:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/11/cia-harsh-interrogations_n_5130218.html

Criminals. Thats what they are, plain and simple. The CIA is filled of many criminals. War criminals. Torture. Lying to the American public, hell even to themselves.
 
Sorry not going to get me outraged about bringing it to the enemy anyway possible. If I were in charge we'd actually still call it torture and I would sleep just fine at night.

Tim-
 
Sorry not going to get me outraged about bringing it to the enemy anyway possible. If I were in charge we'd actually still call it torture and I would sleep just fine at night.

Tim-
Yeaaa... Even tho torture doesnt work...
 
Yeaaa... Even tho torture doesnt work...

Who cares? It could work, and I'm pretty sure I could get information from just about anyone, but in the event it doesn't, so what? One less bad guy to worry about.


Tim-
 
Who cares? It could work, and I'm pretty sure I could get information from just about anyone, but in the event it doesn't, so what? One less bad guy to worry about.


Tim-

Well saying that CIA broke its own code and own rules and US rules with interrogation and basically just did about anything in the book (which it sounds like)... I'm gonna stick with the various other reports, and various other studies that show torture doesnt work..
 
Well saying that CIA broke its own code and own rules and US rules with interrogation and basically just did about anything in the book (which it sounds like)... I'm gonna stick with the various other reports, and various other studies that show torture doesnt work..


LOL, the CIA's "code" is only for feel good types like maybe you. The CIA is tasked with the responsibility of protecting American interests, and learning about potential danger, and every American President likes that idea, and secretly doesn't give a damn about how they go about doing it. Sure they'd like to keep the gory details from the American people and people like you, but that's because those who enjoy freedom and yet forget how we keep it that way are often uncomfortable with the knowledge that we actually do bite down hard every once in a while, and that people like me are under no illusions that we need to bite really hard, and IMO we need to do it more often.

If we gain actionable intelligence, great. If not, so what!

Tim-
 
Who cares? It could work, and I'm pretty sure I could get information from just about anyone, but in the event it doesn't, so what? One less bad guy to worry about.


Tim-

4056-hitler-approves-of-your-post.jpg
 
The CIA should not be engaged in torture because it tarnishes the US image abroad and undermines our proclaimed values. Such actions have contributed to the diminishing of US influence in the world and give ammunition to dictators and tyrants, who are then able to say "well the US does it, how can they condemn us for it."

The United States must not engage in torture. We must reclaim our values of supporting human rights and liberty across the globe and not being hypocritical in how we deal with the international community. Enough with the "do as we say, not as we do."
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]CIA's 'Harsh Interrogations' Exceeded Legal Authority, Report Finds

Criminals. Thats what they are, plain and simple. The CIA is filled of many criminals. War criminals. Torture. Lying to the American public, hell even to themselves.

They're still only planning to release a 500 page summary of the 6200 page document. Release the whole thing and let the heads begin to roll. The author of the GW Bush Great Depression (the first torturer) should move to the head of the line. I don't think he wants to miss the bragging rights on this one, eh?
 
Torture always works when done for verifiable information, as opposed to confession.
Do you have a source for that?

Besides the moral problems, torture usually leads to false intelligence if any, like the kind that "misled" our nation into war with Iraq. Just what we need right? More bad intelligence. It was recently confirmed that the waterboarding program didn't result in any useful intel for capturing bin Laden. But you know they tried, 180+ times on KSM alone.

"The torture of suspects [at Abu Ghraib] did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted," says James Corum, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the author of a forthcoming book on counterinsurgency warfare. "The abusers couldn't even use the old 'ends justify the means' argument, because in the end there was nothing to show but a tremendous propaganda defeat for the United States."

Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report's author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.

Truth Extraction - Stephen Budiansky - The Atlantic

Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)
With some people you have to be a little bit "not nice", but when you torture someone it's not like in the movies where they finally spill their guts. They're just going to say whatever they think you want to hear so it will stop. Which is pointless.
 
Do you have a source for that?

I have logic and reason. When the answer is checked and not true, the torture gets worse. Eventually, the real answer comes out.

Claims of torture not working are regarding confessions, not verifiable information.
 
I have logic and reason. When the answer is checked and not true, the torture gets worse. Eventually, the real answer comes out.

Claims of torture not working are regarding confessions, not verifiable information.
Logic and reasoning only goes so far if it hasn't been proven in practice. Former military personnel who have actually interrogated enemy prisoners during wartime were looking for verifiable information, not confessions, and they are saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. I provided links to show you that.
 
Logic and reasoning only goes so far if it hasn't been proven in practice. Former military personnel who have actually interrogated enemy prisoners during wartime were looking for verifiable information, not confessions, and they are saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. I provided links to show you that.

You have one person, with a clear agenda, making claims. And he never said it doesn't work, merely that he doesn't think it's necessary.

Your source DOES NOT claim what you say it does.
 
War is brutal, we've forgotten that.
 
You have one person, with a clear agenda, making claims.
Clearly you didn't read all of my post, nor did you visit either of the links.

- Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran interrogated Japanese prisoners of war and literally wrote the book on military interrogations.

- Air Force Col. John Rothrock headed a combat interrogation unit in Vietnam.

- Army Col. Stuart Herrington conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq.

One person with a clear agenda? Please read posts before you reply, you're making yourself look foolish here.

And he never said it doesn't work, merely that he doesn't think it's necessary.
- Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran (interrogator in WW2) reported that his interrogators were more successful when they didn't torture.

- Army Col. Stuart Herrington (interrogator in Vietnam) said torture is not a good way to get information.

- Air Force Col. John Rothrock (interrogator in Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq) said he doesn't know any professional intelligence officers of his generation who would think torture is a good idea.

Your source DOES NOT claim what you say it does.
Yes it does, you just chose not to read it.
 
Yes it does, you just chose not to read it.

None of those sources claim that torture for verifiable information doesn't work. The one article you quoted claimed a "ticking time bomb" was planned attacks against Americans, but under those circumstances, that was not VERIFIABLE information.
 
None of those sources claim that torture for verifiable information doesn't work. The one article you quoted claimed a "ticking time bomb" was planned attacks against Americans, but under those circumstances, that was not VERIFIABLE information.
Actually, it was a "ticking time bomb" scenario where there were plans to attack American troops, not an actual ticking time bomb. And it is verifiable because if the attack/killing occurs, or doesn't, there's your verification. What other information would be interesting to a combat interrogator except verifiable information? They aren't looking for confessions like "yea, I sniped that officer the other day." :confused:
 
Actually, it was a "ticking time bomb" scenario where there were plans to attack American troops, not an actual ticking time bomb. And it is verifiable because if the attack/killing occurs, or doesn't, there's your verification.

That does not qualify as verifiable information. The information possibly being verified at a later time does not constitute 'verifiable'.

You have misrepresented sources and now you are offering nonsense. Are you done pushing your agenda?
 
I do understand the arguments for both sides of this debate on torture usage. However, the intelligence community admits that most information received through these methods was not real intel, but rather lies that detainees told in order to make the torture stop. Now, if one made the argument that if one attack is stopped then the practice is validated, but I would argue that the direct hit our image as a nation takes, as well as the problems it creates for us in the international community, as torture is strictly against our professed values, the practices of torture are simply not worth it.
 
How about you join the CIA and help clean the place up?
Let's just eliminate the CIA, just like flushing the toilet. Problem solved. It appeared that when Jimmy Carter tried to shut them down, they sold out to the Saudis. You know, got the Saudis to pay the bills. Now, who would that imply loyalty to?
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]CIA's 'Harsh Interrogations' Exceeded Legal Authority, Report Finds

Criminals. Thats what they are, plain and simple. The CIA is filled of many criminals. War criminals. Torture. Lying to the American public, hell even to themselves.

What!? Our government breaking rules and regulations against it? No...I don't believe it. And of course even if they do it in this case, they assuredly would not do so against us, their own people. Nope. Never.
 
Sorry not going to get me outraged about bringing it to the enemy anyway possible. If I were in charge we'd actually still call it torture and I would sleep just fine at night.

Tim-

I like how many "very conservative" ideologies...ideologies that once focused on the restriction and regulation of government...makes such blanket excuses for abuse of government and exalting it breaking its chains.
 
I like how many "very conservative" ideologies...ideologies that once focused on the restriction and regulation of government...makes such blanket excuses for abuse of government and exalting it breaking its chains.

Oh no don't get me wrong we should certainly privatize the whole torture thing, but since no one is clamoring for privatization I have to work with what I got. ;)

Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom