• 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

APACHERAT said:
1) Torture= Being humiliated in your underwear by having to form a human pyramid.

2) Marine Corps Recruit Training= Having to go outside at 2 in the morning in your underwear and forced to PT in a sandbox for a half hour, simply because the DI wants to have some fun.



1) Torture= Sleep Deprevation, Food Deprevation, Dogs barking at them, Koran flushed down the toilet, female soldier humiliating them

2) Marine Corps Recruit Trainin= Food depravation, sleep depravation, 4 grown men barking at you all the time, foot locker thrown out the window, Drill Instructors humiliating you, having to scrub brush the deck with your toothbrush.



1) Torture= Can't call a lawyer, can't contact a loved one, hate the American government, but food, shelter, and medical care are covered. Allowed to worship as they want.

2) Marine Corps Recruit Training= Can't make phone calls home, can't have visitors, can't talk to anyone, sometimes can't go to worship service, hate the Drill Instructors, but food, shelter, and medical care are covered.



1) Torture= Sometimes they die

2) Marine Corps Recruit Training= Ditto
Click to expand...

There certainly was some tortuous elements to recruit training. Take Parris Island: recruits are not allowed to remove biting sand fleas from their bodies without suffering stiff consequences. Take San Diego: humping up what Drill Instructors call hills (but a civilian would call a mountain like The Reaper) if a recruit is slow, they get pushed/hit and if they injure a lower extremity like an ankle/foot the DI's will not let them stop and seek treatment from a Corpsmen.

Good times, but if the public had video of the second-to-second interactions between recruit and Drill Instructor… there would be controversy. That has happened before when incidents like recruits drowning during swim qualifications or when my Kill Hat blinded a Whiskey Pig with the Whiskey Locker keys.
 
APACHERAT said:
1) Torture= Being humiliated in your underwear by having to form a human pyramid.

2) Marine Corps Recruit Training= Having to go outside at 2 in the morning in your underwear and forced to PT in a sandbox for a half hour, simply because the DI wants to have some fun.



1) Torture= Sleep Deprevation, Food Deprevation, Dogs barking at them, Koran flushed down the toilet, female soldier humiliating them

2) Marine Corps Recruit Trainin= Food depravation, sleep depravation, 4 grown men barking at you all the time, foot locker thrown out the window, Drill Instructors humiliating you, having to scrub brush the deck with your toothbrush.



1) Torture= Can't call a lawyer, can't contact a loved one, hate the American government, but food, shelter, and medical care are covered. Allowed to worship as they want.

2) Marine Corps Recruit Training= Can't make phone calls home, can't have visitors, can't talk to anyone, sometimes can't go to worship service, hate the Drill Instructors, but food, shelter, and medical care are covered.



1) Torture= Sometimes they die

2) Marine Corps Recruit Training= Ditto
Click to expand...

Marine corps training=consensual (if sufficiently informed) when there is no draft and/or when one can opt out for an easier choice when drafted.
 
There is a reason why obama didnt let the torture pictures make their way to public eyes. I assume its cause it depicted rape, murder and torture and would have dealt a severe blow to the war industry.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
There is a reason why obama didnt let the torture pictures make their way to public eyes. I assume its cause it depicted rape, murder and torture and would have dealt a severe blow to the war industry.
Click to expand...

It would have been grisly and caused a PR nightmare.
 
Chiefgator said:
Fully agree with your last sentence.

In light of that statement, your support of torture on suspicion of terrorism is astounding to me.
Click to expand...

Where do you get from my posts that I support torture of any kind?
 
apdst said:
You exhibit your lack of knowledge of both the GC and interrogation techniques.

The GC prohibits ANY coersion. Literally anything more than asking questions is illegal according to the GC.

Second, physical violence is always the last resort. There are other approaches that you want to attempt first.

And sure, the prisoner can lie, which is why you verify the information he gives you and if he is lying, you punish him for it.

"Torture", is thousands of years old. Its been perfected. If it was really as ineffective as some folks like to claim, it would have stopped being used centuries ago.
Click to expand...

I am not an expert interrogator and I acknowledge my ignorance on the subject. But if torture is so old then it comes from the uncivilized times. I think we should be better than resorting to torture today.

Besides no matter what you said, still you would be risking persecution from the GC.
 
Jango said:
And the only reason why that happened was because of 9/11. The U.S. had its nose broken on that day. The prevention of another attack became paramount regardless of human rights. The American people were shocked beyond belief and if there was another attack… it would not have been good, particularly if it was revealed that our military had individuals in custody that had pertinent information and we didn't get it from them.
Click to expand...


Exactly right--911 was the predicate act for all the atrocities of the GWOT, very much including the assault on the US Constitution brought by our illustrious elected officials. The Unpatriot Act, the nullification of Habeas Corpus and things like that.

That is why it is so critical to examine the facts and details surrounding the attacks of 11 September.

Funny/sad thing is a close examination of the facts and details reveals that the official narrative fails. It appears very much to have been staged, a modern false flag meant to project the illusion that 19 arabs with box cutters pulled it off. Ain't no way.
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

Isn't all this rage over waterboarding two people?
 
Henry David said:
Exactly right--911 was the predicate act for all the atrocities of the GWOT, very much including the assault on the US Constitution brought by our illustrious elected officials. The Unpatriot Act, the nullification of Habeas Corpus and things like that.

That is why it is so critical to examine the facts and details surrounding the attacks of 11 September.

Funny/sad thing is a close examination of the facts and details reveals that the official narrative fails. It appears very much to have been staged, a modern false flag meant to project the illusion that 19 arabs with box cutters pulled it off. Ain't no way.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There are many reasons why, like, why would the government create the T.S.A. if it was an inside job? I ask that because if it was an inside job, why create an agency that costs a lot of money with pretty much the sole reason for existence being to prevent other acts of terrorism in our skies. It makes sense that 9/11 was a clandestine operation carried out by religious fundamentalists who martyred themselves for Allah, al Qaeda and because they perceived the U.S. to be "the Great Satan." Furthermore, the U.S. is hyper-reactionary. Look at what happened after the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre: the half of the government in charge would have taken every single firearm owned by civilians if they could have gotten away with it. Anytime there is a massive problem in the U.S. our politicians hyperventilate.
 
apdst said:
UBL wasn't a known terrorist?
Click to expand...

He was a CIA funded and armed "Freedom Fighter' in Afghanistan circa 1990. Is sumpin' slippin'?
 
Jango said:
There are many reasons why, like, why would the government create the T.S.A. if it was an inside job? I ask that because if it was an inside job, why create an agency that costs a lot of money with pretty much the sole reason for existence being to prevent other acts of terrorism in our skies.
Click to expand...

If 9/11 was an inside job, the TSA, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and a host of other POLICE STATE creations would follow naturally under pretext of "protection". Read the novel "1984" for a better understanding of how that works. The purpose of the TSA is not to protect anyone from anything, it is to get people used to a POLICE STATE environment where the Bill of Rights is discarded under the doctrine of giving up protection of individual rights in favor of security. After all, 9/11 is used as a pretext for nearly every single government agenda since 9/11. It isn't something that's difficult to understand.
 
Jango said:
I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There are many reasons why, like, why would the government create the T.S.A. if it was an inside job? I ask that because if it was an inside job, why create an agency that costs a lot of money with pretty much the sole reason for existence being to prevent other acts of terrorism in our skies. It makes sense that 9/11 was a clandestine operation carried out by religious fundamentalists who martyred themselves for Allah, al Qaeda and because they perceived the U.S. to be "the Great Satan." Furthermore, the U.S. is hyper-reactionary. Look at what happened after the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre: the half of the government in charge would have taken every single firearm owned by civilians if they could have gotten away with it. Anytime there is a massive problem in the U.S. our politicians hyperventilate.
Click to expand...

There was considerabel forewarning for 9-11. British, French, Israeli, German, and Russian Intelligence all warned the USA of impending action. This information was ignored either intentionally or unintentionally. The August PDB to President Bush also warned of impending attack. Ashcroft never flew public flights after July because of warnings. Israeli MOSSAD were in position and filming the attacks, caught, and subsequently released back to Israel.
 
Bob0627 said:
If 9/11 was an inside job, the TSA, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and a host of other POLICE STATE creations would follow naturally under pretext of "protection". Read the novel "1984" for a better understanding of how that works. The purpose of the TSA is not to protect anyone from anything, it is to get people used to a POLICE STATE environment where the Bill of Rights is discarded under the doctrine of giving up protection of individual rights in favor of security. After all, 9/11 is used as a pretext for nearly every single government agenda since 9/11. It isn't something that's difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

You're right, 9/11 has been the pretext for America's present stance on counterterrorism, intelligence gathering, domestic security, law enforcement, etc. You say these policies and actions are in place to desensitize and placate the U.S. population for the forthcoming police state. The converse of that is: a systematic failure resulting in thousands of civilians dying is met by hyper-reactionary politicians urged on by a scared populace, which has resulted in policies and actions being installed to cover every imaginable base from the scourge of terrorism. If it was the former, as you suggested, why wouldn't George W. Bush *still* be POTUS? His administration built the foundation for the reactionary policies we have with us today. So if the plan for America is a totalitarian police state, and George W. Bush's administration didn't drop the hammer even though they designed most of the apparatus, then what administration is going to benefit from de facto reign and authority, and if that's been the plan since 9/11, then why didn't Bush and his cabinet retain authority?

I own 1984. What Winston Smith endured is akin to how the Soviet Union operated. For that brand of totalitarianism to become a reality in the United States, many more proverbial shoes would have to drop, namely, the confiscation of all civilian owned firearms, the loss of free choice/speech/movement/association/press, wide-spread disappearances of dissidents/opposition, no more entitlements or government assistance, etc. We're a long ways off from that bleak scenario.
 
DaveFagan said:
There was considerabel forewarning for 9-11. British, French, Israeli, German, and Russian Intelligence all warned the USA of impending action. This information was ignored either intentionally or unintentionally. The August PDB to President Bush also warned of impending attack. Ashcroft never flew public flights after July because of warnings. Israeli MOSSAD were in position and filming the attacks, caught, and subsequently released back to Israel.
Click to expand...

And…? 9/11 was not an inside job.
 
Jango said:
And…? 9/11 was not an inside job.
Click to expand...

Who'd a thunk it? Since 9-11 we have had energy wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. and have allied with alQueda fronts as if we are doing something good. That would be saying War is Good. Death is Good. Chaos is Good. But don't get any on ya' here at home. Make good guy noises like only the unGodly die when we attack. He deserved it, he was a no goodnik. He hated us for our freedoms. They were throwing babies from incubators onto the floor. Anything there sound familiar?
 
DaveFagan said:
other agencies all usa.

afi, ai, fbi, cia cifa css ct dcia ds dia doe doa g2 inr mi ncs nga ni nic nima nro fsa nsc osp sad soc ssb usss whisc

Index and dictionary of espionage spy terms and slang and a list of intelligence gathering agencies - ACRONYMS
Click to expand...

The CIA is the only agency that has agents, that can be put on the ground, around the world. If you abolish the CIA, another agency will have to takeover that task; which means you accomplished nothing by abolishing the CIA.
 
Jango said:
You're right, 9/11 has been the pretext for America's present stance on counterterrorism, intelligence gathering, domestic security, law enforcement, etc. You say these policies and actions are in place to desensitize and placate the U.S. population for the forthcoming police state.
Click to expand...

Actually no, the POLICE STATE is already here. Nearly everything in America is a crime (over 2.3 million incarcerated and more than 7 million in the system) and the Bill of Rights has been discarded in favor of legislation, Executive dictate and Supreme Court rulings from the bench heavily favoring corporatism over protection of individual rights.

The converse of that is: a systematic failure resulting in thousands of civilians dying is met by hyper-reactionary politicians urged on by a scared populace, which has resulted in policies and actions being installed to cover every imaginable base from the scourge of terrorism.
Click to expand...

That's not the converse, that's the pretext.

If it was the former, as you suggested, why wouldn't George W. Bush *still* be POTUS? His administration built the foundation for the reactionary policies we have with us today. So if the plan for America is a totalitarian police state, and George W. Bush's administration didn't drop the hammer even though they designed most of the apparatus, then what administration is going to benefit from de facto reign and authority, and if that's been the plan since 9/11, then why didn't Bush and his cabinet retain authority?
Click to expand...

Because Bush and his administration were only one tool for the shadow criminal cabal. If you noticed (or not), the Obama agenda is just a continuation and expansion of the Bush agenda.

I own 1984. What Winston Smith endured is akin to how the Soviet Union operated. For that brand of totalitarianism to become a reality in the United States, many more proverbial shoes would have to drop, namely, the confiscation of all civilian owned firearms, the loss of free choice/speech/movement/association/press, wide-spread disappearances of dissidents/opposition, no more entitlements or government assistance, etc. We're a long ways off from that bleak scenario.
Click to expand...

Not every police state has to look like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or "Oceania". It can begin in milder form and advance to much more sinister form. I pointed you to "1984" because of the many parallels (endless war, NSA surveillance, curtailment of civil liberties, TSA warrantless searches, some of what you yourself described, etc.). A reading of the book should point all these things out to you. Did you miss it?
 
Jango said:
I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There are many reasons why, like, why would the government create the T.S.A. if it was an inside job? I ask that because if it was an inside job, why create an agency that costs a lot of money with pretty much the sole reason for existence being to prevent other acts of terrorism in our skies. It makes sense that 9/11 was a clandestine operation carried out by religious fundamentalists who martyred themselves for Allah, al Qaeda and because they perceived the U.S. to be "the Great Satan." Furthermore, the U.S. is hyper-reactionary. Look at what happened after the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre: the half of the government in charge would have taken every single firearm owned by civilians if they could have gotten away with it. Anytime there is a massive problem in the U.S. our politicians hyperventilate.
Click to expand...

The government would create the DHS as a cabinet level agency for the same reason it created the Dept of Education as a cabinet level agency--to enhance the bureaucracy, plain and simple. Government grows, as we all know. A very expensive cabinet level agency is really good for growth in government, and the embellishment of government careers, GS types. DHS has proved to be very lucrative for those employed.

It was an inside job because there are so many impossibilities with the official story. The official story is contradicted by all the facts, at every turn. No airplanes where there should have been, federal agents coercing testimony, impossible cell phone calls, impossible aerodynamic maneuvers, impossible events at WTC for an office furniture fire confined to 8 or 10 floors.

And of course, the awesomely transparent coverup.
 
Henry David said:
The government would create the DHS as a cabinet level agency for the same reason it created the Dept of Education as a cabinet level agency--to enhance the bureaucracy, plain and simple. Government grows, as we all know. A very expensive cabinet level agency is really good for growth in government, and the embellishment of government careers, GS types. DHS has proved to be very lucrative for those employed.

It was an inside job because there are so many impossibilities with the official story. The official story is contradicted by all the facts, at every turn. No airplanes where there should have been, federal agents coercing testimony, impossible cell phone calls, impossible aerodynamic maneuvers, impossible events at WTC for an office furniture fire confined to 8 or 10 floors.

And of course, the awesomely transparent coverup.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.:screwy
 
Jango said:
You're right, 9/11 has been the pretext for America's present stance on counterterrorism, intelligence gathering, domestic security, law enforcement, etc. You say these policies and actions are in place to desensitize and placate the U.S. population for the forthcoming police state. The converse of that is: a systematic failure resulting in thousands of civilians dying is met by hyper-reactionary politicians urged on by a scared populace, which has resulted in policies and actions being installed to cover every imaginable base from the scourge of terrorism. If it was the former, as you suggested, why wouldn't George W. Bush *still* be POTUS? His administration built the foundation for the reactionary policies we have with us today. So if the plan for America is a totalitarian police state, and George W. Bush's administration didn't drop the hammer even though they designed most of the apparatus, then what administration is going to benefit from de facto reign and authority, and if that's been the plan since 9/11, then why didn't Bush and his cabinet retain authority?

I own 1984. What Winston Smith endured is akin to how the Soviet Union operated. For that brand of totalitarianism to become a reality in the United States, many more proverbial shoes would have to drop, namely, the confiscation of all civilian owned firearms, the loss of free choice/speech/movement/association/press, wide-spread disappearances of dissidents/opposition, no more entitlements or government assistance, etc. We're a long ways off from that bleak scenario.
Click to expand...
Im sorry but its very obvious that at the very top Repub vs Democrat is a facade. Im sure the next president after Obama is going to be verrrry very bad, building on what bush and obama did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom