The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

A Thread for the Senate Report on CIA Torture

13468913

Posts

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced you can't prosecute previous administrations. I think the rule there is mostly the same as the rules for everyone else, in that you can't retroactively apply new laws. Like I doubt anyone would bat an eye if we found out a former president had killed a dude just for fun, and was prosecuted for it. The difficulty is that at that level of authority it's not always a clear what is or is not legal, so in order to not open Pandora box it has to be a very definitive case. I don't know how black and white the laws were for torture, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something clear cut enough to pursue, even at the highest levels.

    In my opinion, you can't have a functional democracy where officials are - in essence - never held accountable when they break the law. What we have is basically a society just swishing it's toes in the democracy kiddie pool and looking bashful (at best).

    That being said, the outlook for any given administration trying to uphold that ideal is pretty grim. I mean, for starters, what if you charge the previous administration, take them to court... and you lose? You'll not only be politically finished, you may kill your entire party brand for years to come. What if you break a dam that some fear exists and kick-off years of opposing political parties constantly taking each other to court?

    That doesn't really excuse the lack of action (again, in my opinion), but if we want that ideal, we'd better be prepared to put people in office that aren't just good spokespeople. Someone like President Obama would never, ever risk their legacy or political career over that kind of high-concept principle.

    We don't have a democracy, and the system we have has worked ok for a long while with no accountability for our leadership since the beginning. A great way to see this is through John Greene's Crash Course US History, one of his focuses is pointing out how essentially unchanging our government has been for the last 300 years. It improves slightly over time as far as representation goes, but that's more to do with the rich and powerful getting more diverse than the political machine changing.

    The type of politicians you are talking about cannot make it into national office without spending a massive fortune (a la Ross Perot, and he didn't even win). Locally you can get good people into municipal and occasionally state government, but to make it on a federal level you need to be massively bankrolled and people who take rational, righteous actions based on morality rather than business interests don't get funding.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    That doesn't mean it's ideal or right or that I think it is a good thing, mind you. But it's important to have eyes open to what the system actually is when considering how to change it for the better. The only way to make real, lasting positive change is to make it cost effective for a major industry that is willing to bankroll both the legislative and the executive.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Never have i felt this was more appropriate.

    bsledo0or1rb.jpg

    I just...

    People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."

    Just pack it in folks, we lost.

    gotsig.jpg
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    As long as we're batting around hypotheticals: human rights violations which cannot feasibly be prosecuted within the current system of government are precisely what the International Criminal Court was designed to address. We've apparently decided that its scope is limited to African dictators, but in a perfect world these questions would be sorted out not by our petty, partisan Congress, but at the Hague.

    The United States are not going to ratify the Rome Statute so the ICC is not actually an option.

    And regarding prosecution in other countries: When Milan station chief Lady was arrested in Panama after being being tried in italy for abduction, instead of being extradited to taly, he was let go a day later.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    As long as we're batting around hypotheticals: human rights violations which cannot feasibly be prosecuted within the current system of government are precisely what the International Criminal Court was designed to address. We've apparently decided that its scope is limited to African dictators, but in a perfect world these questions would be sorted out not by our petty, partisan Congress, but at the Hague.

    The United States are not going to ratify the Rome Statute so the ICC is not actually an option.

    And regarding prosecution in other countries: When Milan station chief Lady was arrested in Panama after being being tried in italy for abduction, instead of being extradited to taly, he was let go a day later.

    Yeah...let's not go supporting trials in abscentia.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Snoqualmie, WARegistered User regular
    And lets not kid ourselves here about the UN and the International Courts prosecuting the United States, or any first world European country for "War Crimes".

    Wasn't the UN the creation of England and The United States after World War II? If so, it should not shock anyone why the International Courts, would just talk about trying the US for War Crimes and then totally brush it aside to go after poorer countries themselves.

    Boy, Truman sure didn't expect the CIA to be the monster that it is today.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Never have i felt this was more appropriate.

    bsledo0or1rb.jpg

    I just...

    People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."

    Just pack it in folks, we lost.

    Don't be so dramatic. It's not like it has ever been any different over the course of human history. People care about things they actually experience. Torture is small and far away and the most people really understand it is that it happens to people who are not like them that they are told are planning on harming them. Othering is a constant and negative thing, but it isn't anything new.

    The fact that mass executions, open torture at all levels of governance, and other such commonalities in the past are getting less and less over time should be cause to celebrate, even though the bad is still occuring. Torture is happening, yes, but not on levels in the hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than even 100 years ago? Absolutely.

    Hopefully in another hundred years it will be down to a dozen or so. It won't every fully go away though. Some people in power are really shitty and evil, as opposed to simply self serving like the majority.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced you can't prosecute previous administrations. I think the rule there is mostly the same as the rules for everyone else, in that you can't retroactively apply new laws. Like I doubt anyone would bat an eye if we found out a former president had killed a dude just for fun, and was prosecuted for it. The difficulty is that at that level of authority it's not always a clear what is or is not legal, so in order to not open Pandora box it has to be a very definitive case. I don't know how black and white the laws were for torture, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something clear cut enough to pursue, even at the highest levels.

    In my opinion, you can't have a functional democracy where officials are - in essence - never held accountable when they break the law. What we have is basically a society just swishing it's toes in the democracy kiddie pool and looking bashful (at best).

    That being said, the outlook for any given administration trying to uphold that ideal is pretty grim. I mean, for starters, what if you charge the previous administration, take them to court... and you lose? You'll not only be politically finished, you may kill your entire party brand for years to come. What if you break a dam that some fear exists and kick-off years of opposing political parties constantly taking each other to court?

    That doesn't really excuse the lack of action (again, in my opinion), but if we want that ideal, we'd better be prepared to put people in office that aren't just good spokespeople. Someone like President Obama would never, ever risk their legacy or political career over that kind of high-concept principle.

    We don't have a democracy, and the system we have has worked ok for a long while with no accountability for our leadership since the beginning. A great way to see this is through John Greene's Crash Course US History, one of his focuses is pointing out how essentially unchanging our government has been for the last 300 years. It improves slightly over time as far as representation goes, but that's more to do with the rich and powerful getting more diverse than the political machine changing.

    The type of politicians you are talking about cannot make it into national office without spending a massive fortune (a la Ross Perot, and he didn't even win). Locally you can get good people into municipal and occasionally state government, but to make it on a federal level you need to be massively bankrolled and people who take rational, righteous actions based on morality rather than business interests don't get funding.

    Enough good people in state legislatures can tell the federal government to sit down, shut up, and do as they say, but the bar is pretty high. Seems a more likely route to campaign reform than changes from Congress, sadly.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Snoqualmie, WARegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced you can't prosecute previous administrations. I think the rule there is mostly the same as the rules for everyone else, in that you can't retroactively apply new laws. Like I doubt anyone would bat an eye if we found out a former president had killed a dude just for fun, and was prosecuted for it. The difficulty is that at that level of authority it's not always a clear what is or is not legal, so in order to not open Pandora box it has to be a very definitive case. I don't know how black and white the laws were for torture, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something clear cut enough to pursue, even at the highest levels.

    In my opinion, you can't have a functional democracy where officials are - in essence - never held accountable when they break the law. What we have is basically a society just swishing it's toes in the democracy kiddie pool and looking bashful (at best).

    That being said, the outlook for any given administration trying to uphold that ideal is pretty grim. I mean, for starters, what if you charge the previous administration, take them to court... and you lose? You'll not only be politically finished, you may kill your entire party brand for years to come. What if you break a dam that some fear exists and kick-off years of opposing political parties constantly taking each other to court?

    That doesn't really excuse the lack of action (again, in my opinion), but if we want that ideal, we'd better be prepared to put people in office that aren't just good spokespeople. Someone like President Obama would never, ever risk their legacy or political career over that kind of high-concept principle.

    We don't have a democracy, and the system we have has worked ok for a long while with no accountability for our leadership since the beginning. A great way to see this is through John Greene's Crash Course US History, one of his focuses is pointing out how essentially unchanging our government has been for the last 300 years. It improves slightly over time as far as representation goes, but that's more to do with the rich and powerful getting more diverse than the political machine changing.

    The type of politicians you are talking about cannot make it into national office without spending a massive fortune (a la Ross Perot, and he didn't even win). Locally you can get good people into municipal and occasionally state government, but to make it on a federal level you need to be massively bankrolled and people who take rational, righteous actions based on morality rather than business interests don't get funding.

    Enough good people in state legislatures can tell the federal government to sit down, shut up, and do as they say, but the bar is pretty high. Seems a more likely route to campaign reform than changes from Congress, sadly.

    Its sad that the good legislatures, will have their careers destroyed by the "Status Quo", for whistleblowing. If you want to be a politician and are not in the good graces of Corporate America, you are dead to rights.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    And lets not kid ourselves here about the UN and the International Courts prosecuting the United States, or any first world European country for "War Crimes".

    Wasn't the UN the creation of England and The United States after World War II? If so, it should not shock anyone why the International Courts, would just talk about trying the US for War Crimes and then totally brush it aside to go after poorer countries themselves.

    Boy, Truman sure didn't expect the CIA to be the monster that it is today.

    The ICC only has jurisdiction over nations that have ratified it. The US has not ratified it.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    International courts, even if you agreed to it, are defined by international power dynamics anyhow. Even if the US were part of it, if it went against the US in a way that wasn't supported internally we would either ignore it or bow out without any actions taken because the nations in the ICC wouldn't be willing to pursue at the cost of economic sanctions and a potential international economic collapse.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    On a more general level, what I find amazing is the disconnect. I could understand some people saying, "Fuck it, let's waterboard those assholes!" if the findings were that torture actually works fairly well when it comes to providing reliable intel - I wouldn't agree with it, but it would make some sort of sense. As it is, though, it's like a really messed-up version of escalation of commitment, along the lines of "We'll just keep torturing, because if it actually produces something we can use that'll justify all the torturing we've done up to now!"

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    On a more general level, what I find amazing is the disconnect. I could understand some people saying, "Fuck it, let's waterboard those assholes!" if the findings were that torture actually works fairly well when it comes to providing reliable intel - I wouldn't agree with it, but it would make some sort of sense. As it is, though, it's like a really messed-up version of escalation of commitment, along the lines of "We'll just keep torturing, because if it actually produces something we can use that'll justify all the torturing we've done up to now!"

    That seems overly generous.

    Most comments I've seen on and off the news just assume torture works and has produced good intel.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Most people needing intel know torture is unreliable and most people will just say whatever they can to make the torture end after a period of time, often what the torturers expect or want. The wonky bit is that if you have an agenda you want to be supported regardless of facts this provides an opportunity, which is why stupid operations still rely on it to this day.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2014
    "Sicarii wrote: »
    I just...

    People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."

    Just pack it in folks, we lost.

    lots of people care. and there are many who clearly would care but have ended up on the cultural/ political side of things where they're on the defensive and acting like assholes about the whole thing.

    mostly it's just that our system of government makes it impossible for anything to get done without basic unanimity.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    "Sicarii wrote: »
    I just...

    People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."

    Just pack it in folks, we lost.

    lots of people care. and there are many who clearly would care but have ended up on the cultural/ political side of things where they're on the defensive and acting like assholes about the whole thing.

    mostly it's just that our system of government makes it impossible for anything to get done without basic unanimity.

    And there was a time when I thought torture being evil was a unanimously held view.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    "Sicarii wrote: »
    I just...

    People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."

    Just pack it in folks, we lost.

    lots of people care. and there are many who clearly would care but have ended up on the cultural/ political side of things where they're on the defensive and acting like assholes about the whole thing.

    mostly it's just that our system of government makes it impossible for anything to get done without basic unanimity.

    And there was a time when I thought torture being evil was a unanimously held view.

    Execution isn't seen as being evil, unanimously.

    Bad people suffering isn't seen as being evil, unanimously.

    I don't know where you got the idea that torture was seen as evil, unanimously.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    moniker wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    "Sicarii wrote: »
    I just...

    People either don't care or support the torture done. Everything is just political football where "i have to support every action of my party because there is no worse enemy than my poltical opposite."

    Just pack it in folks, we lost.

    lots of people care. and there are many who clearly would care but have ended up on the cultural/ political side of things where they're on the defensive and acting like assholes about the whole thing.

    mostly it's just that our system of government makes it impossible for anything to get done without basic unanimity.

    And there was a time when I thought torture being evil was a unanimously held view.

    Execution isn't seen as being evil, unanimously.

    Bad people suffering isn't seen as being evil, unanimously.

    I don't know where you got the idea that torture was seen as evil, unanimously.

    Capital punishment is in no way comparable to torture; and while I strongly disagree with the arguments for it, they are at least morally defensible and predicated on due process of law and a humane execution.

    And I got the idea from our centuries of law, jurisprudence, treaty obligations, and, until now, universal condemnation from leaders across the political spectrum.

    moniker on
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Lots of people feel karmic or disproportionate justice is appropriate even when it legally or morally isn't. A common example is thinking a child molester deserves the death sentence which is an incredibly popular position both in media and around most people. Same with the belief that all people on a sex offender registry should be barred from living anywhere regardless of the nature of the crime.

    It's not a stretch to think people would be marginally ok with bad people who are dangerous and evil and those other people being tortured as far as a vague question goes.

    But if you ask most people "do you think a police confidential informant providing willing information about a crime ring should be allowed to be tazed repeatedly until death by the police to get a bit more information" they will likely be mostly or uniformly against it. It's all a matter of phrasing the question.

    Most people are against torture, but pro security. How you ask the question will determine how people respond.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I do hate how drone strikes are being compared to torture. Because while drone strikes are nebulous legal reasoning for extra judicial killing, they are in line with how america has dealt with "terrorists" in the modern age. I mean prior to drones it was cruise missiles and bombing campaigns, the method changes but its not like if we stopped using drones we'd stop blowing up our perceived enemies.

    And they are in no way comparable to torturing people I mean I never want to die, but I'll take being incinerated over being tortured every fucking day of the week.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Ted Cruz has weighed in on the matter.

    The good: it's obviously torture and Congress was right to condemn it. Stopped clock, twice a day, etc.

    The bad: the report is a biased view that endangered America etc.

    The crazy: we should stop blaming Bush for the failures of this administration. "This administration," that almost immediately shut the program down after taking office.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    God damn Obama and his magical time machine!!

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I'm trying to remember the last time a politician took responsibility not just for their party in general but for themselves and their own poor decisions, excluding scandals that were not going away, and I'm coming up pretty blank.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I believe Obama took responsibility for the healthcare roll out saying he and his admin had to do better.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    And lets not kid ourselves here about the UN and the International Courts prosecuting the United States, or any first world European country for "War Crimes".

    Wasn't the UN the creation of England and The United States after World War II? If so, it should not shock anyone why the International Courts, would just talk about trying the US for War Crimes and then totally brush it aside to go after poorer countries themselves.

    Boy, Truman sure didn't expect the CIA to be the monster that it is today.

    The ICC only has jurisdiction over nations that have ratified it. The US has not ratified it.

    Yeah they literally can't do anything about it unless the UN Security Council steps in. Given that the US would simply veto such a decision the UN and the ICC can do nothing.

    Enc wrote: »
    International courts, even if you agreed to it, are defined by international power dynamics anyhow. Even if the US were part of it, if it went against the US in a way that wasn't supported internally we would either ignore it or bow out without any actions taken because the nations in the ICC wouldn't be willing to pursue at the cost of economic sanctions and a potential international economic collapse.

    The ICC isn't composed of members working for their own country. It is arguably more independent than the UN. And while the US is powerful blatantly ignoring international laws it has agreed to is a bad pr and diplomatic move.

    Which is why not ratifying the treaty in the first place is what they did. Why sign a treaty if you're going to try to get out from under it the first instance it might affect you?

  • lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I do hate how drone strikes are being compared to torture. Because while drone strikes are nebulous legal reasoning for extra judicial killing, they are in line with how america has dealt with "terrorists" in the modern age. I mean prior to drones it was cruise missiles and bombing campaigns, the method changes but its not like if we stopped using drones we'd stop blowing up our perceived enemies.

    And they are in no way comparable to torturing people I mean I never want to die, but I'll take being incinerated over being tortured every fucking day of the week.

    They are being compared because drone strikes were seen by the CIA as a useful replacement for indefinite detention following the Guantanamo leaks.

    I would download a car.
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    And lets not kid ourselves here about the UN and the International Courts prosecuting the United States, or any first world European country for "War Crimes".

    Wasn't the UN the creation of England and The United States after World War II? If so, it should not shock anyone why the International Courts, would just talk about trying the US for War Crimes and then totally brush it aside to go after poorer countries themselves.

    Boy, Truman sure didn't expect the CIA to be the monster that it is today.

    The ICC only has jurisdiction over nations that have ratified it. The US has not ratified it.

    Yeah they literally can't do anything about it unless the UN Security Council steps in. Given that the US would simply veto such a decision the UN and the ICC can do nothing.

    Enc wrote: »
    International courts, even if you agreed to it, are defined by international power dynamics anyhow. Even if the US were part of it, if it went against the US in a way that wasn't supported internally we would either ignore it or bow out without any actions taken because the nations in the ICC wouldn't be willing to pursue at the cost of economic sanctions and a potential international economic collapse.

    The ICC isn't composed of members working for their own country. It is arguably more independent than the UN. And while the US is powerful blatantly ignoring international laws it has agreed to is a bad pr and diplomatic move.

    Which is why not ratifying the treaty in the first place is what they did. Why sign a treaty if you're going to try to get out from under it the first instance it might affect you?

    There is also the legal argument that the United States couldn't ratify the treaty without a Constitutional Amendment.

    Which would make it come down to the Supreme Court ruling if their rulings could be superseded by an international court, and the ratification would most likely be overturned 9-0 with a 'fuck you, don't punt this to us' (i.e. pass a god damned Amendment and take the heat).

    zagdrob on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    On a more general level, what I find amazing is the disconnect. I could understand some people saying, "Fuck it, let's waterboard those assholes!" if the findings were that torture actually works fairly well when it comes to providing reliable intel - I wouldn't agree with it, but it would make some sort of sense. As it is, though, it's like a really messed-up version of escalation of commitment, along the lines of "We'll just keep torturing, because if it actually produces something we can use that'll justify all the torturing we've done up to now!"

    They've watched too much 24. That's the literal justification for a lot of them.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Tom John Brennan is being a special kind of goose this afternoon.



    [ed] durr, me good with names

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I do hate how drone strikes are being compared to torture. Because while drone strikes are nebulous legal reasoning for extra judicial killing, they are in line with how america has dealt with "terrorists" in the modern age. I mean prior to drones it was cruise missiles and bombing campaigns, the method changes but its not like if we stopped using drones we'd stop blowing up our perceived enemies.

    And they are in no way comparable to torturing people I mean I never want to die, but I'll take being incinerated over being tortured every fucking day of the week.

    They are being compared because drone strikes were seen by the CIA as a useful replacement for indefinite detention following the Guantanamo leaks.

    It's still a lazy comparison. Torture was used to in theory extract info (even though it failed at that) drone strikes are used to blow people up we don't like and is again a continuation of what we already did for years. Cruise missiles and targeted bombings.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    24 is a symptom of a larger media problem in that most of our entertainment seems to require non-stop serial killers, gang wars, violent shootings, constant terrorist cells, and other reidculous plots that make such threats seem much more prevalent than they really are. Hell, half of the students that come through my office think that forensic psychologists are needed en masse right now because of shows like Criminal Minds when the reality is that there is only a market of 10-15 total positions doing that job full time in the entire country.

    If NCIS Los Angelas were real the entire country would be on fire at all times. But this is what we are exposed to media style. And while it is for entertainment it is also how we think of concepts like torture and violence and such when these terms come up, mostly because it is the only exposure most people see.

    So, when someone hears CIA torturing terrorists, they think Jack Bauer. They think that there is a clear danger to the country. They think these supposed terrorists are Very Bad people who, if given the chance, will do horrible things. They don't think of them as random people who may have shared coffee or were college roomates that one time with a guy who, years later after his wife died in a US airstrike, went radical and bombed an embassy.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Tom John Brennan is being a special kind of goose this afternoon.



    [ed] durr, me good with names

    Brennan's hire is among the President's worst and most disappointing decisions.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I do hate how drone strikes are being compared to torture. Because while drone strikes are nebulous legal reasoning for extra judicial killing, they are in line with how america has dealt with "terrorists" in the modern age. I mean prior to drones it was cruise missiles and bombing campaigns, the method changes but its not like if we stopped using drones we'd stop blowing up our perceived enemies.

    And they are in no way comparable to torturing people I mean I never want to die, but I'll take being incinerated over being tortured every fucking day of the week.

    They are being compared because drone strikes were seen by the CIA as a useful replacement for indefinite detention following the Guantanamo leaks.

    It's still a lazy comparison. Torture was used to in theory extract info (even though it failed at that) drone strikes are used to blow people up we don't like and is again a continuation of what we already did for years. Cruise missiles and targeted bombings.

    Torture was seen as part and parcel of indefinite detention.
    Moreover, the CIA made this choice, not because they thought it was the best strategy, but reportedly because they did not think they were capable of detaining and interrogating individuals without also torturing them.

    http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/04/07/why-did-the-cia-stop-torturing-and-start-killing/

    And the CIA hadn't been using cruise missiles or bombings. They had pretty much been out of the targeted killing business since the Church committee.

    I would download a car.
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    For Muslims, the Qur’an is the Word of God, but not in the same way the Bible is for Christians. In fact, the best Christian analogy to the Qur’an is not a book at all; it is the person of Jesus Christ. For Christians, the Word became flesh: in Jesus Christ, God is encountered. For Muslims, the Word became text.

    Former detainees say (the Qur'an) has been handled with disrespect by guards and interrogators—written in, ripped or cut with scissors, squatted over, trampled, kicked, urinated and defecated on, picked up by a dog, tossed around like a ball, used to clean soldiers’ boots, and thrown in a bucket of excrement. A Russian ex-detainee, Timur Ishmuratov, remembers how it would be laid on the back of a handcuffed, bent-over prisoner, so that it would fall to the ground if he stood up. With just a Qur’an and a pair of handcuffs, a Muslim detainee could in this way be made to torture himself.

    At Gen. Miller’s Guantánamo, expressions of disrespect for religious practices grew into a kind of regimen. To interrupt prayers, guards made noise by striking things against the holding cages or playing loud rock music.
    From here
    NSFW
    (Erik) Saar was translating for a female Army interrogator who was having trouble getting information out of a young Saudi detainee named Fareek. She told Saar that she wanted to break the strength of Fareek’s relationship with God: “I think we should make him feel so fucking dirty that he can’t go back to his cell and spend the night praying. We have to put up a barrier between him and his God.” So she did a striptease. When Fareek wouldn’t look at her, she walked behind him and “began rubbing her breasts against his back.” According to Saar, she told Fareek that his sexual arousal offended God. Then she told him that she was having her period, and showed him her hand covered in what he thought was menstrual blood (it was red ink). She cursed him and wiped it on his face. As she and Saar left the room, she informed Fareek that the water to his cell would be shut off that night. Even if he managed to calm himself down, he would be too defiled to pray.
    During the trial of Abu Ghraib’s Specialist Charles Graner, ex-detainee Amin al-Sheikh reported that he had been compelled to eat pork and curse Allah. A Guantánamo detainee informed Capt. Yee that a group of prisoners had been forced to “bow down and prostrate” themselves inside a makeshift “satanic” shrine, where interrogators made them repeat that Satan, not Allah, was their God.

    DIRECTOR HAYDEN: “You recall the policy on which this is based, that we’re going to give him a burden that Allah says is too great for you to bear, so they can put the burden down.” (pg. 487)

    The goal was to create a burden so great that a person’s religious faith would be destroyed.

    This is unspeakable. If someone wants to martyr themselves on the field of battle, fine, but to force a captured prisoner to defile themselves in an attempt to destroy their religious beliefs is Iron Curtain secret-police evil.

    Captain Marcus on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I love the response to the report summary that just underlines the partisan nature of the CIA (among other things); a few single-column op-eds in GOP friendly newspapers and a counter 'report' that, despite a great bloating effort, they couldn't quite stretch to even 200 pages.

    Mostly it's just declaring that the 500 page summary is a waste of money and that Feinstein is a hypocrite, without speaking to any of the actual contents of the summary. Also that the report is full of Democrat lies, without mentioning which specific parts are actually the lies or offering any substantial rebuttal at all to try and set these apparently falsehoods straight.


    With Love and Courage
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    I can't even handle this shit

    What the everloving fuck

    Fucking monsters

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    For Muslims, the Qur’an is the Word of God, but not in the same way the Bible is for Christians. In fact, the best Christian analogy to the Qur’an is not a book at all; it is the person of Jesus Christ. For Christians, the Word became flesh: in Jesus Christ, God is encountered. For Muslims, the Word became text.

    Former detainees say (the Qur'an) has been handled with disrespect by guards and interrogators—written in, ripped or cut with scissors, squatted over, trampled, kicked, urinated and defecated on, picked up by a dog, tossed around like a ball, used to clean soldiers’ boots, and thrown in a bucket of excrement. A Russian ex-detainee, Timur Ishmuratov, remembers how it would be laid on the back of a handcuffed, bent-over prisoner, so that it would fall to the ground if he stood up. With just a Qur’an and a pair of handcuffs, a Muslim detainee could in this way be made to torture himself.

    At Gen. Miller’s Guantánamo, expressions of disrespect for religious practices grew into a kind of regimen. To interrupt prayers, guards made noise by striking things against the holding cages or playing loud rock music.
    From here
    NSFW
    (Erik) Saar was translating for a female Army interrogator who was having trouble getting information out of a young Saudi detainee named Fareek. She told Saar that she wanted to break the strength of Fareek’s relationship with God: “I think we should make him feel so fucking dirty that he can’t go back to his cell and spend the night praying. We have to put up a barrier between him and his God.” So she did a striptease. When Fareek wouldn’t look at her, she walked behind him and “began rubbing her breasts against his back.” According to Saar, she told Fareek that his sexual arousal offended God. Then she told him that she was having her period, and showed him her hand covered in what he thought was menstrual blood (it was red ink). She cursed him and wiped it on his face. As she and Saar left the room, she informed Fareek that the water to his cell would be shut off that night. Even if he managed to calm himself down, he would be too defiled to pray.
    During the trial of Abu Ghraib’s Specialist Charles Graner, ex-detainee Amin al-Sheikh reported that he had been compelled to eat pork and curse Allah. A Guantánamo detainee informed Capt. Yee that a group of prisoners had been forced to “bow down and prostrate” themselves inside a makeshift “satanic” shrine, where interrogators made them repeat that Satan, not Allah, was their God.

    DIRECTOR HAYDEN: “You recall the policy on which this is based, that we’re going to give him a burden that Allah says is too great for you to bear, so they can put the burden down.” (pg. 487)

    The goal was to create a burden so great that a person’s religious faith would be destroyed.

    This is unspeakable. If someone wants to martyr themselves on the field of battle, fine, but to force a captured prisoner to defile themselves in an attempt to destroy their religious beliefs is Iron Curtain secret-police evil.

    But it was totally not a Christian crusade, that last foray into the Persian Gulf.

    With Love and Courage
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    I read through the thread. I went to a Catholic school for many years and these stories all sound familiar. Teachers would tell us about martyrs to the faith, like that one priest who offered to take the spot of someone in a concentration camp. Or people killed because they simply want to pick the religion of their choice and refuse to denounce it. Not martyrs because they died fighting a war. Just standing for what they believe in. These stories sound like those stories. People mocked because of their religion, tortured, ridiculed, and treated like less than human. I wonder how people who claim to be so religious and doing this to help people can ignore the similarities. America, shame.

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I do hate how drone strikes are being compared to torture. Because while drone strikes are nebulous legal reasoning for extra judicial killing, they are in line with how america has dealt with "terrorists" in the modern age. I mean prior to drones it was cruise missiles and bombing campaigns, the method changes but its not like if we stopped using drones we'd stop blowing up our perceived enemies.

    And they are in no way comparable to torturing people I mean I never want to die, but I'll take being incinerated over being tortured every fucking day of the week.

    The problem with drone strikes is that they're attacking people on foreign soil without a declaration of war or the consent of the country it is taking place in.

    People in these countries affected by US drone strikes have come to fear blue skies because drones might be flying above them and they could be killed for nothing so much as being near (within a block) a suspected terrorist. They welcome rainy days because drones won't fly in bad weather.

  • RhahRhah Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    I thought this was the Onion at first and chuckled (obviously a play on an international ban on torture practices), until I realized its real.

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/cheney-calls-international-ban-torture-reports

    Wait is this just a funny magazine? It can't be real... I just re-read it...nvm its just satire. I are dumb.

    Rhah on
Sign In or Register to comment.