|
euphronius posted:Those question offer a flash hypothetical though and seem like push polling. I don't know what makes you think that declaring it illegal or legal would change people's position on whether it's okay or not.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Way more than 35 percent of Americans are pro-torture: Best argument for these people is that something like 1 in 5 of the people tortured were innocent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I don't know what makes you think that declaring it illegal or legal would change people's position on whether it's okay or not. Whatever. Ok not ok, legal not legal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Best argument for these people is that something like 1 in 5 of the people tortured were innocent. Takes balls to torture an innocent man!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
I hate to sound like a neocon here, but what was the Senate's rationale for not actually interviewing anybody? Seems like an odd decision unless nobody at the CIA or in the White House/DoJ was willing to talk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Takes balls to torture an innocent man!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I hate to sound like a neocon here, but what was the Senate's rationale for not actually interviewing anybody? Seems like an odd decision unless nobody at the CIA or in the White House/DoJ was willing to talk. From what I've been reading on Andrew Sullivan (say what you will about Sully, he's been consistently against torture) this is the rationale: quote:One of the ironies in this, of course, is that Hayden has been criticizing the Senate Report’s failure to interview the CIA torturers themselves, even though the Durham investigation legally precluded that for three years. But the Senate Report had an obvious alternative to such interviews: it had the CIA’s own internal documents, its very internal conversations, in which it is perfectly clear that as they were practicing torture, they knew what they were doing could not be described by anyone as “humane”. These documents alone are more than sufficient proof of the claims made in the report. They are definitive. More to the point, no documents were included from any other source – either to buttress or to contradict the findings. But in the Durham “investigation”, the torturers were interviewed but not the victims – a clearly rigged process designed to exculpate the war criminals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I hate to sound like a neocon here, but what was the Senate's rationale for not actually interviewing anybody? Seems like an odd decision unless nobody at the CIA or in the White House/DoJ was willing to talk. The way I heard it explained was that much of their work was concurrent with the DoJ's own investigation, and so no one was willing to talk to them for fear of self-incrimination. I think it's a red herring anyway though, considering the committee was reviewing the CIA's own internal documents that included assessments and reports about the process and results. e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I hate to sound like a neocon here, but what was the Senate's rationale for not actually interviewing anybody? Seems like an odd decision unless nobody at the CIA or in the White House/DoJ was willing to talk. "Investigators were not permitted to speak to the CIA interrogators because of concerns about disrupting a Justice Department inquiry then underway. Republicans on the committee withdrew from participating in the study because of the criminal inquiry." Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-torture-report-20141210-story.html#page=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
The DoJ investigation legally prohibited the Senate from conducting interviews? edit: Forgot how long this has been going on, didn't realize they took place concurrently I totally agree that the documents themselves are more than enough proof about what happened, but there's always more that doesn't make it into the documents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Best argument for these people is that something like 1 in 5 of the people tortured were innocent. 4 out of 5 were guilty, clearly the CIA was doing good work torturing them bastards 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:4 out of 5 were guilty, clearly the CIA was doing good work torturing them bastards Doing God's work 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
duz posted:Naw, it's running under the logic that to accept a pardon, you have to admit you committed a crime. It's kind of like how when Ford pardoned Nixon, Nixon's admission of guilt as part of the pardon caused all politicians' hearts to grow two sizes and ushered in a new era of transparency and good faith in governance. I don't understand how someone as smart as Anthony Romero believes something as utterly stupid as this. One real easy way to show everyone torture is Very Bad and Illegal is to make it a crime. Which we did long ago. And which did absolutely nothing to stop this. Pardoning these people would only make future rectal feeding enthusiasts even more sure they won't face consequences. Maybe in fifteen years the CIA officer will tell the detainee "Yeah I don't give a gently caress if you go to court, worst case is I get a pardon if everyone finds out what I did to you," instead of assuming there would be hell to pay if the public found out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Back in 2004. Chamale posted:Do you know how Gaddafi dealt with prison overcrowding during the Libyan Civil War? It involves a locked door, a can of gasoline, and a match. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Yes, I tortured people, I am guilty as hell. Now excuse me while I go ride my luxury yacht paid for by my government pension I got for torturing people. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:
The only rational explanation I can think of is a burnout, frustration, and meta-trolling ("Mr. Bush, if you think you didn't do anything wrong, why won't you accept a pardon?"). Or maybe the act of pardoning would make other nation's prosecutions easier somehow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
blowfish posted:4 out of 5 were guilty, clearly the CIA was doing good work torturing them bastards I know you're joking here, but really that data was "at least" 1/5th, which makes you wonder how many were just a guess, some horribly shoddy connection to insurgency/terrorism, or simply in the "we don't know if they're innocent  " category.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The only rational explanation I can think of is a burnout, frustration, and meta-trolling ("Mr. Bush, if you think you didn't do anything wrong, why won't you accept a pardon?"). Or maybe the act of pardoning would make other nation's prosecutions easier somehow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
In an effort to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the information in the report, CNN has brought on expert legal analyst John Yoo to offer his insight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:In an effort to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the information in the report, CNN has brought on expert legal analyst John Yoo to offer his insight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:In an effort to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the information in the report, CNN has brought on expert legal analyst John Yoo to offer his insight. You're joking right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
John Yoo posted:I was swayed by the fact that our military used waterboarding in training thousands of its own soldiers without harm, and that the CIA would use the technique only on top Al Qaeda leaders thought to have actionable information on pending plots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
john yoo explained his strategy for appearing slick in interviews to me: government types are generally given a set of 2 or 3 talking points to repeat with different wording, and journalists (and stewart) know this, so if you anticipate what talking points the journos are expecting in advance just completely talk around it and talk about something that they don't expect, but make it sound like you're answering their question. please tell me if he deploys this strategy on CNN, or if he's refined it (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Watch, the existance of http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf will become a talking point about how this is what our military does everyday or some bullshit like that. gently caress Yoo.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
So, how would someone apply for a job at one of these CIA torture sites? How do you get yourself in that situation? If we're going to have an evil gravy train, may as well be on it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:46
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So, how would someone apply for a job at one of these CIA torture sites? How do you get yourself in that situation? If we're going to have an evil gravy train, may as well be on it! https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/index.html Probably somewhere in clandestine services. CIA posted:The CIA’s Clandestine Service is the cutting-edge of American Intelligence. It is an elite corps, providing vital information needed by US policymakers, the military and law enforcement services to protect the national security interests of the American people. For the extraordinary person who wants more than just a job, the Clandestine Service offers a unique career — a way of life that challenges the deepest resources of an individual’s intelligence, self reliance and responsibility. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
So after reading yoo's op-ed can we go back to talking about his execution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So, how would someone apply for a job at one of these CIA torture sites? How do you get yourself in that situation? If we're going to have an evil gravy train, may as well be on it! According to the report snippets, try being a convicted rapist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Accidentally posted this in the USpol thread. I think it's pretty clever, if not a little cynical. Ironically, a pardon for those purposes would be some Nixon level political judo. If you're operating under the assumption that no one will be tried, then isn't this the best solution? This way it is acknowledged that what was done was illegal, and everyone who is pardoned is forever marked as having committed a crime. For guys like Bush and Cheney, they have loving everything they could ever want in this life and get to exist in a delusional bubble where they can believe history will vindicate them. Tarring them with a pardon for war crimes is the best punishment realistically possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I was listening to Catholic radio this morning because I figure Catholics are against torture, so this will be reasonable right? Yes, torture is defined by the Catholic church as "intrinsically evil" meaning that there can be no justification even a ticking time bomb scenario. It's been condemned by the USCCB in no uncertain terms, quote:As Bishop Oscar Cantú chair of the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said: “The Catholic Church firmly believes that torture is an ‘intrinsic evil’ that cannot be justified under any circumstance. The acts of torture described in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report violated the God-given human dignity inherent in all people and were unequivocally wrong.” but you may have noticed that US Christians will almost always choose political party over church doctrine and Fox News over Magisterium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:john yoo explained his strategy for appearing slick in interviews to me: government types are generally given a set of 2 or 3 talking points to repeat with different wording, and journalists (and stewart) know this, so if you anticipate what talking points the journos are expecting in advance just completely talk around it and talk about something that they don't expect, but make it sound like you're answering their question. please tell me if he deploys this strategy on CNN, or if he's refined it On the News Hour today, their guest objected to the term "torture" so for the rest of the discussion both sides referred only to "EITs" (enhanced interrogation techniques).  Awesome work NPR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
They should ask how murder is an interrogation technique.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So, how would someone apply for a job at one of these CIA torture sites? How do you get yourself in that situation? If we're going to have an evil gravy train, may as well be on it! Judging by the number of anal enthusiasts and diaper fetishists they employ, just try sending them your fetlife profile. Probably want to list some super extreme kinks to show you're serious, butt stuff is getting pretty mainstream these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Papercut posted:On the News Hour today, their guest objected to the term "torture" so for the rest of the discussion both sides referred only to "EITs" (enhanced interrogation techniques). If it's the segment I was listening to, the guy was such a hack that he tried to say that there wasn't anything even going on past 2004, even though that's explicitly false based on the CIA documentation for years afterwards in the report.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Papercut posted:On the News Hour today, their guest objected to the term "torture" so for the rest of the discussion both sides referred only to "EITs" (enhanced interrogation techniques). Should have gone "OK, how about 'rectal feeding' instead?". Because Jesus Christ, guys. In fact, I'm not sure there are many defences for the CIA's actions that can't be countered by repeating 'rectal feeding' over and over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:The options are either tacit pardons or explicit pardons. Explicit pardons signify guilt, whereas tacit pardons leave the question of guilt open. Thats all he's got; he's just acknowledged that nothing else is going to come of this. That's the part I don't get from Romero. The ACLU's stock in trade is principled stands in the face of long odds because you don't compromise on basic rights. This position is like him saying "you know we really don't like capital punishment, so if it's painless and you let the 'tards live, okay I guess." The ACLU isn't supposed to throw in the towel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
mds2 posted:What exactly would they do? Murder a family member of a US Congressman? I dont see that happening. They murdered a sitting US president, sooooo....
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
joeburz posted:If it's the segment I was listening to, the guy was such a hack that he tried to say that there wasn't anything even going on past 2004, even though that's explicitly false based on the CIA documentation for years afterwards in the report. On top of Peter King claiming that nobody was permanently harmed under torture, either these people didn't bother reading even a summary of the summary or they figure they can just flat-out lie and "win the news cycle" among people who want to believe them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:On top of Peter King claiming that nobody was permanently harmed under torture, either these people didn't bother reading even a summary of the summary or they figure they can just flat-out lie and "win the news cycle" among people who want to believe them. Well yeah they assume that because it has proven to be true many times, especially with regards to national security issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
District Selectman posted:I think it's pretty clever, if not a little cynical. Ironically, a pardon for those purposes would be some Nixon level political judo. If you're operating under the assumption that no one will be tried, then isn't this the best solution? This way it is acknowledged that what was done was illegal, and everyone who is pardoned is forever marked as having committed a crime. It's not really "tarring" when the only people who will take it that way are people who already don't like them anyway. Every CIA agent who gets a preemptive pardon from Obama will go on Fox talking about how it's really a badge of honor and if the usurper in chief thinks I shouldn't have protected the country, well that's his problem. People who care about torture will continue to think it is wrong. Nothing changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:36
|
|
