|
Party Plane Jones posted:How exactly is Guantanamo a secret CIA prison? There's a secret CIV prison inside the non-secret military one. Also an interesting note that the APA had already pointed out these psychologists aren't APA members and they would kick out any members who helped torture: http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/texas-mitchell-letter.pdf The letter is of course dated 2010.
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh look (I already knew this but), psychologists implicated in profoundly unethical government collusion again? What's that? Psychology isn't rigorous enough to define its own ethical standards? I guess you have a point. As the APA letter from 2010 I posted earlier pointed out, had these "psychologist" been a member of the professional association for psychologists they would have clearly violated the ethics guidelines and been kicked out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah and you get to stroll around and be one anyway. And there are doctors acting like that too, heck they were at the black sites as well. This isn't the case for pushing your agenda on this one, except in so much as the CIA will hire anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Barack Obama is complicit with the grossest crimes imaginable. This has turned into an IRL goatse joke. What presidents other than Carter would you place on the list of "not complicit with the grossest crimes imaginable" or is the butt part worse than everything else ever?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Garlic and hummus up the rear end, ouch That's bad and all, but really is it worse than the internment camps, the fact we anally probe our own citizens, or giving black people STDs just for "science"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:The past is a foreign country. This is here and now. Well then the anal-feedings occurred in a foreign country then! Obama stopped them remember.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
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). That's PBS, but  awesmoe posted:It removes the defense of "well the obama administration didn't think it was a crime, and thats why we in the clinton-2 administration feel confident that ramming feeding tubes up asses is a legal and acceptable enhanced interrogation technique". Yeah a pardon is something actually doable that at least officially categorizes what happened as crimes. See Nixon's library if you think it wasn't effective.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 03:47
|
|
Awesome work NPR.
|
It appears from the report most of the interrogators were ex-CIA hired by the psychologist contractors. So, join the CIA and then decide that working for the CIA isn't extreme enough for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:More like "and then become 'subcontracted' to add more layers of obfuscation" Oh sure, but if you want the actual job of torturing people you need to be ex-CIA and connected in the right circles. However, there are lots of jobs where you'd get to help torture people, with opportunities in every career field!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
This is the reason no one is going to go to jail: "If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts, or reviewing evidence gained from past experience." Oh man this bit is even better: VF posted:However, the conflict even exceeded the multiple roles played by the psychologists. Ultimately, according to the report, the C.I.A.’s Office of Medical Services raised concerns that the conflicts of interest were “nowhere more graphic than in the setting in which the same individuals applied an [enhanced interrogation technique] which only they were approved to employ, judged both its effectiveness and detainee resilience, and implicitly proposed continued use of the technique—at a daily compensation reported to be $1800/day, or four times that of interrogators who could not use the technique.” Why yes, this thing that I authorize only myself to do and pays $1800 a day is totally working! Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Of course there's a link to the Contras:quote:In the 1980s, a CIA officer devised an interrogation manual for the use of the U.S.-backed contras fighting the government of Nicaragua, which included the use of violence to elicit information. The CIA’s inspector general recommended that the officer be admonished for inappropriate use of interrogation techniques. It appears from the Senate report that this same man became the officer in charge of CIA interrogations in 2002.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
For those angry that Obama isn't prosecuting anyone, would you be ok if he did prosecute some people and they were all found innocent?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Is there a point to this question? Obviously no, most people would not be okay with that, but they would be a lot more okay with it than with no prosecutions at all. The reason I raise the question is because that's why the DoJ chose not to prosecute. They didn't think they could get convictions. Which, knowing the amount of defensive evidence the Bush administration left, I'd believe it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Papercut posted:That's the stated reason for why they didn't prosecute. Based on this report, I don't believe that reason. But even if you think it's a weak case, for the country's standing in the international community and just as a statement of moral condemnation, bringing charges is important. In your mind who should they charge then? The torturers themselves? The psychologists running the program? John Yoo? President Bush? Everyone involved from the person who blended the hummus on up? If you think the lack of indictments would sour international relations, imagine how our courts officially determining that this wasn't torture would go over.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wonder where, exactly, future historians will say "here, this point, is where Americans abandoned the rule of law." July 4, 1776  More seriously, when after that point would you say we adopted the rule of law?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:They knew what they were doing was terrible and illegal. There's more than enough culpability to prosecute every single one of those assholes. You realize they were told explicitly that what they were doing wasn't illegal and the DoJ wrote out the legal reasoning why it was legal right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:They were told that what they were doing was explicitly illegal both domestically and internationally, but could be considered justifiable under domestic law due to "a novel application of the necessity defense". Papercut posted:C'mon man, this is only 12 pages into the report, which I'm assuming you've read since you're so engaged in this debate. I'm not trying to argue that it was actually legal. Just that they were told it was legal enough. Which would make the court case all the worse for the Obama administration. That's my point, that the nature of the Bush administration's attempts at muddying the legal waters were sufficient to make any prosecution at best a pyrrhic victory. Kazak_Hstan posted:
Well, yes if you can hire the DoJ to be your lawyer you can get away with a lot more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Except that the report found that CIA heads misled the DoJ as to what was going on and CIA staff went beyond the boundaries set by the DoJ in the first place. Yes of course the criminals would attempt to defend themselves and would argue that they were just following orders, that's a truism and adds nothing to the discussion. That doesn't mean they've got a bulletproof case that would convince a jury, let alone that it's a reason not to attempt to prosecute them at all. Right, so why are you punishing some poor med-tech (who threw up afterwards btw and only did it for god and country) for what the leadership of the CIA did? The med-tech didn't know the DoJ had been lied to. Etc etc. ActusRhesus explanation and mine aren't exclusive. In fact, they work in concert. The right-wing blowup over a trial would help fuel the media circus that would get people talking about Dronsey and Friends. How can you not see that Fox would love nothing more than to turn a trial into "Defenders of America versus Anti-American Academic Obama"? These brave Americans, at great person cost, did what had to be done to save America from Terrorists. Meanwhile Obama gets to stay in his comfy office, go on Colbert and kill Americans with the touch of a button. Its pure ratings bliss for the conservative talking heads. Expect to see a lot of Ollie North, someone else "unfairly" punished for "political" crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 23:21
|
|
) to make it seem as if Obama's hands were tied, when in fact ActusRhesus explanation is a far, far more compelling explanation for his actions.
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I don't actually expect a prosecution, given the last three or four decades crystallizing the unaccountability of the powerful. However, in a fantasy world where presidents had principles and attorneys general had spines, I see a prosecution offering more than a pyrrhic victory. For one thing, OLC memos don't carry the force of law For another, assuming a prosecution survived past a motion to dismiss, whether there was a conviction or not, there is immense value in the people involved in this sitting on a witness stand and being examined under oath, in the open. Finally, again assuming we got beyond a motion to dismiss, the utterly graphic and depraved facts of the case would carry far more weight than legal memoranda using adventurous interpretations of fairly unambiguous statutes, but in the eyes of a finder of fact and the public. I'll be interested to see in a few years once people start talking about the investigation from the DoJ side. You may be right that this is all weak-willed political poo poo, but I just have a strong feeling that the CIA and Bush administration weren't so dumb as to not give themselves as many ways out as they can. And those real risks of "not guilty" combined with the political side were designed to make prosecution by future presidents a non-starter. Vermain posted:Do you believe that prison guards at Nazi concentration camps deserved to be prosecuted? Why or why not? But see, you want justice from America. That's your problem right there. When was a time that America was actually about justice? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Papercut posted:And I have a strong feeling that you will be defending the Obama administration's actions no matter what evidence or facts may exist in the public realm. It's fun having feelings. Nah, if it turns out it was as good a case as US Attorneys usually brings and they dropped it for political/drama reasons, I'd be pretty pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yes, but mostly because of solitary confinement in us prisons. This is what frustrates me most about the report. It sounds like a collection of cases from a state prison system.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:I agree with that 100%. Those who argued that are incorrect. My view is that we should not vote for these guys because they are war criminals and human rights abusers. You should probably stop paying taxes then, this country was proudly built by war criminals and human rights abusers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Democrats are terrible because they are not actually leftists hope this helps Indeed, it would be impossible for a party of actual leftists to ever win majority support in a first-past-the-post America. Thesaurasaurus posted:Yeah, but when you go back far enough, this describes most countries on Earth today, so with "go somewhere else" not an option for escaping vicarious guilt it'd really be nice to know how to un-gently caress this country, right now, instead of succumbing to existential despair or accepting some minimum level of systemic atrocity as just the cost of doing business. I'm just pointing out that if one thinks they can wash their hands of American war crimes and human rights abuses just by voting green/libertarian, there's a lot more they have to do to untangle themselves from America. Like start by not paying your taxes. In fact, there are a few good essays about this very concept.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The only thing worse than never ending war crimes is the other team winning! Because Republicans winning would end war crimes?  Or are you just eagerly accelerationist at this point?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Well right now the two party's thoughts on interrogation are "lol butt stuff" or "gently caress questions, just blow up their wedding." Even if you vote Nader till you die you'll still be complicit in all those things you hate. Just because I didn't vote for Bush doesn't mean my tax dollars didn't help pay for butt-hummus. Besides, I'm pretty sure Climate Denialism is a far-far worse crime against humanity in the long run. Yeah it sucks we tortured a few hundred foreigners. It sucks more we torture thousands of Americans every year in our prisons. But it pales in comparison to the abject human misery we're adding onto the world by delaying action on Climate Change.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:I'm an expatriate, so I don't pay US taxes. I'm sure your new country is war-crimes free since ____ 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The CIA tortured 40,000 Vietnamese civilians to death between 1965 and 1972. That is loving crazy to me and I had no idea. And yet people say America isn't improving.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:
Still better than Dresden!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Instead of disbanding the CIA, why not aim for a more achievable target? Name and remove torture participants. It is somewhat overlooked that the people who did this are largely still with the agency. They've promoted up, they should now be in management positions. One reason it's certain this will happen again is that people who did it will be quite literally running the place. I mean we already know the names of the two "psychologists" who designed the protocols, the methods, the facilities and even let the torture themselves. What exactly are we going to do with that information? Also, according to the senate report aren't the vast majority of actual torturers ex-CIA torture contractors instead of CIA employees? Free enterprise 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Who says crime doesn't pay? (Edit: you may know him as CIA Officer 1, but you can call him Matthew) Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
My Rhythmic Crotch posted:I wish I knew what was going on behind closed doors in Washington. On the one hand Obama issued the EO to ban "EIT" almost as soon as he took office and so he thinks it is a Very Bad Thing, on the other hand he doesn't want to hold anyone accountable. Is he just too good of buddies with Brennan? Is he scared of his legacy getting tarnished by the ensuing shitstorm hearings and trials would cause? Is he worried his precious drone program would come under similar fire? I mean those are legit concerns (I guess?) but drat. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/torture-truth quote:The 1975 Church Committee report, which was conducted following revelations of, among other things, covert operations to assassinate foreign leaders, was, until now, the best-known public airing of C.I.A. practices. According to Loch K. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia, who was a special assistant to Senator Frank Church, its findings were broadly accepted across the political spectrum. “No one challenged it,” he said. By contrast, the new report, even before it was released, came under attack from Republicans, including Dick Cheney, who, although he hadn’t read it, called it “full of crap.” Senator Mitch McConnell, the incoming majority leader, castigated it as “ideologically motivated and distorted.” John Cornyn, the second-highest-ranking Republican in the Senate, argued that C.I.A. officers should not be criticized but, rather, “thanked.”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
MariusLecter posted:And it turns out that the family we sent tapes of their screaming retarded son being tortured got them to confess about that ticking bomb and saved all those people and the torturers got medals and we threw a parade. Remember? "We will never know exactly how many lives torturing a few of the worst terrorists in the world saved." ~ What people actually believe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 03:58
|
|