Senate Report on CIA Torture

[Mountaineer]

Interesting perspective from a poster on another forum I read:

... Mountaineer

Years ago in these threads we had a debate about the definition of "torture" and what practices should be included under the definition. The word is key to the emotional impact of the debate. It does no good to say, "You are guilty of depriving terrorists of sleep!" You have to first define that as torture, then ditch the qualifications and say, "You are a torturer," so that there is no distinction between what the CIA was doing and what might have been happening in the Tower of London back in the day. It is the same thing as referring to unwanted kissing as rape-- it gets the point across at the expense of clarity. I always go back to the movie Mississippi Burning, in which the Gene Hackman character resorts to what today would be called torture to beat the KKK. He cuts one man, beats another senseless, orchestrates a mock lynching to terrify another into talking, and behaves as an all-around bully to the poor klan members. Is he is a hero? A monster deserving of a prison sentence? A tough cop who may have gone too far in a good cause? It is hard to make a blanket condemnation of the Hackman character because we believe wholly in the purity of his cause and the evilness of the KKK. But in movies or stories where the cop does the same sorts of things but is not necessarily on the side of the good and the pure and his victims not visibly in league with Satan, we see a lot of ambiguity and even cruelty in actions like the cop in Mississippi Burning took. Similarly, those who believe in the rightness of the American cause and the pure evil of Jihad have a more difficult time condemning the CIA without qualification, while those who think America isn't so right and pure and Jihad not so abjectly Satanic seem to have no trouble condemning the CIA in unqualified terms. 

What would be genuinely helpful as an alternative to blanket condemnations would be a set of proposals. We catch a terrorist plotting an attack and we know he is a key part of a network planning more attacks. What shall we do? Let him go? If not, what can do beyond asking him nicely to get him to share the information that we know he has and that could very likely save many lives? Anything at all? And if we can do anything at all to get him to talk, what would you say for yourself if what you just approved was later determined by other people to be torture? Because that is, I think, the situation many of these interrogators involved in water-boarding or sleep deprivation techniques find themselves in. They weren't saying torture is okay, they just didn't think they were really torturing.   

[stone]

Anyway, the "war" with radical Islam is very different from say beating Japan and Germany in WWII. The conflict with radical Islam can only be won by stemming the flow of new recruits to radical Islam. There is a vast as yet untapped pool of potential recruits to radical Islam. If we behave badly enough we could see a vast increase in the level of attacks.

It also seems to me weirdly disconnected to make the claim that radical Islam sprang out of nowhere due to people randomly wanting to pick a fight with the west. Their countries are full of/encircled by western military bases. They have despotic puppet rulers kept in power by us. Radical Islam hasn't picked a fight with say Japan have they? But I'm sure that if Japan had won WWII and so had an empire, then Japan would be the one suffering attacks. I'm not saying that radical Islam has ANY redeeming features; I'm just saying that it is a monster induced at least partly by us and we are in a position to either cause it to snowball or fizzle out.

We have no ability to stop the flow of incoming recruits to the radical ideologies.  Only Islam itself, can purge these factions from its religion.  I tend to think the religion is so fundamentally flawed, that this won't be possible in my lifetime.

I do however believe that it's our government's responsibility to protect its citizens by using aggressive intel measures to play defense, and minimize radical Islam's affect.  Essentially, make it very hard for Islamic terrorists to do business and kill people.

I don't think radical Islam as a terrorist movement has much to do with Islam as a religion. Mainstream Islam has already purged radical Islam out of its fold. Historically Islam brought civilization back to Europe in medieval times. The early Caliphates were beacons of religious tolerance and scientific and artistic advancement.

I'm very confident that if we were to act sufficiently badly against ANY group of people anywhere in the world, then some "radical whatever" terrorist movement would bubble up. The Islamic world simply has the misfortune to be where the oil is and we feel that is cause for us to stomp about there as a result. If the oil was in say India and we acted there as we have done in the Arab world and Iran then I've no doubt we would have "radical Hinduism" or whatever.

IMO if we choose to start torturing willy-nilly and label major religions as "fundamentally flawed", then we will descend into a vortex of barbarism. The only way out is to not give people good cause to hate us. It will never be possible to make terrorism unfeasible by act of force. Anyone in the street could turn around and gouge the next person's eyes out. If you induce enough hate, hate will always find a way.

[stone]

Interesting perspective from a poster on another forum I read:

... Mountaineer

Years ago in these threads we had a debate about the definition of "torture" and what practices should be included under the definition. The word is key to the emotional impact of the debate. It does no good to say, "You are guilty of depriving terrorists of sleep!" You have to first define that as torture, then ditch the qualifications and say, "You are a torturer," so that there is no distinction between what the CIA was doing and what might have been happening in the Tower of London back in the day. It is the same thing as referring to unwanted kissing as rape-- it gets the point across at the expense of clarity. I always go back to the movie Mississippi Burning, in which the Gene Hackman character resorts to what today would be called torture to beat the KKK. He cuts one man, beats another senseless, orchestrates a mock lynching to terrify another into talking, and behaves as an all-around bully to the poor klan members. Is he is a hero? A monster deserving of a prison sentence? A tough cop who may have gone too far in a good cause? It is hard to make a blanket condemnation of the Hackman character because we believe wholly in the purity of his cause and the evilness of the KKK. But in movies or stories where the cop does the same sorts of things but is not necessarily on the side of the good and the pure and his victims not visibly in league with Satan, we see a lot of ambiguity and even cruelty in actions like the cop in Mississippi Burning took. Similarly, those who believe in the rightness of the American cause and the pure evil of Jihad have a more difficult time condemning the CIA without qualification, while those who think America isn't so right and pure and Jihad not so abjectly Satanic seem to have no trouble condemning the CIA in unqualified terms. 

What would be genuinely helpful as an alternative to blanket condemnations would be a set of proposals. We catch a terrorist plotting an attack and we know he is a key part of a network planning more attacks. What shall we do? Let him go? If not, what can do beyond asking him nicely to get him to share the information that we know he has and that could very likely save many lives? Anything at all? And if we can do anything at all to get him to talk, what would you say for yourself if what you just approved was later determined by other people to be torture? Because that is, I think, the situation many of these interrogators involved in water-boarding or sleep deprivation techniques find themselves in. They weren't saying torture is okay, they just didn't think they were really torturing.   

Water boarding, forcing people stand for extended periods with broken feet and stuffing detainees rectums to the point of prolapse seems pretty clear cut to me.
Someone on the radio who had been waterboarded in WWII Japan and who also had had fingernails pulled out there said the water boarding was at least as bad an experience.

[Mountaineer]

Hopefully, no one has misunderstood my posts.  I think torture in just about any form is wrong, whether to humans or animals.  I also happen to think it is important why and how the "sin" of torturing is confessed and to and by whom.  To me, the key question is "Were any US laws broken?"  If so, prosecute the presumed guilty according to our justice system, if not and you think we should have different laws, work peacefully to change them.  As another poster said, it is very easy for us to get on our high horses and arm-chair quarterback after the fact; it is not quite so easy when one is in the midst of a new and horrendous situation to always make good decisions.  To me, this whole reporting mess, years after the fact, smacks of jockeying for political advantage moreso than engaging in a quest for understanding, truth, and justice.  Sorry.

... Mountaineer

[clacy]

I don't think radical Islam as a terrorist movement has much to do with Islam as a religion. Mainstream Islam has already purged radical Islam out of its fold. Historically Islam brought civilization back to Europe in medieval times. The early Caliphates were beacons of religious tolerance and scientific and artistic advancement.

I'm very confident that if we were to act sufficiently badly against ANY group of people anywhere in the world, then some "radical whatever" terrorist movement would bubble up. The Islamic world simply has the misfortune to be where the oil is and we feel that is cause for us to stomp about there as a result. If the oil was in say India and we acted there as we have done in the Arab world and Iran then I've no doubt we would have "radical Hinduism" or whatever.

IMO if we choose to start torturing willy-nilly and label major religions as "fundamentally flawed", then we will descend into a vortex of barbarism. The only way out is to not give people good cause to hate us. It will never be possible to make terrorism unfeasible by act of force. Anyone in the street could turn around and gouge the next person's eyes out. If you induce enough hate, hate will always find a way.

I couldn't disagree more with this. 

[stone]

I don't think radical Islam as a terrorist movement has much to do with Islam as a religion. Mainstream Islam has already purged radical Islam out of its fold. Historically Islam brought civilization back to Europe in medieval times. The early Caliphates were beacons of religious tolerance and scientific and artistic advancement.

I'm very confident that if we were to act sufficiently badly against ANY group of people anywhere in the world, then some "radical whatever" terrorist movement would bubble up. The Islamic world simply has the misfortune to be where the oil is and we feel that is cause for us to stomp about there as a result. If the oil was in say India and we acted there as we have done in the Arab world and Iran then I've no doubt we would have "radical Hinduism" or whatever.

IMO if we choose to start torturing willy-nilly and label major religions as "fundamentally flawed", then we will descend into a vortex of barbarism. The only way out is to not give people good cause to hate us. It will never be possible to make terrorism unfeasible by act of force. Anyone in the street could turn around and gouge the next person's eyes out. If you induce enough hate, hate will always find a way.

I couldn't disagree more with this.

Are you saying that what is needed is for mainstream Islam to condemn the terrorists and then the terrorists would no longer gain recruits and support and that such a condemnation has not been forthcoming? Does this sort of thing (of which there have been a steady flow ever since the start) not count?:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... ainst.html

More than 120 Muslim leaders and scholars have co-signed an open letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, arguing the Islamic State caliphate's establishment and practices are not legitimate in Islam. The letter includes a technical point-by-point criticism of ISIS' actions and ideology based on the Quran and classical religious texts. From Religion News Service:

Even translated into English, the letter will still sound alien to most Americans, said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, who released it in Washington with 10 other American Muslim religious and civil rights leaders.
“The letter is written in Arabic. It is using heavy classical religious texts and classical religious scholars that ISIS has used to mobilize young people to join its forces,”? said Awad, using one of the acronyms for the group. “This letter is not meant for a liberal audience.”?
The 18-page letter's thorough catalogue of the transgressions of ISIS "relies completely upon the statements and actions of followers of the ‘Islamic State’ as they themselves have promulgated in social media—or upon Muslim eyewitness accounts—and not upon other media," it says, a move meant to forestall criticism that ISIS has been misrepresented by Westerners. From the English translation of the letter:

The word ‘jihad’ is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; this much is a firmly established principle...Moreover, there are two kinds of jihad in Islam: the greater jihad, which is the jihad (struggle) against one’s ego; and the lesser jihad, the jihad (struggle) against the enemy. 
In truth, it is clear that you and your fighters are fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad. No truthful person following events—friend or foe—can deny this. However, jihad without legitimate cause, legitimate goals, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention is not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality.
The letter is not the first instance of ISIS being denounced by Islamic scholars. The 21 senior clerics of Saudi Arabia labeled terrorism a "heinous crime" in a recent fatwa, or legal ruling, and the country has been increasingly vocal in its opposition to ISIS. The influential Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, a native of Mauritania who teaches in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa of his own condemning the establishment of a caliphate by force. Bin Bayyah's words—"We must declare war on war so the outcome will be peace upon peace"—were cited by President Obama in his speech on Wednesday to the United Nations General Assembly

Also, it seems that all of this torture failed to provide any useful information anyway:

The report said that 20 of the best gets the CIA claimed came from rough interrogation turned out to be canards in one way or another. But even if they got the occasional hit from this stuff, it's clear that on the whole, it wasted even the interrogators' time more than it helped them. And that's before we even get into the issue of how this behavior damages our credibility worldwide, makes subsequent attacks more likely, and imperils our own soldiers who may be captured by enemies. It's wrong and dumb, classically representative of modern American antiterror policy.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3LfyAPei7
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[stone]

Whenever I hear a "the ends justify the means" type argument I think of this:
https://faustoaarya.wordpress.com/2010/ ... means-end/

Although we can choose our ends, we do not have much control over it – we cannot know in advance whether these ends will be achieved. The only thing that is completely within our control is therefore the means with which we approach our various ends. It is not the end that we can work with but only means. Different means will lead to different ends. This is not to say that both violence and non-violence cannot both lead to the independence of a country, but that the country thus created will be one based on violence if the means are violent and pacific if the means are non-violent. Violence and non-violence cannot be different means to secure the same end; since they are morally different in quality and essence, they must necessarily achieve different results. The progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of the means. “They say ‘means are after all means.’ I would say, says Gandhi, ‘means are after all everything. “As the means so the end.”?

[Benko]

I don't think radical Islam as a terrorist movement has much to do with Islam as a religion.

Since you are discussing Islam and "religion" is it worth noting that we consider any religion to be something one does e.g. one or few times a week, and the rest of the time we "go about our lives".  That is not what islam is and to think of Islam as a religion as we use to word is to grossly misunderstand (which is convenient e.g. I'm sure CAIR approves, but incorrect). Islam is a religion and a political philosophy and how to live your life, etc. 

[WiseOne]

I've been out of the country for a few days, so it was quite fun coming back to all the news including the new senate report, another near government shutdown etc.  Never a dull moment around here!

The Wall Street Journal apple tv channel included interviews with John Brennan and John Yoo, the latter being of course the chief legal architect of the Bush administration's more questionable policies - including this one.  He was falling all over himself complaining about the type of research that was done, the way the report was presented etc.  However, they were all dancing around the one rather simple point:  the fact that torture was used on prisoners and that this fact has done immeasurable damage to the U.S.'s claimed position as the world's chief defender of human rights.

One point that was made by the WSJ commentators:  the "enhanced" interrogation techniques (boy is THAT a euphemism and a half) were used in place of the standard techniques in the Army field manual.  Thus there is no reason to think that standard techniques wouldn't have served just as well.  And because they weren't tried first, it certainly looks like the torture was more about revenge than about gaining information.

The report is ugly, no doubt about that, but the fact that it's being aired now may ultimately benefit the U.S...just think, if say Saudia Arabia tortured prisoners would a report like this ever come out?  Certainly not!!

[stone]

I don't think radical Islam as a terrorist movement has much to do with Islam as a religion.

Since you are discussing Islam and "religion" is it worth noting that we consider any religion to be something one does e.g. one or few times a week, and the rest of the time we "go about our lives".  That is not what islam is and to think of Islam as a religion as we use to word is to grossly misunderstand (which is convenient e.g. I'm sure CAIR approves, but incorrect). Islam is a religion and a political philosophy and how to live your life, etc.

I've never heard any religious leader say that we ought to keep our religion as a seperate compartment distinct from how we "go about our lives". I'm not religious but I went to a Catholic school and I hear the "thought for the day" on BBC radio4 most days (it is a 5minute sermon from a different Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, Sikh, Hindu etc preacher of various different stripes each day). Quite often these preachers say the precise opposit of what you are suggesting. They exhort us to live our wider lives in a manner guided by their religious beliefs.

I just googled and got this:

Question: "How do I live my life for God?"

Answer: God has given us some very clear instructions in His Word as to how we are to live for Him. These include the command to love one another (John 13:34-35), the call to follow Him at the cost of denying our own desires (Matthew 16:24), the exhortation to care for the poor and needy (James 1:27), and the warning to not fall into sinful behaviors like those who don’t know God (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8). Jesus summed up a life lived for God when a teacher of the law asked Him the most important of commandments. Jesus replied, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these”? (Mark 12:29-31).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/live-life-f ... z3LhQg0YAM

I'm genuinely baffled by the anti-Islamic sentiment aired on here. Don't you guys have workmates or neighbors or whatever who are muslims? Can you really square those first hand experiences with this kind of "Islam in fundamental flawed" type of views?

[Pointedstick]

I'm genuinely baffled by the anti-Islamic sentiment aired on here. Don't you guys have workmates or neighbors or whatever who are muslims? Can you really square those first hand experiences with this kind of "Islam in fundamental flawed" type of views?

Probably not. The percentage of the population that follows Islam is much higher in the UK than in the USA, so your likely personal experiences are not representative of those of the average American. That said, I have had Muslim colleagues and friends in the past and none of them were jihadi terrorists-in-training.

[Benko]

Stone,

1.  You are equating christianity and what it says about daily life with Islam.  You are basing this on theory and your experience.  This analogy is orders of magnitude off but the reality of Isalm is beyond your experience.  And I don't know that christianity directs countries on politics and such.  Islam most certainly does.

2.  If I worked with 1000 peaceful Moslems that does not invalidate thousands of years of history and the qu..r..a..n.  As I happens I work with people from all over the world included the worlds nicest guy who is a follower of Islam.  OTOH I had a former colleague (another MD FWIW) who was a follower of islam and when those cartoons came out with pics of Allah I remember him talking about the issue.  I could easily imagine him being involved in bombing something.

[stone]

Stone,

1.  You are equating christianity and what it says about daily life with Islam.  You are basing this on theory and your experience.  This analogy is orders of magnitude off but the reality of Isalm is beyond your experience.  And I don't know that christianity directs countries on politics and such.  Islam most certainly does.

2.  If I worked with 1000 peaceful Moslems that does not invalidate thousands of years of history and the qu..r..a..n.  As I happens I work with people from all over the world included the worlds nicest guy who is a follower of Islam.  OTOH I had a former colleague (another MD FWIW) who was a follower of islam and when those cartoons came out with pics of Allah I remember him talking about the issue.  I could easily imagine him being involved in bombing something.

The UK is suposedly ruled by the head of the Church of England http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queen ... gland.aspx . Like pretty much everything here, in reality just lip service is played to that official Church-State connection but in the past the connection was extremely strong. The monarch had authority that was dependent on being approved by the Church. The Catholic Church used to hold tremendous power in Countries such as Spain until well into the 20thC. Let's not overlook the Crusades and the inquisition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.

The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave.

Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' decision to found the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos, profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics, reducing social tensions, and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column.

The body was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabella II, after a period of declining influence in the previous century.

[Benko]

The crusades?  If you google "why did the crusades happen?" the first link is:

The Crusades happened when they did, because the Muslims had taken the holy city of Jerusalem in the seventh century.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Cr ... n_they_did

So the crusades were a reaction to what the Muslims had done.

[stone]

The crusades?  If you google "why did the crusades happen?" the first link is:

The Crusades happened when they did, because the Muslims had taken the holy city of Jerusalem in the seventh century.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Cr ... n_they_did

So the crusades were a reaction to what the Muslims had done.

I was simply meaning that they are an example of Christianity directing people to do something beyond worshipping. I wasn't getting into whether they were good or not.

[moda0306]

Of course some, if not many, of the democrats are "jockeying for political advantage" over this issue.  That's what politics is. 

I'm finding it amazing all of the distracting debates that pop up in people's heads (that normally consider themselves "small government") when torture is brought up.

"It's a complex world.  They didn't apologize right.  They were terrorists (I think), anwyay.  Islam is royally f'ked up."

I've never felt more justified in my snarky statist accusations towards many so-called "small-government" conservatives and fair-weather libertarians.  Not that they're uniquely deserving of blame, but they've got the same blood on their hands as other "statist" that don't like torture but prefer welfare.

Look, this isn't the worst thing that has happened in the history of government, but I think it is safe to say that at least one of the men who was tortured was completely innocent of what he had been accused of for being detained in the first place, and didn't know what they wanted him to know.  I'm not asking anyone to be outraged (just like Benghazi wasn't unique, and wasn't worthy of losing your f*king mind unless you want to get in the habit of doing that every year for the rest of your life).  But let's look at what is wrong here, and discuss it on some reasonable merits.  Is it wrong?  Is it useful?  How do we keep from it happening again?  Democrats using this for political advantage is a GIVEN.  Now to more interesting aspects to the debate.

[moda0306]

The crusades?  If you google "why did the crusades happen?" the first link is:

The Crusades happened when they did, because the Muslims had taken the holy city of Jerusalem in the seventh century.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Cr ... n_they_did

So the crusades were a reaction to what the Muslims had done.

Um, yeah cuz there was NOTHING going on before the 7th century with regards to that part of the world...  Muslims just decided that Jerusalem seemed like a nice place to conquer.

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/vi ... eID=000635

[Libertarian666]

Of course some, if not many, of the democrats are "jockeying for political advantage" over this issue.  That's what politics is. 

I'm finding it amazing all of the distracting debates that pop up in people's heads (that normally consider themselves "small government") when torture is brought up.

"It's a complex world.  They didn't apologize right.  They were terrorists (I think), anwyay.  Islam is royally f'ked up."

I've never felt more justified in my snarky statist accusations towards many so-called "small-government" conservatives and fair-weather libertarians.  Not that they're uniquely deserving of blame, but they've got the same blood on their hands as other "statist" that don't like torture but prefer welfare.

Look, this isn't the worst thing that has happened in the history of government, but I think it is safe to say that at least one of the men who was tortured was completely innocent of what he had been accused of for being detained in the first place, and didn't know what they wanted him to know.  I'm not asking anyone to be outraged (just like Benghazi wasn't unique, and wasn't worthy of losing your f*king mind unless you want to get in the habit of doing that every year for the rest of your life).  But let's look at what is wrong here, and discuss it on some reasonable merits.  Is it wrong?  Is it useful?  How do we keep from it happening again?  Democrats using this for political advantage is a GIVEN.  Now to more interesting aspects to the debate.

Any so-called "libertarian" who is in favor of torture (and let's not kid ourselves as to whether the CIA was torturing people: they were), is no libertarian at all. So you have my personal approval of any statist accusations, snarky or otherwise, that you may make against such "libertarians".

[madbean]

I was watching Bill O'Reilly last night and he had John McCain on to discuss the torture issue. I don't generally agree much with what McCain has to say about any thing but I did this time. Although he didn't actually use the Biblical language what he was really advocating was that we should be following the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". As a former POW that suffered torture in Vietnam I thought that was an interesting bit of advice. He also pointed out how some were convicted of war crimes after WWII for water-boarding and that it is against the Geneva convention of which we are a signatory.

Mr. O'Reilly disagreed of course. Being the good Christian he is (Catholic, I believe), he's cool with torturing our enemies if there is any possibility of a beneficial result to keep Americans safe. He also stated the majority of Americans agreed with him and sadly I think that might be true. So much for being a Christian nation.

[MachineGhost]

Yes, torture is always wrong. And according to the report, it didn't give us valuable intel. I know that for some people it may be comforting to imagine that torture could be used as a last resort in a ticking-time-bomb scenario, but the truth is that such scenarios almost never happen and torture has never been used to reliably get valuable information out of anyone. Its purpose is to break a person, not extract usable information from them. Permitting governments to torture people is an extremely dangerous slippery slope. I for one am glad that ours is taking steps to back away from that slope by acknowledging its heinous actions, which is the first step in behavioral change.

Well, obviously, the real world doesn't work like an episode of 24 with Jack Bauer...

So do we get to indict Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for crimes against humanity yet???  I'm still waiting.

And Obama's lack of a spine in dealing with this revelation is just so typical.  Never a bigger wimp has there ever been in the White House.

EDIT: Add Tenet (CIA) to the indictment list.

[MachineGhost]

The question of “does it work”? aside, there are HUGE strategic drawbacks to torture, such as how it undermines the rule of law, corrupts those who use it, undercuts military training, cedes moral high ground to our nation’s enemies, creates distrust among allies, sows dissension at home, serves as a source of recruits and donations for our nation’s enemies, creates irreconcilable enemies, and makes the ultimate goal of any conflict—its peaceful resolution—increasingly difficult./quote]

Duh.  But no one listens until after the fact.  Religious conservatives want to wage holy war and extract revenge -- thats why they do it.

[MachineGhost]

This seems like old news to me.  We know the Bush administration was evil (we can tell by the many rotten fruits), arrogant (why not, there are no earthly consequences) and self-righteous.  In another thread, there was a question of why punishment, if God is loving.  It's because the earth cries out for justice.  We won't see any justice on this earth for Bush's government, nor will we (likely) for Obama's crew.  But we all have to answer sooner or later.  And Bush and his crew will have to answer for crimes more horrific than most.

Is that how you sleep at night?  Because in reality, that is wishful thinking.  I have zero confidence there is some non-Earthly punishment waiting for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...  in fact, we'd all be doomed to non-Earthly punishment because no one is especially perfect and without sin.  And in an environment like that, standards always and inevitably slip so that what is exceptional becomes commonplace and unremarkable.  The point is to prevent that from happening on Earth.

[MachineGhost]

I do however believe that it's our government's responsibility to protect its citizens by using aggressive intel measures to play defense, and minimize radical Islam's affect.  Essentially, make it very hard for Islamic terrorists to do business and kill people.

How well has that worked for the "War on Drugs" over the last 40 years?  You have a lot of confidence in a fiction.

[MachineGhost]

One point that was made by the WSJ commentators:  the "enhanced" interrogation techniques (boy is THAT a euphemism and a half) were used in place of the standard techniques in the Army field manual.  Thus there is no reason to think that standard techniques wouldn't have served just as well.  And because they weren't tried first, it certainly looks like the torture was more about revenge than about gaining information.

If crushing testicles and stuffing your rectum until it prolapses qualifies "in place of", I can't imagine what the standard techniques are.  This was ideology not torture, pure and simple.  Its stuff you would expect in Saddam's torture dungeons.  The law enforcement, military and intelligence community is overwhelmingly Republican.  That makes all the difference.

[MachineGhost]

Of course, George W. Bush could have easily prevented all this, but he chose not to.

So could Obama.  And that he choose not to as Democrat reeks of hypocrisy of the worst kind 'cuz we know Bush was a conservative religious nut so you expect that kind of behavior from him.