The Senate Torture Report

gufasd said:
Officepants - So any time someone inflicts pain on someone else to force them to comply is torture? Is the majority rule system we have now a form of torture in that we have laws that allow you to order the police to come to my house, beat me to stop resisting, lock me in jail for a long time, then kill me through lethal injection. Is that is fine because i"m not being "tortured"? Noone waterboarded me or anything like that, so its all good - right?

So we can't torture people, but locking them up in prisons for not paying the government taxes, prisons where society makes jokes about the prevalence of rape and abuse, is fine. Doesn't sound so different from torturing your neighbor for their atm card, especially if you are on welfare and your neighbor pays taxes. Or is it only the select groups we can torture, not the people who share your "enlightened" ideology and are fine to be a part of the system.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that we have a growing problem with the police in the US abusing citizens. In most instances, what you are talking about with police is strait up assault. The police beat citizens and violate their civil rights. And just like the CIA, it's done with impunity.

Police are not beating people for information, so that's kind of a red herring. The violence of cops and CIA both exist for different reasons.

We can slice and dice these 2 situations, but in both cases it's a violation of human rights.

Lastly, there are some people that need to be detained for acts against society. I'm not advocating what what should or shouldn't qualify, but 2 obvious examples are the cops that choked that guy in NY and CIA agents that participated in torture.

I don't really believe in capital punishment mainly because our justice system is not always trustworthy, but I do believe that prisoners should be allowed voluntary suicide.
 
gufasd said:
How does it make a difference to you about the permissions government officials have to use force? From that logic might makes right, as seen in the multitude of cop vs civilian shootings, and torturing people/killing US citizens without due process (for supporting terrorism) is all well and good. How do you rationalize supporting some parts of the law but not others?
Click to expand...

Well, I was simply responding to your post, where you said:

gufasd said:
How is torture wrong? Do you have any rational for what makes it wrong? I would disagree with illegal as it was approved by the government and the government makes the laws.
Click to expand...

So, you stated that torture is legal and you challenged people to say why it is wrong.

I answered your question, and now you're challenging me about why I drew a distinction between the power that certain government employees have, as opposed to powers that ordinary civilians have and you seem to saying that my position is supporting torturing people/killing US citizens without due process. Frankly, I'm not at all sure how you draw that conclusion based on what I wrote and it seems to me that you're constructing a strawman.

I didn't say that it's OK for public officials to torture people - I pointed out that we grant certain public officials certain powers, including permission to use force in certain circumstances. There are, however, certainly circumstances were the use of those powers is illegal, just as there are circumstances where the use of those powers is legal. Where power is used illegally, it should be investigated and punishment should be meted out. As Winston Churchill said (possibly quoting someone else before him): "With great power, comes great responsibility".

gufasd said:
Some reasons they do it in secret and outside the reach of others are for the exact issues this is bringing up, much easier to keep a person excomunicado if noone knows you have them. Noone will protest if they dont know anything is wrong. Also the opponents can't change their plans to render any information the subject has meaningless.
Click to expand...

I agree that no-one will protest if no-one knows that anything is wrong.

However, I disagree with your last point - if a member of your guerrilla/terrorist organisation has disappeared and if that person has knowledge of your plans, then you'd be foolish to not change your plans on the off-chance that the person might blab, regardless of whether you know that they're being tortured or not.
 
gufasd said:
How is the legal system in our country an acceptable process but torture is not. In both cases governmental officials are given the ok to utilize force on individual for acts that have been deemed by the government unacceptable. In both cases the individuals are stripped of their freedom and physically injured. In both cases there are no repercussions to the governmental officials. Yet one is viewed as wrong and the other justice.

I see this as a huge issue in your argument that you woefully neglected in your response.
Click to expand...

Once again, I think that you're constructing a strawman.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where people are excusing the conduct of police, or of CIA officials involved in "enhanced interrogation" techniques. People are condemning both of those things.

Both lots of people may be permitted to use force in certain circumstances, but there is a line - sometimes blurred, sometimes a bright line - between the permitted, authorised, acceptable use of force and the unauthorised, unacceptable use of force. In cases where force is used inappropriately, it should be investigated and the perpetrators should be punished.

Let's face it, living in a country which has a police force, which has gaols and which has an army means that we as a population have consented to live in a country where the government is able to use force to control people, to some extent. The extent to which the government is able to use force is governed by laws, which are made by the government of the day. We, as the population of that country, hope that the government will pass laws wisely and use its powers wisely.

Some people - particularly libertarians - would see that as a slippery slope. Most people, however, accept that it is useful to permit certain government officials to use force in certain, constrained circumstances.
 
^ The above is why we have what is called the "separation of powers" doctrine, where there are divisions between the legislative arm, the executive arm, and the judicial arm of government.

The legislative arm makes the laws; the executive arm (in the form of the police) enforces the laws; and the judicial arm interprets the laws and metes out justice.
 
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7361295/biggest-lies-the-cia-told-about-the-torture-program

The 8 biggest lies the CIA told about torture
  • By Russell Brandom
  • on December 9, 2014 02:56 pm

    The newly released Senate report has already drawn attention for its harrowing view of the details of US torture, but it also comes at the end of a long and frightening effort to keep those details secret. As the new report makes clear, CIA officials lied to Congress over and over in defense of the program, whether it was to make torture seem more effective, less brutal, or more legally sanctioned than it really was, making it impossible for the legislature to provide effective oversight. Here are the eight biggest lies, noted with frustration over and over again throughout the report. It's an incomplete list, but an important one to keep in mind if there's ever going to be a meaningful check on the power of US intelligence agencies.

    Lie: There are no detention sites
    The Senate first started asking questions about CIA detention sites after 9/11, when rumors started circulating about plans for an unorthodox interrogation program. In the first briefing, on November 13, 2001, Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt "assured the [Senate Intelligence] Committee that it would be informed of each individual who entered CIA custody." Pavitt also disavowed the use of torture. The following April, the CIA told the committee on the record that the agency "has no current plans to develop a detention facility." In fact, the CIA was already holding Abu Zubaydah at a detention site in a still-undisclosed location.

    Lie: Fewer than 100 people are held by the CIA
    After the House voted to limit CIA interrogations to only previously authorized techniques in February of 2008, Hayden told the committee that the CIA had detained fewer than 100 people. The report now names 119 people detained from 2002 to 2008.

    Lie: The CIA does not videotape interrogations
    The most damning piece of evidence against torture was the videotapes of early CIA interrogations, made to establish a record for any subsequent prosecution. The CIA destroyed the tapes on November 8th, 2005, to prevent them from falling into the hands of an independent investigatory commission that had been proposed by Senator Carl Levin. Asked about the tapes at a briefing a year later, CIA officials testified that "the CIA did not videotape interrogations," striking any mention of the tapes.

    Lie: The program was cleared with leaders in Congress
    In a 2007 statement, CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress that "[a]s CIA's efforts to implement [new interrogation] authorities got underway in 2002, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the speaker and the minority leader of the House, and the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees were fully briefed on the interrogation program." As Marcy Wheeler has pointed out, then-Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt were never briefed on the program. House speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate minority leader Trent Lott weren’t briefed until 2005 and 2006, respectively.

    Lie: Only the best specialists are used as interrogators
    In the same statement, Hayden said the CIA interrogators were "carefully chosen and screened for demonstrated professional judgment and maturity," and that "they must complete more than 250 hours of specialized training before they are allowed to come face-to-face with a terrorist." Based on the committee’s findings, that’s just not true: several interrogators had histories of inappropriate questioning tactics, anger management issues, and sexual assault. "The CIA used poorly trained and non-vetted personnel," Feinstein told reporters today. "It’s a clear fact that the CIA deployed officers who had histories of personal, ethical and professional problems of a serious nature."

    Lie: Starvation is not an interrogation tactic
    On November 16th, 2006, CIA director Hayden told the committee that detainees were never provided fewer than 1,000 calories per day. In fact, calorie requirements weren't instituted until March of 2004, a full two years into the program, and previous documents suggest withholding food for 1-2 days as an acceptable "adjunct to interrogation."

    Lie: Sleep deprivation stops before it becomes medically damaging
    In the same briefing, an unnamed official testified that standing sleep deprivation was discontinued whenever swelling or any abnormality appeared. But in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, standing sleep deprivation continued through the outbreak of edema on his feet as well as abrasions on his ankles, shins, wrists and the back of his head. CIA director Hayden also testified that "mental conditions that would be of normal concern do not present themselves until a person has experienced more than 100 hours of sleep deprivation." At least three detainees experienced hallucinations after less than 96 hours of sleep deprivation over the course of the CIA's program.

    Lie: Interrogations have stopped plots in progress
    In February 2003, the CIA briefed Senator Pat Roberts on the interrogation program, looking to gain his support:

    [The briefing] described in great detail the importance of the information provided by [Abu] Zubayda[h] and [*Abd al-Rahim al-] Nashiri, both of whom had information of on-going terrorist operations, information that might well have saved American lives, the difficulty of getting that information from them, and the importance of the enhanced techniques in getting that information.
    According to the committee, those claims don't hold up: "Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri did not provide actionable intelligence on ongoing plotting." Similar briefings took place over and over, and similar distortions were made, inflating Zubaydah's stature within Al Qaeda or concocting to a "second wave" of terrorist attacks that were stopped thanks to intelligence from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In each case, the committee says the CIA's characterizations were inaccurate, relying on exaggerations to protect the program. The result was a skewed view of the CIA's effectiveness and a general ignorance of the program's worst excesses, many of which are only now being brought to light.
 
The CIA lies. Nobody will do shit about it. Perhaps some phony outrage may be useful to some, but only because their political interests (including outside govt, I mean the media, 'community leaders', and all sorts of other phonies) align with it.

You won't see the Koch brothers funding anything, nor Mark Cuban talking it up, and LeBron James won't wear a t-shirt that says the CIA lied. People are outraged by what's convenient to them. For now, we get to draw a new line of distinctions about the CIA, but it just feeds the fantasy that you have some form of power to change it.

The CIA and NSA has grown in power ever since their inception. There is no reason to believe that will stop. The powerful find it convenient to have these tools. My favorite line parroted by these national security types is that "if we knew the kind of stuff going on, you'd understand why we're needed". Ultimate religion and faith based belief. Bullshit. If the CIA were to undertake an act, then make it public almost immediately with all information and details, then I doubt any of our national security would be at risk.

Actually, were things to be given light right away, you would be pressed to consider whether other nation states and actors would be more hesitant to engage in it since they could be exposed in virtual real time. But we'd rather play cat and mouse and keep what we know secret in this international game of thrones we choose to engage in. I understand all the counter arguments (been hearing them my whole life) but I am hard pressed to find a real reason that the CIA and NSA need to exist save to bolster the power of the elite, and do these acts in our name.

2 cases in point: ISIS/ISOL bullshit... the public sure knows a lot about that. Wonder why? Convenient to keep us in fear of the beheading arabs?

Second, we sure do know all details about the Osama killing... I thought they needed to keep operational tactics a secret? Guess not. Too many political points to score.

This is all bullshit folks. Stop being outraged.
 
WTF?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-report-rectal-feeding-detainees
Agency operatives had ...opted to subject detainees to rectal infusions at least in part because its officers considered them “a means of behavior control”...
An officer also wrote: “We used the largest Ewal [sic] tube we had”...
In some cases the CIA rectally infused detainees with Ensure nutrition drinks, which include fats and proteins. Officers also administered a “lunch tray” enema to Majid Khan that consisted “of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins [that were] ‘pureed and rectally infused’”.
Click to expand...
 
^ Yes, when I read about that, I wondered whether pumping food up someone's rectum actually helps from a nutritional standpoint (ie a sort of forced feeding if the person is refusing to take food), or whether it was more about humiliating and assaulting them.
 
Humiliation and degradation under the guise of enteral nutrition being an accepted route of administration
 
It won't sustain life for very long vs. a normal feeding tube
 
gufasd said:
That seems more fucked up than torturing them, at least they can claim they were trying to get information though torture. Other than getting their rocks off this just seems stupid, kind of like all that homosexual hazing that football players do.
Click to expand...

you are not a freemason yet are you?
 
gufasd said:
Why would I become a free mason, they seem like a bunch of closet homosexuals. All these rites and secrets, really the secret is they are all gay.

But what are you referring to?
Click to expand...
You strike me as more of a Shriner than a Freemason
 
gufasd said:
Why would I become a free mason, they seem like a bunch of closet homosexuals. All these rites and secrets, really the secret is they are all gay.

But what are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Freemasonry is the key to understanding the elite and the new world order.

It is no coincidence that this forum is named DressedWell or more colloquially DW.

Freemasonry + DW =

image.webp


I've said too much
 
OfficePants said:
Corporate robot.

Click to expand...


OfficePants OfficePants do you feel that by posting this video that you are putting American men, women, dogs, cats, rats, bats and especially rabbits plus boy scouts and transgendered people at risk? I am sure it is safe to say that you will feel bad if what you've done results in harm to anyone or contributes to climate change, no?
 
Thruth said:
OfficePants OfficePants do you feel that by posting this video that you are putting American men, women, dogs, cats, rats, bats and especially rabbits plus boy scouts and transgendered people at risk? I am sure it is safe to say that you will feel bad if what you've done results in harm to anyone or contributes to climate change, no?
Click to expand...

I'd feel real shitty about that, Wolf.
 
brutality goes hand in hand with war. In 1914, in Belgium, on Christmas day, British & Germans forged an informal truce. They rose out of their trenches, exchanged gifts and forgot war for just a moment. British Generals made sure that would not happen again in 1915 until the end of the war.

When dealing with these insurgent groups it is useless to think of the Geneva Convention because they won't follow it. So all that is left is to decide is should the "good guys" only follow rules of engagement, convention and the ethical practice of war?
 
This is a symptom of the ridiculous never-ending total war.
War used to be quick and undesirable. Now it is a political necessity (for horridly corrupt and unscrupulous villains, and I'm not talking about terrorists) that has become a self-perpetuating business.
 
Russell Street said:
This is a symptom of the ridiculous never-ending total war.
War used to be quick and undesirable. Now it is a political necessity (for horridly corrupt and unscrupulous villains, and I'm not talking about terrorists) that has become a self-perpetuating business.
Click to expand...

Old news, bro. This reminds me of one of those threads that someone makes a big discovery that everyone else already knew :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom