Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Jim, as I said before the torture memo didn't make the actions magically legal, it offered a counterpoint to existing laws if the actions were challenged in court.
Essentially they had a few lawyers come up with something, anything they could cite to get their way. The memo was widely panned when it was released and even rescinded 2 years after its writing.
Sounds like typical political maneuvering. Certainly as is practiced by the current administration.
Did you see Cheney a week ago? He claims we stopped short of torture, not because we didn't torture, but because a rescinded memo defined EITs as less than torture.
That just doesn't pass a basic smell test.
Uuuhm. . . it may not satisfy the sensitivity of your nostrils, but it doesn't, as you like to put it, lay a finger on him. Speaking of smells, you seem to thrive on the aroma of all the stink bombs laid by the current administration. Oh yeah . . . no finger has been laid on Obama or his cohorts.
Pelosi has been pretty consistent in her position and the Senate report does appear to go into great detail on how Congress was misled on the extent of the actions or the success of the program.
Yup, typical "appearances" created by an investigation confirmed by a partisan vote. We are definitely told what to believe.
What's interesting is that even with what Congress was briefed on there's not a lot they can do to challenge the secret briefings. They can't take notes, can't seek legal council etc...it's really just information.
Again, more of the same congressional investigation nonsense that either tells us what to believe, or tries to influence if it can't lay a finger.
I believe those who say there are more effective ways to get information that isn't torture. If we say we're not going to torture then we shouldn't.
Are you saying those "more effective ways" were not tried? Are you also implying that if torture is effective it's OK to use it? What does "effective" have to do with it? If it's a matter of degree, then all methods are OK.
And if we must be consistent, then let us not pick and choose when to be or not to be. If you say we shouldn't torture if we say we won't, then you should say we shouldn't trash the Constitution if we swear to defend it.
If I were to defend one over the other, I would prefer torture in order to prevent violence to our nation, over destroying the legal foundation of our country. And I certainly would not give any credence to those who demand allegiance to a U.N. convention if those same don't have that allegiance to our own Constitution.
Take the EIT's under Bush as a good case study. We did it and appeared to have done it quite a bit without significant results. Hell 25% of those subjected to EIT's weren't even terrorists and were released aside from the one that died.
We did give our enemies Abu Grahaib and a lot of recruitment propaganda though. I guess it didn't produce nothing.
|
The Abu Grahaib photos were not torture techniques used by interrogators, nor a result of interrogation techniques. They were propaganda used by opponents to vilify and "tell us" what we were doing in Gitmo and elsewhere.
And the hypocrisy of referring to Abu Grahaib as recruitment propaganda, but not labeling the partisan Senate exposure of CIA investigative tactics as the same is despicable. Even so, after the fiasco of depicting an obscure video as the reason for Islamic hyper-violence.
As for the tortured definitions of torture that were created in order to interrogate in accordance with rather stupid, self destructive, U.N. conventions, what this old 2005 article "tells us" might shed some light, as well as dispelling many of the lies about our interrogation of captives:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html
I stick to my own opinion, though, of not agreeing to some stupid convention which hamstrings us against barbarians. Civilized "high ground" ethics are admirable amongst civilized people. But civilization cannot stand strapped by the high ground when its enemy intractably wishes to destroy it. Especially if that enemy has a different set of high grounds in which it is ultimately devoted. And it wishes to destroy your civilization and replace it with its own.
Regardless of what anybody tells me.