CIA and torture

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

First, your band width here is too brief to clearly understand. I don't know if you mean the sheep who responded to the current polls, or the sheep at the time of 9/11.

I was referring to the sheep at the time of 9/11, the point being a lot of people simply believe what they're told.

Second, your point, whatever it is, is irrelevant. Regardless of which sheep to which you are referring. And it doesn't matter whether they thought Saddam was involved or not. Or whether they cherished somewhere deep in their patriotic soul that old American motto "Don't tread on me." Or if they thought that Bush was responsible for 9/11. Or if they believed that politicians are all a pack of cowardly liars, and that it was the sheepdogs in the CIA who abided by a code of honor, duty bound, to protect them at all costs when the wolf was on the attack. I don't know what exactly, or by what number , they thought, other than the results of the poll. The point of linking the article is simply that most Americans are on the side of what the CIA did. And, surprise, surprise, they are more disturbed by what the sheep in the Senate investigation did than what the CIA did.

Happened upon this and think they have a good point.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...editorial.html

Personally, I am a sheep who is glad that it backfired on them. I think that a lot of the crap that comes out of this administration and its henchfolk is half policy and half wag-the-dog in order to take the heat off of a current "scandal." Notice how the Gruber lying and corruption involved in passing the ACA is completely forgotten now? Not just a musty week or two "old news,"--just gone. And, I'm sure, Spence, that is just fine with you. It's "smart."

The Gruber thing passed because beyond arrogant remarks there wasn't anything to it. He even went before Congress and Issa couldn't lay a finger on him.

I don't think our sheepdogs should have to be secretive about what they do. As I've said before, as a nation we should be open about what we will do if we are attacked. No matter how harsh, swift, or devastating, we should forthrightly let it be known exactly what we will do in response. And we shouldn't hedge. We should have already established a reputation that we carry a "terrible swift sword" to use against those who threaten us, as well as a generous helping hand to those who support us and hold our founding values.

We are increasingly being tested now, to see how far we will go to protect our turf or support our allies--as in the Ukraine, and in North Korea's hacking as well as its outrageous threat to our free speech by its threat against Sony. We shouldn't have to be backed into corners where we appear weak and vulnerable. If we had that strong face to the world, militarily as well as economically, and had established it to the point that an enemy would, with certainty and swiftness, receive whatever destruction it wished to impose on us, I think we would have less trouble with the rest of the world, and wouldn't have to pretend about having some "high ground."

A limiting factor here is our position as global cop which creates complexities others don't bear. Additionally the technical, economic and social considerations of a more globalized world provide a dynamic for which we have yet to find a balance.

Simply carrying a big stick doesn't cut it any more. Jeb is going to have to deal with this just like Obama has.

I think honesty is one of the highest grounds. When the "high ground" forces you to deception, to be clandestine, to lie, in politics and war, then the "high ground" itself is a ruse, and an excuse to bludgeon your political opposition with the phony lie that you are pure and they are not.

And that's exactly why the torture issue is so important.

Did you see Cheney on Meet the Press last week? What a joke. He's still lying about it.

Hope this hasn't been too long for you.

I made extra coffee.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I was referring to the sheep at the time of 9/11, the point being a lot of people simply believe what they're told.

Ultimately, just about everyone believes what they are told, if they seek to find the "truth." If you don't believe what someone tells you, you scrounge around until you find someone that tells you what you want to believe. Unless, of course, you are first party to the incident in question. Then you rely on your own (unbiased, objective, honest, all-inclusive--hahahaha) opinion.

Happened upon this and think they have a good point.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...editorial.html

So you scrounged around and found somebody you want to think has a good point. Was he even a first party? No, he scrounged around, read some congressional report (OMG-the fountain of unbiased truth!), and believed what he wanted to believe. He certainly didn't want to believe Cheney. He even, in his graciously unbiased manner, says Cheney is wrong about everything. Of course, he doesn't present the "evidence" of any scrounging around to find someone to tell him that Cheney is so ultimately and completely wrong. And he certainly is no first party participant in all (any?) of Cheney's incidents of being "wrong." He appears, to me (in my most objective unbiased opinion, heh, heh) to be very biased and untrustworthy.

And his article doesn't discount, other than his distaste for it, the fact that, even as he admits, public opinion favors the CIA over the biased Senate report. His notion that the graphic pictures of Abu Grave "torture" was the "real" and total truth that persuaded most to opine against torture, is just another instance of people believing what someone tells them.

The Gruber thing passed because beyond arrogant remarks there wasn't anything to it. He even went before Congress and Issa couldn't lay a finger on him.

What finger was he supposed to lay on him. The dude out and out admitted (as we are "told" by the several videos) that it was necessary to lie (merely "arrogant remarks") about the ACA to get it passed. I understand that your glad the ACA passed, regardless of the hoodwinking method. So you prefer to believe what is told to you if that supports it.

A limiting factor here is our position as global cop which creates complexities others don't bear.

Under what authority are we the global cop? Certainly not a constitutional authority. Constitutionally, the authority of the federal government to be a "global" cop is strictly limited to protecting the U.S. from the rest of the globe, not to police the rest of the globe. I know, I know, the Constitution is just dreck which handcuffs us from doing what is necessary--like policing the world. Does Russia recognize us as the global cop? It certainly doesn't act that way. Don't believe I've heard them even to admit to such a thing. How about China? Iran? Cuba? etc.?

Additionally the technical, economic and social considerations of a more globalized world provide a dynamic for which we have yet to find a balance.

That kind of thinking stems from a statist view of nation states being the all powerful monopolies over their people. In such states, the "balance" was, and mostly is, in the interests of some form of hereditary monarchical, or dictatorial, fascist, or oligarchical, ruling class. The purpose of balance of power between such states was to prevent wars which would diminish the wealth and power of the ruling classes. That fits well with pre-American Revolution thinking relative to the purpose of a state. The peculiar circumstance of the American nation being born, in which the state was to be the servant of the people, at their behest and consent, rather than the state dictating to the people created a new "dynamic" which made it difficult, if not impossible, to find a "balance" with other states.

Insofar as other states have become more like the American state, that has made some balancing viable. But the balancing has been corrosive to the American state by the statists in our society who, in response, wish to create here a more top down system to fit their ideological theories, thus compromising our original identity in order to fit a balancing with the rest of the world.

Technological, economic, and social considerations, as such, are not a new mix into the desired "balance." They have always been there, and have constantly changed. What may have changed the overall "dynamic" is the possibility, through technology, to more easily create the one world, top down, all powerful state, or to create the reverse, the bottom up world of federated people.

In that sense we can be, not the world's police, but its teacher. Or we can all succumb to the old statist notion and create the one world benevolent (hopefully) dictatorship.

Simply carrying a big stick doesn't cut it any more. Jeb is going to have to deal with this just like Obama has.

Carrying a big stick is more important than ever since our distant border is no longer a protection. And if we wish to protect our now fragile national and individual independence. Dealing with it depends on whether we strive to continue with the original American experiment, or to dissolve into statist mentality.

And that's exactly why the torture issue is so important.

Yes, it is important that we be honest about who we really are, as a people (if that's possible) and as human beings. If your object is strictly to get to a Christian heaven, then by all means, turn your cheek to whatever violence besets you. But then never waiver from your fundamental Christian principles. If you wish to follow Christ, there is much in this world, especially in the materially rich world made possible by America's freedoms and creativity from which you should turn your cheek away, and disavow.

That path is strait and narrow, and most will fail, or choose not to follow it.

I understand that American Christianity is different. It allows that God gives to those who help themselves. I like that. But, maybe it has also allowed those who want the material things, without the religious obligation, to create a godless society yet keep some remnants of Christ-like niceties in place. Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. We can call it some form of "humanism." Don't torture. Give to the poor. Be just. Be equitable. And so on.

But, to completely divorce these notions from some supernatural religious obligation, which requires obedience by individuals, rather, it is more efficient (and less personally responsible) to administer these humanistic qualities through and by the state. The individual is now free to enjoy all the good created by a once Christian society, without the required dreary personal obligations.

Here's the catch. If you remove Heaven as the goal, there is no longer an obligation to turn the other cheek. Humanism, in order to survive materially, cannot be humane to those who are trying to destroy you. To be human, in its most fundamental requirement, is to desire first to exist. Existence is all you basically possess. All other possessions and enjoyments are dependent on that prime principal. If you are confronted by wolves who wish to eat your substance, who are attempting to destroy you, the most basic human response is to destroy them first.

Whatever problems you may incur afterward can be dealt with then. You cannot deal with a problem if you're dead. If you are confronted with an intractable enemy whose goal is to destroy you, and you attempt to negotiate without some severe force and threat to immediately deter him, you will likely die.

So the truth may not only set you free, but it can be used as a weapon of deterrence. Let it be truthfully known that if you are faced by imminent threat of destruction, you will use whatever is necessary, including "torture" if your enemy does not relent.

That is the "truth" of being human--without God.

Did you see Cheney on Meet the Press last week? What a joke. He's still lying about it.

Says you. Sorry for this bandwith. If it's too long, just disregard.

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1059756]Sorry for this bandwith. If it's too long, just disregard.[/QUOTE}]

Don't worry ,the way things are going there will be a Government Read and Answer Dept for Libs that are too lazy to read for themselves.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong. The Justice Department gave them the green light (we know that for a fact), which means in wasn't in defiance of any law. There i sno law agaiinst waterboarding. The CIA goit the green ligt from the Justice Dept and also from the congressional oversight committee, which included that witch Pelosi. How many times has she changed her story on what she knew, and when? But, I digress.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"that's not where things stopped"

#1, what is your proof of that? Because I agree, it shoud only be allowed in a very narrow scope. #2, does this mean you'd support torture in very, very extreme cases? Yes or no?

Spence, another simple, direct question. Liberals say "torture doesn't work". Here's my question. Spence, do yo ubelieve that some people might refuse to answer a politely presented question, but would be more willing to answer if threatened with torture? Can you EVER see that happening? If so, then the only honest answer is that like it or not, legal or not, torture can work. Th estatement "torture doesn't work" can only be true if it's not feasible, under any circumstances, EVER, to get info from someone that you wouldn't get through other means.

The statement "tirture doesn't work" is an absurd statement in that absolute sense. Of course it works. It might be ugly, we might make it illegal, there might be better ways...but iyt's very dishnest to say that it simply doesn't work. That's absurd.

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.

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.

[spence]

A bit ago I read an interesting piece by a former CIA analyst Ray McGovern that a big motivator for the EIT program wasn't necessarily to get true information, it was to get anything that would help justify the Iraq war.

This led to bad information (i.e. I'll tell you what you want to hear) that the Administration eagerly lapped up even though it was found to be false.

[detbuch]

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.