CIA and torture

[spence]

(1) In 2002 Bush's legal council wrote a letter stating why they believed EIT's under a certain definition wouldn't be considered torture. This was the justification I believe for all further orders.

This doesn't make the actions legal. It simply gives a reasoning for the decision to not follow the Geneva Convention and a line of defense if the actions were prosecuted under US or International law.

(2) That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think there's any real evidence that torture does work and most experts seem to believe there are better methods. If it's not likely to work and likely illegal why would you do it?

(3) I've never heard people say we're no better but it certainly does undermine our high-ground and our identity.

I would have liked the report to be more complete and ideally bi-partisan but it doesn't sound like the key findings are that far off. Brennan's conference yesterday was pretty balanced.

As for who's lying, I wouldn't put any chips on Cheney. Here's a nice little tidbit that was just made public.

The cable reads that "there is not one USG (counterterrorism) or FBI expert that...has said they have evidence or 'know' that (Atta) was indeed (in Prague). In fact, the analysis has been quite the opposite."

In a 2001 interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," then-Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney said, "It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in (the Czech Republic) last April, several months before the attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

(1) In 2002 Bush's legal council wrote a letter stating why they believed EIT's under a certain definition wouldn't be considered torture. This was the justification I believe for all further orders.

This doesn't make the actions legal. It simply gives a reasoning for the decision to not follow the Geneva Convention and a line of defense if the actions were prosecuted under US or International law.

(2) That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think there's any real evidence that torture does work and most experts seem to believe there are better methods. If it's not likely to work and likely illegal why would you do it?

(3) I've never heard people say we're no better but it certainly does undermine our high-ground and our identity.

I would have liked the report to be more complete and ideally bi-partisan but it doesn't sound like the key findings are that far off. Brennan's conference yesterday was pretty balanced.

As for who's lying, I wouldn't put any chips on Cheney. Here's a nice little tidbit that was just made public.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

"I don't think there's any real evidence that torture does work"

How about this for evidence? Spence, if I asked you for your bank account id and password, you would say "no". If I asked you that same question while holding a chainsaw to your genitals, you would give me what I was looking for. Yes or no?

It goes against everything we know about human beings, to believe that torture cannot (in some cases) produce intelligence that can't be produced using other methods.

Also, several CIA directors say there is hard evidence that it does, and did, work, and so does #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. So why can't we lay all the cards on the table and see who is lying?

"I've never heard people say we're no better "

Than you aren't paying close attention.

"it certainly does undermine our high-ground and our identity."

No, it doesn't. Spence, i don't believe for a second you'd advise not to waterboard a terrorist who knew where your kids were. You can say whatever you want, but I refuse to believe you'd refuse to play that card, if that's all that was left.

The terrorists are the ones who have no right to claim the moral high ground.