CIA and torture

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

spence - pls, pls. don't respond to that. Enough band width has been wasted.

I can't, it takes too long just to read it let alone formulate a response

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The interviews with Megyn kelly were fantastic.

She also had Marc Thiessen on (he's a frequent guest, was a speechwriter/policy advisor to Bush, a brilliant young conservative, thoughtful and respectful). When talking about whether or not we actually got any actionable intelligence from torture, Thiessen said that one of the guys recently killed by an Obama drone attack, was only made known to us by the enhanced interrogation of the terrorists.

Can't we just find out the truth? If Thiessen is lying, I genuinely want to know, so that i don't listen to him anymore. If he i stelling th etruth, then a lot of liberals who claim it didn't work, will have egg on their faces.

hahah a former speechwriter. He's probably not lying, he just may believe anything he's told.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Hard to imagine where the elites are coming from. They're saying, Spence is saying...that if we had some fat pig terrorist in custody who we were as sure as possible, had info that could have prevented the school attack in Pakistan, we shouldn't pour water up his nose or deprive him of sleep to save those lives? We're willing to sacricice the lives of little kids, on the altar of some "moral high ground" that serves no purpose except to make things easier for the wolves? In my mind, it would be immoral not to torture someone who was planning such an attack, and if the attack is imminent, i'd go a hell of alot further than waterboarding, and I'd sleep like a baby after (after talking with my priest first).

The problem is exactly this. Taking a very narrow scenario and then scaling it...

I think some thought there may be follow on attacks and we thought we had some people who may know something. In that scenario I could see someone who believed torture worked may authorize in defiance of the law.

But that's not where things stopped.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

Jim, you are a Marine, the elitists "can't handle the truth"..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess. But when th etruth i sliterally right there, in th eform of fellow Americans jumping out windows of the world trade center, how does one not conclude that pouring water up someone's knows (with a medical team present) is necessary?

There is no moral equivalence, none at all, between the terrorists attempt to incinerate innocent civilians, and our attempts to do horrible things to try to save innocent lives. we are not motivated by blood lust - they are. we are motivated (at least we should be for Christ's sake) to protect the innocent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

hahah a former speechwriter. He's probably not lying, he just may believe anything he's told.

Then let's find out! I think we can all agre ethat th eleft has no love for #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Cheney says the torture produced actionabl intelligence. If Cheney is lying, than the CIA has proof of that, in th edocumentation of what the tortured told us. I'm supposed to believe that the Democrats have tangile proof that Cheney is lying, and they won't share thst for some reason?

I mean, Obama keeps saying that torture doesn't work. IF THAT'S TRUE, show us the proof of that, and then instantly, public opinion would be in Obama's favor.

The feds have released a lot of details about th etorture - who did it, ho wmany times, etc. Why not release the proof that nothing the tortured said, produced actionable intelligence?

Thiessen said that a recent drone victim wa sonly revealed to us through torture. If Obama is telling the truth, then we must have learned about thi sguy another way. Show us the proof.

Spence, Obama has the proof (one way or the other) in his hands, but he won't share it. I wonder why that is?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The problem is exactly this. Taking a very narrow scenario and then scaling it...

I think some thought there may be follow on attacks and we thought we had some people who may know something. In that scenario I could see someone who believed torture worked may authorize in defiance of the law.

But that's not where things stopped.

"in defiance of the law"

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.

"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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The problem is exactly this. Taking a very narrow scenario and then scaling it...

Scaled very well.

I think some thought there may be follow on attacks and we thought we had some people who may know something. In that scenario I could see someone who believed torture worked may authorize in defiance of the law.

I think what you thought some thought is scaled a bit low, but, I think, maybe, its possibly somewhat OK.

But that's not where things stopped.

Yes, it stopped, scale and all. Old news. Oh, wait. It stopped after the original scenario was scaled. But the Dem Senate decided to scale it some more. Starting with a narrow scenario which did not include views of the original scalers. And self-righteously stopped with the self-proud massive scale that the initial scale would never be scaled again because of their one-sided ultimately scaled investigation. With the self-congratulatory admission that their ultimate scaling might actually result in the escalated scaling of radical Islamists in response.

Good stuff, Spence. Very brief and readable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is no moral equivalence, none at all, between the terrorists attempt to incinerate innocent civilians, and our attempts to do horrible things to try to save innocent lives. we are not motivated by blood lust - they are. we are motivated (at least we should be for Christ's sake) to protect the innocent.

I still have yet to see anyone try to claim parity between our actions and those who committed 9/11.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If polls are correct, the majority of sheep are still in the flow of 9/11 mentality and in favor of EIT:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/16/t...ltural-divide/

How many of those sheep believed Saddam was involved in 9/11?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

http://www.combat.ws/S4/LIBRARY/SHEEPDOG.HTM

An interesting perspective with a lot of truth.

But while sheepdogs act with much instinct aren't their behaviors also governed by the training of their owners?

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?

What again is a wolf?

[CTSurfrat]

This scene is closer to the truth then some would like to admit. It's easy now to say it was "torture", and call into question the methods used. We all know that if we ever get hit again on a major scale the same politicians will be complaining that the CIA blew it!

A Few Good Men
Colonel Jessup:

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

[spence]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

It's worth noting that in the movie Col. Jessup was arrested.

[stripermaineiac]

Thought for you guys. Your at the mourge to identify a family member with body parts missing as the building they were in was blown up by a pscyko who didn't like that your family reads the bible. What would you do if you could to makem that not happen. we want and trust those people to keep us safe,do the hard stuff and at times get their hands bloody for our safety. Remeber your freedom has a price. Sounds to me like people that have never stepped up or have forget that fact.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How many of those sheep believed Saddam was involved in 9/11?

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

Hope this hasn't been too long for you.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.combat.ws/S4/LIBRARY/SHEEPDOG.HTM
An interesting perspective with a lot of truth.

Yup.

But while sheepdogs act with much instinct aren't their behaviors also governed by the training of their owners?

Any owner who trains his sheepdog to be nice to the wolves will lose his sheep.

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?

If the wolf is satisfied, its already too late.

What again is a wolf?

A radical Islamist.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Any owner who trains his sheepdog to be nice to the wolves will lose his sheep.

BOOM!





Originally Posted by spence

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?


sorry....this is a new level of dumb

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

sorry....this is a new level of dumb

Put the cap back on.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Or more importantly, can or does a sheepdog discern between a wolf that will feed versus a wolf that's satisfied?

Originally Posted by spence

Put the cap back on.

your New Year's resolution should be to try to make sense once in a while...since you like this wolf analogy...

a) the wolf will always become hungry again(never satisfied)
b) the wolf becomes more emboldened each time if feeds successfully
c) other wolves will follow emboldened by the success of the first wolf
d) the wolf doesn't care whether the sheepdog views it as ready to feed or satisfied, it's going to feed at the next best opportunity
e) navel gazing sheepdogs and shepherds pondering how to coexist with the wolves and whether or not they are ready to feed or feeling satified at that moment will surely lose their flock

[Nebe]

I think we could have tortured more people to reap more information. We should have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I think we could have tortured more people to reap more information. We should have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clearly the fault lies with the Shepard, sheepdog and the sheep... who's actions have caused the wolves to be hungry....and therefore must learn to either coexist with the wolves or determine how to best avoid inflaming the hunger of the wolves to minimize their desire to feed.....something like that

funny....I've never heard of a wolf going easy on a sheep...maybe in an Aesops's Fable....I see the story from Pakistan and what has gone on in Iraq recently and other places and realize we cannot deal "humanely" with the inhumane...any of those folks would have chosen waterboarding I think, over what they and their children met......it's incredible that this is even a discussion....we seemed determined to tie the paws of the sheepdog behind it's back and I guess bark louder whenever it determines/divines the wolf might be hungry trusting that the wolves will respond in kind by what?...not eating as many sheep? good grief...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

How many of those sheep believed Saddam was involved in 9/11?

100% knew that he was atop the list of most prolific sponsors of terrorism in the world for many years running...I wonder how many sheep died as a result..he'd built a pretty solid case against himself that went way beyond 9/11.....don't think we miss him very much

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worth noting that in the movie Col. Jessup was arrested.

True, but not for interrogating a terrorist with information on an imminent attack on the U.S.

[scottw]

I listened to Mc Cain recently...his contention is that these techniques in general don't work because they result in the subject telling the interrogators what he thinks they want to hear in order to make them stop...to that I would say ...YES....what they want to hear may in fact be what they want to know...once they are told what they want to hear or know, they can then go about determining how truthful the information is...which is likely much more information than would have been gotten otherwise....and ultimately...it's been shown that we treat the wolves much better than they treat the sheep in nearly every case

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
spence - pls, pls. don't respond to that. Enough band width has been wasted.

Spence reply:
"I can't, it takes too long just to read it let alone formulate a response"


Let me make it easy for you. I'll break it down into little parts. Try answering this part, if you can:

Originally Posted by spence View Post
"(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."

Detbuch response:
"Well, it does, or it doesn't. It depends on which higher authority, if there is one, or higher law the actions are in accord or disagreement with. For instance, when Obama creates executive orders which are not in accord with or in opposition to the higher constitutional law, they would not be legal. But if the Constitution is not considered a higher authority or law than that which Obama and the progressive movement he belongs to consider to be an overriding concept (or law) of 'social justice,' then his executive orders, and all the past 100 years of progressively overriding constitutional law in order to achieve their notion of social justice, are considered, by them, to be legal."

Is that too long for you to formulate a response? If not, give it a go.

[detbuch]

Spence, here's another little part made easy for you:

Originally quoted by Spence re Bush's EIT:
"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.

Detbuch response:
"That begs the question of why it would be necessary to adhere to the Geneva Convention, or International law, or any other law, if the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is not necessarily followed. If administrations can make ad hoc decisions which violate the highest law in your own country, why would it be necessary for administrations to follow any other supposed higher laws, including U.N. laws (especially when those laws can supersede your own laws and deprive you of sovereignty over yourself)?"

Is this also too long for you to formulate a response: If not, give it a go.

[detbuch]

Spence: yet another little piece that you may be able to handle:

Original quote by Spence"
"(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?"

Detbuch reply"
"It's cute how you apply the test of 'real evidence' to determine if torture works, but your test for favoring that it doesn't is the 'seem to believe' of 'most experts.' "

"And from there you go to the proposition that 'it's not likely to work.' Well, even granting your allowances which don't require real evidence, just 'expert' opinion, and even though other, if not 'most' experts 'seem to believe' that it does work (was there actually a tally of experts on both sides to determine who was the most, and by how much?)--'not likely to work' does not mean that it won't. And in desperate circumstances, why wouldn't you do it?"

This is a bit longer. But I think you can handle it. Give it a go.

[detbuch]

Spence: and yet another smaller portion, but maybe too long for you:

Original quote by Spence:
"(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?"

Response by Detbuch:
"As for that 'illegal' bit, again, the hypocrisy, and worse, of getting what you want politically by trashing your own laws, then demanding that even in desperate times your opposition must not only follow some law based on foreign notions and cooperation, those very laws which not only deprive you of sovereignty, but evolved from some original feasible and sensible notion to the present height of silliness, is all not only astounding but is self-destructive. There have been several U.N. conventions since the original laws on torture of 'legally' combatant prisoners were agreed to. The original notion that all parties WHO SIGNED ON TO THE AGREEMENT would be deterred from torturing each other's prisoners, otherwise, quid pro quo, if you torture mine I'll torture yours. That evolved over time and conventions (due to what were perceived to be 'socially Just' humanitarian values) to the prohibition of 'torture' by a signatory party, even if the other party did not sign on or even if it did torture.

The 'terrorists' that we 'tortured' were not 'legal' uniformed combatants of a sovereign nation which had signed on to the U.N. agreement on torture. And they have, and continue so, tortured and brutally execute, not only uniformed military, but non-combatant civilians. Yet whom, by U. N. convention, we were not allowed to 'torture.' Which, I think, would 'seem to be believed' by 'most' Americans to be stupid."

I realize the length of this may stretch you ability to a breaking point. But if you can handle it, give it a go.

[detbuch]

Spence, the final portion broken down made easy for you to handle:

Original quote by Spence:
"3) I've never heard people say we're no better but it certainly does undermine our high-ground and our identity."

Reply by Detbuch:
"Our high ground in accord with rule of law has been undermined by progressive ad hoc rule of whim in opposition to the law of our land for a long time. Leftist progressives have no moral ground to stand on in that respect. And with that lawless transformation, our 'identity' is no longer recognizable. In every respect, we not only contradict ourselves, but we look like fools, not worthy of respect, to the rest of the world, when we appear to have a fungible identity which changes from one day to the next. And when we can one day lie and rail about and accuse some obscure anti-Islamic video being the cause of bloody riots and death of our own consulate members, then mea culpa expose what we had actually done to Islamists even though even many more of our people would be at risk because of it--when we can do that about face, from falsely condemning a video, to praising a supposedly 'high ground' truth which would cause the mayhem and bloodshed that we accused the video of fomenting, the height of the ground is leveled to the pit of hypocrisy . . . and stupidity."

Maybe too much. But give it a go . . . if you can.

[spence]

HAHA! And I was about to start working on the first leg.

I have to make the kids dinner and iron my pajamas but will try and pen something later.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

HAHA! And I was about to start working on the first leg.

oh great...... torture that most experts seem to believe is worse than waterboarding and undoubtedly less likely to providing meaningful information.........