Tiberius Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/cia-torture-report-republicans-react-113432.html Yet Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said the government should be more transparent and have a moral stance against torture. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), himself a victim of torture while a prisoner of war, supported the report’s release and criticized the CIA’s practices as having “damaged our security interests.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/cia-torture-report-republicans-react-113432.html#ixzz3LWeKemr8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I believe in zombie extraterrestrials... get it right! So noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The Dems had to say that the "torture" didn't produce any accurate intelligence because if it did, people would be less outraged. So that claim means nothing to me. I think that the burden to show its efficacy clearly falls on those conducting the torture, as it's impossible to prove non-existence. It's easy to disprove the report's claim, provided such proof exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I think that the burden to show its efficacy clearly falls on those conducting the torture, as it's impossible to prove non-existence. It's easy to disprove the report's claim, provided such proof exists. No it's not, because any evidence that was released, people would say was ambiguous. Whatever may have been gathered was most likely less a "neon sign" sort of message indicating the next terrorist attack, but more the starting point of unravelling a thread that people would argue we could have started unravelling by other means. Hell, people still can't agree on the impact of MAGIC on World War II in the Pacific. It'll always be ambiguous, and people will always believe what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Pay and Suffering: Psychologists Made $80M From CIA Interrogation Program ABC News, by Lee Letterman & Brian Ross Original Article An Interrogator Breaks His Silence Weekly Standard, by Stephen F. Hayes Original Article I shouldn't have to write this, but what follows are OPINION pieces, written in coherent, intelligent articles. Now some of the (lesser) posters here have trouble with that concept, and decide that any view that is presented that doesn't fit their own belief is a "biased" article. Well, that claim certainly demonstrates clearly where they are. ADDED: you don't have to agree or disagree, it is presented for its own value. The Ideology of Restraint :The Senate’s “torture report” is a dangerous, partisan mess. by David French Senate ‘Torture’ Report vs. Senate Iraq Intel Report: A Study in Contrasts by Ian Tuttle The ‘Torture’ Report’s False Information Canard by Andrew C McCarthy ‘Torture’ Thought Experiment If you were to take the “torture” report seriously (I don’t — it’s a political document), you would have to say Barack Obama inhabits a very strange moral universe. Here is a thought experiment I have been using for many years as we’ve debated this topic. It goes to what Obama says about the intolerably brutal nature of waterboarding, the most coercive of the enhanced techniques that were used. If you were to take everyone in America who is serving a minor jail sentence of, say, 6 to 18 months, and you were to ask them whether they’d rather serve the rest of their time or be waterboarded in the manner practiced by the CIA post 9/11 (i.e., not in the manner practiced by the Japanese in World War II), how many would choose waterboarding? I am guessing, conservatively, that over 95 percent would choose waterboarding. Now, if you take the same group of inmates and ask them whether they’d prefer to serve the remainder of their time or be subjected to Obama’s drone program (where we kill rather than capture terrorists, therefore get no intelligence from the people in the best position to provide actionable intelligence, and kill bystanders — including some children — in addition to the target), how many would choose the drone program? I am guessing that it would be . . . zero. I believe President Obama is too smart not to grasp this obvious point. So ignore the blather about how enhanced interrogation is “not who we are.” The so-called Torture Report is a partisan gift to Obama’s Bush-deranged base, which has been clamoring for it since the enhanced-interrogation program was disclosed. Even before this report was released, the Democrats’ shameful partisan attack on the war effort for the purpose of motivating their political base had seriously compromised U.S. intelligence collection — in a war against a secretive transcontinental terror network against which good intelligence is in many ways our only security. This report is not just wildly inaccurate (as three former CIA directors attest today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed). It further endangers our country, for no good purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Metallica: Enter Sandman I just ordered myself some CIA torture on Amazon. I'm surprised the fiends didn't resort to Tom Petty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) I just ordered myself some CIA torture on Amazon. I'm surprised the fiends didn't resort to Tom Petty. I don't know why they didn't also sir, they seem to fit; The Waiting..........................Don't Do Me Like That......................Refugee...................................You Wreck Me Selective Belief By Peter Kirsanow Do a quick scan of major media reporting on the Senate Democrats’ so-called torture report. Pay particular attention to liberal reaction and commentary. Then go back and examine major media reporting on the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Wilson. Again, pay particular attention to liberal reaction and commentary. Many of the same media outlets that dismissed as incredible the Ferguson grand jury’s decision — a decision based, in part, on the testimony of more than 40 witnesses to the event in question — now find credible a report on a CIA program prepared by Democratic staffers who interviewed none of the individuals involved in establishing and running the program. Who says liberals aren’t religious? Edited December 10, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Up next will be a policy that allows us to only recruit tea-totalling assets to gather our intel - a return to the Clinton era policy that sped up the process in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 No it's not, because any evidence that was released, people would say was ambiguous. Whatever may have been gathered was most likely less a "neon sign" sort of message indicating the next terrorist attack, but more the starting point of unravelling a thread that people would argue we could have started unravelling by other means. Hell, people still can't agree on the impact of MAGIC on World War II in the Pacific. It'll always be ambiguous, and people will always believe what they want. Preach on Still, the burden of proof is on those supporting the morally-questionable act I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Still, the burden of proof is on those supporting the morally-questionable act I think. In this case, the burden of proof's on everyone. The Senate's making a poorly substantiated affirmative claim based on an incomplete investigation, but the CIA interrogators (current, former, departmental) are making a contrasting affirmative claim themselves. The CIA just has it easier, because the Senate's populated by idiots who made a negative affirmative claim that can be disproved by only one example...except if that happens, the people supporting the Senate report will say "Well, that doesn't count!" People will always believe what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 "This is perhaps the most significant missed opportunity, because no one would claim the program was perfect or without its problems. But equally, no one with real experience would claim it was the completely ineffective and superfluous effort this report alleges." Writes Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years. (Kerrey was also a Navy SEAL, and he won the Medal of Honor heroism in the Vietnam War.) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Preach on Still, the burden of proof is on those supporting the morally-questionable act I think. Morally-questoinable act - like drone bombing innocent people from 10k feet? Oh, right. It's "justifiable" because we got a bad guy. So what if his wives and children and parents were greased in the process. At least it gets us out of the messy business of actually having him in custody and having to cater to his Islamic rights on an hourly basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) It's hard to take some people's "outrage" on this matter seriously without them expressing an even more virulent sentiment towards the U.S's drone program. Edited December 10, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Morally-questoinable act - like drone bombing innocent people from 10k feet? Oh, right. It's "justifiable" because we got a bad guy. So what if his wives and children and parents were greased in the process. At least it gets us out of the messy business of actually having him in custody and having to cater to his Islamic rights on an hourly basis. I don't recall saying that drone bombing isn't a morally-questionable act. Please try to stay on topic. It might help if you turned down the Limbaugh and stopped looking at politics as a team sport, but I expect that's asking too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) The real story behind the release of the CIA ‘torture’ report Washington Times, by Joseph Curl Original Article Torture debate: A familiar clash with media outrage on both sides Fox News, by Howard Kurtz Original Article . Edited December 11, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 I don't recall saying that drone bombing isn't a morally-questionable act. Please try to stay on topic. It might help if you turned down the Limbaugh and stopped looking at politics as a team sport, but I expect that's asking too much. So you are against the WH drone-dropping program, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 It's hard to take some people's "outrage" on this matter seriously without them expressing an even more virulent sentiment towards the U.S's drone program. I'm outraged! Again, stop deflecting. I'm sure drone strikes are currently being discussed in a wide variety of diverse topics here, including (but not limited to) Chicago, Liberal/Progressive hypocrisy, lazy and entitled rioting black people, Benghazi, Liberal media bias, what's wrong with kids today, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 So you are against the WH drone-dropping program, yes? I certainly don't support the bombing of innocent civilians. I don't support making jihadist propaganda material so easy to generate as a result of the drone program. I suppose i do support targeted strikes of actual terrorists who want to forcibly spread their violent ideals to others and harm the U.S. I guess it's like fracking: I support it if it can be done safely. If not, either fix it or stop it. I'm sure your opinion is much more black and white. In a simple kinda of way, it must be kind of nice to think like that. Now, back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 lazy and entitled rioting black people In all fairness, if you don't want to be referred to as a lazy protester, perhaps your plan should include something other than, y'know, lying down all the time. Millions of people run for their causes. If your plan is to lie down in front of people who are going to work to provide for their families, being called 'lazy' is getting off easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 In all fairness, if you don't want to be referred to as a lazy protester, perhaps your plan should include something other than, y'know, lying down all the time. Millions of people run for their causes. If your plan is to lie down in front of people who are going to work to provide for their families, being called 'lazy' is getting off easy. [This is an automated response] This subject matter is being currently being discussed or has already been discussed in a previous thread. Please consider using the "search" function before repeatedly changing the subject. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts