JackFrost Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30401100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Not surprised or really bothered. I expect they do a lot worse off record and our agents do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Not surprised or really bothered. I expect they do a lot worse off record and our agents do the same. Not bothered? Torture is OK with you, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Not bothered? Torture is OK with you, then? we should ask them nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 we should ask them nicely Did you miss the fact that the torture didn't yield any additional useful information but did lead to reduced co-operation between allies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Did you miss the fact that the torture didn't yield any additional useful information but did lead to reduced co-operation between allies? It will get roundly condemned by all involved.... Or were involved Yet it will still go on where we will never know about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Rectal probing is just not cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Not surprised or really bothered. I expect they do a lot worse off record and our agents do the same. we should ask them nicely "At least 26 of 119 known detainees in custody during the life of the programme were wrongfully held, and many held for months longer than they should have been" Not bothered about innocent people being tortured? Blimey, what a horrific world we live in. Ask them nicely or torture them - the answers will be equally useless if they're innocent and don't know anything. I'm staggered that people think torture is acceptable. I'm sure its widespread. I'm sure the Britain has tortured people. However, none of that makes it ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Did you miss the fact that the torture didn't yield any additional useful information but did lead to reduced co-operation between allies? They would say that, wouldn't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 "At least 26 of 119 known detainees in custody during the life of the programme were wrongfully held, and many held for months longer than they should have been" Not bothered about innocent people being tortured? Blimey, what a horrific world we live in. Ask them nicely or torture them - the answers will be equally useless if they're innocent and don't know anything. I'm staggered that people think torture is acceptable. I'm sure its widespread. I'm sure the Britain has tortured people. However, none of that makes it ok. Easier to say that from a protected world than at frontline dealing with these people. If MI5 held someone and thought threat was imminent surely you can imagine why it might be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Easier to say that from a protected world than at frontline dealing with these people. If MI5 held someone and thought threat was imminent surely you can imagine why it might be used? No. "These people" included innocent people. They weren't at the frontline, they were, as the map in the article shows, shipped around the world to various places where they could be tortured in private and with little comeback. I see no circumstance where torture is acceptable. If you have an innocent person they could say anything to stop the torture, what use is that? Its counter productive. This news of torture is not going to make those radicalised fundamentalists change their minds, is it? It will simply feed more and more disillusioned people towards terrorist groups and radical acts. It upsets me to think that people are happy to hand over such control to authorities that they will stand by and be either apathetic when a human being is tortured or even go along with it, encourage it, like Delldays has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 They would say that, wouldn't they. What members of the US Congress? Those lefty hippies who just want people to have namby pampby rights and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 No. "These people" included innocent people. They weren't at the frontline, they were, as the map in the article shows, shipped around the world to various places where they could be tortured in private and with little comeback. I see no circumstance where torture is acceptable. If you have an innocent person they could say anything to stop the torture, what use is that? Its counter productive. This news of torture is not going to make those radicalised fundamentalists change their minds, is it? It will simply feed more and more disillusioned people towards terrorist groups and radical acts. It upsets me to think that people are happy to hand over such control to authorities that they will stand by and be either apathetic when a human being is tortured or even go along with it, encourage it, like Delldays has. At least we don't behead people ..... It's the world we live in... It won't change That bit I have bolded... You really can't be serious. You think the kind of intel we get to keep ahead of various threats to national security is just handed over to us or we just get lucky finding it? People who would quite happily kill you and your family without a blink of an eye. Hypothetical situation...your wife, son, boyfriend ..whatever are in holiday somewhere, minding their own business...get kidnapped and been taken hostage and are about to have their head cut off in the next few hours.... However, in custody our is someone who knows full well where they are being kept and how to get them out..but isn't talking...Still stand by your statement or would you do what needs to be done to extract the info? Genuinely interested.... I can't for one second believe that if it became personal, you would stand by the 'human rights all men are equal, this is wrong' ********. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 What members of the US Congress? Those lefty hippies who just want people to have namby pampby rights and stuff. Nobody would ever confirm or deny that information was extracted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 (edited) Nobody would ever confirm or deny that information was extracted. So the Chair of the Senate Intelligence committee was lying then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30401025 What did the Senate committee find out? 1) The CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining co-operation from detainees. 2)The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness. 3) The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others. 180 hours 4) The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others. 5) The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. 6) The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the programme. 7) The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making. The CIA's operation and management of the programme complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other executive branch agencies. 9) The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General. 10) The CIA co-ordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. 11) The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities. 12) The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the programme's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003. 13) Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the programme. George W Bush qupte 14) CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorised by CIA headquarters. 15) The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate. 16) The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques. 17) The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures. 18) The CIA marginalised and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. 19) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorised press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns. 20) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs. Edited 9 December, 2014 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 At least we don't behead people ..... It's the world we live in... It won't change That bit I have bolded... You really can't be serious. You think the kind of intel we get to keep ahead of various threats to national security is just handed over to us or we just get lucky finding it? People who would quite happily kill you and your family without a blink of an eye. Hypothetical situation...your wife, son, boyfriend ..whatever are in holiday somewhere, minding their own business...get kidnapped and been taken hostage and are about to have their head cut off in the next few hours.... However, in custody our is someone who knows full well where they are being kept and how to get them out..but isn't talking...Still stand by your statement or would you do what needs to be done to extract the info? Genuinely interested.... I can't for one second believe that if it became personal, you would stand by the 'human rights all men are equal, this is wrong' ********. You're right. Now you've pointed it out, i have changed my mind. We should torture at will as long as we don't behead anyone. I hadn't previously considered any of the points you made, thank you for helping me open my eyes. And with that i am out of posts. Good job i saw the light just in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 You're right. Now you've pointed it out, i have changed my mind. We should torture at will as long as we don't behead anyone. I hadn't previously considered any of the points you made, thank you for helping me open my eyes. And with that i am out of posts. Good job i saw the light just in time. It's not torture at will or no torture is it? Would sleep deprivation be ruled out by you as an acceptable tactic for interrogation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 So the Chair of the Senate Intelligence committee was lying then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30401025 What did the Senate committee find out? 1) The CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining co-operation from detainees. 2)The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness. 3) The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others. 180 hours 4) The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others. 5) The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. 6) The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the programme. 7) The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making. The CIA's operation and management of the programme complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other executive branch agencies. 9) The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General. 10) The CIA co-ordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. 11) The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities. 12) The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the programme's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003. 13) Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the programme. George W Bush qupte 14) CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorised by CIA headquarters. 15) The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate. 16) The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques. 17) The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures. 18) The CIA marginalised and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. 19) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorised press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns. 20) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs. And you believe all that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 You're right. Now you've pointed it out, i have changed my mind. We should torture at will as long as we don't behead anyone. I hadn't previously considered any of the points you made, thank you for helping me open my eyes. And with that i am out of posts. Good job i saw the light just in time. So you didn't actually answer my question at all then...and went off on your own tangent. Well done. Try and answer it with one of your 3 posts tomorrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 in custody our is someone who knows full well where they are being kept and how to get them out..but isn't talking. Remind me. How do we know that they know where our family is given they aren't talking ? Is it because we tortured them until they said so or because we've guessed they might know and we dont have any other leads / plans for that evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 And you believe all that? Do I believe the the chair of the Intelligence committee and her team who spent 5 years looking into this and the public statement of the President, or a random saintswebber who believes in no rights for anybody except in his to have more money. Tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Remind me. How do we know that they know where our family is given they aren't talking ? Is it because we tortured them until they said so or because we've guessed they might know and we dont have any other leads / plans for that evening. I should have worded better really... But as I'm setting the parameters.. We'll make it clear as water.... The person in our custody is on film kidnapping said relative / partner and has done various threat videos with the captives. He has been captured himself, in a secret operation in... Basingstoke. It's definitely him 100% ..he knows but isn't talking. So... Do we torture to find out priceless info that we KNOW he has to save innocent lives...or is there still absolutely no reason at all to torture someone. This is for Ludwig btw... It's his boyfriend who's been taken hostage =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 I should have worded better really... But as I'm setting the parameters.. We'll make it clear as water.... The person in our custody is on film kidnapping said relative / partner and has done various threat videos with the captives. He has been captured himself, in a secret operation in... Basingstoke. It's definitely him 100% ..he knows but isn't talking. So... Do we torture to find out priceless info that we KNOW he has to save innocent lives...or is there still absolutely no reason at all to torture someone. This is for Ludwig btw... It's his boyfriend who's been taken hostage =) Lets turn it around. Which is more effective - a plea bargain by which he gives up the location and accomplices in exchange for a light sentence and new identity. Or tortured to reveal location and facing retribution from accomplices and 30 years in prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 just adding to this whilst I think about it.. If it is PROVEN that the process of torture has lead to information that has stopped another 9/11 happening.. Is that wrong... REALLY?? Evils exist in the world...it won't go away and if the method is successful in the fight against it...good. On the other side...clearly if someone innocent is tortured then it is wrong....we live in an imperfect world where people are still wrongly convicted but surely we can't not have this system if it helps saves thousands lives on the slim(ish) chance that we mix torture a few people. Interesting discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 Lets turn it around. Which is more effective - a plea bargain by which he gives up the location and accomplices in exchange for a light sentence and new identity. Or tortured to reveal location and facing retribution from accomplices and 30 years in prison? whichever one works! I would suggest they probably try tactic one first before diving straight in with the jump leads to the testicles..... Probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 The point of my post was that it was said above that there were no circumstances at all where torture was acceptable... Which I think is utter b0ll0x again, I'd suggest it's easy to say that in your arm chair watching eastenders... But if a very real situation was presented in front of you to get the necessary information ... Would you do it. so alter the parameters again... We've tried the plea bargaining and he flat out refuses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 so alter the parameters again... We've tried the plea bargaining and he flat out refuses... Bu why would he refuse? thats the whole point of the report. Torture doesn't work - it didn't give any additional information over and above conventional techniques and it impeded other intelligence gathering because potential informants no longer wanted to collaborate with such a brutal regime. Yes of course you can imagine a hypothetical situation where torturing 1 person would save thousands of lives, but in reality it doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rabbit Posted 9 December, 2014 Share Posted 9 December, 2014 well that's an interesting summary and perspective. i probably watch too much 24 =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Torture is not acceptable. It's a sad indictment of our age that some frightened little people think it is, especially since many of those people lived through a real terror campaign in the UK in the 1980s. The Americans seem to be plotting their future according to 1984, judging from their use of language. "Enhanced interrogation techniques"? Twáts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 If the US/UK advocates the use of torture for whatever purposes, it lowers itself to the level of the people we are at odds with. Better to take the moral high ground, achieve what you can using other means. Not only would that set an example but must also lessen the likelihood (in the longer run) of terror against us including tit-for-tat beheadings of our citizens. You can always create a scenario where torture seems the only possible lever, but I'm sure with the resources the CIA has at its disposal it can think of other, just as effective options, which don't help to push our countries towards the sort of terror we all want to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 I thought we had progressed from the rack and the thumbscrews to truth serums etc? Clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 They have sent one bloke to prison for it. Unfortunately, this was the bloke who blew the whistle on torture. http://abcnews.go.com/International/cia-operative-prison-punishment-whistleblowing-torture/story?id=27474359 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Does anybody seriously think we now know everything there is to know about what was or wasn't done, and what information was or wasn't obtained just because a bunch of politicians have published a report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Very few people seriously think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Very few people seriously think. Even fewer think seriously But you're quite right about this. It is a sad fact about modern society that many people let others do their thinking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Even fewer think seriously But you're quite right about this. It is a sad fact about modern society that many people let others do their thinking for them. I'm not sure it's a particularly modern problem. People have always been prey to propaganda; just look at the huge amount of men that enlisted for Horatio Kitchener's army back in 1914. That's a century ago. I think the difference these days is that with modern literacy, education and the wealth of information available instantly, people have all they need to think for themselves. They just tend not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Torture is not acceptable. It's a sad indictment of our age that some frightened little people think it is, especially since many of those people lived through a real terror campaign in the UK in the 1980s. The Americans seem to be plotting their future according to 1984, judging from their use of language. "Enhanced interrogation techniques"? Twáts. Agree utterly , but are you surprised in any way by this 'revelation'? then they preach holier than thou louder than any other nation about freedom and liberty No integrity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Not bothered? Torture is OK with you, then? Not nice but probably necessary in certain cases IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Not nice but probably necessary in certain cases IMO. But it's proven to be unreliable with most tortures providing false confessions and it hasn't spared any lives in this case. I can't think of any time when it would be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Not nice but probably necessary in certain cases IMO. And do people respect your opinion? Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 But it's proven to be unreliable with most tortures providing false confessions and it hasn't spared any lives in this case. I can't think of any time when it would be acceptable. I'm not sure where this proof has come from but I expect if it didn't work they wouldn't do it. I would prefer to leave it up to the experts that do-gooders who are scared of hurting a fly. From what I have read (military non-fiction) it is not easy to withstand torture, pretty much everyone talks eventually - that's why the SAS specifically train for such circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 And do people respect your opinion? Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety. where is that from mate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 where is that from mate ? Benjamin Franklin, 11th November 1755. Someone that understood freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Not nice but probably necessary in certain cases IMO. Necessary for what, given that it's shown not to be an effective way to get information? I can't think of what else it's necessary for if it's no good for that. It's kind of odd in many ways how little we've really progressed since witch trials. Use some horrific method to make somebody say what you want them to say, whether true or not. I reckon you could torture any person on this forum for long enough and they'd give you some piece of information about possible terrorists, if they thought would make you stop. It would be nonsense of course, but that seems to be what's generally been happening with the detainees they've had. The "torture apologists" on here so far just can't seem to get past the fact that no useful information has been gained, it's only had a negative outcome, setting back progress against terrotism. As somebody else mentioned, their idea of torture situations is too heavily built on an illusion of Jack Bauer-like figures doing whatever's necessary to get the job done. This is more like Jack Bauer's misguided boss getting people to torture his cab driver until he makes up a story about terrorists, Jack Bauer spending the rest of his 24 hours chasing down false leads, then the entire community the cabbie belonged to, protesting and refusing to cooperate, when before they may have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Necessary for what, given that it's shown not to be an effective way to get information? Where do you get this information? The CIA said it has saved lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Where do you get this information? The CIA said it has saved lives. You mean that the agency that decided to engage in torture is telling us that its torture was justified? Fancy that! Discussion over, people. The ever-trustworthy CIA has said that it saves lives. If they say that it definitely hasn't caused consternation and motivated non-extremists to get involved, then you must believe that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Abroad Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Wow, who would have thought, more gross American hatred. FWIW, and this should be public knowledge by now, many members of the U.S. Intelligence Community advocated against the use of torture. Other agencies within the IC were using "nicer" methods and extracting better information. The report and its timing are just as much a political move as they were a conscionable decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 I'm not sure where this proof has come from but I expect if it didn't work they wouldn't do it. I would prefer to leave it up to the experts that do-gooders who are scared of hurting a fly. From what I have read (military non-fiction) it is not easy to withstand torture, pretty much everyone talks eventually - that's why the SAS specifically train for such circumstances. This must be a wind up! Nobody can have failed to understand that much of the report! Yes, everybody talks, that's exactly the problem. It's no good if you just do something that makes everybody talk, you need to get the people who know something to say something useful, and it's been shown that that's not what torture accomplishes, it just makes everybody talk. The comment "I'm not sure where this proof has come from but I expect if it didn't work they wouldn't do it." is incredible. It didn't work, that's what the report showed. Do-gooders? Is everybody trying to find ways of stopping terrorism that actually work a do-gooder? Or are you only doing good if you stick to methods that don't actually get you anywhere? You're either on a wind up or this whole thing has gone entirely over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 Wow, who would have thought, more gross American hatred. FWIW, and this should be public knowledge by now, many members of the U.S. Intelligence Community advocated against the use of torture. Other agencies within the IC were using "nicer" methods and extracting better information. The report and its timing are just as much a political move as they were a conscionable decision. It's not gross American hatred. Some of the best people I've ever known are American. I get a warm welcome whenever I'm over. However, their government is probably the biggest threat to world peace on the planet. Important to distinguish the executive from the people, particularly in a game as rigged as the US' electoral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 10 December, 2014 Share Posted 10 December, 2014 (edited) The expansion of ISIS has come about based on the torture handed out in Guantanemo. This will cause more issues than the information garnered will solve. Torture is not ok, international law tells us this. This isn't 24 FFS. Edited 10 December, 2014 by Unbelievable Jeff Changed use of word 'rise' as causing confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now