Obama to Block CIA from "advanced interrogation"

[theflyingpig]

Obama is brilliant. His stance on torture makes it that much easier for the intelligence agencies to conduct buisness. Obama is basically pacifying the public outrage about torture. By doing this, the public will accept the 'fact' that to US does not torture, and that there are no secret prisons, when in fact, there are. If any of these secret prisons are found, those involved will simply be labeled as 'rouges' by the administration and punished accordingly. This will maintain the stance that we do not torture and satisfy the public's need for justice. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Only a piece of human shit tortures or approves of the torture of others. There are a number of pieces of human shit posting in this thread.

If you become a piece of human shit to fight the human shit who is a terrorist you have become what you fight and it makes no difference at all who then wins. The terrorist has brought you to his level and won.

This isn't a discussion about partial birth abortion, it is about lawful interrogation techniques.

Which must be why you change the subject to something completely irrelevant like abortion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Just to qualify what I said, there is a truth so long as your starting values are constant. Once you boil down these people's arguments, you realize that if they don't end up agreeing with you it is because one of your constants is not agreed upon--and you end up finding out they think one class of people is inherently superior to another, or one I ran into recently that the President is not subject to any laws (another version of the first example).

Or it could just be that the truth you consider a constant is not something they find agreeable, and they may find it equally frustrating that you are unable to comprehend their worldview.

In simpler terms, we call this a disagreement.

No offense to your claim about logic, ethics and history, but I have known many academics who couldn't argue themselves out of a box, but felt their liberal arts education somehow elevated their thinking....enlightenment can sometimes lead to elitism.

You wouldn't have the faintest idea.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Obama is brilliant. His stance on torture makes it that much easier for the intelligence agencies to conduct buisness. Obama is basically pacifying the public outrage about torture. By doing this, the public will accept the 'fact' that to US does not torture, and that there are no secret prisons, when in fact, there are. If any of these secret prisons are found, those involved will simply be labeled as 'rouges' by the administration and punished accordingly. This will maintain the stance that we do not torture and satisfy the public's need for justice. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

The real brilliance is in your ability to have figured this out.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Obama is brilliant. His stance on torture makes it that much easier for the intelligence agencies to conduct buisness. Obama is basically pacifying the public outrage about torture. By doing this, the public will accept the 'fact' that to US does not torture, and that there are no secret prisons, when in fact, there are. If any of these secret prisons are found, those involved will simply be labeled as 'rouges' by the administration and punished accordingly. This will maintain the stance that we do not torture and satisfy the public's need for justice. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

The real brilliance is in your ability to have figured this out.

Truly, it is. The Bush regime was too stupid to figure this out. I'm glad we finally have someone competent in charge.

 

[Zebo]

What's ironic is the article you quote begins with McCain yammering - who in fact sang like a bird under torture. His whole crew did as well. Read his book.

What these two, the FBI guy and political general, understate or are oblivious to, is all methods are not available to them to include death for detainee for giving false or misleading information so they base their whole hypothesis on quasi-torture, not torture at all, and go to state it does not work. I think neither is really credible just because of the nature of their positions have a political agenda instead. But I don't know for sure since it's hard to preform scientific torture studies and get them in JAMA for a variety of reasons. But here are two articles from operatives, a CIA guy and military intel which say just the opposite.

Waterboarding effective but torture: Former CIA agent -"It was like flipping a switch,"
http://in.ibtimes.com/articles...rture-cia-al-qaeda.htm
3 Suspects Talk After Iraqi Soldiers Do Dirty Work
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...ast/22detain.html?_r=2

I've always held that it should be done on the down low and only case by case with presidents approval - not national policy because of the brutality and fishing expeditions. I think Obama will do it this way as past presidents have done.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zebo
What's ironic is the article you quote begins with McCain yammering - who in fact sang like a bird under torture. His whole crew did as well. Read his book.

What these two, the FBI guy and political general, understate or are oblivious to, is all methods are not available to them to include death for detainee for giving false or misleading information so they base their whole hypothesis on quasi-torture, not torture at all, and go to state it does not work. I think neither is really credible just because of the nature of their positions have a political agenda instead. But I don't know for sure since it's hard to preform scientific torture studies and get them in JAMA for a variety of reasons. But here are two articles from operatives, a CIA guy and military intel which say just the opposite.

Waterboarding effective but torture: Former CIA agent -"It was like flipping a switch,"
http://in.ibtimes.com/articles...rture-cia-al-qaeda.htm
3 Suspects Talk After Iraqi Soldiers Do Dirty Work
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...ast/22detain.html?_r=2

I've always held that it should be done on the down low and only case by case with presidents approval - not national policy because of the brutality and fishing expeditions. I think Obama will do it this way as past presidents have done.

You don't need JAMA to tell you when you've become a piece of human shit nor do you need to analyze any data.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
This might sound like a cheap shot at Bush, but I don't really mean it that way: Thank god the adults are back in charge.

At least in regards to torture, no more of the grey area hedging, no more saying 'we don't torture' out of one side of our mouths while ordering what everyone knows to be torture out of the other side. Some of the biggest humiliations America has produced over the last 8 years (Guantanamo, torture) are being set right. Glad to hear it.

Why even bother with the first sentence as clearly what you mean is it is a cheap shot at the former admin...

With that said, if people have been trained to withstand standard methods of information acquisition what is the point in using those methods any longer?? Seems as if in holding to our "ideals" as a nation we will be crippling ourselves as well. I also don't think having a documented standard on this type of thing would be the best idea, as one poster said above you don't want everyone to know your playbook as it makes it easier for them to work around your process.

but America is a bunch of pussies anyway so I am not surprised.

 

[Skitzer]

A simple solution to all this controversy .............. take no prisoners.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Just wait till AQ takes advantage of our crippled intelligence. What will lefties say then?

That I'm glad we stopped torturng anyone, and that you're a typical paranoid immoral righty. You don't have a clue what the legitimate issues are in these matters.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Obama is doing his best to make it easier for the terrorists, I think they may have voted for him.

I can't wait until the new forum software which allows filters.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Just wait till AQ takes advantage of our crippled intelligence. What will lefties say then?

Like our intelligence was so great before this (IRAQ WAR). :roll:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
A simple solution to all this controversy .............. take no prisoners.

And a solution that's been proven a failure.

 

[Robor]

Related to the same topic, Jon Stewart had Matthew Alexander - author of 'How To Break A Terrorist' - on his show a while back and it was an excellent interview. Definitely worth watching. I think this is the link... LINK

 

[BMW540I6speed]

As I was doing my daily rounds on Free Republic today, I noticed that all the outrage surrounding the closure of Gitmo (aside from the entirely baseless claims that "terrorists are celebrating" and "Obama is going easy on the fanatics") was linked to this outrageous fear creeping into the minds of these so called conservatives that some how, some way, the deadly terrorists will be dangerous to American communities if incarcerated on US soil.

Apparently some of us have forgotten how nice life can be for maximum security prisoners and those remanded in military jails on US bases. We've also forgotten that escapes from prison are quite frequent, with escapees usually getting their hands on guns, ammunition and bombs within hours. And how is it that we've forgotton all the terrorist attacks on US jails housing Muslims in the past?...laughable!

So there I am, this morning, riding to work with NPR on. And what do I hear? Why, it's Orrin Hatch, echoing the sentiments of every creature lurking on FR. Duncan Hunter, that pillar of manliness, did much the same yesterday - issuing a statement decrying the possibility of the Dangerous Muslims being incarcerated anywhere near San Diego. Even in the new age of Obama, it seems, the illogical musings of the base continue to be the ideological fallback for Senators and Congressmen.

Never mind that only 21 of 245 currently held at Gitmo have been charged. Never mind the Pentagon's assessment that 60 are ready to be released. Never mind that hundreds of Guantanamo detainees have been released under Bush for one reason or another? Why isn't he the Most Dangerous President Evah? For FReepers, Hatch and Duncan, the very presence of "the worst of the worst" on US soil is enough to soil oneself over & over.

Fear...

Only the GOP can continue to market a useless commodity that has bankrupted this country, both morally and financially. Tough guys, those hard-right conservatives.

 

[jackschmittusa]

We are on the road to becoming a civilized nation again, clawing and scratching our way to the moral high ground again.

Those who favor torture are cowards who would abandon our nation's highest principles out of fear and vindictiveness. Words like freedom, liberty and justice for all, inalienable rights, are meaningless in the context of supporting torture.

Torture is outside of American principals and ideals. Period!

Supporters of torture are fair weather patriots who only support the things that make our country a great nation when it is convenient, discarding our greatest values as soon as they tremble.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Does anyone really think that just because a piece of paper has been signed that the CIA will not torture people anymore? Obama's pen isn't a magic wand.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Just to qualify what I said, there is a truth so long as your starting values are constant. Once you boil down these people's arguments, you realize that if they don't end up agreeing with you it is because one of your constants is not agreed upon--and you end up finding out they think one class of people is inherently superior to another, or one I ran into recently that the President is not subject to any laws (another version of the first example).

Or it could just be that the truth you consider a constant is not something they find agreeable, and they may find it equally frustrating that you are unable to comprehend their worldview.

In simpler terms, we call this a disagreement.

No offense to your claim about logic, ethics and history, but I have known many academics who couldn't argue themselves out of a box, but felt their liberal arts education somehow elevated their thinking....enlightenment can sometimes lead to elitism.

I see how what I said comes across as that.. it doesn't have to be a formal education but just an understanding of it. It is pretty obvious someone doesn't have it when they start using logical fallacies, for example. You just can't argue with someone like that.

I agree with you on the constants, my point was in a lot of cases the constant that is disagreed upon is something that is almost laughable to not agree with--for instance my example of a person thinking the President can do whatever he wants. I had an argument with a Bush supporter and he was pretty good at getting his point across but eventually it got down to he thought the President, in a time of war, could do whatever (literally anything) he wanted in a time of war to protect the country. At that point we agreed to disagree because with him putting that constant in the equation we were never going to get anywhere.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Evan
I'll echo eskimospy's statements, the adults are back in charge here. We'll undeniably look back at 00-08 as similar to 41-45's Japanese internment camps. Suspension of habeas corpus, denying American citizens' rights to privacy, and torture truly was a disgrace to our long-held values and morals, and it didn't make us any safer to boot except that we didn't have a terrorist attack on American soil after 9/11, instead transferring the deaths to Iraq with the loss of 4000+ American soldiers.

To compare the last 8 years to the internment camps of WWII is just stupid. Rounding up US citizens(by a Democratic President) and putting them in a camp is not even close to being the same and actually diminishes what a disgrace the camps were. Whose habeas corpus rights were violated? Not one US citizen was. Warrentless wiretapping? Oh yes, they're listening to incoming calls from Saudi Arabia. It's so illegal that it was extended by congress--with Clinton and Obama approving.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Does anyone really think that just because a piece of paper has been signed that the CIA will not torture people anymore? Obama's pen isn't a magic wand.

And your point is...? We're talking about presidential policy here.

Murder is illegal. Does anyone think that because we have legislated murder as a crime that murder won't happen anymore? We're not celebrating (those of us who are celebrating) the end of all bad acts committed by the US government and those in its employ. We are celebrating the presdient's public denouncement of those bad acts and the unambiguous rejection of the prior administration's policies.

To answer your question, even if it's rhetorical, I think if the CIA tortures anyone and they are found out, then the individuals involved will be prosecuted. They will not be able to appeal to some ambiguous executive orders from above, or claim they didn't have clearly defined rules about what was and was not permitted. If they deviate from the AFM, then they are guilty and can be thrown in jail. Under Bush we have the CIA admitting to waterboarding and no charges could be brought. I don't think too many of them are gung ho to give that a shot now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

To compare the last 8 years to the internment camps of WWII is just stupid. Rounding up US citizens(by a Democratic President) and putting them in a camp is not even close to being the same and actually diminishes what a disgrace the camps were. Whose habeas corpus rights were violated? Not one US citizen was. Warrentless wiretapping? Oh yes, they're listening to incoming calls from Saudi Arabia. It's so illegal that it was extended by congress--with Clinton and Obama approving.

Uhmm, both Hamdi and Padilla were US citizens who had their habeas corpus rights violated. (In Hamdi's case it was specifically stated by the USSC that what the government had done was unconstitutional) Please don't come back with the argument that because it was just a few people that it's no big deal.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

To compare the last 8 years to the internment camps of WWII is just stupid. Rounding up US citizens(by a Democratic President) and putting them in a camp is not even close to being the same and actually diminishes what a disgrace the camps were. Whose habeas corpus rights were violated? Not one US citizen was. Warrentless wiretapping? Oh yes, they're listening to incoming calls from Saudi Arabia. It's so illegal that it was extended by congress--with Clinton and Obama approving.

Uhmm, both Hamdi and Padilla were US citizens who had their habeas corpus rights violated. (In Hamdi's case it was specifically stated by the USSC that what the government had done was unconstitutional) Please don't come back with the argument that because it was just a few people that it's no big deal.

Wasn't Hamdi a dual citizen with Saudi Arabia and he was captured in Afghanistan and then didn't tell his captures that he was US citizen? Well who's fault is that? As far as Padilla goes IIRC that they no idea what to do with the guy. A big deal no. A mistake yes. They did get vindicated did they not? Hamdi is in SA and Padilla is in jail with his rights fully in place. Did the GW admin go around suspending rights to everyone?? No. It's just stoopid to compare Japanese internment camps and the last 8 years correct?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: bozack

but America is a bunch of pussies anyway so I am not surprised.

No, just people like you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

To compare the last 8 years to the internment camps of WWII is just stupid. Rounding up US citizens(by a Democratic President) and putting them in a camp is not even close to being the same and actually diminishes what a disgrace the camps were. Whose habeas corpus rights were violated? Not one US citizen was. Warrentless wiretapping? Oh yes, they're listening to incoming calls from Saudi Arabia. It's so illegal that it was extended by congress--with Clinton and Obama approving.

Uhmm, both Hamdi and Padilla were US citizens who had their habeas corpus rights violated. (In Hamdi's case it was specifically stated by the USSC that what the government had done was unconstitutional) Please don't come back with the argument that because it was just a few people that it's no big deal.

Wasn't Hamdi a dual citizen with Saudi Arabia and he was captured in Afghanistan and then didn't tell his captures that he was US citizen? Well who's fault is that? As far as Padilla goes IIRC that they no idea what to do with the guy. A big deal no. A mistake yes. They did get vindicated did they not? Hamdi is in SA and Padilla is in jail with his rights fully in place. Did the GW admin go around suspending rights to everyone?? No. It's just stoopid to compare Japanese internment camps and the last 8 years correct?

I agree that the violations of the last 8 years are not nearly as bad as the Japanese internment camps. That's a pretty awful standard to shoot for though... and regardless I was just showing you two examples of US citizens who DID have their rights violated, as you had said none had.

The government attempted to continue holding Hamdi without charges or trial long after they were aware he was a US citizen, and they did so on purpose. Pretty shitty. (what was interesting was that Scalia, the arch-conservative authoritarian was actually the most damning in his opinion against the government)

As for Padilla, they still held him for years without charges or trial. Just because they aren't violating his rights anymore doesn't mean they didn't violate his rights. It was also highly suspicious that the government suddenly abandoned its position right before the USSC was about to rule on the Padilla case, it appears quite likely they did so in order to avoid an adverse ruling.

The combination of these two cases shows that the Bush admin. was not averse to trampling on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens in regards to indefinite detention, and I think it's something we should all remember in case a future administration tries to do it again. Whether or not the guys ended up being found guilty or not isn't really the point. If a court finds them guilty I'll be the first one to clap as their stupid asses get hauled off to jail, but lets do it right.