Pew Poll: A majority of Americans believe torture is often or sometimes justifiebbd

[Winehole23]

Thursday, Dec 3, 2009 12:04 EST
America's regression (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/03/torture/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/03/torture/md_horiz.jpg Salon composite/Reuters photo


Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area in Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 2002.

(updated below)
Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/):


The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. . . . Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html):


No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
Pew Poll, today (http://people-press.org/report/569/americas-place-in-the-world):


Public opinion about the use of torture remains divided, though the share saying it can at least sometimes be justified has edged upward over the past year. Currently just over half of Americans say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can either often (19%) or sometimes (35%) be justified. This is the first time in over five years of Pew Research polling on this question that a majority has expressed these views. Another 16% say torture can rarely be justified, while 25% say it can never be justified.
Just think about that. Torture is one of the most universal taboos in the civilized world. The treaty championed by Ronald Reagan declares that "no exceptional circumstances" can justify it, and requires that every state criminalize it and prosecute those who authorize or engage in it. But only 25% of Americans agree with Ronald Reagan and this Western consensus that torture is never justifiable. Worse, 54% of Americans believe torture is "often" or "sometimes" justified. When it comes to torture, the vast bulk of the country is now to the "right" (for lack of a better term) of Ronald Reagan, who at least in words (if not in deeds (http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/18/promoting_the_ambassador_of_torture_bush)) insisted upon an absolute prohibition on the practice and mandatory prosecution for those responsible.


With these new numbers, it's virtually impossible to find a country (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btjusticehuman_rightsra/496.php?nid=&id=&pnt=496&lb=bthr) with as high a percentage of torture supporters as the U.S. has. In Iran, for instance, only 36% believe that torture can be justified in some cases, while 43% believe all torture must be strictly prohibited. Similarly, 66% of Palestinians, 54% of Egyptians, and over 80% of Western Europeans believe torture is always wrong. The U.S. has a far lower percentage than all of those nations of individuals who believe that torture should always be prohibited. At least on the level of the citizenry (as opposed to government), we're basically the leading torture advocacy state in the world.


Adam Serwer says (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2009&base_name=what_the_party_of_torture_hath) that this is "what happens when one party in a two party system makes something outrageous part of its political platform: Even the most abhorrent behavior can be mainstreamed." That's basically true, but even leaving aside the fact that many Democrats acquiesced to if not outright supported the same polices, this outcome is also attributable to our collective and very bipartisan decision not to investigate and prosecute the torture crimes that were committed. After all, how is it possible to credibly maintain that we believe torture is some sort of extreme crime and absolute evil when we sat by while our political leaders did it and now refuse to comply with our obligations to prosecute it? By doing that, aren't we implicitly though unambiguously conveying that, whatever our rhetoric, we don't really think torture is all that bad? We don't "Look Forward" when we think truly awful crimes have been committed; we Look Backwards (sometimes very far backwards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385577.stm)) and prosecute them. Whatever else is true, that's the message most Americans have received and embraced: torture is not really worth prosecuting so it must not be truly heinous.

UPDATE: Several commenters raise the reasonable objection that today's 2009 Pew poll shouldn't be compared to the 2008 World Public Opinion poll (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btjusticehuman_rightsra/496.php?nid=&id=&pnt=496&lb=bthr) I cited above because they ask different questions (the former measures the % who believe that torture "can never be justified" while the latter measures the % who believe that "all torture should be prohibited"). I think they're reasonably comparable, but even if one disagrees, the 2008 WPO poll finds that America has a higher percentage of people who believe that torture can be used on terrorists and/or used generally than all but a handful of countries in the poll.


As for the reason more Americans find torture justifiable than ever before, today's Pew poll finds that "both Democrats and independents have become more accepting of the idea that torture can be justified" and, worse: "47% of Democrats say torture can either often or sometimes be justified -- more than in any previous Pew poll." Meanwhile, Republican support for torture has remained fairly steady (67%). Thus, the increase in support for torture among Americans this year is largely due to increased acceptance among Democrats and, to a lesser degree, independents (h/t sysprog; see p. 52 of the Pew Report (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/569.pdf))

[ElNono]

:splitter

[Nbadan]

Well, watching the Spurs play is torture...so....

[Marcus Bryant]

It's only a matter of time until law enforcement gets the green light.

[spursncowboys]

It's because the definition and term "torture" has been watered down so much. A poll with graphical explanations of real torture and I doubt many Americans would be for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hey, it's jest a towel and some water. Whut's duh big deal? This ain't France, fellas. If yew do the crime (or are accused of it) den be ready to face a little heat.

[spursncowboys]

A towel and water? Is that a reference to water boarding?
Do you really think France has a better record than America in this department?

[Marcus Bryant]

Duh French are gay and worship Jerry Lewis. Here in Marika we treet criminals and anyone who looks funny with jail.

[spursncowboys]

blocked

[Marcus Bryant]

Cock? Sorry Champ, better luck next time.

[ChumpDumper]

A towel and water? Is that a reference to water boarding?
Do you really think France has a better record than America in this department?What is France's record in this department in the modern era?

[Winehole23]

SnC may be referring to Algeria.

[PublicOption]

when you are looking for a child......defenitely


http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/abc_gabriel_elizabeth_johnson_100111_mn.jpg

[DarrinS]

Is this really true? Oh crap, now the terrorists really really really going to hate us. Good thing Barry is reversing all Bush/Cheney policies.

[Wild Cobra]

It's because the definition and term "torture" has been watered down so much. A poll with graphical explanations of real torture and I doubt many Americans would be for it.
I agree. Because of the demonrats politicizing the issue, I don't think many people understand what torture is any more.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree. Because of the demonrats politicizing the issue, I don't think many people understand what torture is any more.Yes, that was the problem. :rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

WC continues to descend deeper and deeper into total partisan, ideological cloud-cuckoland silliness.

[ElNono]

Maybe we need an edition of "Torture for Dummies"

[Blake]

one of the best ownage threads ever.......[waterboarding]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3355352&highlight=waterboarding#post3355352

:lol

[baseline bum]

I agree. Because of the demonrats politicizing the issue, I don't think many people understand what torture is any more.

Only on Planet Cobra. :lol

[spursncowboys]

If you think waterboarding or making someone stand for half an hour is torture, then you do not understand the true meaning of the word. If you think what happened in a television cop show is torture, then you don't understand.

[Winehole23]

Talking to yourself again?

[ElNono]

Only those 'enlightened' understand the true meaning of the word...

Who was condescending?

[Marcus Bryant]

Torture's cool when it's the state doing it to some brown dude picked up half a world away.

Given the militarization of the 'War on Drugs' (ironic, I know), it's inevitable that torture will make its way into civilian law enforcement at some point. Even then the majority reaction will be in the affirmative, based on the assumption that it won't used on normal God-fearing Americans.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, wtf does liberty stop with property rights for most conservatives?

[jack sommerset]

I would bet my big nuts that 99 percent of Spewstalk would torture someone if they thought they could save a loved ones life. That whole waterboading talk last year got carried away. Was not even torture. Quit listening to a bunch of cunts telling you America is bad for that. Pull their fingernails off if need be. That poll should surprise noone.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because an individual might contemplate it in some extreme circumstance let's give the state the power to torture as it sees fit. Brilliant.

[boutons_deux]

"they could save a loved ones life"

ah, the old ticking bomb argument, even years after it has been thoroughly refuted and ridiculed.

[jack sommerset]

Because an individual might contemplate it in some extreme circumstance let's give the state the power to torture as it sees fit. Brilliant.

Remember there were only like 3 people waterboarded so they used good judgement.

[ChumpDumper]

If you think waterboarding or making someone stand for half an hour is torture, then you do not understand the true meaning of the word. If you think what happened in a television cop show is torture, then you don't understand.What is the true meaning of the word, SnC.

Define exactly what torture is once and for all.

[ChumpDumper]

Remember there were only like 3 people waterboarded so they used good judgement.Several dozen times.

To negligible effect.

Bad judgment.

If it was so effective and nothing is wrong with it, why limit it to only three people and stop forever?

[jack sommerset]

Several dozen times.

To negligible effect.

Bad judgment.

If it was so effective and nothing is wrong with it, why limit it to only three people and stop forever?

I wouldn't limit it to only 3 or several dozens. Obama stopped it. Well atleast us waterboarding. He will freelance the work to other countries.

[ChumpDumper]

I wouldn't limit it to only 3 or several dozens. Obama stopped it. Well atleast us waterboarding. He will freelance the work to other countries.Wrong.

Bush stopped it.

[jack sommerset]

Wrong.

Bush stopped it.

When did he do that?

[ChumpDumper]

When did he do that?Depending on your definition of stopping, 2005 or 2007.

Again, if it is so harmless and effective, why not do it to everybody?

[jack sommerset]

Depending on your definition of stopping, 2005 or 2007.

I guess it really depends on your definition. In 2008 Bush vetoed a bill that would have stopped it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Remember there were only like 3 people waterboarded so they used good judgement.

So we hope. How many were shipped elsewhere to get a car battery hooked up to their balls?

Would not an accused drug dealer be worthy? How about an accused thief?

[ElNono]

So we hope. How many were shipped elsewhere to get a car battery hooked up to their balls?

Would not an accused drug dealer be worthy? How about an accused thief?

You forgot the "If there's a ticking bomb..." case. Or whatever they showed on 24 last week.

[Winehole23]

So we hope. How many were shipped elsewhere to get a car battery hooked up to their balls?

Would not an accused drug dealer be worthy? How about an accused thief?Canadian Maher Arar was bound over to the Syrians, who buried him alive in a too-small coffin, inter alia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/inter%20alia). Does that count?

[Wild Cobra]

Canadian Maher Arar was bound over to the Syrians, who buried him alive in a too-small coffin, inter alia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/inter%20alia). Does that count?
I hope you still aren't blaming our government:

Lack of Accountability Unnaceptable (http://www.maherarar.ca/have%20your%20say%20more.php?id=606_0_28_0_M)

Even the Commissioner of the RCMP Giuliano Zaccardelli is not taking responsibility for his criminal negligence and the wrongdoing of his officers as cited in the Arar Inquiry report released on September 18.
RCMP's embattled chief quits over Arar testimony (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/zaccardelli.html)

Giuliano Zaccardelli resigned as RCMP commissioner Wednesday, a day after admitting he gave incorrect testimony on the Maher Arar affair to a Commons committee.

Extraordinary rendition may be legal: documents (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061211/arar_rendition_061211?s_name=&no_ads=)

A commission of inquiry concluded that erroneous information the RCMP passed to the United States very likely led to Arar's removal to Syria.

CSIS didn’t want Arar returned to Canada (http://www.rcmpwatch.com/csis-didnt-want-arar-returned-to-canada/)

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli testified at the Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Thursday of last week. Mr. Zaccardelli said after Mr. Arar’s extraordinary rendition from New York to Syria in 2002, he was alerted to Mr. Arar’s case and that he attempted to correction false information about Mr. Arar that the RCMP sent to U.S. authorities.

[Winehole23]

The Canadians goofed big time, but we hustled him out of the country in a nearly process-free manner, and we had some idea the Syrians could mistreat him when we handed him over. lame protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Winehole23]

We denied his lawsuit on national security grounds, and his no-fly status remains.

Maher Arar did nothing to deserve what happened to him, and without us, it would not have happened to him.

[ElNono]

I hope you still aren't blaming our government

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I guess it really depends on your definition. In 2008 Bush vetoed a bill that would have stopped it.So who else did we waterboard after 2005?

[jack sommerset]

So who else did we waterboard after 2005?

That is my point. We waterboarded those who we needed too.

[spursncowboys]

When did he do that?

Bush didn't stop it. The CIA stopped it once it became public. Once they got intel that the enemy was training to resist it, it was a useless tactic.

[ChumpDumper]

That is my point. We waterboarded those who we needed too.If it's so harmless and effective, why wouldn't we waterboard everyone.


Bush didn't stop it. The CIA stopped it once it became public. Once they got intel that the enemy was training to resist it, it was a useless tactic.How effective was it if it was done dozens and dozens of times to the same people?

Sounds like it was pretty useless all along.

[jack sommerset]

If it's so harmless and effective, why wouldn't we waterboard everyone.

Some answer questions when you ask and some don't.

[Bartleby]

Some answer questions when you ask and some don't.

But you won't know who those people are until you torture them.

:downspin:

[spursncowboys]

Waterboarding isn't torture.

[Bartleby]

Waterboarding isn't torture.

Eric Holder says it is

[spursncowboys]

He also thinks black panthers standing outside a voting site armed isn't a crime and that terrorists should be read "their" miranda rights.

[spursncowboys]

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.
Eric Holder

[ChumpDumper]

Waterboarding isn't torture.Then you will allow yourself to be waterboarded by the police, right?

It's harmless, right?

[Winehole23]

...and that terrorists should be read "their" miranda rights.Criminal procedure is an adversarial process. It also works for terrorists. About 190 of them during the GWB administration, I think.

[spursncowboys]

Criminal procedure is an adversarial process. It also works for terrorists. About 190 of them during the GWB administration, I think.
Even if that broad statement is true and the number is accurate, contextually, the fact is Bush isn't in office anymore. My statement was directed towards the beliefs of our current AG.

[Winehole23]

Even if that broad statement is true and the number is accurate, contextually, the fact is Bush isn't in office anymore. My statement was directed towards the beliefs of our current AG.What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? Obama's immediate predecessor convicted ~190 terrorists and sent them to prison. Is there some reason we shouldn't continue to?

Is there some reason Ashcroft/Mukasey shouldn't have, that Bush/Cheney failed to tell us about?

Why in your view should we stop using a process that has worked so well to date?

[spursncowboys]

Where are you getting this number? Barack Obama? Yeah because he has a record of using actual numbers. It's the number used by Human Rights First which they stated in July 2009.

A. McCarthy
t says that 195 defendants have been convicted so far in 119 cases that have some connection, however attenuated, to terrorism. (See the report’s preface.)

HRF goes on (at page 5) to explain its methodology. It examined prosecutions that were in some way “related to Islamist extremist terrorist organizations” (emphasis added). It should be obvious enough that this does not mean the people prosecuted were necessarily “international terrorists,” or that the cases involved actual terrorism charges. But the report makes the obvious explicit:
In building our data set of terrorism cases, we have attempted to capture prosecutions that seek criminal sanctions for acts of terrorism, attempts or conspiracies to commit terrorism, or providing aid and support to those engaged in terrorism. We have also sought to identify and include prosecutions intended to disrupt and deter terrorism through other means, for example, through charges under “alternative” statutes such as false statements, financial fraud, and immigration fraud. [Emphasis added.]
This explanation makes clear that the cases HRF is talking about are, in the main, cases that no one disputes can be handled safely and efficiently by the civilian courts. For example, let’s say the FBI is investigating al-Qaeda and it interviews a person suspected of having relevant information. That person lies during the interview, so the prosecutors indict him for making false statements, and he pleads guilty. Under the HRF’s standards, that gets tallied as a conviction in a “terrorism case.” But it hardly means the defendant is an international terrorist, let alone a KSM.
http://article.nationalreview.com/423463/rigging-the-numbers/andrew-c-mccarthy

[Winehole23]

Those offenses are all included in terrorism statutes. Suggesting that the people convicted under them aren't dangerous because the included offenses don't sound very dangerous, is naive.

Do you recall what Al Capone went to jail for?

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm wary of "terrorists" being tried in the civilian courts, only because that might provide an avenue through which to introduce torture into civilian law enforcement. Sure, the probability seems low, but given the current mindset of the American public I'd rather not find out.

[spursncowboys]

Those offenses are all included in terrorism statutes.

Do you recall what Al Capone went to jail for?
You're as bad as chump. Get your information correct before using it to attack people. Bush, Capone. WFT??

The Goodspeed Rule: Bush
The Goodspeed Rule 2: Iraq

[Bartleby]

Goodspeed Rule?

[Winehole23]

You're as bad as chump. Get your information correct before using it to attack people. I didn't attack you, and my information was correct. On the contrary, it's your semantic attempt to set aside terrorism convictions as somehow being irrelevant to terrorism, that's lame.


Capone. WFT??Was arrested, tried and went to prison for tax evasion.

[spursncowboys]

I didn't attack you, and my information was correct. On the contrary, it's your semantic attempt to set aside terrorism convictions as somehow being irrelevant to terrorism, that's lame.

Was arrested, tried and went to prison for tax evasion.
I didn't say you attacked me. You are full of shit if you are going to stick with that number in relation to holder reading miranda rights to someone who almost murdered hundreds of Americans and KSM.

[Winehole23]

That's the way criminal process works. You're advised what you say can be held against you; you get a lawyer and trial by jury.

Used to be the American way. Now, sticking up for it makes you unpatriotic and *full of shit*. How times have changed.

[ElNono]

I didn't say you attacked me. You are full of shit if you are going to stick with that number in relation to holder reading miranda rights to someone who almost murdered hundreds of Americans and KSM.

Would you feel any better if they didn't read him his miranda rights and still had a criminal trial? (with the obvious, however small, possibility of exoneration).

Because I'm pretty sure you didn't want a civilian nor a military trial. You just wanted a conviction.

[ChumpDumper]

SnC doesn't really believe in the American justice system.

Nor does he believe that Bush tried and convicted suspected terrorists in federal court.

He probably also doesn't believe that there were any domestic terror attacks under Bush.

His political heroes told him to think a certain way, and by golly that's the way he's going to think.

American civilian justice system = bad. Nevermind that Moussaoui trial or any of these:


There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees, [NYU Center on Law and Security's Karen] Greenberg said.

Nonetheless, there are some, she said, including Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"; Bryant Neal Vinas, an American convicted of supporting al-Qaida plots in Afghanistan and the United States; Mohammed Jabarah, a Canadian who was active in al-Qaida and convicted of terrorism-related offenses; Shahawar Matin Siraj, a Pakistani-American who plotted to bomb Herald Square in New York; and Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American convicted of terrorist-related offenses in New York, and who testified in 2006 against a group of men accused of plotting bomb attacks in London.

These cases, although far fewer than those cited by Obama, provide powerful evidence that federal courts can appropriately handle many cases involving Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said.

"The trend lines demonstrate convincingly that federal courts are capable of trying alleged terrorists and securing high rates of conviction," Greenberg wrote in the report. "... Federal prosecution has demonstrably become a powerful tool in many hundreds of cases, not only for incapacitating terrorists but also for intelligence gathering. Much of the government’s knowledge of terrorist groups has come from testimony and evidence produced in grand jury investigations, including information provided by cooperators, and in the resulting trials."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/12/barack-obama/obama-claims-bush-administration-got-190-terrorism/

There you have it, SnC. Bush and the Republican government convicted terrorists in civilian courts under terrorism statutes. Republicans like Giuliani praised the results of these trails. You can't deny it. You can't change it. It happened. Why was it a good idea for them to do it then but not now?

Please answer that question.

[spursncowboys]

That's the way criminal process works. You're advised what you say can be held against you; you get a lawyer and trial by jury.

Used to be the American way. Now, sticking up for it makes you unpatriotic and *full of shit*. How times have changed.

The American way has never been to give our constitutional protections towards wartime enemies, or non American citizens. You are full of shit because you tried to use numbers that were not consistent with the context of our argument. Now, out of pride I imagine, you won't back away from them.
Who called you unpatriotic. You are picking up some bad habits from the left. Are you having a conversation with an imaginary person again?

[ChumpDumper]

The American way has never been to give our constitutional protections towards wartime enemies, or non American citizens.If that's what you are calling terrorists, Bush already did what you said isn't the American way. Did you bitch about it then?


You are full of shit because you tried to use numbers that were not consistent with the context of our argument. Now, out of pride I imagine, you won't back away from them.OK, we'll use the much smaller number above.

It's still a number.

It still happened.

Under Bush.

Who called you unpatriotic. You are picking up some bad habits from the left. Are you having a conversation with an imaginary person again?Do you consider WH patriotic?

[Marcus Bryant]

The American way has never been to give our constitutional protections towards wartime enemies, or non American citizens.

Though the "American way" has been to limit the powers of the state. Not to mention that included the process whereby war was declared by the Congress (so much for that). And, of course, the state itself is a signatory to at least one treaty prohibiting the use of torture.

Regardless, does it seem to square with the original intent of the Constitution that torture by the state be allowed, regardless of the recipient? Bearing in mind that the Revolution had thrown off rule by a distant and despotic state, not to mention that the Bill of Rights was rather clear in limiting the power of the state.

Or, if the state is clear to engage in such practices, what exactly prevents it from using those same techniques on the citizenry?

Finally, why exactly are we to concern ourselves with incipient socialism which threatens property rights, which is based on a strict reading of certain parts of the Constitution, while contenting ourselves to find a broad reading of state power in other passages to essentially allow the state to do whatever it wants with those whom it deems to be adversaries?

[Marcus Bryant]

Hence the bipolar nature of modern "conservatism." On the one hand the state must be checked at every turn and the Constitution is a great check on collectivism. On the other, a broad space must be read into the Constitution for national defense and law enforcement.

Or, the Constitution must be read strictly when the concern is opposing of the main principles of the left, equality in life, but the state must have broad powers when the concern is one of the main principles of the right, which is order in life.

[sabar]

Or, the Constitution must be read strictly when the concern is opposing of the main principles of the left, equality in life, but the state must have broad powers when the concern is one of the main principles of the right, which is order in life.

Strict if it is intended to be against The People, loose if it is against some "enemy", real or imagined.

For instance, we both know that there is no way a patriot act or extreme airport security or what have you would fly pre 9/11. Any measure that increased security at the cost of freedom would of been obliterated by both parties on the day before 9/11.

But 9/11 did an incredible thing. It made an enemy. One that is invisible. One that hides among the population. Invincible. We will never defeat them. Now everything has a justification.

I'm wondering how many years until people don't give a crap about terrorism and actually fight back against these violations of freedom. Maybe when everyone born after 9/11 have the power.

If there is another major terrorist attack in the next few years, then the people are screwed.

[Marcus Bryant]

True.

The weird thing is that we didn't have this kind of threat to our liberty when there existed a very real existential threat to our existence from another state during the Cold War.

Now the threat is so open ended and subject to interpretation and manipulation that anything can be a threat, and any state action can be justified in response, such that our very freedom is at risk from a state which ostensibly is acting to protect our existence.

[Marcus Bryant]

We mock those who worry about threats from climate, but the moment the threat is from an enemy whose methods heretofore consist of nineteen dudes armed with boxcutters, we run to the illusory safety of a police state.

[Marcus Bryant]

If this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, would not the proper response be to shrug it off and move on?

[Marcus Bryant]

We faced down nuclear armageddon with the USSR. Now we cower before that?

[Marcus Bryant]

The first sign of economic trouble, we're bending over for Wall Street with a blank check for at least $700 large large.

The first sign of terrorism, we're taking off our shoes and bending over for the TSA.

[Marcus Bryant]

If there is another major terrorist attack in the next few years, then the people are screwed.

Yes. If the Christmas bomber had managed more than to catch his drawers on fire, I think any hope of a return to sanity would have been gone.

A free society results in things which could have been prevented had there been a police state. We eschew the police state in order to enjoy...a free society. But consider that the people are conditioned to an extent to which the police state seems rather sensible, not to mention patriotic.

[ElNono]

We mock those who worry about threats from climate, but the moment the threat is from an enemy whose methods heretofore consist of nineteen dudes armed with boxcutters, we run to the illusory safety of a police state.

Think about all that was spawned with that:
- Afghanistan invasion
- Iraq invasion
- Preemptive attack 'doctrine'
- TSA
- Clandestine NSA wiretaps
- Extraordinary rendition
- Gitmo
- Patriot Act
- National Security Letters
- Telecom immunity
- Military commissions

And I'm probably missing one or two...

[Marcus Bryant]

How about the unitary executive theory, or King for a day, week, month, year, decade.....

[ElNono]

How about the unitary executive theory, or King for a day, week, month, year, decade.....

Actually, I find aggravating that Congress went line, hook and sinker with it all. I still remember that if you didn't, you were 'soft on terror'...

[Winehole23]

Soft on liberty, more like.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't want this to be lost before SnC answers.


SnC doesn't really believe in the American justice system.

Nor does he believe that Bush tried and convicted suspected terrorists in federal court.

He probably also doesn't believe that there were any domestic terror attacks under Bush.

His political heroes told him to think a certain way, and by golly that's the way he's going to think.

American civilian justice system = bad. Nevermind that Moussaoui trial or any of these:


There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees, [NYU Center on Law and Security's Karen] Greenberg said.

Nonetheless, there are some, she said, including Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"; Bryant Neal Vinas, an American convicted of supporting al-Qaida plots in Afghanistan and the United States; Mohammed Jabarah, a Canadian who was active in al-Qaida and convicted of terrorism-related offenses; Shahawar Matin Siraj, a Pakistani-American who plotted to bomb Herald Square in New York; and Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American convicted of terrorist-related offenses in New York, and who testified in 2006 against a group of men accused of plotting bomb attacks in London.

These cases, although far fewer than those cited by Obama, provide powerful evidence that federal courts can appropriately handle many cases involving Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said.

"The trend lines demonstrate convincingly that federal courts are capable of trying alleged terrorists and securing high rates of conviction," Greenberg wrote in the report. "... Federal prosecution has demonstrably become a powerful tool in many hundreds of cases, not only for incapacitating terrorists but also for intelligence gathering. Much of the government’s knowledge of terrorist groups has come from testimony and evidence produced in grand jury investigations, including information provided by cooperators, and in the resulting trials."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/12/barack-obama/obama-claims-bush-administration-got-190-terrorism/

There you have it, SnC. Bush and the Republican government convicted terrorists in civilian courts under terrorism statutes. Republicans like Giuliani praised the results of these trails. You can't deny it. You can't change it. It happened. Why was it a good idea for them to do it then but not now?

Please answer that question.

[boutons_deux]

American dumbfucks are/have been duped into being spineless chickenshits, who strut around like ass-kicking mofos, by fear-mongering Repugs.

[Winehole23]

The Chicken Little bit isn't a GOP exclusive. Consider the TARP.

[admiralsnackbar]

American dumbfucks are/have been duped into being spineless chickenshits, who strut around like ass-kicking mofos, by fear-mongering Repugs.

I'd say you got it backwards. The GOP got to where it did by appealing to a broad swath of American dumbfucks, among them those people whose only real stupidity was believing in unsustainable economic practices.

[NFGIII]

When you seek security then you have to give up some of your freedoms. The more secure you want to be the less freedom you have. Case in point - I was in Israel in '92 and it took almost three hours to get through customs. They checked every bag and asked everyone questions regarding things like - did someone give you something to take back to America and mail it for them? But after the hijackings that that nation went through I really couldn't have blamed them at the time. Still don't. At the same time you couldn't leave a bag unattended in the Paris airport or the bomb squad would nave been called in to dispose of it. But I thought to myself that this would never happen in the USA. How times have changed!

As MB implied (IMHO) a free society has to endure the 9/11s that eventually happen. Yes, some measures need to be taken in order to prevent a future 9/11 but that becomes the slippery slope doesn't it?

To what extent do we go to stop another 9/11?

How much liberty is sacrificed in order to feel safe and secure?

Can there be or is there a balance that can be had between the two where most are satisfied with the end results?

Right now this nation is struggling with those questions and the implications for future Americans. When people get frightened they want to feel safe and secure. They want the powers that be to go out and get those who did 'em wrong. Just look at Nazi Germany to see what can happen when most citizens turn a blind eye to this issue. The Nazis wanted Germans to know it was those damn Jews that caused the economic problems in Germany. Then it was the gysies and then came the Chritian ministers who condemmed what was happeneing and then anyone who spoke out against the regime and...etc. Though most will be able to tell you that 6 million Jews died under the Nazi regime many can't tell that the same number of non-Jews did also. Some may say that I'm overreacting but I don't think so. As mentioned previously it's that slippery slope situation. We let a little of this go and then the next generation gets comfortable with what has gone before them and then they let a little more go and so on.

Damn just look at our tax situation - the 16th amendment. It started at 2%!!! 2! But when the money rolled in the politicans couldn't believe their eyes at all the dough they got to spend and it spiraled upwards from then on.

People get comfortable with their surroundings and rationalize them.

They think it won't happen to them.

The other guy probably deserved it. Even if it was your neighbor.

That's why we must address what is torture and what isn't and it's implications toward our freedoms and security. Some say that waterboarding isn't but isn't it simulated drowning? The Spanish Inquisition used it though not in the form that the US did. And isn't the Spanish Inquisition notoriously known for it's torture methods? But others disagree.

Vigilance my fellow citizens.

[boutons_deux]

"people whose only real stupidity was believing in unsustainable economic practices."

dickhead is STILL fear mongering, as of yesterday, as have been all conservatives and Repugs since they allowed 9/11 to happen.

Fear mongering is an excuse to waste money enriching "security" business, to waste 10s of 1000s of lives and $Ts in bogus wars.

shoe bombers and underpants bombers are simply NOT NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS.

Blowing up WTC didn't even threaten all of Manhattan, never mind threatening all of USA.

Russia with all its nukes WAS a national security threat (if the CIA didn't lie about those nukes and Russia's delivery capability. CIA/NSA were of course most interested in hyping security threats because it assured them of job security)

America's biggest security threat in internal, AMericans kill more Americans than any foreigners, Wall St impoverishes more Americans than any tax collector.

[mogrovejo]

I agree. Because of the demonrats politicizing the issue, I don't think many people understand what torture is any more.

I agree. Partisan hacks like Greenwald never lose a chance of politicizing this issue and trying to make it a "one vs. us" thing. They have little reason to complain about the monster they created.


Thursday, Dec 3, 2009 12:04 EST
America's regression (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/03/torture/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald

Just think about that. Torture is one of the most universal taboos in the civilized world. The treaty championed by Ronald Reagan declares that "no exceptional circumstances" can justify it, and requires that every state criminalize it and prosecute those who authorize or engage in it. But only 25% of Americans agree with Ronald Reagan and this Western consensus that torture is never justifiable. Worse, 54% of Americans believe torture is "often" or "sometimes" justified. When it comes to torture, the vast bulk of the country is now to the "right" of Ronald Reagan

Pfff.

[elbamba]

We mock those who worry about threats from climate, but the moment the threat is from an enemy whose methods heretofore consist of nineteen dudes armed with boxcutters, we run to the illusory safety of a police state.

This is a very good point. Both sides would rather blow trillions of dollars than admit stupidity...I mean err.

[Winehole23]

America must atone for the torture it inflicted




By Thomas R. Pickering, Published: April 16


Thomas R. Pickering is a member of the Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment. He was undersecretary of state for political affairs from 1997 to 2001 and served as ambassador and representative to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992.


It’s never easy in this volatile world to advance America’s strategic aims. For more than four decades, in the service of Democratic and Republican presidents, it was often my job to persuade foreign governments to adhere to international law and observe the highest standards of conduct in human rights — including the strict prohibition of torture. A report released Tuesday (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html?hp&_r=0) by an independent task force on detainee treatment (to which I contributed) makes it clear that U.S. officials could have used the same advice.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government’s use of torture against suspected terrorists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html), and its failure to fully acknowledge and condemn it, has made the exercise of diplomacy far more daunting. By authorizing and permitting torture in response to a global terrorist threat, U.S. leaders committed a grave error that has undermined our values, principles and moral stature; eroded our global influence; and placed our soldiers, diplomats and intelligence officers in even greater jeopardy.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thomas-r-pickering-torture-runs-counter-to-americas-values/2013/04/16/1c4488f0-a15a-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

[boutons_deux]

America to planet: Do As We Dictate, Not As We Do

[Winehole23]

in 2008 thread people would parse it for days. now it passes unremarked on.

[ElNono]

I think it's one of those "burn the tape" moments...

[Winehole23]

no need to burn the tape if it's ignored to begin with..

[spursncowboys]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thomas-r-pickering-torture-runs-counter-to-americas-values/2013/04/16/1c4488f0-a15a-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

This is what happens when definitions of words get watered down.

[Winehole23]

nah, it's what happens when values get watered down.

[Winehole23]

It's hardly news that the US instituted and for years maintained a systematic torture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/torture) regime, but the success of the Obama administration in blocking all judicial proceedings has meant there has been no official decree that this is so. A comprehensive report just issued (http://detaineetaskforce.org/) by a truly bipartisan group of former high-level Washington officials (including military officials) is as close as we are likely to get to such an official proclamation.

The Report explains (http://detaineetaskforce.org/read/#/18/) that the impetus behind it was that "the Obama administration declined, as a matter of policy, to undertake or commission an official study of what happened, saying it was unproductive to 'look backwards' rather than forward." It concludes (http://detaineetaskforce.org/read/#/18/) - in unblinking and definitive fashion - that "it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture"; this finding is "offered without reservation"; it is "not based on any impressionistic approach" but rather "grounded in a thorough and detailed examination of what constitutes torture in many contexts, notably historical and legal"; and "the nation's highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture." It also debunks the popular claim that torture was confined to three cases of waterboarding, documenting that more than three people were subjected to that tactic and that the torture includes far more than just waterboarding.


This is not only a historical disgrace for the US and the responsible officials, but, as the New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html?pagewanted=all) on this report inadvertently suggests, also shames two other institutions:

(1) the New York Times itself, which steadfastly refused (http://www.salon.com/2010/07/03/keller_2/) to use the word "torture" (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/) to describe what was being done (unless it was done (http://www.salon.com/2011/03/09/journalism_11/) by other countries (http://www.salon.com/2009/07/04/torture_29/)) and continues to justify that refusal through its then-Executive Editor Bill Keller (http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/the-t-words/?ref=opinion) (Andrew Sullivan ably demolishes Keller's reasoning (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/17/bill-keller-still-flailing/), while the paper's public editor, Margaret Sullivan, wrote this week (http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/targeted-killing-detainee-and-torture-why-language-choice-matters/) that this choice merits "some institutional soul-searching"); and,


(2) President Obama, who barred all criminal prosecutions for Bush officials and other torturers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer) and thus brazenly violated at least the spirit and probably the letter (http://www.salon.com/2009/02/16/treaties/) of the Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html). That treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 (exactly 25 years ago to the day: Happy Anniversary!), compels all signatories who discover credible allegations that government officials have participated or been complicit in torture to "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" (Art. 7(1)). It also specifically states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" and "an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture" (Art. 2 (2-3)).
The disgrace of the American torture regime falls on Bush officials and secondarily the media and political institutions that acquiesced to it, but the full-scale protection of those war crimes (and the denial of justice to their victims) falls squarely on the Obama administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/torture-report-cnn-terrorism-iran

[boutons_deux]

There is an agreement with each new Pres not to go after the preceding.

Clinton didn't go after St Ronnie/Pappy of Central America genocide and iran- contra arms/drugs dealing

Barry followed the tradition.

the only way to prosecute dubya, dickhead, rummy, condi was for citizens to sue them while they were in office. I suppose citizens can still do that.

Since they are private citizens, would taxpayers be stuck with the shitbags' legal defense?

[Winehole23]

There is an agreement with each new Pres not to go after the preceding.o rly?

[boutons_deux]

o rly?

rly

go find an instance where the incoming Pres went after the preceding Pres.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

rly

go find an instance where the incoming Pres went after the preceding Pres.

smh.

Madison and Jefferson went after each other. Jackson spent his first year in office shitting all over his predecessors administration and dismantling it. Coolidge went after Harding. Ted Roosevelt and Taft went after each other following their schism. That's just off the top of my head.

[spursncowboys]

nah, it's what happens when values get watered down.
What values are you referring to? What is your referrence point?

[spursncowboys]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thomas-r-pickering-torture-runs-counter-to-americas-values/2013/04/16/1c4488f0-a15a-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html
The author is on the benghazi investigating panel. Think he needs to get back to that.

[Winehole23]

What values are you referring to? What is your referrence point?8th amendment, Geneva Convention, the Reagan era anti-torture thing. WWII prosecution of war crimes. Points of law all over the place if you really care so much.

We still criticize others for doing it, btw.

[Capt Bringdown]

Obama has normalized the policies of the Bush admin, across the board. And with regards to accepting/endorsing torture, American has become a nation of cowards. Is there any other country as afraid as we are? So easily manipulated?

[Winehole23]

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2013/04/29/jeremy-scahills-dirty-work/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Speaking of the deterioration of values.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/05/04/image4989940.gif

[Nbadan]

Sen Feinstein "The Report Exposes Brutality That Stands In Stark Contrast To Our Values As A Nation


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUphMqsMiI

[Winehole23]

Obama has normalized the policies of the Bush admin, across the board.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209622&p=6365386&viewfull=1#post6365386

[Winehole23]

Echo in here?

[Winehole23]

A still-secret Senate Intelligence Committee report calls into question the legal foundation of the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, a finding that challenges the key defense on which the agency and the Bush administration relied in arguing that the methods didn’t constitute torture.

The report also found that the spy agency failed to keep an accurate account of the number of individuals it held, and that it issued erroneous claims about how many it detained and subjected to the controversial interrogation methods. The CIA has said that about 30 detainees underwent the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.


The CIA’s claim “is BS,” said a former U.S. official familiar with evidence underpinning the report, who asked not to be identified because the matter is still classified. “They are trying to minimize the damage. They are trying to say it was a very targeted program, but that’s not the case.”


The findings are among the report’s 20 main conclusions. Taken together, they paint a picture of an intelligence agency that seemed intent on evading or misleading nearly all of its oversight mechanisms throughout the program, which was launched under the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and ran until 2006.


Some of the report’s other conclusions, which were obtained by McClatchy, include:


_ The CIA used interrogation methods that weren’t approved by the Justice Department or CIA headquarters.


_ The agency impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making regarding the program.


_ The CIA actively evaded or impeded congressional oversight of the program.


_ The agency hindered oversight of the program by its own Inspector General’s Office.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/10/224085/cias-use-of-harsh-interrogation.html

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/10/224085/cias-use-of-harsh-interrogation.html#storylink=cpy

[Winehole23]

The CIA also failed to keep track of the number of individuals it captured under the program, the Senate report concluded. Moreover, it said, the agency held people who didn’t meet the legal standard for detention. The report puts that number at 26, McClatchy has learned.


“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,” it found. “The CIA’s claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate.”


“The CIA’s records were hazy, inconsistent and at times inaccurate,” said the former U.S. official.
same

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/10/224085/cias-use-of-harsh-interrogation.html#storylink=cpy

[Winehole23]

The Senate report, however, concluded that the Justice Department’s legal analyses were based on flawed information provided by the CIA, which prevented a proper evaluation of the program’s legality.

“The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program,” the report found.
Several human rights experts said the conclusion called into question the program’s legal foundations.


“If the CIA fundamentally misrepresented what it was doing and that was what led (Justice Department) lawyers to conclude that the conduct was legal, then the legal conclusions themselves were inaccurate,” said Andrea Prasow, senior national security counsel for Human Rights Watch. “The lawyers making those assessments were relying on the facts that were laid before them.”


“This just reinforces the view that everyone who has said the torture program was legal has been selling a bill of goods and it’s time to revisit the entire conventional wisdom being pushed by those who support enhanced interrogation that this program was safe, humane and lawful,” said Raha Wala, a lawyer with the Law and Security Program of Human Rights First.


Among other findings, the report said that CIA personnel used interrogation methods that weren’t approved by the Justice Department or their headquarters.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/10/224085/cias-use-of-harsh-interrogation.html#storylink=cpy

[boutons_deux]

CIA, a govt unto itself, does what it wants, and fuck civilian/political/legal control.

[Winehole23]

we'll see about that

[Winehole23]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/16/243669/senates-inquiry-into-cia-torture.html

[boutons_deux]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/16/243669/senates-inquiry-into-cia-torture.html

CIA, a govt unto itself, does what it wants, and fuck civilian/political/legal control.

[Nbadan]

Think about all that was spawned with that:
- Afghanistan invasion
- Iraq invasion
- Preemptive attack 'doctrine'
- TSA
- Clandestine NSA wiretaps
- Extraordinary rendition
- Gitmo
- Patriot Act
- National Security Letters
- Telecom immunity
- Military commissions

And I'm probably missing one or two...

three in fact, ...murder, rape and torture...

[Winehole23]

Senate torture report to be released tomorrow:


U.S. embassies around the world are bracing for a potentially explosive report about to be released that details what the CIA did to terror suspects in the days after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and the fear is that its release could threaten American lives.

The report, due to be released Tuesday by the Senate, is described as shocking in its very graphic descriptions of secret interrogations, including some details that have never been heard before.


All U.S. facilities around the world are being urged to review security and brace for the reaction, with concern particularly high in areas where there are hot spots, in the Middle East (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/middle-east.htm) and North Africa.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impending-cia-interrogation-report-creates-fear-violence/story?id=27432670

[Winehole23]

CIA, a govt unto itself, does what it wants, and fuck civilian/political/legal control.overstated, but something like that might be true:

http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf

[Winehole23]

Tomorrow, we may find out what the CIA was saying to itself as it committed war crimes around the world with total impunity. But we won’t get images. The best images you’ll get from GTMO are from Google Earth. But we can still get images of the force-feeding done to other prisoners at the Cuban gulag. We have videos. They have been used in court. And the Pentagon – surprise! – is dead set against releasing them. Why? For the same reason the CIA doesn’t want the torture report to be published. It will “inflame world opinion”. Murtaza Hussein explains (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/08/terrible-argument-behind-releasing-guantanamo-footage/):

In a seven page affidavit (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1374320-pentagon-official-declaration.html) made public last week and first reported by the Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg, [U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Sinclair] Harris explained the reasoning for keeping the videos out of public view:



“While the videos at issue…do not in my opinion depict any improper treatment of the detainees, but rather the lawful, humane and appropriate interaction between guards and detainees, persons and entities hostile to the United States and its detention of enemy belligerents at Guantánamo Bay are likely to think otherwise.”

To put Harris’s statement another way, the force-feeding videos are at once humane and appropriate, and yet also so visually appalling that people around the world would be enraged if allowed to view them.


Yes, that’s about right. And Rodriguez both argues that the waterboarding of terror suspects was both humane and utterly in line with civilized norms … but for some inexplicable reason he destroyed the evidence anyway. My view is that it should not matter what the rest of the world thinks, when it comes to the internal workings of American democracy. The American people have a right to know what is being done in their name on highly controversial and contested questions. If the CIA and Pentagon have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. I think they’re familiar with that line of argument, don’t you?http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/08/the-best-of-the-dish-today-259/

[boutons_deux]

Obama Administration and G.O.P. Clash Over Torture Report

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/12/09/world/09cheney/09cheney-superJumbo.jpg

the Obama administration and its Republican critics clashed on Monday over the wisdom of making it public, and the risk that it will set off a backlash overseas.

While the United States has put diplomatic facilities and military bases on alert for heightened security risks, administration officials said they do not expect the report — or rather the declassified executive summary of it that will be released Tuesday — to ignite the kind of violence that killed four Americans at a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. Such violent reprisals, they said, tend to be fueled more by perceived attacks against Islam as a religion than by violence against individual Muslims.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/white-house-and-gop-clash-over-torture-report.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0#story-continues-2)
But some leading Republican lawmakers have warned against releasing the report, saying that domestic and foreign intelligence reports indicate that a detailed account of the brutal interrogation methods used by the C.I.A. during the George W. Bush administration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per) could incite unrest and violence, even resulting in the deaths of Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/white-house-and-gop-clash-over-torture-report.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Nasty stuff in there, no doubt, if Abu Ghraib was any indicator, but Repugs and CIA are nasty, stinking assholes.

Repugs: "The USA doesn't torture" :lol

[Winehole23]

newsflash: torturing foreign captives at Gitmo endangers Americans everywhere

[boutons_deux]

newsflash: torturing foreign captives at Gitmo endangers Americans everywhere

the Big Picture that Repugs count on, reliably, Americans being too stupid and ignorant to know,remember: dickhead/BigOil invading Iraq for oil and destabilizing the Middle East cost $3T still paid, wasted 5000+ US military lives, 100Ks of mentally, physically maimed US military.

[Winehole23]

details on twitter:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/the-most-infuriating-details-of-the-torture-report-that-people-are-posting-to-twitter/

[Winehole23]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? Obama's immediate predecessor convicted ~190 terrorists and sent them to prison. Is there some reason we shouldn't continue to?

Is there some reason Ashcroft/Mukasey shouldn't have, that Bush/Cheney failed to tell us about?

Why in your view should we stop using a process that has worked so well to date?bump. criminal procedure still works. fuck torture. just prosecute em.

[Winehole23]

unless of course, you're too chickenshit to give the bad guy a fair shake in court.

[Winehole23]

btw, there aren't 190 guys who've been convicted in military tribunals at Gitmo. that shit's broke.

[boutons_deux]

I adore the overall repeat of the Abu Ghraib "it was just a few rotten apples at the bottom" bullshit. The guys in the WH, esp shrub, didn't really know, "plausible deniability" goes back to REPUG Tricky Dick's lying, the top guys were lied to, and/or uninformed by the lower CIA/military people.

And just like the financial sector's and police's crimes, NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE.