Reply With Quote
Damn, that's such a sad reality.
In my opinion, the whole setup at Gitmo was a mistake. We should have left them in theater and dealt with them there under the host countrys rules of engagement.
Damn, that's such a sad reality.
Sure. The standard interrogation methods used by the armed forces and FBI that don't involve torture.
lol Cosmored
who's to say 9/11 or the ISIS videotaped beheadings were terrorism or crimes at all?
were charges brought? were the alleged perpetrators ever found guilty of it in court?
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-21-2014 at 12:59 AM.
John Yoo distances himself from the EITs he crafted legal rationales for. I wonder why.
oh well, at least John Yoo passed out fig leaves for "those...at risk legally" before he turned backwards and pissed on them.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-21-2014 at 02:06 AM.
The CIA knew what it was doing was illegal. We know because it asked the AG and the FBI for immunity from prosecution for abusive interrogations. Both declined. The Yoo/Bybee memos came afterwards.
http://justsecurity.org/18221/knew-illegal/But perhaps the most important revelation in the report is not about the torture itself but rather about the legal culpability of the CIA. The report contains a key passage on page 33 revealing that senior lawyers at the CIA in mid 2002, at the very beginning of the CIA’s program, drafted a letter to the Attorney General in which it is expressly acknowledged that the interrogation tactics that came to be known as “enhanced interrogation techniques” violated the US torture statute. The draft letter requested that the Attorney General provide the CIA with “a formal declination of prosecution, in advance”—basically, a promise not to prosecute, or immunity. The do ent was shared even with CIA interrogators involved in the nascent program. From the beginning, in other words, key CIA officials were well aware that these techniques were clearly unlawful.
This do ent not only calls into question arguments that CIA torturers relied on legal counsel before engaging in torture, it reveals that the arguments of politicians and pundits since the program was revealed—that the illegality of the tactics was never clear—are revisionist histories. We know now that at the relevant times, many (if not most) of the relevant people knew that the tactics were torture, and were illegal.
According to the report, the key letter was not sent to the Attorney General, but we know separately from an internal Department of Justice investigation report issued in 2009 (see page 28) that the CIA then asked the Justice Department for a declination again soon after, in a meeting at the White House with several key White House, Justice Department, and FBI lawyers, including the head of Justice’s criminal division, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff turned them down. The FBI—already disturbed by what it knew of the program—also informed the CIA at that point that it would not take part in any CIA interrogations. At that point, it seems to have become clear to the CIA that they needed to work solely with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and Vice President Cheney’s senior aide David Addington—attorneys who were more willing to bend the law to achieve their intended result—to finalize a formal OLC opinion to “authorize” the illegal acts for which they had already sought advance pardons. That effort resulted first in a July 13 letter from John Yoo to the CIA General Counsel and culminated in a formal do ent that came to be known as the August 1 OLC Torture Memo. That memo, which provided an almost ludicrous and strained argument for how the techniques might be legal under U.S. and international law, was recanted later in the Bush administration and its legal analysis has been thoroughly discredited, including in the SSCI report.
Don't you ever wonder about that, Yonivore?
To clarify, you support torture, don't you?
His premise wasn't that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.
It is that there are much more effective ways of getting information out of prisoners.
And I can provide several methods that I would say we SHOULD have gotten information out of people like that.
George Piro had one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interro...Saddam_Hussein
I would HIGHLY recommend reading more about this. It was very illuminating.
Further one can learn a lot from our own Sherwood Moran, who very successfully interrogated Japanese POW's, as well as others.
https://globalecco.org/learning-from...interrogation-
Yonivore's vile and evil attempts at tap dancing around the morality and total betrayal of what values we would almost universally agree that Americans hold most important is something you should be far more concerned with.
That kind of moral cowardice should sicken anybody.
Agreed.
Gitmo has done more to harm our national interests than anything any terrorist attack has ever accomplished, and we did it to ourselves. (shakes head)
That assumes you had credibility in the first place.
Hard to ruin what you never had.
Why assume the government has made full disclosure? We already know it has destroyed interrogation videotapes.
Besides, waterboarding is a distraction. It's on the way out. Talking about it only minimizes the bigger picture.
Our mistreatment of detainees degrades us, ruins our reputation and puts our own armed forces at greater risk of mistreatment.
@ Yonivore:
who's to say 9/11 or the ISIS videotaped beheadings were terrorism or crimes at all?
were charges brought? were the alleged perpetrators ever found guilty of it in court?
using legalism as a prop cuts both ways. treating terrorists as outlaws turned us into outlaws too.
just prosecute em. they're not an existential threat to the US. they're just criminals.
criminal law still works in this country. in use it.
guess we're too cowardly now to take the chance in court. how chicken .
How charmingly naive. It mainly "works" AGAINST the poor, blacks, browns.
that's hardly germane.
I was saying it would be better to indict and convict terrorists than detain them lawlessly and torture them. do you disagree?
your statement was too broad, so it was wrong. In fact, it's not even "justice" or "truth", it's just legal technicalities, plea deals, and lawyering.
no.
The Repugs didn't want them tried in civilian court, didn't want them tried in military court, didn't want them transferred to US high security prisons, didn't and still don't want Gitmo closed, don't want any of the prisoners released.
The Repugs simply and always up everything, even that means just obstructing anything they can.
the frame is this thread and the preceding comments. contextually it couldn't have been much clearer. except, I guess to you.your statement was too broad, so it was wrong.
C.I.A. Report Found Value of Brutal Interrogation Was Inflated
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/world/cia-report-found-value-of-brutal-interrogation-was-inflated.html
but, USA surrendering ALL moral authority made the torture worth it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
