CIA lied over brutal interrogations
Discussion
Jimbeaux said:
XJ Flyer said:
HD Adam said:
I agree it's a very thin line.
Do I want to think that my kids can travel safely on the Tube?
Yes, of course.
Would I be happy if the Police picked up a potential bomber or somebody with information and tortured them to get the info that saved them?
Yes, of course.
Do I think the Police should be able to pick me up off the street and torture me?
Ah, no, hang on a minute.
Obviously, we all want it all ways but can't have it and I don't have an answer.
There is only one answer and it is never going to be the politically correct one that the do gooders would like.In which case we can only hope that those enforcing the law know what they are doing by applying what needs to be done selectively,proportionally and to the right people. Do I want to think that my kids can travel safely on the Tube?
Yes, of course.
Would I be happy if the Police picked up a potential bomber or somebody with information and tortured them to get the info that saved them?
Yes, of course.
Do I think the Police should be able to pick me up off the street and torture me?
Ah, no, hang on a minute.
Obviously, we all want it all ways but can't have it and I don't have an answer.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvNc24yQZA
In this case there's probably no way that the CIA would have been acting without the go ahead of the NSA.In which case the CIA are just acting as a Patsy to cover for their guvnors.Who ( hopefully ) knew exactly what they were doing,proportionally in line with the potential threat,to the right people,with good enough reason.In line with your former example.
Has anyone bothered to listen to President Obama's own head of the CIA today? He gave a news conference. I would think that you all might like to hear more than one side of a story before taking up pitchforks and torches. This report was not made by the Senate Intelligence Committee, that was just the name it was released under. The report was begun, five years ago, and completed by Dem Senator Feinstein's staff; a staff of mainly idealistic left leaning west coast youngsters. Ask yourself for a moment; would you believe without question a report written solely by the staff of one of the Labour party's leaders? Answer truthfully?
Edited by Jimbeaux on Saturday 13th December 05:00
As for me I won't be arguing against that situation being that I made it clear that 'if' I'm right in that regard I'd be one those who is on the side of the NSA in doing whatever it takes in this case.Not that of Obama and Cameron.The idea that the NSA would then use diversion tactics to protect itself by putting the blame on the CIA to throw Obama off guard seems logical to me being that I'd bet that he'd have been one of the only ones in the cinema complaining that Dirty Harry had infringed the scumbag's rights in that football stadium scene.
NicD said:
XJ Flyer said:
throw Obama off guard seems logical to me being that I'd bet that he'd have been one of the only ones in the cinema complaining that Dirty Harry had infringed the scumbag's rights in that football stadium scene.
great scene, and makes us all want to be 'Dirty Harry'In this case the storyline would go along the lines of the NSA is Dirty Harry acting outside normally allowed boundaries of accepted law enforcement policies under a cloak of total deniability to meet a specific threat which requires it.The cloak of deniability in this case meaning that the CIA are probably acting as the NSA's sub contractors in implementing its intel gathering operations.Meanwhile,unlike Bush,Obama is obviously totally against such 'infringement' of the detainee's 'rights' which is why that issue of having sub contracted the job to the CIA,thereby diverting all the 'blame',now seems such a good idea.
IE it was the CIA wot dun it guv not us.Then the NSA just gets back to work as usual with the CIA now cleansed by saying we know we did 'wrong' and we won't do it again ( or at least not until Obama is out of office and we get another president who is on Dirty Harry's side not the scumbags' ).
What is certain is that this will all make a great movie one day.
XJ Flyer said:
throw Obama off guard seems logical to me being that I'd bet that he'd have been one of the only ones in the cinema complaining that Dirty Harry had infringed the scumbag's rights in that football stadium scene.
Just to clarify a minor point (which may have eluded some posters).Dirty Harry wasn't real. It was fiction designed to entertain. It was completely clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were.
Real life isn't like that. And suspicion of "being brown without due care and attention" isn't yet sufficient grounds for being tortured.
Countdown said:
XJ Flyer said:
throw Obama off guard seems logical to me being that I'd bet that he'd have been one of the only ones in the cinema complaining that Dirty Harry had infringed the scumbag's rights in that football stadium scene.
Just to clarify a minor point (which may have eluded some posters).Dirty Harry wasn't real. It was fiction designed to entertain. It was completely clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were.
Real life isn't like that. And suspicion of "being brown without due care and attention" isn't yet sufficient grounds for being tortured.
XJ Flyer said:
In general it really is impossible to believe that anyone would attract the attentions of groups like the CIA and NSA,thereby ending up somewhere like Guantanamo,without those agencies having something a 'bit' ( lot ) more credible against them than just their colour.
You may find it impossible to believe. The fact is, it happened, and quite often.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184845
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/0...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592368/Th...
This is we have certain rules and procedures, rather than considering it acceptable for our security services to play out their "Dirty Harry" fantasies.
XJ Flyer said:
In general it really is impossible to believe that anyone would attract the attentions of groups like the CIA and NSA,thereby ending up somewhere like Guantanamo,without those agencies having something a 'bit' ( lot ) more credible against them than just their colour.
I seriously hope that you never serve on a jury.My mixture of opinion and knowledge:
The US have the same multi agency turf wars and politics as we do. The NSA are not some sort of super agency overseeing and controlling the activities of agencies like the CIA or FBI.
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and gave the land to the Palestinians (while we were at it we could give the US to the native red indians, Oz to the Aborigines and Gibralter to Spain), nothing would change in terms of Islamic fundamentalist objectives.
Far from the link to OBL's letter providing an explanation for the 911 attacks, what it does expose are the ramblings of a lunatic with ambitions to turn the clock back to the stone age. These people do not have limited ambition, whereby if 'we' left 'them' in their preferred locations and we stayed in ours, all hostilities would cease. That would simply be regarded as a stepping stone towards total victory. These people will not be satisfied until all men are bearded, women are covered, Sharia law rules, porn and alcohol are outlawed, women stay at home and we all worship at the feet of their God. The letter says everything apart from limiting his ambition. In many ways, it's no different to the ambitions of previous empires, from east and west.
Finally, physical torture can be useful. I'd start by stating that it might well be unnecessary and counter productive but sometimes it will be more effective than drugs, persuasion, blackmail, etc. Two main reasons. The first is that anyone can be broken - it's just a question of finding the key. For some, that will be pain, for others sleep deprivation or threats to their family. Immediate recourse to physical torture would illustrate the amateur status of the interrogator. Secondly, and in particular response to those that say a tortured person will tell you what you want to hear, that's often true. However, sometimes you may a) have strong grounds for believing they have the information you want and b) have limited time to check every possibilty.
Take hostage location for example. The person you have is a known hostage taker and you know that time is against you to rescue a hostage. The hostage could be in several locations but you don't know which. Taking several days to befriend your prisoner and get them to volunteer the information will give the guards time to relocate the hostage. Torture may produce answers that may well be what you want to hear but the overriding fact is that the information can be checked. So, not something to be used as the default method, but something that has to remain in the toolbox.
The US have the same multi agency turf wars and politics as we do. The NSA are not some sort of super agency overseeing and controlling the activities of agencies like the CIA or FBI.
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and gave the land to the Palestinians (while we were at it we could give the US to the native red indians, Oz to the Aborigines and Gibralter to Spain), nothing would change in terms of Islamic fundamentalist objectives.
Far from the link to OBL's letter providing an explanation for the 911 attacks, what it does expose are the ramblings of a lunatic with ambitions to turn the clock back to the stone age. These people do not have limited ambition, whereby if 'we' left 'them' in their preferred locations and we stayed in ours, all hostilities would cease. That would simply be regarded as a stepping stone towards total victory. These people will not be satisfied until all men are bearded, women are covered, Sharia law rules, porn and alcohol are outlawed, women stay at home and we all worship at the feet of their God. The letter says everything apart from limiting his ambition. In many ways, it's no different to the ambitions of previous empires, from east and west.
Finally, physical torture can be useful. I'd start by stating that it might well be unnecessary and counter productive but sometimes it will be more effective than drugs, persuasion, blackmail, etc. Two main reasons. The first is that anyone can be broken - it's just a question of finding the key. For some, that will be pain, for others sleep deprivation or threats to their family. Immediate recourse to physical torture would illustrate the amateur status of the interrogator. Secondly, and in particular response to those that say a tortured person will tell you what you want to hear, that's often true. However, sometimes you may a) have strong grounds for believing they have the information you want and b) have limited time to check every possibilty.
Take hostage location for example. The person you have is a known hostage taker and you know that time is against you to rescue a hostage. The hostage could be in several locations but you don't know which. Taking several days to befriend your prisoner and get them to volunteer the information will give the guards time to relocate the hostage. Torture may produce answers that may well be what you want to hear but the overriding fact is that the information can be checked. So, not something to be used as the default method, but something that has to remain in the toolbox.
Edited by 9mm on Sunday 14th December 11:39
My mixture of opinion and knowledge:
The US have the same multi agency turf wars and politics as we do. The NSA are not some sort of super agency overseeing and controlling the activities of agencies like the CIA or FBI.
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and gave the land to the Palestinians (while we were at it we could give the US to the native red indians, Oz to the Aborigines and Gibralter to Spain), nothing would change in terms of Islamic fundamentalist objectives.
Far from the link to OBL's letter providing an explanation for the 911 attacks, what it does expose are the ramblings of a lunatic with ambitions to turn the clock back to the stone age. These people do not have limited ambition, whereby if 'we' left 'them' in their preferred locations and we stayed in ours, all hostilities would cease. That would simply be regarded as a stepping stone towards total victory. These people will not be satisfied until all men are bearded, women are covered, Sharia law rules, porn and alcohol are outlawed, women stay at home and we all worship at the feet of their God. The letter says everything apart from limiting his ambition. In many ways, it's no different to the ambitions of previous empires, from east and west.
Finally, physical torture can be useful. I'd start by stating that it might well be unnecessary and counter productive but sometimes it will be more effective than drugs, persuasion, blackmail, etc. Two main reasons. The first is that anyone can be broken - it's just a question of finding the key. For some, that will be pain, for others sleep deprivation or threats to their family. Immediate recourse to physical torture would illustrate the amateur status of the interrogator. Secondly, and in particular response to those that say a tortured person will tell you what you want to hear, that's often true. However, sometimes you may a) have strong grounds for believing they have the information you want and b) have limited time to check every possibilty.
Take hostage location for example. The person you have is a known hostage taker and you know that time is against you to rescue a hostage. The hostage could be in several locations but you don't know which. Taking several days to befriend your prisoner and get them to volunteer the information will give the guards time to relocate the hostage. Torture may produce answers that may well be what you want to hear but the overriding fact is that the information can be checked. So, not something to be used as the default method, but something that has to remain in the toolbox.
The US have the same multi agency turf wars and politics as we do. The NSA are not some sort of super agency overseeing and controlling the activities of agencies like the CIA or FBI.
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and gave the land to the Palestinians (while we were at it we could give the US to the native red indians, Oz to the Aborigines and Gibralter to Spain), nothing would change in terms of Islamic fundamentalist objectives.
Far from the link to OBL's letter providing an explanation for the 911 attacks, what it does expose are the ramblings of a lunatic with ambitions to turn the clock back to the stone age. These people do not have limited ambition, whereby if 'we' left 'them' in their preferred locations and we stayed in ours, all hostilities would cease. That would simply be regarded as a stepping stone towards total victory. These people will not be satisfied until all men are bearded, women are covered, Sharia law rules, porn and alcohol are outlawed, women stay at home and we all worship at the feet of their God. The letter says everything apart from limiting his ambition. In many ways, it's no different to the ambitions of previous empires, from east and west.
Finally, physical torture can be useful. I'd start by stating that it might well be unnecessary and counter productive but sometimes it will be more effective than drugs, persuasion, blackmail, etc. Two main reasons. The first is that anyone can be broken - it's just a question of finding the key. For some, that will be pain, for others sleep deprivation or threats to their family. Immediate recourse to physical torture would illustrate the amateur status of the interrogator. Secondly, and in particular response to those that say a tortured person will tell you what you want to hear, that's often true. However, sometimes you may a) have strong grounds for believing they have the information you want and b) have limited time to check every possibilty.
Take hostage location for example. The person you have is a known hostage taker and you know that time is against you to rescue a hostage. The hostage could be in several locations but you don't know which. Taking several days to befriend your prisoner and get them to volunteer the information will give the guards time to relocate the hostage. Torture may produce answers that may well be what you want to hear but the overriding fact is that the information can be checked. So, not something to be used as the default method, but something that has to remain in the toolbox.
Edited by 9mm on Sunday 14th December 11:40
rohrl said:
9mm said:
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and give the land to the Palestinians
This is a blatant and outright lie. Obama has never said this.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theob...
Maybe I misunderstood.
9mm said:
rohrl said:
9mm said:
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and give the land to the Palestinians
This is a blatant and outright lie. Obama has never said this.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theob...
Maybe I misunderstood.
Edit - In my defence I had just recently read XJFlyer's nonsense.
Edited by rohrl on Sunday 14th December 11:44
9mm said:
rohrl said:
9mm said:
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and give the land to the Palestinians
This is a blatant and outright lie. Obama has never said this.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theob...
Maybe I misunderstood.
Righto.
OBL seems to have it down as THE main reason for conflict between Muslims and the West.
9mm said:
Finally, physical torture can be useful. I'd start by stating that it might well be unnecessary and counter productive but sometimes it will be more effective than drugs, persuasion, blackmail, etc. Two main reasons. The first is that anyone can be broken - it's just a question of finding the key. For some, that will be pain, for others sleep deprivation or threats to their family. Immediate recourse to physical torture would illustrate the amateur status of the interrogator. Secondly, and in particular response to those that say a tortured person will tell you what you want to hear, that's often true. However, sometimes you may a) have strong grounds for believing they have the information you want and b) have limited time to check every possibilty.
It would be a lot simpler if you wrote: "The ends jutifies the means."XJ Flyer said:
There is only one answer and it is never going to be the politically correct one that the do gooders would like.In which case we can only hope that those enforcing the law know what they are doing by applying what needs to be done selectively,proportionally and to the right people.
The facts are though that the wrong people have been detained and tortured or bombed. If like me, you probably try to rationalise it to yourself by thinking, there's no smoke without fire or they looked like terrorists or what were they doing at a wedding with someone on a kill list. You try to imaging that your side are the good guys and the other are definitely the bad guys. If you stand back though, and look at it, it's clear that the USA and UK are often no better than the terrorists in how they have conducted themselves.
Does that matter? Each to their own but even if you don't care about torturing people and bombing weddings, the end result is that more terrorists are being created. It's not even an effective way of stopping terrorism.
EskimoArapaho said:
9mm said:
Finally, physical torture can be useful. I'd start by stating that it might well be unnecessary and counter productive but sometimes it will be more effective than drugs, persuasion, blackmail, etc. Two main reasons. The first is that anyone can be broken - it's just a question of finding the key. For some, that will be pain, for others sleep deprivation or threats to their family. Immediate recourse to physical torture would illustrate the amateur status of the interrogator. Secondly, and in particular response to those that say a tortured person will tell you what you want to hear, that's often true. However, sometimes you may a) have strong grounds for believing they have the information you want and b) have limited time to check every possibilty.
It would be a lot simpler if you wrote: "The ends jutifies the means."It's the wrapping stuff up in political speak and moralizing that makes for an awesome hypocracy.
America, the west, us; we are no better and no worse than those who would see us as history. They torture, we torture. They seek to fulfilling their collective will. So do we.
So let's stop pretending we're awesome or special, or anything other than one half of a dirty war played out in the darkest places the human mind elects to go to.
KareemK said:
9mm said:
rohrl said:
9mm said:
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and give the land to the Palestinians
This is a blatant and outright lie. Obama has never said this.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theob...
Maybe I misunderstood.
Righto.
OBL seems to have it down as THE main reason for conflict between Muslims and the West.
t for the Palestinians. They are the rallying cry for the nutters that make up the Jihadists armies. That is why he mentions that, it lends a noble tone to the argument. That way some idiots will believe that as opposed to what he really wants.Jimbeaux said:
KareemK said:
9mm said:
rohrl said:
9mm said:
In the unlikely event that we met a key Osama demand such as remove the Israelis from Israel and give the land to the Palestinians
This is a blatant and outright lie. Obama has never said this.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theob...
Maybe I misunderstood.
Righto.
OBL seems to have it down as THE main reason for conflict between Muslims and the West.
t for the Palestinians. They are the rallying cry for the nutters that make up the Jihadists armies. That is why he mentions that, it lends a noble tone to the argument. That way some idiots will believe that as opposed to what he really wants.
Sorry fella but you are sooooo wide of the mark on this its unreal. Perhaps the despots running a few of the regimes out there don't care about the Palestinians but then those same dictators don't care about there own people either - just so long as the petro dollars continue to roll in they'll do and say fk all.The average Muslim on the street however has very strong feelings on the subject. And, as you are so keen to tell us on other threads that over here we don't understand whats happening in the US on the recent subject of racist (or not) police actions please don't attempt to preach to us on what the average Muslim in the Middle East feels, you are every bit as clueless on that particular issue.
Hugo a Gogo said:
9mm said:
My mixture of opinion and knowledge:
man calling himself '9mm' coming out with Jack Bauer fantasiesI'll just skip that, i think
Probably best if you get to bed early - it must be nearly bedtime.
Do come back when you are able to make a useful contribution.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff