CIA lied over brutal interrogations
Discussion
KareemK said:
HD Adam said:
It's exactly an either /or situation.
Sure, we'd all like to sit around in fluffy kitten land singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands but that's not very realistic.
Go on, make a choice. UK or Tribal Hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan right this second.
What a load of tosh.Sure, we'd all like to sit around in fluffy kitten land singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands but that's not very realistic.
Go on, make a choice. UK or Tribal Hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan right this second.
Bill said:
Jimbeaux said:
KareemK said:
Jimbeaux said:
The Brits do these things, as does other allies, we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
I'd argue thats your one redeeming feature in all this.It takes a big man to admit when they're wrong, and that is what the US has just done.
The clue is in the name too. Enhanced interrogation is such a mealy mouthed euphemism. It's like saying invasion is population enrichment.
pork911 said:
Jimbeaux said:
pork911 said:
Bill said:
It takes a big man to admit when they're wrong, and that is what the US has just done.
easy to do when there are likely no consequencesJimbeaux said:
KareemK said:
HD Adam said:
It's exactly an either /or situation.
Sure, we'd all like to sit around in fluffy kitten land singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands but that's not very realistic.
Go on, make a choice. UK or Tribal Hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan right this second.
What a load of tosh.Sure, we'd all like to sit around in fluffy kitten land singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands but that's not very realistic.
Go on, make a choice. UK or Tribal Hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan right this second.
Jimbeaux said:
Why did they wait until their last week in office to let it out? It has been in hand a good while?
AIUI the CIAwere trying to prevent its release. I don't see that releasing it now is any better than releasing it earlier, although I can see that they might fear that it would be suppressed once the Republicans take control.Jimbeaux said:
So, a report that was put together a long while ago is released by the DEMS just before they lose control of Congress. The WH even said this could bring harm to Americans, they do it anyway. It is not as if transparency is on their agenda with all of the Obama administration scandals they have been covering up; therefore, it must be sour grapes, etc.
Jose' Rodrigues, the former head of the Clandestine Service reminded everyone that the enhanced interegation techniques were approved by the Justice Dept, briefed to and approved by both parties, including Nacy Pelosi and Barbara Feinstien. They voted their approval, it is on record. Why did they allow that then?
The Brits do these things, as does other allies, we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
Have you read the summary? They lied about the EITs and where told that the legal approval was based on what they had been told and were it to change then the legal protection likely wouldn't be valid, despite this they didn't tell anyone that they had changed.Jose' Rodrigues, the former head of the Clandestine Service reminded everyone that the enhanced interegation techniques were approved by the Justice Dept, briefed to and approved by both parties, including Nacy Pelosi and Barbara Feinstien. They voted their approval, it is on record. Why did they allow that then?
The Brits do these things, as does other allies, we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
How about not briefing bush until 2006 or lying to colin Powell because they knew he would blow it.
Or how about the emails sent by the interrogators saying they would leave if the EITs were carried on as they were just making the prisoner think he would be punished whether he complied or not, or how all of the useful information that came out of Abu zubaydah (iirc, it may be another) was all supplied to the two FBI agents who used rapport building, or how he was classed as non-compliant in the July of one year when actually he wasn't interciewed for 47 days as the interrogators had been sent home for R&R
Eta. There's a brilliant quote by the head interrogator (detainees were noted to shake in his presence, so no wallflower) in the report that he states paraphrased, this is a train wreck and I'm retiring before everyone finds out and we all get f
ked.Sorry but this has been shown to produce no useful or novel intelligence, if the british do it to I wouldn't be surprised but that doesn't make it right.
Edited by Silent1 on Tuesday 9th December 21:30
Jimbeaux said:
pork911 said:
Jimbeaux said:
pork911 said:
Bill said:
It takes a big man to admit when they're wrong, and that is what the US has just done.
easy to do when there are likely no consequencesJimbeaux said:
The WH even said this could bring harm to Americans, they do it anyway.
You are scared of admitting your behaviour in case you have to face consequences? Jimbeaux said:
we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
And maybe your country will stop torturing and killing prisoners now. You claim the moral high ground yet descend to barbarity when it suits you. I hope we in the UK can adhere to higher standards.
HoHoHo said:
pork911 said:
keep digging honey
Honey, is that the best you can do?I'm laughing at your inability to discuss this other than personal insults, bit of a poor show surely?
You are clearly a keyboard warrior who is incapable of having a discussion unless you throw insults.
Ah well
Bill said:
Jimbeaux said:
Why did they wait until their last week in office to let it out? It has been in hand a good while?
AIUI the CIAwere trying to prevent its release. I don't see that releasing it now is any better than releasing it earlier, although I can see that they might fear that it would be suppressed once the Republicans take control.Is it morally right - No
Is it required to get the job done - More than likely, yes.
You have to think that the people on the wrong end of this service aren't conventional freedom fighters/IRA etc, they want everyone dead who doesn't support their extreme religious ideas. They cant be bargained with as in their eyes, its convert or die to the infadel or kaafir.
I like to imagine the people who were tortured by the CIA weren't people pulled off the street on a hunch, but somebody who had been under surveillance for some time and what was done, had to be.
I find the first people to whine about these scenarios are the ones who will happily shout "Why was this allowed to happen" or "Why were these guys found out sooner, our security forces have failed us again" at the next atrocity.
What do people expect them to do, a hard telling off, lines and detention!?
Is it required to get the job done - More than likely, yes.
You have to think that the people on the wrong end of this service aren't conventional freedom fighters/IRA etc, they want everyone dead who doesn't support their extreme religious ideas. They cant be bargained with as in their eyes, its convert or die to the infadel or kaafir.
I like to imagine the people who were tortured by the CIA weren't people pulled off the street on a hunch, but somebody who had been under surveillance for some time and what was done, had to be.
I find the first people to whine about these scenarios are the ones who will happily shout "Why was this allowed to happen" or "Why were these guys found out sooner, our security forces have failed us again" at the next atrocity.
What do people expect them to do, a hard telling off, lines and detention!?
Silent1 said:
Jimbeaux said:
So, a report that was put together a long while ago is released by the DEMS just before they lose control of Congress. The WH even said this could bring harm to Americans, they do it anyway. It is not as if transparency is on their agenda with all of the Obama administration scandals they have been covering up; therefore, it must be sour grapes, etc.
Jose' Rodrigues, the former head of the Clandestine Service reminded everyone that the enhanced interegation techniques were approved by the Justice Dept, briefed to and approved by both parties, including Nacy Pelosi and Barbara Feinstien. They voted their approval, it is on record. Why did they allow that then?
The Brits do these things, as does other allies, we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
Have you read the summary? They lied about the EITs and where told that the legal approval was based on what they had been told and were it to change then the legal protection likely wouldn't be valid, despite this they didn't tell anyone that they had changed.Jose' Rodrigues, the former head of the Clandestine Service reminded everyone that the enhanced interegation techniques were approved by the Justice Dept, briefed to and approved by both parties, including Nacy Pelosi and Barbara Feinstien. They voted their approval, it is on record. Why did they allow that then?
The Brits do these things, as does other allies, we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
How about not briefing bush until 2006 or lying to colin Powell because they knew he would blow it.
Or how about the emails sent by the interrogators saying they would leave if the EITs were carried on as they were just making the prisoner think he would be punished whether he complied or not, or how all of the useful information that came out of Abu zubaydah (iirc, it may be another) was all supplied to the two FBI agents who used rapport building, or how he was classed as non-compliant in the July of one year when actually he wasn't interciewed for 47 days as the interrogators had been sent home for R&R
Sorry but this has been shown to produce no useful or novel intelligence, if the british do it to I wouldn't be surprised but that doesn't make it right.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hard-measures-ex-cia-h...
Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 9th December 21:35
Rovinghawk said:
Jimbeaux said:
The WH even said this could bring harm to Americans, they do it anyway.
You are scared of admitting your behaviour in case you have to face consequences? Jimbeaux said:
we are just the only dumbasses to up and tell everyone.
And maybe your country will stop torturing and killing prisoners now. You claim the moral high ground yet descend to barbarity when it suits you. I hope we in the UK can adhere to higher standards.I personally can't wait for Jack Straw & Tony Blair to appear before committee and state under oath that the UK had no part in the torture of suspects.
heppers75 said:
You don't fight a junkyard dog with, sit, whistles and rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog.
Some might think so. As we have seen, however, this approach is (a) ineffective and (b) makes more terrorists.Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 9th December 20:38
If the US wants to be thought of as the good guys, then they have to behave like good guys. Otherwise it's too hard to tell them from the bad guys.
Four Litre said:
Is it morally right - No
Is it required to get the job done - More than likely, yes.
You have to think that the people on the wrong end of this service aren't conventional freedom fighters/IRA etc, they want everyone dead who doesn't support their extreme religious ideas. They cant be bargained with as in their eyes, its convert or die to the infadel or kaafir.
I like to imagine the people who were tortured by the CIA weren't people pulled off the street on a hunch, but somebody who had been under surveillance for some time and what was done, had to be.
I find the first people to whine about these scenarios are the ones who will happily shout "Why was this allowed to happen" or "Why were these guys found out sooner, our security forces have failed us again" at the next atrocity.
What do people expect them to do, a hard telling off, lines and detention!?
Sadly your thoughts about them being selected are wrong, they had cases of mistaken identity, kidnapping a mentally retarded man to pressure his family bt sending audio tapes of him screaming/crying. In other cases they kept them in cupboards in the countries jail as they knew they didn't qualify to keep them, trust me, just read the first 100 pages of the report if you don't want to read it all.Is it required to get the job done - More than likely, yes.
You have to think that the people on the wrong end of this service aren't conventional freedom fighters/IRA etc, they want everyone dead who doesn't support their extreme religious ideas. They cant be bargained with as in their eyes, its convert or die to the infadel or kaafir.
I like to imagine the people who were tortured by the CIA weren't people pulled off the street on a hunch, but somebody who had been under surveillance for some time and what was done, had to be.
I find the first people to whine about these scenarios are the ones who will happily shout "Why was this allowed to happen" or "Why were these guys found out sooner, our security forces have failed us again" at the next atrocity.
What do people expect them to do, a hard telling off, lines and detention!?
The intelligence gathered saved no lives and stopped no terrorist plots, it was almost all already known and verified.
Gaspode said:
heppers75 said:
You don't fight a junkyard dog with, sit, whistles and rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog.
Some might think so. As we have seen, however, this approach is (a) ineffective and (b) makes more terrorists.Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 9th December 20:38
If the US wants to be thought of as the good guys, then they have to behave like good guys. Otherwise it's too hard to tell them from the bad guys.
KareemK said:
HD Adam said:
WEHGuy said:
No it wasn't, The US are just the nice big protector of the world's good guy's democracy against them evil bullies.
Go on then, I'll bite.Where would you rather live?
USA / UK?
or
Russia / China / North Korea / Middle East / Africa etc.
Do we need a poll (or parrot)?
It's not an Either/Or situation surely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff