CIA torture directives

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, I think a good rule of measure regarding what is and isnt torture is to make a simple inquiry: Have the japanese made porn of it yet? If they have, its torture. See, this proud nation will stop at nothing to supply the west with DVDs chock full of the nastiest, most vile, and downright wrongful 'erotic' material known to man.

 

So if we run the CIA methods against Japanese porn we get: Forcing people to eat bugs: check. Sleep deprivation: check. Exposing genitals to electric current: check. Waterboarding: check and no check. There have been films featuring people being drowned in toilets, aquariums, bathtubs or being tied up and hosed down but nothing that actually constitutes waterboarding.

 

So for now, the matter is a bit of a grey area. But that will change soon.

 

 

fact: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/japan...halt_production

[mkreku]

the irony that one of the fox commentators had such harsh words to say about the content in the memos is... well... delicious.

Yes, because one comment by one guy somehow redeems decades of right wing idiocy from the Fox network

 

You call it "irony", but it's just another simple solution for simple minds.

[Rostere]

I think by "Fox crowd" he meant those who would generally agree with the Fox network, not that you're a religous Fox who does whatever they say.

trust me, according to mkreku, i'm part of the fox crowd.

 

the irony that one of the fox commentators had such harsh words to say about the content in the memos is... well... delicious.

 

taks

 

You got me intruiged. Linky?

 

Find what you want to read here.

 

On a side note, I also find this intriguing. It reminds me of how important it is with critical media.

 

I find it perfectly logical that Fox News chooses to do this however. Unlike in other countries, where there are several parties, in the US there are only two and thus biased media (whether it's left- or right wing) will be tied to a specific party. Following Bush's decline in popularity, they will seek to distance themselves from him to eventually allow new leaders of the Republican party to step forward and start anew. Also, they will try to blame Obama for the laws enacted under Bush which liquidates the privacy of the individual (of course with the premise that they're "enemies of the state", but we've heard that one before).

 

I hope this will lead to some good things though. The US needs a healthy debate about the PATRIOT act et.c.. In my opinion, excessive surveillance laws are no good, regardless of which regime is in charge.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Please do elaborate, where do you draw this imaginary line when people are turned into shoggoths with rabies, beyond any form of redemption. Please do it with utmost care and preferbly with a model, or a personal philosophy as you might call it, that you can apply consistantly in everyday life.

I draw the line at the scum that intentionally blow up innocent women and children.

[Meshugger]

Please do elaborate, where do you draw this imaginary line when people are turned into shoggoths with rabies, beyond any form of redemption. Please do it with utmost care and preferbly with a model, or a personal philosophy as you might call it, that you can apply consistantly in everyday life.

I draw the line at the scum that intentionally blow up innocent women and children.

 

I take that you are aware that now, and before, people have killed and blown up women and children without repercussion. Sometimes, people even refer to them as warheroes.

 

 

This man has intentionally blown up women and children. Maybe you need to refine your theory a bit.

[Trenitay]

I assume you have some sort of picture there but I can't see it.

 

Also, Hiroshima.

[Meshugger]

I assume you have some sort of picture there but I can't see it.

 

Also, Hiroshima.

 

You guessed it right. The picture is of Paul Tibbets, the pilot of Enola Gay, which of course bombed Hiroshima.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So I guess that makes what the terrorists are doing now OK. I feel much better now.

[Trenitay]

Or it could go the other way and we're saying that what they're doing wasn't okay.

[Meshugger]

So I guess that makes what the terrorists are doing now OK. I feel much better now.

 

No, the point is that your line of reason is full of holes. Again, please do elaborate a consistent take on when people should be stopped being treated as people and become subject of torture.

[taks]

This man has intentionally blown up women and children. Maybe you need to refine your theory a bit.

not that i want to get into a foodfight, but there's a difference in what wrath is talking about and what the pilot of the enola gay did.

 

taks

[Wrath of Dagon]

When they're a brutal, vicious, merciless enemy and have information we need to prevent future attacks and save the lives of our own citizens. Also the terrorist scum weren't tortured, they were interrogated with methods far gentler than they deserve.

[taks]

You got me intruiged. Linky?

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/..._torture_memos/

 

i've always liked napolitano. very straightforward and honest, IMO.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

Intel Chief: Info Gained In Interrogations

 

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair Said Bush Era Interrogation Policies Provided that "High Value Information"

 

WASHINGTON, April 22, 2009

 

(AP) The Obama administration's top intelligence official privately told employees last week that "high value information" was obtained in interrogations that included harsh techniques approved by former President George W. Bush.

 

"A deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network" resulted, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said in the memo, in which he added, "I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past." The Associated Press obtained a copy.

 

Critics of the harsh methods -- waterboarding, face slapping, sleep deprivation and other techniques -- have called them torture. President Barack Obama said Tuesday they showed the United States "losing our moral bearings" and said they would not be used while he is in office. But he did not say whether he believed they worked.

 

Obama ordered the release of long-secret Bush-era documents on the subject last week, and Blair circulated his memo declaring that useful information was obtained at the same time.

 

In a public statement released the same day, Blair did not say that interrogations using the techniques had yielded useful information.

 

As word of the private memo surfaced Tuesday night, a new statement was issued in his name that appeared to be more explicit in one regard and contained something of a hedge on another point.

 

It said, "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

 

The emergence of Blair's memo added another layer of complexity to an issue that has plagued the Obama administration in recent days.

 

The president drew criticism from Republicans last week for releasing the Justice Department memos that outlined the legal basis for waterboarding and other techniques. At the same time, some Democrats and liberal groups have expressed disappointment that he signaled his opposition to possible legal action against senior officials who had approved their use in the first place.

 

On Tuesday, the president told a reporter it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to make such a decision.

 

Blair, in his memo to employees in the intelligence community, wrote: "Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future.

 

"I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."

 

 

Hmm, so much for all of you that somehow magically know that torture doesnt work.

[Cycloneman]

Obama has said he doesn't support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal.

BREAKING NEWS! OBAMA EMPLOYS NUREMBERG DEFENSE!

[Meshugger]

This man has intentionally blown up women and children. Maybe you need to refine your theory a bit.

not that i want to get into a foodfight, but there's a difference in what wrath is talking about and what the pilot of the enola gay did.

 

taks

 

I was just using his own argument against him in order to show that it wasn't consistent.

 

I'll get get back with a longer response later.

[Hurlshort]

Obama has said he doesn't support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal.

BREAKING NEWS! OBAMA EMPLOYS NUREMBERG DEFENSE!

 

I believe that they need to move forward and not try and go on a witch hunt over what was done in the past. The line is being established that torture will not be tolerated in the future, and that should be enough. Throwing agents under the bus for something that was clearly in a legal grey area is terrible.

[taks]

Hmm, so much for all of you that somehow magically know that torture doesnt work.

realistically, it is one of those things that probably works some of the time, but only when they already have enough information to know they aren't getting a load of crap.

 

btw, also from cato: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10133

 

dripping... the irony.

 

taks

[taks]

I was just using his own argument against him in order to show that it wasn't consistent.

i understand, but i think his intended meaning is probably more consistent than his actual words appeared to be, i.e., it is understandable that there are always exceptions, particularly in the case of moral comparisons.

 

I'll get get back with a longer response later.

no need. i just wanted to point out that there is a distinction in what he was referring to and the example.

 

taks

[taks]

Throwing agents under the bus for something that was clearly in a legal grey area is terrible.

agreed. from a political standpoint, such actions, if taken, tend to backfire potentially alienating political allies.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

When they're a brutal, vicious, merciless enemy and have information we need to prevent future attacks and save the lives of our own citizens. Also the terrorist scum weren't tortured, they were interrogated with methods far gentler than they deserve.

 

Who will be the judge on what they deserve? How would you measure by metrics someone else's pain? What about the potential abuse of these methods by future governments? Also, do you even support the Geneva conventions?

 

Read the links provided by taks, they pretty much sealed the deal.

[Meshugger]

no need. i just wanted to point out that there is a distinction in what he was referring to and the example.

 

taks

 

Ok

[ouiouiwewe]

The question should be about whether or not the means justifies the ends and I'd say it is very tough to judge - both sides have their merit.

 

On the other hand, questioning the effectiveness of torture methods is silly and should not be something center to discussion.

[Cycloneman]

"I believe that they need to move forward and not try and go on a witch hunt over what was done in the past. The line is being established that the suppression of unions and the murder of union-workers will not be tolerated in the future, and that should be enough. Throwing Pinkertons under the bus for something that was clearly in a legal grey area is terrible."

 

- Hurlshot, circa 1900

 

Pre-Edit Post:

"I believe that they need to move forward and not try and go on a witch hunt over what was done in the past. The line is being established that genocide and illegal human experimentation will not be tolerated in the future, and that should be enough. Throwing nazis under the bus for something that was clearly in a legal grey area is terrible."

 

- Hurlshot, circa 1945

Edited April 22, 2009 by Cycloneman

[taks]

nice and hyperbolic, but there is no moral equivalence to what the nazis did and what is being discussed here. it's not even a remotely legitimate analogy.

 

^ouiouiwewe: it's only being discussed because some use that as their "reason" for questioning (or even justifying) torture in the first place, rather than making the moral arguments.

 

taks

Edited April 22, 2009 by taks