CIA torture directives

[Gfted1]

"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

 

I know youre trying to be facetious but I kinda agree with that. I never saw the point of hunting down some 85 year old man who was only following orders (See: the Enola Gay example). I wonder where the line was drawn, killing 10 jews? 100? 1000? Its probably very easy to find some US soldier that wiped out dozens of enemy or a sub commander that sent 500 souls to Davey Jones locker. Guess it sucks being on the losing side.

[taks]

and then suddenly, without the hyperbole, it doesn't seem to work as well...

 

taks

[taks]

I never saw the point of hunting down some 85 year old man who was only following orders

most weren't just following orders, however, though i'm sure there were some that did not want to do what they had to do. there's a difference, too, in executing POWs without cause other than the fact that they were jewish.

 

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.

 

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.

What do your first three sentences have to do with anything? And yes, I support those Geneva conventions which the US signed. Those apply only to uniformed soldiers fighting for a country which itself had signed the Geneva conventions. Thus Japanese soldiers were prosecuted because they had no right to do what they did under the Geneva conventions. Moreover, they did a lot more than waterboard, they beat and starve out soldiers, who were legal and legitimate prisoners of war. All the procedures approved by the Justice Department for terrorist interrogations are done to our soldiers as well, as part of their training to prepare them for possible capture and interrogation.

[Hurlshort]

Sort of on topic, but I just had a student say in class to another student about his being Jewish that "my family lost their religion after the war." I take it that refers to them practicing judaism. Interesting.

[Gfted1]

I never saw the point of hunting down some 85 year old man who was only following orders

most weren't just following orders, however, though i'm sure there were some that did not want to do what they had to do. there's a difference, too, in executing POWs without cause other than the fact that they were jewish.

 

taks

 

Yeah, theres no quantifying what was known or not known. What was for pleasure (?) or just following orders. I also think it was a much different time back then where the world was far less concerned with saving everyone and it was more important to get the job done regardless of enemy loss of life. The fire bombing of Tokyo? Purely used for fear and to demoralize the enemy and hundreds of thousands of civilians died, more then both atomic bombs combined! What makes the jews so different? Because 6 million died? Look at this chart. 20m Chinese dead, 23m Russians, 7m Nazis.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There was no military rational for killing the Jews, it was done purely out of racism.

[taks]

What makes the jews so different?

they were singled out simply because of who they were. they weren't even part of the fight.

 

taks

[Cycloneman]

Reasons we should prosecute the agents who tortured people:

1) ignorance of the law is no excuse when that law is something a reasonable person might expect it to be.

2) obedience to a superior is no excuse for breaking the law.

3) their use of torture colors and brings into question all the testimony attained via torture, thus making it much less likely we can prosecute these people for their role in the war on terror.

4) their use of torture was ineffective in attaining information in general.

5) they ****ING TORTURED PEOPLE, YOU SOULLESS PIECES OF ****.

 

Reasons we shouldn't prosecute the agents who tortured people:

1) if we made CIA agents obey the law, what would they do? I mean, what other laws might they have to obey? Don't overthrow foreign governments? Don't create false documents? Don't assassinate foreign officials?

[Gfted1]

There was no military rational for killing the Jews, it was done purely out of racism.

 

 

What makes the jews so different?

they were singled out simply because of who they were. they weren't even part of the fight.

 

taks

 

 

As were millions and millions of other civilians. More civilians died than combatants by a long margin. Again, what makes them special? Is it soley the "racial" part of it? I know for a fact the Japanese looked at the Chinese as little more than animals, would killing 20 million of them as the Japanese did qualify as racism?

[Gorgon]

What makes the jews so different?

they were singled out simply because of who they were. they weren't even part of the fight.

 

taks

What better way to cement the total power of the regime than by picking on outsiders. Jews, homosexuals, perceived dissidents. They served as a sinister reminder of what would happen if you didn't march in step with the official agenda, and at the same time the brutality wasn't felt by the general population, thus minimizing the chances of insurrection.

 

In case of the Nazis this merged with their racist ideology. In fascist Italy the racist element was nowhere near as strong.

[Wrath of Dagon]

As were millions and millions of other civilians. More civilians died than combatants by a long margin.

Most of the civilians killed were in the course of miltary operations, or trying to undermine enemy morale and industrial output.

Again, what makes them special? Is it soley the "racial" part of it? I know for a fact the Japanese looked at the Chinese as little more than animals, would killing 20 million of them as the Japanese did qualify as racism?

Yes, see Rape of Nanking.

[Gorgon]

would killing 20 million of them as the Japanese did qualify as racism?

 

The official propaganda didn't leave much regard for the other side, This is true of American propaganda in the Pacific war as well. In the case of the Japanese army fanaticism was an integral part of their strategy for success, they expected their soldiers to do what the other side wouldn't.

 

The 20 million figure includes starvation and general mismanagement, it's not like x number of Japanese soldiers killed 20 million Chinese.

[Hurlshort]

Reasons we shouldn't prosecute the agents who tortured people:

1) if we made CIA agents obey the law, what would they do? I mean, what other laws might they have to obey? Don't overthrow foreign governments? Don't create false documents? Don't assassinate foreign officials?

 

Burn Notice is an awesome show!

[Cycloneman]

Reasons we shouldn't prosecute the agents who tortured people:

1) if we made CIA agents obey the law, what would they do? I mean, what other laws might they have to obey? Don't overthrow foreign governments? Don't create false documents? Don't assassinate foreign officials?

 

Burn Notice is an awesome show!

Do you mean to imply that the CIA does not do those things? Because it's pretty well known that it does.

[Gorgon]

The CIA is not up to the same level of shenanigans they were in the 70s. What exactly they are up to isn't known by that many people. Assassinations and coup d'etats. I dunno, I suspect the main focus these days is on identifying terrorists.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gorgon

[taks]

As were millions and millions of other civilians. More civilians died than combatants by a long margin. Again, what makes them special? Is it soley the "racial" part of it? I know for a fact the Japanese looked at the Chinese as little more than animals, would killing 20 million of them as the Japanese did qualify as racism?

what the japanese did is also abominable. but you can't equate picking up, imprisoning, and summarily executing millions that aren't even involved with the normal casualties of war. the loss of life in both instances is tragic, but the intent is completely different. when civilians die as a result of war it is not genocide.

 

taks

[Cycloneman]

The CIA is not up to the same level of shenanigans they were in the 70s. What exactly they are up to isn't known by that many people. Assassinations and coup d'etats. I dunno, I suspect the main focus these days is on identifying terrorists.

Remember when we (the USA) were all like "Iraq has first-strike nuclear capabilities!!!"?

 

Who do you think produced the documents which "proved" this?

 

That's right. The CIA.

 

[taks]

Assassinations and coup d'etats.

we supposedly don't do assassinations anymore.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

The CIA is not up to the same level of shenanigans they were in the 70s. What exactly they are up to isn't known by that many people. Assassinations and coup d'etats. I dunno, I suspect the main focus these days is on identifying terrorists.

Remember when we (the USA) were all like "Iraq has first-strike nuclear capabilities!!!"?

 

Who do you think produced the documents which "proved" this?

 

That's right. The CIA.

 

The Bush and Blair administrations were responsible for much of the 'intelligence' released about Iraq leading up to the invasion. The simply picked what supported the result they wanted and ignored everything else. It's more academic forgery than making up stuff spontaneously.

[Gorgon]

Assassinations and coup d'etats.

we supposedly don't do assassinations anymore.

 

taks

Well that's because you have declared war on the targets making them ipso facto enemy combatants.

[taks]

exactly.

 

taks

[Cycloneman]

The Bush and Blair administrations were responsible for much of the 'intelligence' released about Iraq leading up to the invasion. The simply picked what supported the result they wanted and ignored everything else. It's more academic forgery than making up stuff spontaneously.

Okay... don't see how that counters my point.

 

Also, who do you think supported the 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela? Hmm... a coup of a Latin American democratically-elected government because of their economic policies? I wonder who could be behind it?

Edited April 22, 2009 by Cycloneman

[taks]

i'm curious what your point is, cycloneman... gorgon was not disagreeing with you about anything, just adding in simple responses.

 

perhaps you just like to hear yourself type?

 

taks

[Gorgon]

The CIA did have sources and they did state that Sadam had an active nuclear programme, however, these sources were fed to them by resident dissident Iraqis with an obvious bias for military intervention.

 

The Blair cabinet cooked up a document hinting that Sadam would likely have nuclear capabilities quoting, among other things a BA, that's under graduate, thesis.

 

So it's not the information itself, but the uncritical and biased way it was presented that is mainly to blame.

 

I do wonder about the Chavez business though.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gorgon