CIA torture directives

[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.

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.

 

The first three sentences are part of the bigger picture at hand. Please ponder upon them again.

 

Am i understanding this correctly? If a combatant lacks a uniform, then he is to be put under torture? That surely doesn't sound reasonable. The japanese soldiers did hideous things upon their POWs, sometimes even more than your everyday terrorists, but they got a trial and got sentenced accordingly, without any use of torture. So why the use of torture for men without uniforms?

[Hurlshort]

If the CIA really was supplying intelligence on WMD's in Iraq just to start a war, you'd think they'd be crafty enough to actually plant WMD's in Iraq, so the war seemed justified. I'm just saying, I think you give them too much credit.

[Cycloneman]

If the CIA really was supplying intelligence on WMD's in Iraq just to start a war, you'd think they'd be crafty enough to actually plant WMD's in Iraq, so the war seemed justified. I'm just saying, I think you give them too much credit.

Nuclear weapons are really hard to get, just FYI. Even for the CIA. Saddam did have "weapons of mass destruction" in the form of leftover chemical and biological weapons from the Iran-Iraq War, so there was no need for them to get any of those.

[Meshugger]

If the CIA really was supplying intelligence on WMD's in Iraq just to start a war, you'd think they'd be crafty enough to actually plant WMD's in Iraq, so the war seemed justified. I'm just saying, I think you give them too much credit.

 

Nah, i find it more believable that Cheney and Rumsfeld created certain research groups within the pentagon, that handed matters to the CIA on what to be investigated. The results distributed by the CIA was later cherrypicked by the research groups (a lot possibilities, kinda's and so on...) in order to paint a picture of a more dangerous Iraq than it really was. Cheney or Rumsfeld later compiled all this data and presented it to Bush as the moneyshot that Saddam was the big bad guy.

 

Of course Cheney and Rumsfeld later could pressure the head of the CIA if Bush asks "is this accurate?", by saying that they got it from them in the first place. And if everything f*cks up, then just let the head of the CIA to resign.

 

Just an idea, based on working within the governmental sector myself. I am now happily working in the private sector

[Wrath of Dagon]

Am i understanding this correctly? If a combatant lacks a uniform, then he is to be put under torture? That surely doesn't sound reasonable. The japanese soldiers did hideous things upon their POWs, sometimes even more than your everyday terrorists, but they got a trial and got sentenced accordingly, without any use of torture. So why the use of torture for men without uniforms?

What's more hideous than blowing up women and children? And once again, what was done was not torture and was not punishment, it was interrogation to obtain information to prevent future attacks and save lives, how convenient that so many of you seem incapable of comprehending that distinction.

 

Edit: Btw, the speculation about Bush and Cheney faking Iraq info is short circuited by the fact that Tenet told Bush that it was a slam-dunk Iraq had WMD's.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[samm]

What's more hideous than blowing up women and children?

Blowing someone up is a faster and more convenient death than torture is for both those that die from it and those who survive. Also, what does it matter if they're women? (I see the rationale behind children's deaths being seen as worse than adults')

And once again, what was done was not torture and was not punishment, it was interrogation to obtain information

Haha, if people don't confess in an interrogation, they certainly tell the truth under torture Remember, people confessed to have had sex with the devil in the past... And having flown through the air on a broom. Those that didn't confess that stuff were tortured some more, before being drowned (waterboarding, anyone?) and if they survived that, it was considered proof for their hellish bonds :thumbsup: Nowadays, that last part is replaced by indefinite arrest without trial and a little more torture every now and then. Coupled with indoctrination into extremism and crime that comes for free that (also mentally) survive long enough :thumbsup: GOD above all bless you, defendants of the truly holy practice of finding truth!

 

I can't believe the ridiculousness of talking about such obvious things. Reminds me of "is sexual education harmful". Really, it's incredible how the average mental level hasn't risen past the medieval times. Aufkl

[Rostere]

Edit: Btw, the speculation about Bush and Cheney faking Iraq info is short circuited by the fact that Tenet told Bush that it was a slam-dunk Iraq had WMD's.

 

Keep in mind that he had actually been asked to find such evidence.

 

I'm not sure anyone fabricated anything though. It could be that the CIA were just wrong and the leaders in charge were just not smart enough to see that. Don't you agree? It's obvious that certain people (the PNAC crowd) wanted something of the kind, but I think this kind of thing is just what happens when a lot of angry, confused people of the same mind are gathered in the same place.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Just about every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, Saddam wanted everyone to think he had them. But yes, the faulty intelligence on WMD's coincided with the administration theory of remaking the Mid East and provided a convenient excuse, so the two went hand in hand.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Just about every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, Saddam wanted everyone to think he had them. But yes, the faulty intelligence on WMD's coincided with the administration theory of remaking the Mid East and provided a convenient excuse, so the two went hand in hand.

 

Just because a country might have WMDs does not make it right to just up and invade them. If that was the case why haven't we invaded Russia, China, or Israel yet?

 

On the issue of torture, if you use techniques that your enemies use then you are no better than the enemy.

[taks]

Just because a country might have WMDs does not make it right to just up and invade them. If that was the case why haven't we invaded Russia, China, or Israel yet?

um, because he signed a treaty that said he wouldn't have them after the first war.

 

silly argument, killian.

 

taks

[Maria Caliban]

Just because a country might have WMDs does not make it right to just up and invade them. If that was the case why haven't we invaded Russia, China, or Israel yet?

um, because he signed a treaty that said he wouldn't have them after the first war.

 

silly argument, killian.

 

taks

 

Yes, but we force him to sign that at gunpoint. Just because a country is invading another does not make it right to just up and declare war on them.

[Cycloneman]

Yes, but we force him to sign that at gunpoint. Just because a country is invading another does not make it right to just up and declare war on them.

Actually that's probably about the only reason one should declare war upon another country.

 

If only the US actually did that, the world would be a lot more peaceful.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Cycloneman

[RangerSG]

Just because a country might have WMDs does not make it right to just up and invade them. If that was the case why haven't we invaded Russia, China, or Israel yet?

um, because he signed a treaty that said he wouldn't have them after the first war.

 

silly argument, killian.

 

taks

 

Yes, but we force him to sign that at gunpoint. Just because a country is invading another does not make it right to just up and declare war on them.

 

Well, seeing as we were BEGGED by the Free World to lead the effort against Iraq in the initial Gulf War, actually, yes it did. And since we never, as a point of fact, signed a formal peace treaty with Iraq, we were free by international law to commence hostilities again as soon as Iraq was seen in violation of any terms of the cease fire. Whether or not Iraq had WMDs (and blaming Bush for something every intelligence agency in the world thought was true from the mid 90s is absurd), there is no doubt they were violating the cease fire agreement. Ergo, hostilities were justified as a point of law.

 

Honestly, the only thing I think we did wrong with regards to Iraq is that we acted before we completed operations in Afghanistan, and that has left us generally stretched too thin.

 

As far as the "torture" memos go. I'm not a Cheney fan. I've never been one. But he's right; if you're going to release the documents, release them all. Don't just release the ones that make you look right. And not even THAT right, as it turns out, since his own intelligence chief conceded "valuable" intelligence was gained. And it's flat out wrong to ask people for their legal opinion and then prosecute them for giving that opinion. Simply put, that constitutes entrapment.

 

This is nothing but the latest installment of Obama's permanent campaign. Keep the focus off what he is (or more accurately, is not) doing by continuing to make it look like those big, bad Bushies are all the problem when the Democrats own it ALL.

[Aristes]

This issue is simply wrong. In the first place, the mere conjecture regarding legal action weakens the executive branch by discouraging action on the part of the administration. If members of an administration are in fear of their very freedom, by which I mean they are under threat of imprisonment, every time an administration changes hands, then future administrations will be reluctant to act decisively. The spectacle itself undermines the executive branch.

 

Not only that, but it really doesn't serve the purpose of punishing the people involved. I firmly believe that the evidence is not strong enough to secure a lasting conviction. That is to say, between the initial trial and the subsequent appeals, there is very little chance that anyone involved in the alleged torture will serve time. Of course, I don't have a law degree, but that's how I see it as a layman. The people who clearly carried out illegal torture have been punished. The people involved in interogation techniques under the advice of Counsel probably will not, no matter what the DoJ does. The lawyers who argued that the methods were legal will not likely see jail time either.

 

Because of my two previous assumptions, I see this issue as more political than legal. No duh!

 

However, the crest of the political wave has come and gone. At this point, all this issue serves is to provide an opportunity for folks to argue in favor of the methods that are the center of the controversy in the first place. If it had come and gone, the Dems could have used it as a way to attack the previous administration. Now, however, Obama's own administration is supplying ammunition to advocates of water-boarding and other questionable tactics.

 

In terms of torture, I'm not sure. In principle, I find it wrong. In practice, I find it distasteful. However, since the specifics defy a clear definition, I don't know what to think at this point.

[Meshugger]

Am i understanding this correctly? If a combatant lacks a uniform, then he is to be put under torture? That surely doesn't sound reasonable. The japanese soldiers did hideous things upon their POWs, sometimes even more than your everyday terrorists, but they got a trial and got sentenced accordingly, without any use of torture. So why the use of torture for men without uniforms?

What's more hideous than blowing up women and children? And once again, what was done was not torture and was not punishment, it was interrogation to obtain information to prevent future attacks and save lives, how convenient that so many of you seem incapable of comprehending that distinction.

 

Edit: Btw, the speculation about Bush and Cheney faking Iraq info is short circuited by the fact that Tenet told Bush that it was a slam-dunk Iraq had WMD's.

 

So the end justifies the means, eh? Thus, you are a subscriber to Consequentialism then. Why didn't you say so in the first place, instead beating around the bush, per say.

[Meshugger]

Edit: Btw, the speculation about Bush and Cheney faking Iraq info is short circuited by the fact that Tenet told Bush that it was a slam-dunk Iraq had WMD's.

 

No one claim that they directly faked it, since it was based on interpretations and secondguessing to begin with.

 

Link to the actual 'slamdunk'-quote, please. I actually forgot in what context that one was made.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So the end justifies the means, eh? Thus, you are a subscriber to Consequentialism then. Why didn't you say so in the first place, instead beating around the bush, per say.

I didn't beat around the bush, I said what I thought. I also didn't know what Consequantialism was, and I don't apply philosophical theories in abstract. I look at the facts and try to see what is right and necessary. As far as "slam dunk", I don't have a link, I know he said it and the context, you can google as well as I can.

 

Edit: I guess I know I'm not a deontologist

For example, Kant famously argued that we have a moral duty to always tell the truth, even to a murderer who asks where the would-be victim is.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorgon]

Yes but Kant was defining ethics, not arguing that telling the murderer where the victim is was the better option.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The ethical choice is the better choice, isn't it? I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

[Trenitay]

Generally, hurting people is not the ethical choice.

[Humodour]

The ethical choice is the better choice, isn't it? I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

 

Look up 'ethics' in a dictionary/encyclopedia: ethics is a system. You and I may have different ethical systems, and thus what's good to me may not be what's good to you. As such, the 'better choice' for a deontologist is to tell the truth. Whether or not you think that is the better choice is irrelevant to the ethical system of the deontologist.

 

Kant definined numerous different ethical systems. He's worth reading. My ethical system is roughly utilitarian humanism.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Krezack

[Wrath of Dagon]

Re-read your own post, did I say anything about ethics being objective? So what does your post have to do with what I said? Also I'll point out I said I'm not a deontologist.

[Humodour]

Re-read your own post, did I say anything about ethics being objective? So what does your post have to do with what I said? Also I'll point out I said I'm not a deontologist.

 

*sigh*. You assumed your ethical system is the correct/only ethical system in your post (reproduced below), didn't you? If you'd actually understood Gorgon, I doubt you would have posted that.

 

The ethical choice is the better choice, isn't it?

 

Not to a deontologist, or various other ethical frameworks. The 'better choice' depends on the ethical system.

 

I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

 

I'm pretty sure he was just pointing out that Kant didn't personally subscribe to deontology, he merely defined it. I could be wrong.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So you're saying to a deontologist the ethical choice is not the better choice? Also you're assuming what it is that I'm assuming, and you're wrong. As far as what Kant believed, the quote I used indicates he was a deontologist, but I'm not assuming that either.

[Humodour]

So you're saying to a deontologist the ethical choice is not the better choice? Also you're assuming what it is that I'm assuming, and you're wrong. As far as what Kant believed, the quote I used indicates he was a deontologist, but I'm not assuming that either.

 

Well, whatever, miscommunication abounds.

 

The point Gorgon was making, largely tangentially, was that Kant was not a deontonologist, he just (seemingly) wrote from the perspective of the ethical framework he was currently analysing.

 

And yeah, to a deontologist, the ethical choice is logically the 'best' choice, but from our perspective, it's often the opposite (who on earth would condone telling a murderer where their victim is hiding?).

 

Edit: I did a quick dig, and I'm seeming to come to the same conclusion as you - Kant was a absolutist deontologist personally. Can somebody confirm/deny? Frankly, deontology is rather the opposite of utilitarianism.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Krezack