CIA torture directives

[taks]

(who on earth would condone telling a murderer where their victim is hiding?).

um... does it matter who the victim is?

 

taks

[Meshugger]

FoxNews.

 

Seems like they have been hiring some more sane people.

[Rostere]

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 about every intelligence service in the world? That's simply not true. Also, the most important party, the weapon inspectors, did not believe Iraq had and WMD capacity. And that's not counting the people in US intelligence who disagreed.

[mkreku]

http://www.amazon.com/Disarming-Iraq-Hans-Blix/dp/0375423028

 

The weapons inspectors said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the war started before they could bring forth the necessary evidence.

[Gorgon]

The Bush administration did a number on Hans Blix, attempting to make him appear incompetent and naive, no different that what happens in an election. Fortunately it mostly backfired and Blix was able to respond later after he retired.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Gorgon

[Wrath of Dagon]

However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm.

This issue is a lot more complicated than you guys make it out to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...tions_1991-1998 Also I read that the real fear in the US after the anthrax attack was the believe that Iraq had weaponized smallpox, and the US had no defense against it. It was even considered to have the whole country immunized. Also there's evidence that Saddam planned to reconstitute his WMD program when opportunity arose.

[Gorgon]

What evidence, old bits and parts of a non functioning enrichment facility appearing here and there.

 

But, I suppose in debunking the prewar scaremongering one can lose track of the fact that Sadam unquestionably would have developed whatever weapons he could to gain an advantage had he not been constantly pressured and threatened not to.

[Humodour]

What evidence, old bits and parts of a non functioning enrichment facility appearing here and there.

 

But, I suppose in debunking the prewar scaremongering one can lose track of the fact that Sadam unquestionably would have developed whatever weapons he could to gain an advantage had he not been constantly pressured and threatened not to.

 

And that Saddam was a disgusting dictator which the world is far better off without. If America had the capability to remain in Iraq indefinitely (now that they're there), I would cheer it on. But unfortunately, it doesn't, as it's extremely expensive. All we can hope now is that Iraq is stable and democratic enough on its own when America leaves (behind a small peacekeeping force).

 

One place I do support an indefinite presence in is Afghanistan, however.

 

Not that this has anything to do with the Bush administration's use of torture; it certainly doesn't justify it.

[taks]

Not that this has anything to do with the Bush administration's use of torture; it certainly doesn't justify it.

keep in mind it is not just the US nor just the bush administration. this was just the period in time in which specific methods (and those involved) were actually uncovered and discussed publicly.

 

taks

[Humodour]

Not that this has anything to do with the Bush administration's use of torture; it certainly doesn't justify it.

keep in mind it is not just the US nor just the bush administration. this was just the period in time in which specific methods (and those involved) were actually uncovered and discussed publicly.

 

taks

 

Oh, I'm fully aware there are far worse bodies out there (both in terms of methods and frequency of use) - especially North African states, Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Still, it's disconcerting that a US administration would have a hand in any sort of torture. It makes it a lot harder to criticise the aforementioned states for the same, for instance.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It doesn't make it harder, and it doesn't matter that you critisize them. They'll just keep doing what they're doing, no matter what.

[thepixiesrock]

Not MY business tax!

[Walsingham]

I don't see what WMD and Iraq has to do with the sanctioned use of torture.

 

And I'd like some credit for manfully not wading into the Iraq debate again.

[ouiouiwewe]

Not that this has anything to do with the Bush administration's use of torture; it certainly doesn't justify it.

keep in mind it is not just the US nor just the bush administration. this was just the period in time in which specific methods (and those involved) were actually uncovered and discussed publicly.

 

taks

 

Oh, I'm fully aware there are far worse bodies out there (both in terms of methods and frequency of use) - especially North African states, Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Still, it's disconcerting that a US administration would have a hand in any sort of torture. It makes it a lot harder to criticise the aforementioned states for the same, for instance.

It's difficult to imagine how one can be surprised. If a government is willing to go to war and bomb hostile civillians to protect its interests, then it is not much of a stretch for it to torture enemies for that end as well.

 

Some people still think this world is a lala land.

[Hurlshort]

What is a hostile civilian?

[Walsingham]

Hostile civilians?

 

 

There is a difference. One is saying you can aim to achieve your objectives while minimising suffering. the other is saying "There have to be more uses for pliers than we are crediting them with"