CIA torture report

[bigpern23]

I'm surprised not to see a thread on this already. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA interrogation methods, with included torture, is stunning in its clarity and shocking in the brutality it exposes.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/cia-reports-shocking-passages/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I don't have time at the moment to find a copy of the full report (I'm not sure if it's available), but good God, I really thought we were better as a nation than this.

Not surprisingly, Cheney dismisses the report as "a bunch of hooey." Eloquent.

I'm disappointed Obama would rather "turn the page" than allow this report to lead possible prosecutions. I don't believe in chalking up such terrible transgressions to, "the past is in the past." These weren't petty crimes, these were legitimate war crimes that violate the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. willingly joined. I know we wouldn't "turn the page" on these crimes if they were committed by another government or state actor against our citizens.

John McCain summed up my thoughts on the subject rather well:

"I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn't about our enemies; it's about us. It's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It's about how we represent ourselves to the world.

"When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea...that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights.
Our enemies act without conscience. We must not."

 

[bigpern23]

For anyone interested in reading the full 528-page report, though the lack of responses thus far suggests no one cares about our government torturing people:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/100000003279268.mobile.html

 

[LongTimeListener]

What does Marc Trestman have to say about it?

 

[YankeeFan]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I think it's worth discussing, but it will be impossible to do so without acknowledging and discussing the political factors and motivations. If we can't do that here, I'm not sure how we can talk about it in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

 

[Justin_Rice]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I'll happily dismisses 75 percent of whats in the report as partisan nonsense, and I'd still consider our actions reprehensible.

 

[YankeeFan]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I'll happily dismisses 75 percent of whats in the report as partisan nonsense, and I'd still consider our actions reprehensible.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote.

The report, and its politics can either be discussed, or they can't.

It's a joke to pretend you can talk about this and leave politics out of the discussion. It's why no one bothered to start a thread on it yesterday, and why **** created a thread mocking the absence of the biggest news story of the day from the board.

 

[bigpern23]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I think it's worth discussing, but it will be impossible to do so without acknowledging and discussing the political factors and motivations. If we can't do that here, I'm not sure how we can talk about it in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

Genuine question because I haven't seen that anywhere - What makes you think it's written entirely by the Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? There are seven Republicans on the committee.

Without having read through it all to see if there is a dissent, is this report not the collective findings of the entire committee?

 

[YankeeFan]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I think it's worth discussing, but it will be impossible to do so without acknowledging and discussing the political factors and motivations. If we can't do that here, I'm not sure how we can talk about it in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

Genuine question because I haven't seen that anywhere - What makes you think it's written entirely by the Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? There are seven Republicans on the committee.

Without having read through it all to see if there is a dissent, is this report not the collective findings of the entire committee?

The only thing worse than trying to discuss a report that is inherently political, without discussing the politics of it, is trying to discuss it with someone who doesn't know enough about it to properly discuss it.

Seriously, if you've read any discussion of the report, you'll know how it was written, and who wrote it.

 

[Justin_Rice]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I think it's worth discussing, but it will be impossible to do so without acknowledging and discussing the political factors and motivations. If we can't do that here, I'm not sure how we can talk about it in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

Genuine question because I haven't seen that anywhere - What makes you think it's written entirely by the Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? There are seven Republicans on the committee.

Without having read through it all to see if there is a dissent, is this report not the collective findings of the entire committee?

The only thing worse than trying to discuss a report that is inherently political, without discussing the politics of it, is trying to discuss it with someone who doesn't know enough about it to properly discuss it.

Seriously, if you've read any discussion of the report, you'll know how it was written, and who wrote it.

Because it was written by Democrats, which portions do you dismiss?

 

[bigpern23]

Regardless, the fact is, CIA nearly drowned one suspect through waterboarding, despite all of the assurances given that the process would only "simulate" drowning. It fed detainees through rectal hydration without medical cause to do so. It beat and threatened detainees with mock executions. It killed at least one detainee in its custody.

It did all these things in the name of national security and, yet, it received no credible information that led directly or indirectly to thwarting an attack. CIA basically proved that torturing detainees for information does not work, then mounted a PR campaign to tell the public that torture led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

I don't see how anyone can read that report and decide that because Dianne Feinstein wrote the foreword, we should just discount everything that's in it.

The report should absolutely sicken anyone who believes this country was founded on the ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, no matter which side of the aisle they sit. We're supposed to be better than what is in this report.

 

[BTExpress]

I really thought we were better as a nation than this.

We were good at the beginning. But then we just went too far.

 

[bigpern23]

A report written entirely by the staff of the Democrats on the committee is inherently political in nature.

I think it's worth discussing, but it will be impossible to do so without acknowledging and discussing the political factors and motivations. If we can't do that here, I'm not sure how we can talk about it in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

Genuine question because I haven't seen that anywhere - What makes you think it's written entirely by the Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? There are seven Republicans on the committee.

Without having read through it all to see if there is a dissent, is this report not the collective findings of the entire committee?

The only thing worse than trying to discuss a report that is inherently political, without discussing the politics of it, is trying to discuss it with someone who doesn't know enough about it to properly discuss it.

Seriously, if you've read any discussion of the report, you'll know how it was written, and who wrote it.

So are you saying the seven Republicans on the committee abdicated their responsibility to contribute to the findings?

If you don't want to discuss it, then bail from the thread. If you want to read "discussion of the report" to inform your point of view, rather than the report itself, well, you're part of the problem.

EDIT: I just found the link to the Republican response ... I'll get to it after reading the report.

 

[cranberry]

I'm sickened but not surprised by the cold, hard, undisputed facts that were revealed in the report.

 

[Boom_70]

I'm surprised not to see a thread on this already. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA interrogation methods, with included torture, is stunning in its clarity and shocking in the brutality it exposes.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/cia-reports-shocking-passages/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I don't have time at the moment to find a copy of the full report (I'm not sure if it's available), but good God, I really thought we were better as a nation than this.

Not surprisingly, Cheney dismisses the report as "a bunch of hooey." Eloquent.

I'm disappointed Obama would rather "turn the page" than allow this report to lead possible prosecutions. I don't believe in chalking up such terrible transgressions to, "the past is in the past." These weren't petty crimes, these were legitimate war crimes that violate the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. willingly joined. I know we wouldn't "turn the page" on these crimes if they were committed by another government or state actor against our citizens.

John McCain summed up my thoughts on the subject rather well:

"I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn't about our enemies; it's about us. It's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It's about how we represent ourselves to the world.

"When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea...that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights.
Our enemies act without conscience. We must not."

First let me say ( as required by anyone discussing) that the entire process was reprehensible and
I am sickened , etc, etc but why were you surprised not to see this thread topic?

Were you not aware that there is a ban on political discussion? Clearly this falls into that category.
Ban has been on for a while and new ownership has made it clear that they are embracing that
decision.

 

[bigpern23]

I see political threads every day on this site.

 

[Oggiedoggie]

As a nation, we should examine what was done during the interrogations and the legal justifications for them, along with the abuses that went beyond what was approved.

But that should be a bipartisan task. The release of a Democratic report, contrasted by a GOP counter-report and another one from the CIA, is a reflection of how poorly the representatives of our system of government fulfill their responsibilities.

These folks need to stop lap-dancing their political supporters at least long enough to address a few of the serious issues facing our nation. Instead, they'll probably be content with the money that continues to be shoved into their crotches.

 

[Boom_70]

I see political threads every day on this site.

Links please?

 

[cranberry]

Were you not aware that there is a ban on political discussion? Clearly this falls into that category.
Ban has been on for a while and new ownership has made it clear that they are embracing that
decision.

Who does own this site, anyway? Is it a big secret? For all I know I'm contributing to the Unification Church.

 

[User 11148]

On this site, "political" is defined as any discussion in which the words/phrases "Democrat," "Republican," "Obama" or "Salary Floor" appear. The following words/phrases are not indicative of political discussion:

Teabagger
Corporacrat
Plutocrat
Don't-wanna-pay-taxes-for-nothing
Leftist
The Left
Corporate Overlords
Race to the Bottom
Teachers' Union
Kochsuckers
Ryan Braun

 

[YankeeFan]

Were you not aware that there is a ban on political discussion? Clearly this falls into that category.
Ban has been on for a while and new ownership has made it clear that they are embracing that
decision.

Who does own this site, anyway? Is it a big secret? For all I know I'm contributing to the Unification Church.

Jeff -- no last name: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/3846418/