So is this a way of the out-going dems to take a dump on the carpet, break the windows and kick in the doors on their way out??
If everyone is saying that this will cause violence and death, is releasing it to “cleanse our past sins” worth it?
What can be the motivation behind this?
What will be the foreign policy fall-out going forward?
Obviously Bush’s fault.
Glad we got that out of the way…
Well, to be fair:
"The report also revealed that then-President Bush was never briefed by the CIA on the interrogation techniques and secret detention of terror suspects during the first four years of the program.
But Rizzo said the White House?s implication was that if then-Secretary of State Colin Powell knew the details, ?he would blow his stack.?"
That is outrageous, Bush supporter or not.
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue.
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/thanks-obama-embassies-brace-for-violence-with-release-of-cia-report/
[quote]
Let?s face it, we all know why this is being released today:
Tomorrow, Gruber testifies & SPSCI releases Bush era torture report. One will be subject of extensive reporting, other dismissed as old news
? Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) December 8, 2014 [/quote]
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/542060212547747840
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/thanks-obama-embassies-brace-for-violence-with-release-of-cia-report/
Good article.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue. [/quote]
But surely the exec not being briefed for years of a policy’s operation is concerning. It would be one thing if it was extreme and had oversight. This is another thing entirely.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue. [/quote]
But surely the exec not being briefed for years of a policy’s operation is concerning. It would be one thing if it was extreme and had oversight. This is another thing entirely. [/quote]
I think Bush knew the generalities, not the specifics. I feel that he let the ones trained with field experience make the calls on the methods. Bush made the decision to empower them.
Just my opinion of course.
Politicians at the top intentionally buffer themselves this way all the time.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Politicians at the top intentionally buffer themselves this way all the time. [/quote]
But then why would people in the CIA be worrying about Colin Powell’s reaction? Something doesn’t seem to add up there.
They defended it later, so we could say they retrospectively signed off on it, but would it be disconcerting to you if they in fact did not know?
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Politicians at the top intentionally buffer themselves this way all the time. [/quote]
But then why would people in the CIA be worrying about Colin Powell’s reaction? Something doesn’t seem to add up there.
They defended it later, so we could say they retrospectively signed off on it, but would it be disconcerting to you if they in fact did not know? [/quote]
It would concern me. I think they knew generally what they were up to. They didn’t want to know what they were really doing. Maybe they went overboard?
I guarantee the guy who died got swept under the rug.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I guarantee the guy who died got swept under the rug. [/quote]
Well, if they were going to cover up anything, that’d be a good place to start.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue. [/quote]
I think it is a mistake for those in the anti-torture camp to debate its effectiveness. Whether torture is effective or not really isn’t the point; claiming it isn’t effective makes it seem like a relevant consideration.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue. [/quote]
I think it is a mistake for those in the anti-torture camp to debate its effectiveness. Whether torture is effective or not really isn’t the point; claiming it isn’t effective makes it seem like a relevant consideration. [/quote]
It does not necessarily make a concession. Staged arguments are pretty common.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m concerned about the reactions / future behavior of those governments who assisted with this, and will now be on the spot.[/quote]
The British reaction has been to run as fast and as far in the opposite direction as is possible.
I can’t speak for other implicated countries.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue. [/quote]
I think it is a mistake for those in the anti-torture camp to debate its effectiveness. Whether torture is effective or not really isn’t the point; claiming it isn’t effective makes it seem like a relevant consideration. [/quote]
I believe that rapport based interrogation should be standard operating procedure for the intelligence and defense communities. This is because of its efficacy, not the immorality of torture. However, this approach has its limits. Torture should remain in the tool box as a last resort. In some cases, it has proven quite effective, leading directly to the aversion of attacks, along with the aquisition of critical tactical and strategic intelligence. In fact, torture led to the location of Usama bin Laden himself, along with a virtual treasure trove of intelligence.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m concerned about the reactions / future behavior of those governments who assisted with this, and will now be on the spot.[/quote]
The British reaction has been to run as fast and as far in the opposite direction as is possible.
I can’t speak for other implicated countries. [/quote]
Yeah, like MI6 hasn’t ever roughed up detainees.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And I take issue with the conclusion the methods used were ineffective. They have been in specific cases, but in other cases they were highly effective.
There is far from a consensus on this issue. [/quote]
I think it is a mistake for those in the anti-torture camp to debate its effectiveness. Whether torture is effective or not really isn’t the point; claiming it isn’t effective makes it seem like a relevant consideration. [/quote]
I believe that rapport based interrogation should be standard operating procedure for the intelligence and defense communities. This is because of its efficacy, not the immorality of torture. However, this approach has its limits. Torture should remain in the tool box as a last resort. In some cases, it has proven quite effective, leading directly to the aversion of attacks, along with the aquisition of critical tactical and strategic intelligence. In fact, torture led to the location of Usama bin Laden himself, along with a virtual treasure trove of intelligence. [/quote]
I don’t doubt we obtained valuable intelligence through torture. It is still torture.
I think it would be interesting to turn the CIA loose on you for a few years and see whether you still agree that it should be part of the toolbox. Or maybe render you to the Saudi’s and let them go to work. Submit to that for, say, 3 to 5 years, and I’ll listen to your opinion on this.
Also, I suspect you agree that when our boys and girls get captured fighting abroad, torture is fair game, because, its an effective way to gain intelligence and because, you know, we torture, so fair’s fair.