the CIA torture report is sickening

This Senate report is troubling on two fronts for me:

1. The actions used - knowing that we did the things we dod.

2. The utilitarian nature of the report's argument - what if the torture "worked" does that make it morally right?
 
BedellBrave said:
2. The utilitarian nature of the report's argument - what if the torture "worked" does that make it morally right?
Click to expand...

This is the key element at the crux of the issue in my view. Outside of the obvious knee jerk reaction we've seen in the media in response to the CIA's failures, what about the instances where actionable intelligence has been produced as a result of torture? Historically speaking, it's hard to argue against it (see: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html).

The worry is that if we codify torture, it dilutes its effectiveness.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need to employ these type of tactics ... but this world ain't that.
 
Hawk said:
This is the key element at the crux of the issue in my view. Outside of the obvious knee jerk reaction we've seen in the media in response to the CIA's failures, what about the instances where actionable intelligence has been produced as a result of torture? Historically speaking, it's hard to argue against it (see: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html).

The worry is that if we codify torture, it dilutes its effectiveness.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need to employ these type of tactics ... but this world ain't that.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is the truth of our world.
 
AerchAngel said:
blaming the victim, a lot of crimes happens everyday, I do not see officers being idiots in arresting them and no protests, DUH. The cop did not do his job had to resort to killing because he F-UCKED UP. Now all that happened afterwards was his fault because again he was a F-UCKING IDIOT, not using any common sense. Why is it that my wife cousin in the Milwaukee police department called him an idiot. Under no circumstances with two suspects you get out of the car to confront them. He said that. I understood it, I had eight policemen drawn weapons on me because I was in a car with 2 other people, STANDARD PROCEDURE, Cedar Rapids does not have much crime but the cops know to stay in their car, Milwaukee police stay in their car, but this F-UCKING not a policeman now idiot did not.

He lost his job because....he was a no common sense idiot and killed a person (he was right in doing it, never said he was when they are going for your gun) because he was a f-ucking idiot.
Click to expand...

You are blaming the victim as well; Officer Wilson. An officer out trying to do his job that was attacked by a person who was on video moments earlier strong arm robbing a convenience store owner.

Everybody must love victim blaming.
 
gilesfan said:
You are blaming the victim as well; Officer Wilson. An officer out trying to do his job that was attacked by a person who was on video moments earlier strong arm robbing a convenience store owner.

Everybody must love victim blaming.
Click to expand...

BOOM!

Excellent point.
 
Hawk said:
This is the key element at the crux of the issue in my view. Outside of the obvious knee jerk reaction we've seen in the media in response to the CIA's failures, what about the instances where actionable intelligence has been produced as a result of torture? Historically speaking, it's hard to argue against it (see: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html).

The worry is that if we codify torture, it dilutes its effectiveness.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need to employ these type of tactics ... but this world ain't that.
Click to expand...

Steven summarizes my present thinking better than I can - link.
 
Another excellent piece on torture.

"...1. Torture is clearly defined — Despite the claims of many supporters of the CIA’s methods and techniques, torture is not a murky or ill-defined concept. The legal definition of torture to which the U.S. subscribes can be found in the UN Convention Against Torture:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

By this standard the CIA has admitted that they have engaged in torture. (At the end of this article I’ve also included other definitions of torture adopted by the U.S.)..."
 
now the rats begin to eat the rats

141211-cheney-bush-02.jpg


they should both have been tried for war crimes.
 
The dumbest part of this whole fiasco, and the worst part imo, was making the torture program officially sanctioned SOP. I don't care what went on behind closed doors in "black op sites", the public, the media and the world SHOULD NOT have to or be allowed to chew on this stuff out in the open.

I mainly hold Cheney (and then Bush) responsible. It's clear to all that he was off his leash and doing whatever he wanted from the start. The incompetence and dereliction of duty to allow something like this to happen is staggering. They absolutely should be tried for war crimes.

Throughout most of history their heads would've rolled long ago. Ironically, that system is probably a lot cleaner in the long run.
 
Bush and Cheney weren't the ones who released this memo,

curious. Where are all the liberals that wanted Bush and Cheney tried for war crimes? If they're guilty I guess Obama would be too
 
The idealist side of me views torture as despicable. I can't fathom how one person could do such terrible things to another person. Even to the most vile of men.

The realist side of me realizes that torture is likely a necessary evil that works and has, in fact, saved countless lives throughout history.
 
Carp said:
The idealist side of me views torture as despicable. I can't fathom how one person could do such terrible things to another person. Even to the most vile of men.

The realist side of me realizes that torture is likely a necessary evil that works and has, in fact, saved countless lives throughout history.
Click to expand...

And wasted countless others.
 
Carp said:
The idealist side of me views torture as despicable. I can't fathom how one person could do such terrible things to another person. Even to the most vile of men.

The realist side of me realizes that torture is likely a necessary evil that works and has, in fact, saved countless lives throughout history.
Click to expand...

What's worse: Torturing someone or beheading someone?
 
Inhumane treatment is justified on the grounds that these people ultimately deserve it, and are hardly worthy of being considered "people" at all.

All but the most recalcitrant hardliners (e.g., Dic​k Cheney) have expressed some measure of revulsion at the grisly CIA tactics described in the Senate "torture report" finally released this week after years of arduous haggling and obfuscating. It would be politically dimwitted not to at least mouth a few condemnatory clichés, given that the purveyor of the report, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, is one of the most reliably hawkish members of Congress in either party. Everyone from T​ed Cruz to Barack Obama to John McCain has gone on the record as saying some variation of "torture is bad." OK, so now what?

Is there any reason to believe that institutional safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the next time there's some great terrorist-related crisis—involving, say, the Islamic St​ate—politicians will remember their exhortations this week and resist the temptation to go above and beyond the law when seeking to punish "the enemy"? Is there any reason to suppose that the authoritarian impulses of the federal government have been put in check, and the national security apparatus will behave more mercifully from here on out? No, not really.

Politicians interested in portraying themselves as deeply committed to rectifying governmental misdeeds rarely exhibit any desire to thwart the momentum of the violent state. They just want to dress it up slightly differently. That's been the hallmark of the Obama years—move forward, not backward. Don't busy yourselves with actually prosecuting the perpetrators of a massive worldwide torture regime. Better to reserve the prosecutorial power of the state for the ​whistleblowers who bring these abuses to li​ght. Politicians may be willing to criticize certain styles of state violence (especially when they were perpetrated by a previous administration), and even tinker with reforms at the margins, but marginal improvements still leave room for vast suffering.

It doesn't seem coincidental that a society that countenances jammin​g tubes up defenseless detainees' rectums—a practice that might be reasonably characterized as "rape"—might also countenance, say, a massive stop-and-frisk ​regime in New York City. Former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly is even reported to have explicitly said that his intention was to "ins​till fear" in minorities as a behavioral modification strategy. Sensing a trend?

.......

What CIA Torture and Police Violence Have in Common: http://www.vice.com/read/cia-tortur...ity-state-violence-tracey?utm_source=vicefbus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top