Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the garbage-in-garbage-out dept.

TechDirt tags this story as "Failures" and further classifies it as from the "did-we-win-the-War-on-Terror-yet?" dept.

Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the Torture Report (PDF) is the fact that the CIA clearly knew the methods weren't producing usable intelligence but continued to use them anyway, all the while hiding the extent of its abuses from the rest of the [government].

The Executive Summary is 525 pages of abusive activity, carried out under the pretense that no other approach would keep the US safe from further terrorist attacks. Dianne Feinstein's preamble addresses the incredible amount of work that went into the full report (which weighs in at over 7,000 pages). While it does point out that the CIA destroyed evidence[1] and forced Senate staffers to work[1] in a CIA-controlled environment while performing research, it curiously omits any mention of the CIA's spying on Senate staffers--something that seemed to be a big deal a few months ago.

[...]the CIA's own records (what remains of them) point out the limited return on investment.

according to CIA records, seven of the 39 CIA detainees known to have been subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques produced no intelligence while in CIA custody.

A lack of useful intel wasn't enough to derail the CIA's torture plans. Agents ignored warnings from medical staff and continued to "break down" detainees. Medical personnel were asked to do whatever was needed to return detainees to torture-ready condition.[1]

[1] Content is behind scripts.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:10PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:10PM (#124684)

    Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the Torture Report (PDF) is the fact that the CIA clearly knew the methods weren't producing usable intelligence but continued to use them anyway

    I am not a lawyer but that sounds to me like "criminal intent."

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:15PM

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:15PM (#124734) Journal

      I am not a lawyer but that sounds to me like "criminal intent."

      I dont believe the efficacy of the methods is relevant to criminal intent. It *should be* relevant to whether or not people keep their jobs, of course, but the question of criminal intent is settled long before we get to the fact they knew this was not an effective way to get the *purportedly* desired results, which is more of an issue of competence (or a pointer to real motivations which differ from the purported ones.)

      But if you want to talk about criminal intent, you can be certain everyone involved was aware of the Convention on Torture which in the US became law by ratification back in '94, as well as the Federal law prohibiting it. That's not even at issue.

      They knew what the law was. They thought themselves above the law. They *still do.*

      The more details [antiwar.com] that come out the more clear this was a long running criminal conspiracy reaching to the top levels of government, carried out with impunity, and even now, after the ugly facts have come out, there still appears to be no chance [antiwar.com] of anyone being held accountable for it.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:52PM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:52PM (#124796) Journal

        Its the dying gasps of another failed superpower, simple as that. They know what is coming [youtube.com] and are planning a major fascist shift [youtube.com] to try to retain power. Why do you think they didn't just call their lapdogs in the press to bury it under Kim Kardashian's ass pics? because they WANT the public to hear about all the torture and camps so that they will become desensitized to the whole idea.

        Of course in the end it won't work, the poor outnumber them a thousand to 1 thanks to all the offshoring and hiring illegals so when they can't bribe them with checks anymore the shit will royally hit the fan but until the financial bubble bursts (seriously look at the first link, the crash of 29 had 120% GDP in the market, thanks to 401Ks and 403Bs we now have over 430% and rising quarterly, the next crash will make 29 look like a bad weekend) things will only get nastier. All you can do is grab as much as you can and wait for the fall. I wonder if this is how the Soviets felt right before the wall fell and the USSR broke up?

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday December 12 2014, @05:41PM

          by etherscythe (937) on Friday December 12 2014, @05:41PM (#125530) Journal

          Now is not the time for this information to come out to that effect- the time for it was when America was in the heat of patriotic fervor and were less concerned about our economy being destroyed by our own stupidity than an external threat. We would have made "Waterboard That Suspect!" a game show had anybody dared to introduce the idea. But now, the cracks are showing in the armor. Senators are finally calling out Bush [ibtimes.com] about the lies leading up to Iraq. Even McCain, Bush's big supporter back in the day, is calling out our torture tactics [ibtimes.com] for what they really are - useless for information and destructive of our moral high ground.

          Gotta call tin-foil nut on you this time.

          --
          "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:54AM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:54AM (#125725) Journal

            Did you watch the vids? Every major power when they went to shit took a HARD right turn, Russia, Germany, Britain, those in power WILL fight to keep that power, full stop. I seriously doubt you'd even debate that, all of history shows this is a fact and they will fight long past any point, see Germany or the 30 year Soviet stagnation.

              The second thing you can't argue is the numbers, you have 430% of GDP in the market...NOT good, the reason why is obvious, it makes bubbles. you have too much money chasing so little real value it becomes gambling and gamblers end up losing. Look at how much money the US gov had to throw in when the housing bubble bursts, if the financial bubble bursts? the fed won't be able to create enough money to save it. Hell if China dumped all the bonds they had now the US economy would go to shit but fast and our economy is going down and their going up so it won't be long before china really doesn't have to care about the US market.

            So its not paranoia its just looking at history.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:21PM

        by davester666 (155) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:21PM (#124826)

        ...They put themselves above the law. They still are...

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:18PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:18PM (#124773) Journal

      It is criminal intent EVEN IF THERE WERE RESULTS. Torture is illegal, under US and numerous international laws. Signatories are bound by law to prosecute - all the way through civilian government authorizations.

       

      Nuremberg is dead. America killed it. "I was only following orders" is again an acceptable transfer of accountability.

       

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:28PM

        by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:28PM (#124845)

        Then the giver of orders needs to be prosecuted.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:42PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:42PM (#124911) Journal

          Yes. And those who were privy to authorizations. Exec, Judicial and Legislative.

           

          That's how Hess and Speer were judged.

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:57AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:57AM (#124941)

        Actually, even stipulating 'torture' for the purposes of debate only, the Gitmo detainees aren't protected by any Treaty. The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is to regulate the Rules of War amongst the signatories and thereby bind all to obey them, thus gaining the benefits of them for their soldiers. AQ explicitly rejects the notion of Rules of Warfare and flagrantly disobey them. We could throw the lot of them into a wood chipper and the Geneva Conventions would be entirely silent.

        To move to a historical context and avoid hot current politics examine the difference between the European and Pacific Theaters in WWII. In Europe all sides were signatories to the Conventions and except in extreme circumstances (on all sides) they were honored. Meanwhile in the Pacific it was total war, no quarter expected or given, to a much greater extent. When prisoners were actually taken, horrors were likely and thus reduced the incentive to surrender. Because Japan didn't believe in Western notions of 'civilized warfare.'

        Yes I know there were Soviet instigated addons floated during the Cold War to make their asymmetrical warfare more effective but the U.S. and many others wisely rejected them.

        • (Score: 1) by fleg on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:24AM

          by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:24AM (#124959)

          >In Europe all sides were signatories to the Conventions and except in
          >extreme circumstances (on all sides) they were honored.

          sorry no. the germans committed many, many atrocities in europe.
          i recommend reading "The Second World War" by Antony Beevor.

          >Meanwhile in the Pacific it was total war, no quarter expected or given,
          >to a much greater extent.

          true.

          • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:53AM

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:53AM (#124964)

            sorry no. the germans committed many, many atrocities in europe.

            Toward the end, when they couldn't even feed their own men. And we too cut a few corners at times, when taking prisoners simply wasn't compatible with the mission. But in the main both sides honored the rules because even most Nazi's believed themselves civilized men. We obviously disagreed on some pretty basic points, hence the war; but both sides thought itself the exemplar of, and future of, Western Civilization and it includes Rules of War.

        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:39AM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:39AM (#124972) Journal

          Thanks for obfuscating your apology for Abu Graib child-rape and shoving food up prisoners anuses.

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 1) by G-forze on Thursday December 11 2014, @06:45AM

          by G-forze (1276) on Thursday December 11 2014, @06:45AM (#124978)

          Actually, even stipulating 'torture' for the purposes of debate only, the Gitmo detainees aren't protected by any Treaty. The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is to regulate the Rules of War amongst the signatories and thereby bind all to obey them, thus gaining the benefits of them for their soldiers. AQ explicitly rejects the notion of Rules of Warfare and flagrantly disobey them. We could throw the lot of them into a wood chipper and the Geneva Conventions would be entirely silent.

          And what about the fact, that the majority of the Gitmo prisoners are innocent, have nothing to do with AQ, and have been cleared for release years ago?

          --
          If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:28PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:28PM (#125145) Journal

          Here is the argument for REQUIRED PROSECUTION of those both responsible for US Torture by CIA and military - AND their civilian authorization and accountability partners in Government:
          https://www.aclu.org/national-security/why-criminal-investigation-necessary [aclu.org]

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 2) by CRCulver on Monday December 15 2014, @06:14PM

          by CRCulver (4390) on Monday December 15 2014, @06:14PM (#126240) Homepage

          Actually, even stipulating 'torture' for the purposes of debate only, the Gitmo detainees aren't protected by any Treaty.

          The US has signed more than one treaty, you know. Even if the Gitmo detainees don't enjoy the protection of the venerable old Geneva Conventions, the US signed an anti-torture convention in 1994 that applies regardless of what the other side was doing when we apprehended them.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:32PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:32PM (#124785) Journal

      I am not a lawyer but that sounds to me like "criminal intent."
       
      The ACLU has a petition in the works to require a criminal investigation for those responsible.
       
        Link [aclu.org]
       
      I would recommend everyone sign it. Probably won't do much but you have to start somewhere...

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:01PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:01PM (#124818)

        That would be great, except that the head of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, just put out a piece advocating pardoning torturers [nytimes.com].

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:40PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:40PM (#124830) Journal

          That would be great, except that the head of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, just put out a piece advocating pardoning torturers.
           
          You can only pardon someone who has been found guilty.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:54PM

            by dry (223) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:54PM (#124878) Journal

            Not true, Nixon was pardoned by Ford even though he hadn't even been arraigned, little well tried and convicted.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:41PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:41PM (#124886) Journal

              From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
               
                After Ford left the White House in 1977, the former President privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt.

              • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:25AM

                by dry (223) on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:25AM (#124927) Journal

                Isn't that the same court that compared distributing leaflets to yelling fire in a theatre and held banning speech that was anti-conscription as constitutional?
                There are cases of pardons being given where evidence has come forth that the convicted person didn't actually do it, often DNA evidence. for example I was just reading this sad read, http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/does-an-innocent-man-have-the-right-to-be-exonerated/383343/ [theatlantic.com] where it mentions

                then-Governor George W. Bush pardoned a man based on DNA results.

                .
                George W. Bush was not a man known for pardoning guilty people.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:52PM (#124813)

      >>I am not a lawyer but that sounds to me like "criminal intent."

      I am not a psychiatrist, but it sounds like mental illness.

      It seems that these people just like torture.

      • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:43PM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:43PM (#124855)

        Unfortunately, torture has been very common throughout human history. Attributing it to mental illness is unfair to the mentally ill. It's a moral failing.

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:14PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:14PM (#124689)

    Torture has never been about extracting useful intelligence. It's partially simple sadism, and partially about getting the victim to say untrue things that the torturer wants to hear.

    The reason is very simple: Somebody who's under torture will say whatever they need to stop the torture. So if somebody is being tortured, and they confess some heinous plot, there's a good chance that's a complete fabrication made up to convince the torturer that they've broken and are giving up everything they know. Torture can and has been used to extract confessions to all sorts of horrible things from completely innocent people. This might be useful if you were trying to, say, create false pretenses to invade a foreign country, but it wouldn't be at all useful if you were trying to find out what the bad guys are actually up to (for that, you'd need to get spies to infiltrate the bad guys' organization).

    The "ticking time bomb" scenario is and has always been fiction. Also, Zero Dark Thirty was completely wrong in suggesting that *any* intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden came from a tortured prisoner.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:49PM (#124711)

      you say zero dark thirty was wrong, I say the screenwriters were lying, either due to someone else lying to them, or because they had their own motivations.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:42PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:42PM (#124753)

      Torture used to be about "see what will happen if you step out of line?", like public executions and public imprisonment...
      Secret torture doesn't send any message, and torturing fanatics (organised in cells) doesn't yield useful data.

      But Obama tried to start his job by being conciliatory (remember what it got him? "No!"), and wasted the opportunity...

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:25PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:25PM (#124694) Homepage Journal

    I've read discussions of this on several sites. I am shocked - really, genuinely gobsmacked - at how many torture apologists there are.

    People have know for centuries that torture doesn't work. It may satisfy some need for revenge; it certainly provides a lovely playground for psychopaths, but outside of unrealistic scenarios (the ticking bomb), it does not provide useful information. Indeed, if you have a mix of guilty and innocent prisoners, the "intelligence" produced can actually be of negative value.

    The apologists most not only believe that torture works; they must then believe that "the ends justify the means". If you have a solid ethical foundation in your life, then you don't violate it to gain some unknowable advantage. Lacking ethics, you lower yourself to the level of the terrorists. It's kind of hard to criticize terrorists' immoral acts when you're doing the same damn thing in the back room.

    If the US really, genuinely regrets what happened, then the next step is obvious: prosecute the bastards. Start at the very top, with GWB and Cheney, and work your way all the way down to the janitor cleaning up the mess. These psychopaths violated US law as well as international laws to which the US is a signatory. Let's see them up on charges at The Hague. If there is a war on terror, then these war crimes, and deserve the harshest of punishments.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:42PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:42PM (#124707) Journal

      It is useful to understand, thanks to the Snowden revelations, that the 3-letter agencies and GCHQ employ social media teams to manufacture the very appearance of consent and acquiescence you're talking about. There's a whole playbook, which has been published, that details the tactics they use to sabotage the formation of real public consensus and to bend it toward their goals. In short, is has been persuasively documented that the government of the United States and United Kingdom, at least, have organized, planned, and set themselves against the very heart of the democratic process, which is consensus formation. We now know that the governments of these respective countries have actively planned, and implemented, measures to short-circuit the heart of democracy itself.

      These people, who do these things, who have planned these things, and who have ordered these things done, represent the closest approximation of pure evil that exists in our world. If we, as citizens and well-meaning people, cannot bring them to account and make them pay the ultimate price for their crimes, then the survival prognosis for the human species approaches zero.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:59AM (#125007)

        The CIA doesn't need to bother astroturfing on torture. They get Cheney and others to call it crap to stir up partisan divide, but nothing can influence public opinion quite like 24, Homeland, and the multitude of other shows... or programs glorifying intelligence agencies, the surveillance state, and the war on terra

      • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:27PM

        by gottabeme (1531) on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:27PM (#125188)

        These people, who do these things, who have planned these things, and who have ordered these things done, represent the closest approximation of pure evil that exists in our world.

        Hyperbole does not serve the truth.

        Closer approximations would be found in the Communist Chinese government (e.g. visceral torture and live organ harvesting of Tibetans) and the Islamic State (kidnapping, rape, slavery, mutilation, decapitation).

        The US and UK governments have crossed many lines, but they are in no way comparable to examples like these, and you know it.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:32PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:32PM (#124742)

      At least some of the apologists out there are clearly using the following "reasoning":
      1. I'm a die-hard Republican.
      2. George W Bush and Dick Cheney are Republicans.
      3. Because they are Republicans, I voted for them over those horrible Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry.
      4. If Bush and Cheney ordered people be tortured, then I am partially responsible for that because I voted for them.
      5. But I'm a good person, so I can't have made such a horrible mistake.
      6. Ergo, torture must not have been evil, and this whole thing must have been created by Democrats to make the Republicans look bad (and that John McCain, one of those responsible for the report, is a prominent Republican who's been a victim of torture doesn't even register).

      This isn't a rational response, this is cognitive dissonance trying to resolve itself in ways that don't leave die-hard Republicans feeling like they're unrepentant evil bastards. Which of course makes them sound exactly like unrepentant evil bastards.

      Die-hard Democrats aren't reacting the same way to this report, but do tend to react this way if the subject was Obama's killing of a US citizen without presenting any kind of probable cause to anybody in the judiciary that he had committed an actual crime.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:32PM

        by gottabeme (1531) on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:32PM (#125191)

        I'm not a torture apologist. I believe that we must be the "good guys" (not that we always necessarily are), and that doing so requires that we not lower ourselves to inhumanity. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means. I believe that the Constitution specifies the minimum standards we must adhere to, not what we should aspire to.

        What is rich is that those who are attempting to claim the moral high ground here are ludicrously lacking in moral values. It's two-faced, political opportunism--oh, right, just politics.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:27PM (#124696)

    I'm sure victims families of 9/11 don't mind what torture was imposed. And if you think this isn't happening in other countries covertly, then you are very stupid.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:36PM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:36PM (#124701)

      So you argue that people whose psyche has been shattered and warped by having loved ones killed in an unusual sudden and traumatic event plus "other people are doing it too" are great excuses to behave like psychopaths? That goes a long way towards explaining why the US is acting so irrationally belligerent nowadays.

      "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:40PM (#124704)

        You think ISIS isn't torturing people? You think this doesn't happen in China, N. Korea, Africa, Mexico, S. America? Then you need to get your head out of your ass.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:46PM (#124710)

          Look Dumbass; We're supposed to BE better than that.

          that's why we aren't supposed to use torture in the first place.

          in the second place using torture "because the bad guy is" only makes you as awful as "the bad guy"

          The cement on the grave is that the information gotten from torture is usually worthless fabrication. an admission of guilt to simply stop the torture.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:52PM (#124714)

            You are correct sir, we are supposed to be better than this. But it was leaked that the US was doing it, so the US had the balls to admit it for damage control. I'm just saying it happens elsewhere, and I'm saying it might have been necessary in this case due to terrorism even though it wasn't productive.

            • (Score: 2) by pTamok on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:02PM

              by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:02PM (#124724)

              "You are correct sir, we are supposed to be better than this. But it was leaked that the US was doing it, so the US had the balls to admit it for damage control. I'm just saying it happens elsewhere, and I'm saying it might have been necessary in this case due to terrorism even though it wasn't productive."

              Would you be so kind as to outline where you think torture "might have been necessary"? "Due to terrorism" is a pretty non-specific reason, so a little more detail would be helpful.

              It would also be helpful if you could point to good, peer-reviewed evidence that torture provides useful, worthwhile information.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:03PM

              by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:03PM (#124726)

              If something is "not productive" how come it is "necessary"?

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:46PM

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:46PM (#124754) Journal
                "If something is "not productive" how come it is "necessary"?"

                See, torture is not actually effective at getting information (the purported reason to do it) but it IS effective at convincing people around the world to join the enemy. And THAT is important. Without a visible enemy 'defense' spending might not grow fast enough, and THAT is what makes it necessary.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
              • (Score: 3, Funny) by MrNemesis on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:53PM

                by MrNemesis (1582) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:53PM (#124761)

                Because if we don't use the entirety of our torture budget, we won't get the same money for torture next year.

                --
                "To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:26PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:26PM (#124781)

              No. of we had any balls left we would bring a case against the people who performed, and authorized the use of torture; in an open tribunal.
              We would convict the guilty; and sentence them to imprisonment. We would show the world that we are better, and live up to the ideals of Justice.

              but we wont. We've been running scared since the 60's and your oligarchs and ultra-rich want it that way.
              We've thrown away rational thought and rule of law for Feudalism by a different name.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:34PM

          by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:34PM (#124746) Journal
          ISIS is definitely torturing people.

          That's why every civilized nation, all around the world, rebuke them and turn their backs on them.

          Is that REALLY the kind of example you think our country should be following?
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:08PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:08PM (#124769)

            > ISIS is definitely torturing people. That's why (...)

            Nyet tovarich!
            To keep the offtopic short, the other governments don't care about the torture side of ISIS, except as an excuse to drop bombs on them (as if "the muslim terrorists" wasn't enough).
            ISIS has set itself as the de-facto government of Sunni areas in Iraq and Syria. They have only conquered areas with Sunni majority, where people would rather not fight Sunni crazies to support of the incompetent Shia in power in the country. The "civilized" nations have many reasons not to want a Sunni Extremist country to exist where it demographically belongs (a bit like they don't want a Kurdish country in that area either, but worse), but torture isn't anywhere near the top of their list.

            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:27PM

              by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:27PM (#124782) Journal
              "To keep the offtopic short, the other governments don't care about the torture side of ISIS"

              In most if not all cases that is true. But they DO care about public opinion, and public opinion around the world rejects torture. (In fact it's been shown that US torture has been one of the main motivators for people to join jihadi groups, and even most of the jihadi groups are averse to IS because of their atrocities.)

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:33PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:33PM (#125232) Homepage Journal

          You think ISIS isn't torturing people? You think this doesn't happen in China, N. Korea, Africa, Mexico, S. America? Then you need to get your head out of your ass.

          What I get from your statement is that you believe that "since there are vicious, nasty people who engage in reprehensible acts of violence against other humans, we should emulate them instead of being decent human beings."

          Is that about right? All right then. There are folks right here in the US who commit all manner of violent, egregious acts. Should we emulate those behaviors?

          I tell you what, why don't I come over to your house, rape, torture and murder your wife and daughters. Heck, that happens all the time. By your logic, why would that be wrong?

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:39PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:39PM (#124702)

      There are approximately 3000 families of 9/11 victims. It's highly unlikely their opinions are united on the matter of torture. I also reject the implicit assumption behind that apology, that the moral judgment of a (hand-picked) sample of them on torture is more important than that of the citizenry at large.

      And "everybody else is doing it" is the weakest argument I've ever heard for anything. That's a rejection of morality itself, and contemptible.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:26PM (#124844)

        Most of the torture was in pursuit of USA's illegal military incursion into Iraq.
        There is ZERO overlap between Iraq and 9/11.
        The yellowcake and all the rest was FICTION.

        If the USA was going to make the monumentally stupid mistake of bombing, invading, and occupying some country and torturing its people, the "logical" country would have been Saudi Arabia.
        Of the 9/11 participants, 15 of the 19 were Saudi nationals.
        Bonus points: USA would have had direct control of a huge pool of oil
        (the obvious goal of Operation Iraqi Liberation).

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:41PM

          by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:41PM (#124852)

          The only part of your post I disagree with is that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and even there it hinges on whether you meant "unintended event" or "bad decision." Bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq was anything but unintentional, and the acceptance of fabricated evidence was also completely intentional (that was necessary to justify the invasion to a spinelessly compliant Congress).

          Whether the invasion was a bad decision depends on whether you're George W. Bush and his trusted advisers, or anybody else in the world. (Note: Colin Powell was not a _trusted_ Bush adviser and he did not benefit from the invasion.)

          --
          [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
          • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:15PM

            by bucc5062 (699) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:15PM (#124868)

            Somewhat off topic, but your post spurred this thought.

            On one hand, here was have GWB pull a HUGE whopper on the world as told by his CIA (and others on the side). Does he know its a lie?
            On the other hand we have GWB proclaiming that the USA does not torture when he and his administration had been told by the CIA that they actually had been torturing for some time.

            While everyone wants his head for torture visavi International reasons, could it not be that he could be held more accountable for breaking the 8th Amendment. Sure we signed a treaty, but our own governing principle rejected torture.

            He had little credibility upon leaving office, but given these new presentations, he is at least worthy of being brought before congress for hearings into what he knew and when.

            --
            The more things change, the more they look the same
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @12:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @12:36AM (#124922)

            Yes. "Decision" is a much better word than "mistake".

            -- gewg_

          • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:37PM

            by gottabeme (1531) on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:37PM (#125192)

            the acceptance of fabricated evidence was also completely intentional (that was necessary to justify the invasion to a spinelessly compliant Congress).

            WMD's were in Iraq [nationalreview.com]:

            “Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” states a June 21 declassified summary of a report from the National Ground Intelligence Center. “Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.” ... Hussein had some 5,000 tank shells filled with sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, and other lethal agents. ... The U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq “that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program,” ... These 3,3894 pounds of uranium were like a pinch of salt compared with the 550 metric tons (yes, five hundred and fifty metric tons) of yellowcake uranium that the U.S. boxed up and shipped from Iraq to a Canadian processing facility. ... Hussein HAD yellowcake, and the Bush administration whisked 1,212,542 pounds of it out of Iraq in July 2008.

            The fabrication is that it was fabricated.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @10:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @10:21PM (#125612)

              USA **knew** those were there because the labels on them said *Made in USA*.
              USA had copies of the receipts.

              These were sold when USA and Iraq were buddies (and Iran was the common enemy) BACK IN THE EARLY 1980s.
              Of the chemicals Iraq had (and hadn't used against their own minorities), all of them had long since lost their effectiveness as weapons.
              Any hints of illicit substances were DEGRADED REMNANTS in rusty containers.

              Ambassador Joseph Wilson had first-hand experience with the yellowcake claims and said they were nonsense.
              If there was any veracity to the USA Gov't fiction, they could have rebutted his claims with actual -proof- but they didn't have that so they chose instead to ruin the CIA career of his wife, Valerie Plame.
              USA Gov't claims about yellowcake don't stand the smell test.

              It's just amazing how some people can't draw a straight line between 2 data points--but -will- swallow the swill that outlets like Fox so-called News spew.

              .
              I also hate fuckwit websites that use Drupal's shitty default boilerplate that doesn't use something like id=main-content to point to its main fucking content and instead makes me disable my ##div.field-item filter to see their crap.

              -- gewg_

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:29PM (#124741)

      That is garbage and you know it.

      I direct you to our bill of rights.
      http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ [billofrightsinstitute.org]

      Look at this thru the eyes of if I could torture someone to get what I want. As that is *exactly* what the crown was doing. The bill of rights is a check list of how we can be better than the crown. #8 means no torture. It does not mean 'poor guy does not get to watch tv while serving a 2 year stint'. It means do not crush a mans thumb with a thumbscrew and beaten within an inch of his life to get a confession out of him (which means #5 "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"). Go study how from 1500-1900 the crown would regularly out of course use these methods to punish at a whim whoever the rich and powerful disliked to rob and steal and just because they liked it (the french were so mad about the typical use of power they started cutting off heads). That people should be secure in their papers so you can not break #5 and twist the papers around to do it or conveniently find 'a gun' #2. #4 thru #8 are basically dont torture people and dont riffle thru their belongings to create whatever false charge you want to come up with (which was usually #1 or #2 at the time).

      There honestly should be Americans going to federal prison. They swore to uphold these rules and broke them. All in the name of the dead and our children. You are better than that. Behave that way. These are the very people we PAY to take it seriously and they flagrantly ignore it.

      That is why I mind. If you allow it for that what *else* can you allow it for? I know the world is 'shades of grey'. But unfortunately like a reticent child which has broken a toy I have to get black and white on you. The law is the *minimum* you should do. You should STRIVE to be better than that.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:42PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:42PM (#124810) Journal

      I'm sure victims families of 9/11 don't mind what torture was imposed.

      This is the worst slur against the families of 9/11 victims I have ever come across! How dare you?

    • (Score: 1) by zugedneb on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:06PM

      by zugedneb (4556) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:06PM (#124866)

      was it not controlled demolition?
      it sure looked like one...

      also, were there really planes?

      OMG a plane just flew into the building OMG

      --
      old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
      • (Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:43PM

        by fnj (1654) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:43PM (#124875)

        Are you drunk or just attempting satire?

        • (Score: 1) by zugedneb on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:01PM

          by zugedneb (4556) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:01PM (#124891)

          well, it does look like controlled demolition, even if u don't like it...

          also, wtf happened to the third building that went down...
          remember being a student then, watching this live... everyone went like "wtf" when it fell upon itself...

          --
          old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:55AM (#124929)

      And I suppose if the families of the victim of a murder want to be judge, jury, and executioner of the person who allegedly killed their family member, we should just skip that whole court thing and allow mob justice, right?

      Never heard of bias? Never heard of how, in highly emotional situations, people can become irrational or change their views even if they wouldn't normally do that? Never heard of basic fucking logic? Hint: "The people directly affected think X, so X must be true." isn't a logical argument.

      • (Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:47PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:47PM (#125242) Homepage Journal

        Never heard of how, in highly emotional situations, people can become irrational or change their views even if they wouldn't normally do that?

        As a New Yorker, watching the WTC towers come down was one of the hardest things I ever saw. All I could think of while it happened was "all those people..." It was horrifying. I'm still haunted by the images of those poor people jumping to their deaths rather than being burned or buried alive.

        At that moment and for some time afterwards, I wanted to find those responsible, cut off their heads and stick them on pikes as a warning to others.

        But I never had a desire to torture or murder those who were not directly responsible for those heinous acts. And I came to believe that even those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks were entitled to a fair trial.

        Using 9/11 as a justification for torture and murder makes a mockery of the memory of those who died that day. We could have pulled together and become better and stronger from this horrible tragedy. Instead, we became just like the brutal animals we claim to abhor.

        What is more, many of those who claim that those people hated us for our freedom were the first to demand that our freedoms be curtailed. I, for one, do not welcome our torturing, Constitution-shredding, murderous overlords.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:49AM (#125003)

      And that is a valid justification to you? Then are you also okay with American people being tortured by Afghan captors because you've been systematically killing innocents (sorry, "collateral damage") over there? To me, it sounds like you are just a goddamn hypocrite who hides behind a position of power. I bet you would be a lot more protective of human rights if America was fighting a guerrilla war against an overwhelming foreign military power.

      I have neither sympathy, nor the desire to support anyone who would subvert the core pillars of modern civilization over the desire of vengeance. Suffering loss is not a valid justification, and claiming so only gives other tyrants an excuse to follow in suit.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:14PM (#125100)

      For all the naysayers commenting about how sad this is...
      These were known terrorists. It saved lives. If you think the limp-wristed approach works on these a-holes, you're wrong. If you don't like it maybe you should move out of the US.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:01PM (#124723)

    This is consistently the #1 rated news channel in the USA:

    http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-host-torture-report-235001597.html [yahoo.com]

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:36PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:36PM (#124748)

      Well, if Obama had ordered Torture, Fox "News" would be calling 24/7 for his impeachment and transfer to The Hague.

      • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:06PM

        by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:06PM (#124768)

        No, they would be calling for him to be waterboarded and have fried chicken force-fed through his rectum.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:19PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:19PM (#124775)

          I thought already did that...

        • (Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:31PM

          by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:31PM (#124784)

          "No, they would be calling for him to be waterboarded and have fried chicken force-fed through his rectum."

          One point I've not seen made is that rectal/anal force-'feeding' doesn't work for feeding. It's is pretty much a torture/intimidation technique.

          Putting puréed food into the rectum will give negligeable nutrition. The rectum is merely a holding location for faeces before they are expelled from the body. Going further upstream in the large intestine part of alimentary canal, you get to the colon - the function of which is to absorb water from the gut contents, not nutrition. Anything that transits the colon too quickly comes out as liquid, otherwise known as diarrhoea.

          Essentially, your nutrition comes from parts of the food being absorbed in the small intestine, and before it gets there it has to go through the stomach and be mixed with enzymes from the stomach (and bile from the gall bladder leading into the small intestine) to produce chyme. Puréeing the food and introducing it rectally isn't going to work - you would really need simple sugars and amino acids. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_enema [wikipedia.org]

          There is one important exception: it is well known that you can get very drunk from alcoholic enemas, as alcohol is absorbed very well. Too well, in fact, as people who try this method of intoxication recreationally can easily accidentally kill themselves by overdose.

          Patients can be rehydrated by enamas if intravenous methods can't be used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_drip. [wikipedia.org]

          Force feeding of people on hunger strike is usually achieved by inserting a tube via the nose down the oesophagus into the stomach and introducing puréed food that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-feeding [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:23PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:23PM (#124779) Journal

      Andros Thanatos.

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:05PM

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:05PM (#124798) Journal
      That's *faux news* not fox.

      I know it's confusing, they do pronounce it like 'fox' but that's simply a sign of illiteracy.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:58PM (#125041)

      Well, the fox is an animal that traditionally stands for deceitfulness. So what do you expect from a news channel that names itself after that animal?

  • (Score: 2) by keplr on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:27PM

    by keplr (2104) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:27PM (#124806) Journal

    I could have told them that. Or if they wouldn't listen to a crazy Social Democrat, how about Republican and a torture victim? [aclu.org]

    --
    I don't respond to ACs.
  • (Score: 1) by Ian Johnson on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:08PM

    by Ian Johnson (4866) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:08PM (#124821)

    "weren't producing usable intelligence but continued to use them anyway" is an accurate description of the NSA's approach to counter-terrorism.

    But hey, just because it's evil and it doesn't work isn't a good reason to stop, now is it?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:00PM (#125044)

      "Do this!"
      "It doesn't work."
      "Then do more of it!"

  • (Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:55PM

    by SuperCharlie (2939) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:55PM (#124836)

    This kinda thing is why the AI will exterminate us. Not that they are evil or uncontrollable, but more to the fact that we do crap like this. I mean cmon.. if you had some crazy creature running around, crapping on everything, fighting all the time and being general douchebags.. isnt that the logical thing to do?

  • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:24PM

    by pnkwarhall (4558) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:24PM (#124840)

    And according to our highest elected representative and leader, there should be no accountability and no consequences [commondreams.org].

    --
    Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:23PM

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:23PM (#124903) Journal

      Obama has no choice but to adopt that line whether he believes it or not. He has violated the constitution and the laws so many times that he has to champion letting prior offenders off scot free. There is an unwritten rule in Washington that you don't prosecute your predecessors. Who ever breaks that rule first will spend his retirement in prison one way or another.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:41PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @11:41PM (#124910)

        There is an unwritten rule in Washington that you don't prosecute your predecessors.

        Hmm, thanks for pointing out that long historical precedent. I had forgotten about it. But it doesn't help me regain any of the respect back that I lost for him. Even worse, it makes me realize **how fucked up that precedent is**, and how I can't see any way out of it.

        No accountability, ever, for anyone in a position of authority and power. That's the culture? No accountability for government officials, no accountability for the CIA or DHS, no accountability for corporations, no accountability for police, no accountability for communities, no accountability for "just collecting a paycheck" employees, no accountability for anonymous Internet trolls, no accountability for me continuing to just bitch about it on the Internet and not do anything else that might possibly make a difference.

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
  • (Score: 1) by zugedneb on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:26PM

    by zugedneb (4556) on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:26PM (#124842)

    It did not work because this is all about vengeance and nothing else...
    You, as in USA, are not dealing with advanced opponents here, you are dealing with a bunch of crazy arabs, who can pull of some basic organisation...
    At the level of the intellect and tool using capability of a human being, this behaviour from arabs is mostly selforganisation of people with a common goal, not some major "conspiracy"...

    Torture did not produce information, because there is no information to be produced.

    --
    old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
  • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:08AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:08AM (#124943)

    Yea, progs issue a report claiming they were right all along... except for when they were silently assenting of course. They do it weeks before they become the minority. The current minority issues a counter report saying exactly the opposite. So, riddle me this, had this report been delayed six weeks and the majority/minority labels reversed does ANYONE believe the media coverage or the slashkos BS here would change a whit? That the Republican version would suddenly be the 'Truth' by virtue of being the majority report? Or would the minority report get exactly the same coverage and the majority view tossed in the waste bin? In other words, everybody has already formed an opinion and isn't likely to be swayed by arguments.

    In twenty or thirty years calm historians will write books on this subject, and by then enough will be declassified from archives around the world that reality might begin to peep out from the hysteria. But zero chance of that now.

    Do I care if a couple dozen terrorists, not covered by any of the Rules of War btw, got treated roughly? Not particularly. If they want the protections, they can accept the responsibilities that go with them. Do I think the current over hyped report is purely political? Yup, gotta turn the page from the last round of bad news. If we just 'have' to close Gitmo we should simply execute the remaining prisoners. Ok, not the ones we don't think are especially dangerous but just can't find a country willing to accept, but I think we have managed to offload those.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:03AM (#124951)

      Do I care if a couple dozen terrorists, not covered by any of the Rules of War btw, got treated roughly?

      Since they never received any sort of trial, they're merely alleged terrorists.

      And not caring about people being tortured, "terrorist" (a word our dear government thugs, including Obama, like to misuse) or not, makes you a hardcore authoritarian completely opposed to the idea of limited government.

      If we just 'have' to close Gitmo we should simply execute the remaining prisoners.

      The death penalty is wrong. It's bad enough that we are holding them without trial. We should either release them, give them a fair trial, or find someone appropriate that is willing to give them a fair trial.

  • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:18PM

    by Geezer (511) on Thursday December 11 2014, @01:18PM (#125031)

    "CIA intelligence failed to produce useful torture."

  • (Score: 1) by srobert on Thursday December 11 2014, @06:35PM

    by srobert (4803) on Thursday December 11 2014, @06:35PM (#125167)

    If a bunch of zealots from the middle east have to be crucified to keep the Empire safe, so be it. Why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?

    • (Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:56PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 11 2014, @08:56PM (#125245) Homepage Journal

      If a bunch of zealots from the middle east have to be crucified to keep the Empire safe, so be it. Why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?

      Remind me never to turn my back on you. Your statement has seriously sociopathic undertones. Do you torture small animals too? Or just molest your relatives' kids?

      It's called not being a sadistic, murderous animal.

      It occurs to me that you may be attempting to use irony here. I hope so. Otherwise, I fear for those who are around you.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1) by srobert on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:53PM

        by srobert (4803) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:53PM (#125291)

        Oh here we go with more of your liberal "blame America first" crap. Americans certainly are not sadists. We don't torture, lie, and kill because we enjoy it as our enemies do. We HAVE to do those things. WE'RE the good guys. Why DO you hate America?

        • (Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:31PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 11 2014, @11:31PM (#125302) Homepage Journal

          Oh here we go with more of your liberal "blame America first" crap. Americans certainly are not sadists. We don't torture, lie, and kill because we enjoy it as our enemies do. We HAVE to do those things. WE'RE the good guys. Why DO you hate America?

          That's not a reasoned argument. It's been shown over and over again that torture isn't effective at getting intelligence. It's also pretty clear that indiscriminate murder of civilians creates many more radicalized people than drone strikes and other remote killing tools actually takes out.

          It seems that your justification is that since other people are bloodthirsty savages, we need to act in the same way. I disagree. I don't hate America. I was, for most of my life, quite proud to be an American.

          Until people like you decided that rather than acting like civilized people governed by the rule of law and our Constitution, we should become what we claim to hate the most.

          And so I'll ask you. Why do *you* hate America? Your support of actions that run completely counter to the ideals (liberty, freedom and tolerance) and concepts (the rule of law, equality of persons and opportunity) that this nation was founded upon, all in the name of expediency or "safety" or some other bugaboo that ends up destroying what's good about this place.

          And just to clarify, I don't blame America. I blame people like you, who have no respect for human life. You have much more in common with those other sociopaths who "torture, lie, and kill because [they] enjoy it" than you do with decent people. Why don't you go back to molesting your kids or something and don't bother me.

          Clearly you don't value liberty, self-determination or the rule of law. Have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame?

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 1) by srobert on Friday December 12 2014, @12:39AM

            by srobert (4803) on Friday December 12 2014, @12:39AM (#125326)

            Wow! Poe's law really does hold true. And why do ****YOU**** hate America? LOL.

            • (Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Friday December 12 2014, @03:38AM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 12 2014, @03:38AM (#125371) Homepage Journal

              O beautiful for spacious skies,
              For amber waves of grain,
              For purple mountain majesties
              Above the fruited plain!
              America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
              And crown thy good with brotherhood
              From sea to shining sea!

              So there! :)

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @07:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12 2014, @07:39PM (#125566)

        Hold up there, i torture small animals but don't want any part of this shit. Just because i'm a sociopath does not automatically make me 'Murrican