The NYT reports that with the release of the long-awaited Senate report on the use of torture by the United States government — a detailed account that will shed an unsparing light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s darkest practices after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US is bracing itself for the risk that it will set off a backlash overseas. Some leading Republican lawmakers have warned against releasing the report, saying that domestic and foreign intelligence reports indicate that a detailed account of the brutal interrogation methods used by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration could incite unrest and violence, even resulting in the deaths of Americans. The White House acknowledged that the report could pose a “greater risk” to American installations and personnel in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Iraq. But it said that the government had months to plan for the reverberations from its report — indeed, years — and that those risks should not delay the release of the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. “When would be a good time to release this report?” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, asked. “It’s difficult to imagine one, particularly given the painful details that will be included.”
Among the administration’s concerns is that terrorist groups will exploit the disclosures in the report for propaganda value. The Islamic State already clads its American hostages in orange jumpsuits, like those worn by prisoners in CIA interrogations. Hostages held by the Islamic State in Syria were subjected to waterboarding, one of the practices used by the CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists. The 480-page document reveals the results of Senate investigation into the CIA's use of torture and other techniques that violate international law against prisoners held on terrorism-related charges. Though many details of the Senate's findings will remain classified – the document is a summary of a 6,000-page report that is not being released – the report is expected to conclude that the methods used by the CIA to interrogate prisoners during the post-9/11 years were more extreme than previously admitted and produced no intelligence that could not have been acquired through legal means.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:55AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:21AM
Yes, it does. So much for "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Being free and brave carries risks; accept it, or move to an existing authoritarian hellhole.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:58AM
Yes, it does. So much for "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Being free and brave carries risks; accept it, or move to an existing authoritarian hellhole.
I'm betting you haven't put a significant amount of time contemplating just how your principles would stack up to need to survive.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:20AM
I'm betting you haven't put a significant amount of time contemplating all the people's freedoms you've helped take with your authoritarian attitude. I thank you and your ilk for the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, laws like the Patriot Act, and the numerous other violations of our constitution and fundamental liberties.
The land of the free and the home of the brave: A land where people bravely surrender their freedoms to the government in exchange for safety so that it can be free to do as it pleases. Well, at least it's better than North Korea!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:53AM
I'm betting you haven't put a significant amount of time contemplating all the people's freedoms you've helped take with your authoritarian attitude.
That would be a poor bet considering I didn't actually express a view on the matter. What I did do was ask a question that I'd still like an answer to. Even though you didn't bother to ask, I'll volunteer the information that I'm anti-torture, anti-TSA, and anti-Patriot Act. Hopefully that'll spare us another round of your self-righteous horseshit and get us back to discussing a philosophical topic... preferably with practical details and light on the Doctor Who'esque speeches. I like to think of my self as a strong moral character but since my life has never been threatened I don't actually know where I'd go to survive, so I'm curious what happens when that question is seriously considered.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:13PM
Read again the end of Orwel's 1984: the protagonist surrendered his values and survived Miniluv's treatment. Get a refresher on what happens with the survivors, see if you can resonate with the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:58PM
Is life as a slave worth living? It's a persistent human question. The Roman proverb said, "It is better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand days as a lamb." Through to the present day, many, like me, belong to an organization that emphasizes integrity above life. I can say my actual physical life has never been threatened in such a way, but my professional life has been many times and I have always chosen integrity, though the other path always offered greater material reward. Perhaps I, and they, would react differently in that life-or-death situation. None of us can really know until we're faced with that moment.
But that is not what we're talking about here. There was never any situation, as in the hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenario, wherein it was a life-or-death decision. We have, and did have, clear codes of conduct and laws that prohibit exactly what the CIA and the government did. They crossed the line of civilized behavior. They did evil. They must pay with their lives. Period.
Anything else is bullshit.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:45AM
Yes. Because it doesn't matter whether you're conquered if it would only change the oppressor.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:45PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 11 2014, @04:16AM
In such a situation, you did not compromise your morals. You didn't own a gun and didn't want to. You still don't own a gun (it isn't yours), even if you took one from an attacker and used it against them. It's also a simple case of self-defense. Absolutely no morals were compromised.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:14PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:36PM
Does morality serve you after you've been conquered?
You're asking this question of the person being tortured, right? Because I don't see how the US could have claimed they were going to be conquered after 9/11.
In some cases the US was torturing people who they *thought* *may* have information but had not been justly accused of any crime and had not done anything wrong except being born in a country the US was attacking at the moment. Not that torture is acceptable under any circumstances, but this shows just how readily they were willing to believe their own lies.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:14PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:42PM
I think the line is well *before* you hit torture...
If I start torturing you, I have just given you a justification for torturing me. If I am about to be conquered, but before that happens, I decide to start torturing all of your guys I have in my custody. Well, as soon as you find out about that, you're going to retaliate, aren't you?
Instead, if I show you that I too, am a human being, the effect may very well be that you too will show mercy to me, the conquered one. If you fall in the camp that is convinced that "even if there is a 1% probability of shit going seriously south, then I should act as if that probability is 100%", then I feel sorry for you, and for anyone around you.
There likely is a 1% probability that your spouse will hit you in the future... better for you to start hitting your spouse before your spouse starts hitting you... right? right????
Lastly, there is the argument that says "why wouldn't we do it, the other guys are doing it to us too". I find this logic incredibly weak. The majority is hardly ever right (they write the history books, but that doesn't mean they are right). If you are a parent, I'm sure you've heard (one of) your kids use this phrase at some point: "...but all the other kids are doing it". Anyone using said logic should be treated as a kid and be given the same level of responsibility: none! (that and a good whack on the head and talking to)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:33PM
So you're saying that if someone as much as steps on your toes, you are well within your right to nuke them from orbit?
Is your argument that usage of nuclear weapons is justified for anything at all?
I'll keep that in mind next time you offend me. Using this logic, I as a conqueror do not have to act morally and can obliterate/destroy you in your entirety.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 10 2014, @08:37PM
So you're saying that if someone as much as steps on your toes, you are well within your right to nuke them from orbit?
Nope.
Is your argument that usage of nuclear weapons is justified for anything at all?
Nope.
'll keep that in mind next time you offend me. Using this logic, I as a conqueror do not have to act morally and can obliterate/destroy you in your entirety.
Kay... just remember that I asked a question, I didn't make an argument.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈