ACLU's Jameel Jaffer: CIA Probe Should Include Higher-Ups

[jojostudrock]

THANK YOU CIA FOR KEEPING ME SAFE!!!

[cricketplus]

so when obama is voted out will we investigate his fleecing of America and then every president to come ?if nothing else Busch kept this pansy alive

[p00lman]

What?

[condeIIwatch]

Shia Cleric Explains the Lawful Use of Rape During Interrogation:

"Can an interrogator rape the prisoner to obtain a confession?"

Mesbah-Yazdi: "The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it's acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed"

[iamavet]

To all military please be more careful from now on.

The ACLU and Eric Holder, with BO, have now started a policy that will put all your lives on the line- more than it already was.

When the Dems, working with the media -(NBC, CBS, ABC) started investigations(late 1969) into Vietnam, the enemy used it to their advantage. The enemy step up the killing of Americans mostly because they knew the American Media and Dems could use it for political reasons.

Remember Democrats when your buddy dies.

[marniespeaks]

Cheney is a war criminal

[drmondman1]

i could say i told you so.

metallica world war 3 playlist

past & future

see it for yourself

[TheBeepBeepBeep]

All this guy said was "allah akbar! death to amrikka!"

[sachaput]

The crimes lead directly to the White House and Cheney, in particular. You can't just put on trial some low-level CIA agents. Do it right or just walk away as we always do!

[taoofmichael]

The Bush administration WAS ALWAYS FIRST TO BLAME THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND.

They blamed the troops on the ground for missing 9-11, (after the CIA put the August 6th PDB IN BUSH AND CONDIS HANDS!)

They blamed the troops for getting the Iraq WMD intelligence wrong (when they were ORDERED to cook the intelligence to look like Saddam had something to do with 9-11.)

They blamed state and local authorities (troops on the ground) for Katrina.

I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON MORALE.

[7tCinema]

He's got the Cheney upper lip sneer, but this devastatingly handsome gent's high hair is hiding his enormous cranium - beware!

[AccidentalDem]

Justice is blind, but it is not stupid. If something illegal was done. Prosecute.

[KataVideo]

investigate, indict, prosecute, convict, jail. start with cheney

[fishhead06]

Not just Cheney - but Feith, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and, of course, Bush.

[charbroiledmonk1033]

I agree with that list witht the exception of Bush. Its against the law to prosecute the mentally handicapped.

[sugarpuddin88]

Gonzales gave a judgeship to Jay C. Bybee in exchange for writing a recommendation for torture; Bybee was given the judgeship for justifying war crimes! And when he did that, he got the judgeship!

Atty Gen Holder is using Bybees coerced memo as reason why he will not prosecute Bush-Cheney & CIA!

So in the White House, if you want to break the law, just bribe a lawyer to write you a letter saying it is OK!

USA gives tours of the crime scene, but no one is going to be arrested for the crime!

[micahgee]

the torture continues...

[KataVideo]

damn right, ALL of them.

[Chewy240284]

The leader of the Republic was a Sith all along.

[terpis]

Masterfully stating the transparently obvious.

TGI-ACLU

[facelesshorseman]

Expect the "Patriots" who howl that Obama is about to send the black helicopters in, to fall over themselves defending Bush/Cheney in this.

They LOVE secret police and unconstitutional tactics when used to further their agenda.

...but claim a public health plan will enslave America.

[stratvic]

Where are the anti war protesters now that Obama is in control?

[sugarpuddin88]

Isn't Cheney a 5 time Draft Dodger?

Are places like Gitmo an example of human projection by a society?

I submit that Corporations, by virtue of their legal protection scheme, encourage the elimination of compassion on the human level

Thus, a society like America, (which I argue is a socialist country for corporations), is made largely of citizens who daily disconnect themselves from compassion

The net result is a war mongering society that allows torture & violations of human decency!

[condeIIwatch]

You can go and be compassionate to terrorists.

And keep by your gasoline from $audi Arabia, a society that allows torture & violations of human decency!

[sugarpuddin88]

The ONLY terrorists are the US Government

The preponderance of all objective scientific analysis reported in peer-review journals open to criticism, have proved beyond any doubt that 911 was an inside job

What is interesting is why you have been afraid to consider any of that analysis! Are you afraid your government is not your savior in life?

Examine the online Journals, (eg History of 911 & Jor of 911 studies), written by engineers, scientists, & other professionals

[p00lman]

What's the difference between torture and terrorism?

[condeIIwatch]

Innocent people.

[p00lman]

Good answer, except:

1. I'm sure the terrorists don't believe their victims are innocent,

2. You're making a judgment about who does and doesn't deserve torture, and more importantly

3. You're essentially condoning any means to a desired end.

[condeIIwatch]

1. No non-muslims are innocent, according to pious orthodox muslims, therefore their beliefs can be discounted on the grounds of bias and discrimination.

2. Citing a difference is in no way making a judgement.

3. See 2.

[p00lman]

1. Timothy McVeigh?

2. If you're judging who and who isn't guilty, you're playing god.

3. See 2.

[condeIIwatch]

1. ?

2. Obviously there are many gods within in the legal system.

3. see 2

[p00lman]

1. Christians also discriminate against non-believers. Granted, they're supposed to accept the existence of non-believers and pray for them, but many are far more . . . insistent.

2. People in the legal system are appointed in order to make such decisions. However, the legal system does not include torture. Torture is illegal.

3. Name me a court case in which torture was authorized or used as punishment.

[condeIIwatch]

1. Nearly 14,000 deadly attacks in the name of islam in the last 8 years alone suggests that Christian attacks are hardly a current threat - McVeigh was agnostic.

2. Citing a difference is still not making a judgement.

3. Why?

[p00lman]

1. The Bible discourages homosexuality, and many read that to mean that homosexuals should be actively discriminated against. However, many Christians are enlightened enough not to read into it literally. There are likewise plenty believers in Islam who know to do the same. Generalities are bad.

2. "Innocent" and "guilty" as not factual differences that can be measured or calculated. They are opinion, made through judgment.

3. Tell me a time or situation when torture was legal in the US.

[jasonsadventure]

there are only seven verses in the bible

genesis 19, leviticus 18:22, leviticus 20:13, romans 1:26-27, 1 corinthians 6:9-10, 1 timothy 1:9-10, jude 1:7

that in any way mention homosexuality, and most of them seem to be miss-translated.

not only that, most bible thumpers that are all enraged about gay rights, are so because of their hate & bigotry & don't know or care what's in the bible.

all they care about is their hate and anger - more of a sin than homosexuality.

[p00lman]

I agree that hate, anger, and bigotry is the problem.

But my point is that a religion can't be bad simply based on how some people prefer to interpret it.

[jasonsadventure]

you will get no argument from me.

hateful bigots will use what ever they can to justify their bigotry and hate.

if it wasn't religion, they'd find something else.

[p00lman]

It's not good, but it's not the only religious text to advocate such fanaticism.

Nor does it discount any good lessons the Koran might teach.

It is up to the reader to decide how to act (or not act) based on his or her faith.

[condeIIwatch]

It is up to the reader - and muslim readers of the koran consider it to be the absolute and unchanging word of god to be obeyed without question

is "absolute and unchanging word of god" too difficult for you to comprehend?

the vast majority of christians and jews no longer consider the murderous teachings of the bible to be absolute and unchanging or to be followed without question.

[p00lman]

You're making a very poor generalization of Muslims.

There are thousands of Muslims living in America, Canada, England, and other first world countries. Surely they're not terrorists and do not espouse extreme views.

Do you believe otherwise?

[condeIIwatch]

No, the "western" muslims only protest against cartoons and remain almost silent on the atrocities of Beslan, Bali, Mumbai, Madrid, Darfur, London....

The muslim American march against terror drew more reporters than marchers.

[p00lman]

It doesn't matter. The Muslims who live in America aren't terrorists (I can't generalize and say that there aren't exceptions, but the majority clearly aren't).

[condeIIwatch]

1. so what?

2. so what?

3. Why?

[p00lman]

Our discussion started with you defending torture. I'd like to see a further defense from you.

[condeIIwatch]

Our conversation most certainly did NOT start with me defending torture and I resent your disgusting insinuation that I do defend torture.

Our conversation started with you requesting a definition of the difference, which I gave and you have yet to refute.

The difference is STILL and always will be "innocent people".

Any mistakes in "judgment" are irrelevant to the definition.

[p00lman]

Then do you believe that people you perceive to be "guilty" are deserving of torture?

[condeIIwatch]

Guilty of what?

[condeIIwatch]

Define torture.

[p00lman]

You define what "guilty" means and why guilty people deserve to be told that their loved ones will be murdered and raped, or that they deserve being threatened with a power drill.

[condeIIwatch]

Bitch and whine as much as you like.

It doesn't change the fact that the difference is still "innocent people".

The fact that you can't get your head around the different viewpoints is your problem.

Coupled with your fallacious accusations against me, indicates a severe lack of ability to comprehend what is being said to you.

[p00lman]

Is threatening a prisoner with a power drill an acceptable means of interrogation?

Yes or no?

[condeIIwatch]

Under what circumstances are you considering threatening the prisoner? - I would need a full dossier on his activities, associations, connections and potential threat level..

[p00lman]

In other words, you feel that under certain conditions, you would choose to threaten a prisoner with a power drill?

[condeIIwatch]

If I knew that merely "threatening" someone would save thousands of lives, then of course I would and I hope you would too.

[p00lman]

No one can prove that a scenario would ever exist in which torture would provide better results than not.

[condeIIwatch]

That is entirely irrelevant to my statement.

[p00lman]

It's entirely relevant,.

You said you would use torture if it would save the lives of thousands.

However, no such situation has even existed in reality - to the effect that no one has proven that the use of torture was more effective than had it not been used.

But you've already given me the answer I was looking for. Your earlier anger at my insinuation that you'd condone torture was apparently an overdramatic lie. You're willing to use torture if it suits your purposes. That's sick.

[condeIIwatch]

It is still irrelevant because we were talking hypothetically and I gave you the circumstances that I would use "threats" NOT torture.

Neither the circumstance of anyone else using "torture" or in regard to any situation that you believe may or may not have existed is relevant.

Besides, threats are not torture, sweetheart - that's why they are called threats and torture is called torture.

[p00lman]

Threatening to use a power drill on a prisoner is a form of torture. Threatening to rape someone's wife and/or daughter is a form of torture. Threatening to murder someone's family is a form of torture.

But if you want to talk about physical methods and not emotional torture, then let's talk about waterboarding. Would you waterboard a prisoner if you thought that prisoner had valuable information?

[condeIIwatch]

---"However, no such situation has even existed in reality"---

You must have detailed information on every act of torture ever undertaken, worldwide, otherwise your statement is bullshit.

---"to the effect that no one has proven that the use of torture was more effective than had it not been used."---

Likewise, no one has proven that the non-use of torture was more effective.

[p00lman]

"No one has proven that the non-use of torture was more effective."

Which means that if you can't prove anything either way, then there's no justification for using torture.

[condeIIwatch]

--"Which means that if you can't prove anything either way, then there's no justification for using torture."--

It also means that there is no justification for NOT using torture.

However you were talking about threats.

[p00lman]

No.

If torture is morally abhorent and there's no justification for it, then we are morally obligated not to use it.

Since regular interrogation methods that uphold human rights are morally acceptable, they are the ones to use.

[condeIIwatch]

Only if you are able to prove that torture doesn't work.

You have so far failed to do this.

I wonder how talking nicely to a terrorist elicits usable information.

[p00lman]

If neither is proven to be more tactically useful over the other, then the only basis on which to choose one or the other is morality.

[condeIIwatch]

If there is proof of neither, then use the one that you think will work.

You talk nicely to them.

I'll make the threats.

I do not find it morally objectionable to threaten someone who would behead you just for not sharing his ridiculous belief in superstition.

[condeIIwatch]

And of course, you are currently suing your local police department for their use of torture against people who they have threatened with jail time.

[p00lman]

That doesn't make any sense, but okay.

[condeIIwatch]

You appear to be adamant that threats are torture.

Why are you not protesting your local police?

Threats of jail time are an accepted form of police interrogation.

Yet, this makes no sense to you?

[p00lman]

If you hold a power drill to someone's head, even if you don't intend to use it, you are torturing them.

As soon as police start doing that, I'll protest their actions.

[condeIIwatch]

I don't know about you "pal" but threatening to lock someone up for years scares me more.

As soon as people start actually drilling their heads I'll protest their actions, until then they can "threaten" the murderous religious retards all they want.

[condeIIwatch]

You are the one who mentioned guilt, not me.

YOU define what guilty means.

[jasonsadventure]

ah wait bro, isn't citing a difference the very definition of a judgment?

if you could not "judge" or discriminate all would be the same

[condeIIwatch]

it depends on how you want to define "judgment".

If citing a difference is judgment, then one is judging by saying that one toyota corolla is different to another because one is red and the other is blue.

judgment is then seriously devalued and observing a difference is dangerously over rated

[p00lman]

Those are difference in facts, not opinions.

[condeIIwatch]

the fact is that the difference between terrorism and torture is still innocent people.

the opinion of some is that terrorists are innocent and those "some" will not consider those innocents to be terrorists..

and the same applies for torture..

so, the difference is STILL "innocent people".

[p00lman]

It's a slippery slope. Torturers believe their victims are guilty just as terrorists believe their victims are guilty. Granted, torturers can at least point to exactly what makes their victims guilty, but that makes them even more dangerous for passing such judgment that their victims are worthy of intimate torture.

Who considers terrorists to be innocent? I've never heard anyone say that.

[condeIIwatch]

>>Who considers terrorists to be innocent?

>> I've never heard anyone say that.

>>just as terrorists believe their victims

>> are guilty

therefore the terrorists and their supporters consider themselves to be innocent - you answered your own question.

unless of course, you are of the opinion that the terrorists hold themselves guilty along with their victims...

[p00lman]

Terrorists don't consider themselves to be terrorists.

Tell me, who (a third party) believes that terrorists are innocent?

[condeIIwatch]

An irrelevant question, as it doesn't change the definition of the difference.

However, there are many organizations, from CAIR to the MSA who consider terrorists to be innocent.

[p00lman]

Nope. Being sympathetic to those of Islamic faith does not mean pardoning and protecting terrorists.

Try again.

[axiomiser]

but refusing to explicitly condemn islamic terrorist actions is not merely being sympathetic to those of the islamic faith.

CAIR are unindicted co-conspirators in an FBI terrorist funding case and were founded by a member of the muslim brotherhood.

The FBI recently cut ties with CAIR - try again

[jasonsadventure]

"you're essentially condoning any means to a desired end. "

wow, this is so tough. but let me approach it with a question.

if a crazed rapist is about to pounce on your daughter and you have a gun, you would not hesitate to subject that rapist to an agonizing bloody end?

however, an equally crazed jihadist who would likewise pounce on an entire community we hesitate to subject him to the same fate to defend that community filled with many father's daughters.

why the difference?

[p00lman]

Is a rapist is about to pounce, that's a clear and present danger, and killing him is a defense of the daughter (if in fact there's no other way to prevent him from acting).

If we already have a terrorist captured, then that terrorist poses no clear and present danger.

[jasonsadventure]

however, in the canonical "ticking time bomb" scenario, we do have a clear and present danger.

it's the terrorist's bomb, it's out there, we have him. my question concerns that specific scenario.

moreover, notice that irrespective of how you answer, you have already condoned any means to a desired end in the "clear and present danger" case.

[p00lman]

No, I didn't condone any means. I said if there's no other way to prevent a rapist from immediately assaulting your daughter other than firing a gun, then that means of defense is justified.

And absolutely no one would argue that it is worse to shoot the rapist than to let him freely rape (in this immediate situation in which you would witness the rape).

There is no "ticking time bomb." There are always going to be terrorists. Terrorism is a means, not a person. It's as bad as torture.

[jasonsadventure]

ok, let's exam the "if there's is no other way" caveat. would you agree that there is almost always, "another way."

i'm arguing that irrespective of the existence of other means, if dad has a gun and there's a reasonable threat of impending rape, the use of the gun is condoned.

and i think you, as most reasonable people would, agree, yes?

[p00lman]

I agree that there is almost always "another way," but in a situation of clear and present danger, that other way might not always be apparent.

However, when you have a captured prisoner, there is no imminent threat. There is absolutely no excuse for resorting to torture.

You say "a reasonable threat of impending rape." What does that mean? Does that mean a rapist is standing over your daughter about to rape her? If so, it would be morally wrong not to do something.

[jasonsadventure]

p00lman: "what does reasonable threat of impending rape mean"

seriously? can it suffice to say it means that you believe, in your own judgment, that your daughter is in imminent danger?

given this it's clear you do condone responding with means that subjects the rapist to an agonizing, bloody end to protect those you love.

so how can you conclude that there's no imminent threat in the ticking time bomb scenario? an exploding bomb is as imminent a threat as an impending rape, is it not?

[p00lman]

This isn't what "means to an end" refers to.

In this case, the end is "protecting your daughter from being raped." Any means to achieve that could include locking her up, giving her a chastity belt, etc. I don't condone any means to an end.

Usually, the "end" refers to someone's own goal, and the "means" is their method of achieving it. No one assumes rape is a constant threat that lurks around every corner. It's a poor analogy.

WHAT ticking bomb? What are you talking about?

[jasonsadventure]

1-the means is violence - shooting the rapists

2-the ends is desired - protecting your daughter

3-you condone these violent means for the desired ends - perfectly analogous

"what's the ticking time bomb?" seriously? a terrorist placed a bomb, set to go off at a certain time, in a population center. he knows the bomb's location & we catch him before it goes off.

we can torture him to find the bombs location before it goes off. is this different from the rapist?

[p00lman]

Like I said, if the end is "protecting your daughter," then the means could be "locking her in a bomb shelter for 50 years," and no, I don't condone that.

Jason, THERE IS NO TICKING BOMB IN REALITY. The US had detained extremists and tortured them. There was no ticking bomb.

[jasonsadventure]

ah... wow. the logic of your arguments seem to be violently imploding.

e.g. "there's no ticking bomb in reality!?" omg! this is...

1-so off-the-charts ridiculous for you to assert as a fact, since you couldn't possibly know it is true, and even more ridiculous as

2-a prediction of what may happen in the future and if that's not enough it's

3-just painfully and blatantly irrelevant in a philosophical discussion of ethics

holy shit, it's like the wheels of ur intellectual wagon just blew off

[condeIIwatch]

hehe! I think his karma just ran over his dogma....

[p00lman]

I appreciate your overactive imagination, but the fact is that if there had been any ticking time bomb, I'm sure Cheney would have said, "Look! Our methods helped us stop the ticking time bomb from going off!"

There is no bomb, Jason.

There is no excuse for torture.

[jasonsadventure]

because of your weak arguments you now resort to moralistic dictates?

these issues are hard and substantial and although i neither accept nor condone torture, intellectual honesty demands i acknowledge the moral ambiguity.

if you excuse pulling the trigger on the rapist, then your declaration, "there's no excuse for torture" is irrefutably sophistry and intellectual dishonest.

finally, with bombs going off on a daily basis, your "there is no bomb" assertion is simply astounding

[p00lman]

Pulling a gun on a rapist isn't torture. If you shoot him in the arm or leg, it isn't even murder. Your analogy falls flat.

There is no bomb in relation to an actual torture situation. If you'd like to construct an imaginary situation in which there is a ticking bomb, be my guest.

[jasonsadventure]

where you shoot is not a part of the question, only that you do shoot

and given just that and only that, there's a possibility he exsanguinates, goes into shock & sepsis, bile trauma, or any of a number of excruciating physical & unpredictable agonies.

he would lay there writing in this agony for minutes or hours before dieing or receiving attention.

now, while focusing solely on the experience of the rapist, this is different from torture how?

[p00lman]

Because if you are a victim or if you are defending a victim, you are not trying to "punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain." That's why self-defense is acceptable in a court of law.

Are you really so dense that you have no grasp of the basic definition of torture?

[p00lman]

I mean, if the agonies are "unpredictable," then they're not deliberate and intentional, which is THE ENTIRE POINT OF TORTURE.

[jasonsadventure]

again, you conveniently evaded the question namely,

"focusing solely on the EXPERIENCE OF THE RAPIST, what is the difference?

if you are not "so dense" why did you answer a question i did not ask? my question ignores the intent of the shooter and focuses on the effect on the rapist.

if you can't, won't or get too agitated when your precepts are challenged, then abandon the discussion. but why not participate honestly, if you're going to participate at all

[p00lman]

Holy shit, stupid. Get an education and open a dictionary.

Torture is all about the intent of the person doing the torturing.

If two people get in a car crash, they could both suffer tremendous injuries. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TORTURE.

We are talking about TORTURE. Not self defense. Not pain. Specifically, the intent to inflict pain in order to bring about a desired goal.

[jasonsadventure]

so ur "not-stupid," well-educated, dictionary-enlightened concept of torture does not involve a suffering victim? wrong - torture must involve suffering

& given the vast penetrating gaze of your brilliance, how did you miss that shooting a rapist to protect your daughter is not "self" defense since ur defending someone who is "not yourself" hmm, ur wrong again

and isn't it "holy-shit" clear that shooting a rapist is not an accident. wrong #3

wow, for someone not stupid how come ur so wrong?

[condeIIwatch]

---"However, no such situation has even existed in reality"---

So, we can reasonably assume that this statement is bullshit as you have provided no supporting evidence.

[p00lman]

Show me a situation in which torture helped save the lives of thousands.

[condeIIwatch]

Show me a situation where just talking nicely to a terrorist has helped save the lives of thousands.

[p00lman]

Still beating you at that one, pal. We've already established that neither can be proven to be more effective over the other.

Thus, the basis on which to choose one's interrogation method is morality.

[condeIIwatch]

Read my last comment... "pal".

I do not consider it to be even slightly morally objectionable to "threaten" a person who wouldn't think twice about slaughtering me for being and "infidel".

[condeIIwatch]

*an* infidel.

[p00lman]

I'm glad ot know where you stand, and that you would be willing to use their own tactics against them.

Good thing you're not in the CIA.

[jonr7007]

We got Cheney on Fox accusing the Obama administartion for being weak when it prosecutes the CIA for illegal acts. And in a sense he is right, the CIA has to follow orders. It's the head of the snake that's most important. I'm talking about Bush's justice department, Cheney, Rice and anyone and everyone that wrote memos, ordered and suggested that these things were not beyond the rule of law.

[gisforgary]

Cheney deserves all the due process that Mussolini got. Since he is a religious man i think an eye for an eye is fair.