The latest investigation into the tactics employed by the CIA in obtaining valuable information is a volatile issue. Is it one we should pursue?
1. Pelosi knew about it while it was going on.
2. The detainees were not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention because they were not dressed in uniform and they hid in churches, hospitals, and schools.
3. Prosecuting the CIA agents is a violation of their civil rights since they were acting under orders and they cannot be charged ex post facto.
Yep, we are. We are accountable for keeping ourselves safe when people fly planes into our office buildings.
Silly question. It's not OK for them to leave IEDs for our servicemen to drive over and it's not OK for them to hide snipers in mosques to shoot at our servicemen. It's not OK for their leaders to chant "Death to America" and it's not OK for their leaders to threaten to wipe out our entire population.
I can, but it's not a yes-or-no answer so you'll have to stay with me.
If you ask me, I'd say "no, of course not."
If you ask a terrorist, they'd say "Yes, of course."
See? It's a little more complicated than you think.
Not really. Just reverse the answer. To counteract an action you cannot become a part of the problem. You merely escalate the problem.
I am not saying you are a terrorist all I am saying you cannot claim to be better than one.
The CIA did its duty and performed the task at hand. Did they get carried away and over indulge their duty?
Our answer to this question must be traced back as far as it can go to the source. There in lies the answer.
Was it the duty they performed? Or was it the region they were in? Was it the situation they found themselves in? Where did it start? Who could have averted the beginning of it? What gains could we recieve from beginning it? What part did we play in starting it?
Going to the end and saying that this was needed to be done has to be asked what was needed to be done to avert it.
Yes, really. Your viewpoint is based on the premise that both sides are morally correct, which is specious.
Sure we can. We are better than them. We don't hide in schools, mosques, and hospitals. We don't institutionalize attacks on civilian targets. We would be happy to be left alone to pursue our own happiness. We took the fight to them after they initiated it.
Nope. I commend them. They did no irreparable harm to any detainee. I doubt the terrorists would offer us the same courtesy. Actually, I know they wouldn't. Ever hear of Sgt. Matt Maupin?
I already gave you the answer. The CIA performed admirably and they should be commended. I love the assumption that we need to take our marching orders from the Israeli army. Next we will be looking to the French for missile plans.
The original question wasn't "how to avert it." However the answer is simple; the terrorists stop, then we stop.
Sorry slick but there were no Iraqis on those planes. Bush attacked them, they didn't attack us.
Precisely, no Iragis but just about all were Saudis. Bush could never bite the hand that fed him. If we are to trust the CIA after the 911 intelligence disaster how good was the intelligence they gathered. Oh by the way WE attacked Iraq and led the terrorists to carry the fight into their country. I guess the moral ground is a lost cause with you.
I never mentioned a nationality. I never mentioned a particular country. oops!
Major League Baseball?
Good enough for me. Guilt by association is a weak argument on your part.
Your morals seem to favor the terrorists who attacked us. Ring them up the next time you need intelligence gathered.
My apologies dude, but I didn't mention any nationalities. Nice try.
My morals favor mankind and my actions towards them. The militaristic view of us and them has a tendency to continue violence and destruction and if you can't see that your outlook promotes just that I feel very sorry for you.
You don't need to feel sorry for me. I sleep better at night knowing that we can meet force with greater force in the name of protecting our freedom.
Freedom isn't free. It comes with a high cost. If you prefer to lie down and let the tanks roll over you, I respect your decision. Just don't look for me next to you.
You are a really tough guy. I applaude your faith in the ability to carry on such a secure feeling knowing people are after you. I would have thought you might be a tad nervous with the way your government protected you on 911. Remember the very guys you are vouching for are the very ones that let you down, The CIA and the Bush administration.
I agree, but you need to go back farther than Bush. Clinton opened the door with his weak responses to the Cole Bombing and the African Embassy bombings, and his unwillingness to try to to catch Bin Laden. There's enough blame for both mainstream political parties.
I also agree that this whole issue goes back a whole lot farther than any of them. But seeing Obama is semi continuing a policy of Bushes regime I feel the carry over warrants mention. The fact of the matter remains that we are carying on with a war that cannot be won. So is the answer perpetual war forever or what will it take to end it. There are generations and generations and generations of children growing up in the middle east who know nothing but animosity and war with us and Israel. All I can gather from your responses is to kill them all as we see fit and mistreat any of the others if we can gain some edge.
If that's your take from my comments, then you probably had your mind made up before you began reading. Everything I wrote was from the defensive perspective. Not once did I suggest that we attack anyone unless they attacked us first.
If I have to me more clear for you; I do not endorse 'killing them all' under any circumstances.
But wouldn't that be the culmination of continuing this upheaval? As I said this will not stop on their end because of the generational and cultural mindset that has been created. If not then a mentality of they kill some of ours and we kill a whole lot more of theirs will lead to a war of attrition. Alexander the Great could not defeat these people in Afganistan.
1. whether pelosi knew about it or not it was wrong.
2. The detainees were never proven to be terrorist. they had their human rights taken away on lies and suspescions. No proof in a court of law. remember innocent until proven guilty?
3. the cia agents went beyond what was prescribed for even the "enhanced interrogation" they were not acting in Ameria's interest they were simply thugs and tortourers. they need to have the corrupt cia member taken out of the agency.
True, but if she tacitly approved it at the time, then we have no case against the agents.
You have muddled the constitution with the rules of counter-terrorism. I can't help you in this context.
Be sure to phone up the Mossad or the KGB when you need your best interest looked after. I'll stick with the good guys.
I suggest that no one be prosecuted. I completely support the notion of letting the whole issue drop. My apologies to the families of the agents who we trust to keep us safe. They have all suffered enough. Let them do their job.
When the Twin Towers were hit, the Mood in washington was go get these SOB's. Wake up; We did what we were "told" to do and are still doing that, for america today. And now we are being slapped down for doing our jobs well, like we should have.
These were crimes of "war" against the United States, and we have every right to find out how, why and if there is more on the Horizon. To ask a question like this is a joke. Not only yes, but hell yes, we are allowed to protect ourselves. And we should and dam well better.
Torture does indeed work, and despite hs political bull-shit, (He's up for re-election) Mcain knows full well, His first Hand experiences from the Hanoi Hilton.
And Yes, weaker minded people will indeed say anything to stop it, If your are being broken down mentaly, some cave in faster, some never do. Some can not take the pain or the fear. Thats why it works and works well. ALL COUNTRIES USE IT, and most without humaine barriers. The Us will stop and draw a line, it does not mame or murder during the interogation acts. Try saying that of North VietNam, or Pakistan, or frigin Russia or Hamas for that matter.
As for the rest of it does not work arguments..., the information has to be verified once it is given, and if it is false it is found out almost immediately. So yes, let them babble on. There will be false testimony, it is expected.
Because, in between the flase statements some facts about places, like, what they look like, the buildings there, the ground topology of the land etc.. it comes out, and is helpfull to find the truth, if in fact that person was ever really there.
used with other information, for or against it helps clarify the truths and falshoods, it seperates it out, and it is valuable.
I have traveled to Dam many years with CTI for the Embassy working in Electronics, and also with the Military to know it really does work. Thats why it is the Arsenal. It is proven, and when you get to that point, to interogate and seek info, it is way past the time for having general discussons. Or Coffee!
Travel, experience and learn, then pose this question?
and I am sorry to be so mean spirited here, I am just tierd of this kind of eclectic two minded foolishness. Your question is probly valid, if we were going to far for no reason, or in-humaine. But that is not the case here, we are doing what is necessary, with real time rules and limits imposed with penalties if we go further.
Look at those men after interogation, no maming, no defaming, no surgery to repair of broken limbs or worse. No castrations etc..
The US has indeed made its mistakes, but they were never continuous and always done that way. We have our share of wrong, and I accept we did those things and they are wrong. But they are not done all the time, every day. There are no procedures in place to teach in-humanity.
Those prisnors have there senses, are upright and walking, fed clean, bug free, non poisionus food off a menue, allowed to worship as there Faith demands, allowed to see a Doctor and have medicines and even are given US lawyers, even though they comited acts of War and Terror and espionage against the US.
That, Good person, is much more than any US Sholders, or agents, or captured diplomats and civilians have ever gotten around the world, with very few exceptions. It is so much more.
this question frustrates me, from what I have seen in my lifetime experiences. The talk in this thread is not accurate, to what I have seen, and I feel to post my objections strongly.
Well gee, then we need to use torture for everything then. We need no court of law, just torture the suspect and save the tax payers money. I do wonder where some of you guys get your statistics about deaths and mutilations caused by torture. Was this information public knowledge?
I have requested it, and was told, yes, but to limited information, like the rules, and such but not the specifics of a confession, they will not share the secret details of that. information given had the reports of the processes and rules. I believe it was the same most of the Journalists get when they request it.
As for Law?
Where does it say that foregin born Men and Women who commit acts of War against the US, have rights to US Law. They are granted by legislation by our Goverment, to Pursue protection for the accused, a right to trial. And we do follow all the laws. If we did not they would not even have Lawyers! You will not get that in a Foregin Country.
Torture is a tool for use to deter Bazar crimes and Behavior, it is not a way of life, nor will it be. Stop being Loose with your atatements, or assumptions. I or anyone with sense is not proposing a world with Torture as a way of life. That we agree on.
It is there Under law, to be used in exceptional times, Like attacks of War. Thats the only use for it. And everyone with sense knows that. No society needs it in everyday life.
Read what I said, not spin it into something for yourself.
It is both ways. We are allowed to Purse, Investigate and find the Truth, They are allowed to defend themselves. It is a Court matter. and in some practical Truth, A World Court matter.
But the exagerations in this thread are not correct.
We are not a Nation of Torture and should never be allowed to be, but...we can reserve the right to use it to defend our Borders. Yes we should use it, no we should not waste time Investigating an Agency that is doing what it was told to do.
I will get off this soap box now!
The CIA is being called on the carpet for torturing suspects and prisoners to help combat the war on terrorism.
Does it really work? Recent discussions with Israeli interrogators revealed that torture is of no use. A person who fears harm will tell you what you wish to hear to prevent any farther torture. They found out that suspects react with much more truth when they can further their security for them and their family.
Some people would rather score political points than keep our country safe. Some people see those who sacrifice to protect us as the enemy rather than those who sacrifice to kill us. Some people want to pretend the fact that there are evil people in the world who live to do the greatest number of us the greatest harm is something that can be downplayed, ignored, or played with like some Jr High debate club topic.
We've tried that attitude before. We know what it leads to.
We absolutely should investigate the CIA's treatment of prisoners. More important, we should work our way up to the top and pursue the people who authorized the illegal CIA activities--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and all their henchmen. Depending on the results of the investigation they should be tried as criminals which they appear to me to be.
Nope. We already know what happened. Pelosi knew what happened and even she condoned it.
The agents and their families have suffered enough because a few ner-do-wells got water poured up their noses.
Why would we investigate those charged with collecting the information we need to protect ourselves? If you want to wring your hands over mass murderers getting water poured on them be my guest, but keep your delicate sensibilities from hamstringing men and women who give everything to keep us safe!
It has been proven time and time again that torture does not work. Even John McCain says those being tortured will say anything just for it to stop.
I think that may be true sometimes but the head of the "Bin Laden" unit of the CIA has said that valuable info was taken from these sessions of water boarding that led to the halting of terrorist acts.
It needs to stay in the arsenal as a last resort.
John McCain also said Obama wasn't qualified to be president. Then he kind-of said he was.
The problem with torture is it has no controllable limits. We MAY stop at waterboarding but that would just be our rules. How far do you go if other nations condone this type of behavior or even worse.
Those of you who condone it--Would it be okay to torture a small child in front of it's parents to gain information you suspect might be helpful? Who decides how far to go? I had rather take the high ground.
I think I can kind-of live with that argument. But if I take it to a logical conclusion, should we open the doors at Gitmo and let 'em all go free because confining them against their will is a form of torture?
No, but they should have trials as soon as possible and jail the guilty and let the innocent go free.
These people were taken off the battle field, its a good chance they are guilty.
It is my understanding some were snatched from the streets or were snitched on because of a grudge of some sort. "A good chance they are guilty" kind of gives me a bad feeling since the torture tactics were exposed. And if the waterboarding worked so well why did they have to do it to sheik whatshisname over a hundred times?
The fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is held up as a 'victim' in this nonsense indicates that it happened infrequently.
No one is calling him a victim...he was showing that torture does not work.
He WAS a victim of torture unless you happen to like simulated drowning and sinus pain. Whether he deserved it is another matter. But my question was "If waterboarding is so efficient why did they have to do it over a hundred times? (do you know how many times?)
He deserved it? I got no sympathy for any of them. I have seen these scumbags up close and personal! I have a heart of stone as far as Muslims in general are concerned.
Well, I hope you can separate most Muslims from the terrorists among them.
I am nolonger in the business of having to determine which ones are terrorist and which are not, now I just hate them all! Thats my problem and I deal with it.
The Holy Crusaders felt the same way. They would sometimes slaughter a whole village of Christians because they were dressed like Muslims. Oops, their mistake.
OK, I haven't slaughtered whole villages, not exactly sure where you were going with this.
Yes, I know you haven't Tex. I guess I just can't understand hating everyone of a particular religion. Heck, I even like some Christians!
Well Tex, I never thought we would condone torture at all, much less sub-contract it.
I don't condone torture. I don't condone hurting any other people at all. But I won't get in the way or speak up against anything that prevents another 9/11. Full stop.
by Leta S 14 years ago
C.I.A. interrogators under the Bush Admin. used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, FAR more than had been previously reported.The release of the numbers is likely to...
by ptosis 11 years ago
Do you favor the use of torture to get suspected terrorists to cough up info?The Senate that extended of Patriot Act said that 57% Americans do. Is this true?
by Sharlee 4 years ago
CNN’s Jim Sciutto is in hot water for an anti-Trump report which the CIA and the White House condemned and deny.Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to...
by Ralph Deeds 14 years ago
It appears to me that the torture issue, as Frank Rich observed in today's NY Times, is "bigger" than Obama. Rich's Op-ed provides a concise summary of where the issue currently stands. In my opinion, Obama had better get out from in front of the train! Here's a link to Frank Rich's...
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on...
by Sooner28 10 years ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma … CMP=twt_guFrom this article and others, it appears that not only the CIA, but also the U.S. military leadership was intimately involved in using torture on anyone unlucky enough to be captured, innocent or not. It's also likely Congress knew...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|