Originally Posted by LDAHL
I think you hit the nail on the head - and I expect it was intentional. I think they intend to drown the issue in questionable reporting and political grandstanding - if that's so they needed the Senate to release the report while the Democrats still held the majority.
That would be counterproductive if all the people involved disagree. The other WSJ editorial I cited is authored by a pretty notable cast, including I think the CIA director appointed by Obama.
In some ways the report ducks the real question to score cheap political points (which may backfire). But really that's the debate worth having. Where is the line? Would you subject someone to harsh interrogation if in fact it would save thousands of lives? How rough is too rough to save thousands of people? Instead we get tripe.
But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3LY9iTEWj
It would be nice if the article had gone on to actually list a few times, or even one, where torture worked at providing credible information that saved lives. Since it didn't I can only assume that the person writing it didn't have any examples to share. So, yeah, we get tripe.But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3LY9iTEWj
I'd also suspect that the only critics of the CIA program unwilling to say that torture is wrong and we shouldn't do it are beltway insiders. I, for one, am a critic of the CIA program and have no problem stating that I think torture is wrong and that we shouldn't do it.
Something of a travesty when you get more from the op-ed page than a $50 million report.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-inte...ves-1418142644
Yes. But in today's note from deep left field and to take it full circle; couldn't we be spending our money to get a lot of smaller boats floating and thus remove the target on our backs in the eyes of many 'enemy combatants' rather than implementing policies that strengthen their resolve? I know, its an esoteric thought that would require a paradigm shift that the power brokers (and for that matter the electorate) have no stomach for. Like with everything else, let's just keep treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease. We wouldn't want the folks providing the meds to the war machine to miss a free lunch. End of rant.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
My father was an infantry officer in the Pacific theater during WWII serving mostly in the jungles of New Guinea and the Phillippines. He didn't speak often of the war, but one thing he was proud of was the American treatment of prisoners. They took more than a few in the course of their service, including at least one Japanese general. In contrast, he had a lifelong disgust with the way the Japanese army treated its captives with torture (including waterboarding*), starvation, and worse. We're showing the world that we've changed over the years from an honorable nation to a brutal and dishonorable one, thanks in part to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the culture of the CIA, which has long operated outside the law.
"Enemy combatants" is merely cynical semantics; these people--evil and misguided as they may be--are human beings, and should be treated under the law.
*"Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."--John McCain
No, that might jeopardize the new narrative. The Senators producing the report quietly supported the CIA's actions until progressives forced them to become horrified by it. Now that the Democrats have lost so much public support and goodwill, as evidenced by repeated electoral losses across the country, a new narrative must be contrived in hopes of placating their base. Round one of outrageous outrage, years in the making, had to be released now while they still had the political power to do so. Not only had they run out of time to conduct a thorough investigation, the results might be counter-productive to the goal.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
When we say interview the actual participants, do we mean those being tortured as well? They were one half of the participants, so it would make sense for that to be at least half of it. Really is becoming a job for the Hague at that point though.
Trees don't grow on money
Sure, let them froth and posture and threaten.
The list of prisoners at Gitmo on Wikipedia shows that at least one of them was repatriated, but then perpetrated a suicide bombing that killed six other people! Based on what I've seen, ehem--in media reports--of numerous highly idealistic and fanatical people, it makes sense that these captives are being held just so they don't cause more trouble. I just can't go with the bleeding heart notion that somehow, we've violated their rights(what rights?), and that all we need to do is release them to their homeland, and they'll be leading productive useful lives from now on. To me, it's just more partisan politics. I am not in support of either side-- we're in a quagmire that both sides opted for. But, don't turn those prisoners loose, for now. Prove to me that Feinweinstein cares a flying flip about those people, anyway; it is political grandstanding. Now you know. Thankk Mee.
Last edited by Packy; 12-12-14 at 4:33am.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote