fate

With access to the same documents, I could edit them and make them say the Queen of England is a terrorist

But the documents weren't "edited" were they? Or do you have some remarkable evidence that the rest of the world does not?


fate

I don't have to substantiate it. It's proven. If it was torture, Obama and Holder would be compelled to go after those responsible with criminal charges. They aren't. I rest my case. You, on the other hand, have to prove that your heroes (Obama and Holder) are wrong.

You always to seem to resort to an argument where you don't have to substantiate your claims...
And you complain constantly that Holder and Obama aren't upholding the laws of the nation... SO what? There is no illegal immigration in the US because some aren't being charged? No one on Wall Street is guilty of malfeasance in the 08 crashes just because they've not be personally charged?
A crime is not nullified just because the authorities have not yet, perhaps never, charge someone. The crimes still exist. They are just not prosecuted...


And I seriously doubt that Obama is Danivon's hero. He's certainly not mine.
But he did put an end to torture. Probably.

rickyp wrote:fate

With access to the same documents, I could edit them and make them say the Queen of England is a terrorist

But the documents weren't "edited" were they? Or do you have some remarkable evidence that the rest of the world does not?

The rest of the world has the info. Apparently, you don't.

How do you figure it's not "edited?" For example, the report says the CIA lied to Bush and Cheney. Now, they both deny that. So, why would they lie about being lied to?

More to the point, how did Feinstein's staffers come to the conclusion that Bush was lied to?

Staffers said a document from 2002 indicated that the agency had been preparing a briefing for Bush, but that CIA records showed that unnamed White House officials told the agency that the president “would not be getting the briefing” — implying that some administration officials were also hiding information from the president.

Feinstein quoted then-CIA counsel John Rizzo as saying in a 2003 memo that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell “would blow his stack” if he were briefed about the program. The California senator quoted CIA records as saying the agency had also withheld information about the interrogations from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Whether they're right or not, what they did was take a bit of info here and combine it with some other info . . . in other words, "editing."

You always to seem to resort to an argument where you don't have to substantiate your claims...
And you complain constantly that Holder and Obama aren't upholding the laws of the nation... SO what?

No, I'm saying the "experts" don't seem to agree with you. If you can prove the law was broken, feel free. Otherwise, the presumption in our country is "innocent until proven guilty."

I know. So quaint.

There is no illegal immigration in the US because some aren't being charged? No one on Wall Street is guilty of malfeasance in the 08 crashes just because they've not be personally charged?
A crime is not nullified just because the authorities have not yet, perhaps never, charge someone. The crimes still exist. They are just not prosecuted...

Actually, yes, nullification essentially changes the law. That's my complaint about illegal immigration. If you don't enforce a law, you have no law.

Holder and Obama have claimed journalists were criminal for doing journalism. They have claimed Republicans are terrorists and hostage-takers. What they have not done is say that Bush, Cheney, et al, are criminals. If they believe it, they should act on it.

And I seriously doubt that Obama is Danivon's hero. He's certainly not mine.
But he did put an end to torture. Probably.

By executing people without trial or warning, even Americans.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, you began by using the definition of "née" that you preferred. You're not parsing them; you're reimagining them.

I know what "née" means. It's French and has a clear definition in that language and into English as a loanword. The use of "X née Y" means that what you call X is what was called Y orginally. Née comes from the same root as nativity, native etc - as in "born".

Basically, you used the wrong word, or used it incorrectly. I apologise for assuming you meant what you wrote.

Rickyp did bring in Reagan and you joined him. Regardless of what Reagan signed, he did so apart from 9/11 and to presume to know what he would/would not authorize in a situation no American President had faced is worse than mere conjecture. (Note well: Pearl Harbor is only analogous regarding numbers of deaths and the surprise of the attack. We knew what nation this was and we declared war immediately.)

Oh, can you just go back and READ who wrote what? Ricky pointed out that Reagan signed up to the Convention treaty, as evidence that he was against the use of it when he was President. You simply replied to snarkily tell us it was an anachronism.

He was responding to me. So, what matters is what I intended, not what he twisted it into. Why not ask what Lincoln, Washington, or Andrew Jackson would do? Who bloody cares and who can know? It's all conjecture and meaningless to the current controversy.

Two reasons. One because it is what he did do.

Secondly because it helpfully reminds of of the commitments that your country has made not to commit torture or render people to regimes that do. And to prosecute those who do commit torture without fear or favour.

Seriously, you equate psychological discomfort to "torture" and then get upset when I point out that most of the country is in psychological discomfort because of the man in the White House?

No, I equate severe mental mental suffering with torture. As is defined in the UN Convention, quoted above.

Such as things that would cause PTSD.

Not 'discomfort'. That is a word you have introduced yourself - I never used it in this thread until now. Seemingly so that you can create your own ridiculous means of making it all about OBAMA again...

Unless we agree on what "torture" is, we can't have a conversation that means anything. Oh, and btw, given that probably 3/4 of the countries in the world engage in something the UN would consider "torture," I'm not sure it has all that much real world meaning.

I go by the definition as supplied in the UN Convention that was agreed and ratified by your government, mine, and the rest of the world.

But if you have difficulty, that's not really a surprise. It seems Antonin Scalia doesn't even get that torture is UnConstitutional:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/383730/

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in on the debate surrounding the Senate torture report on Wednesday. "I don't know what article of the Constitution that would contravene," the AP quoted him telling a Swiss university audience in reference to torture.

It's a surprising statement for a justice to make. After all, the Supreme Court has held torture to be unconstitutional since its ruling in Wilkerson v. Utah in 1878. In that case, the justices wondered what part of the Constitution would forbid such a cruel and unusual punishment:

Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by the commentator referred to, and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.

I believe that is in the Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Note that the Amendment does not specify "citizens", or even "the People". Just that the Federal government is not to inflict such punishments.

All apologies to our puppets in the UK.

Oh, believe me, I am as angry that my country is complicit in this as I am about anything. But take your condescending tone and shove it.

And sorry, the Constitution does not only cover Americans. Where it does, it mentions "citizens". Where it widens out to non-citizens it mentions people or persons.

Sorry, but no it doesn't.

Sorry, but you really do not understand the Constitution. It does apply to non-citizens.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ights.html

There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office

And the Supreme Court concurs.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

I suggest you read it. It's long, and goes into the legal history and differences between different types of overseas territory. But it concludes that the Constitution applies in Guantanamo Bay, and to anyone there, even non-citizens.

We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.

The specific decision is that habeus corpus applies. The way that the clause on habeus corpus is written is very similar to the Eighth Amendment: It simply expresses a limit to the power of government to do something, and does not specify whether that is affecting citizens, residents or any particular category of person.

Ask the President. He denies Constitutional rights to American citizens. Ask Anwar-Al-Awlaki. Oh, you can't? That's right. The President executed him. It's a joke that this man whines about Gitmo while executing Americans without trial or oversight.

And we are back to the whataboutery...

Regardless of whether the Drone programme and the treating of Americans who take up arms against the USA as enemy combatants and legitimate targets is Constitutional or not...

Torture remains Unconstitutional.

Foreign terrorists have the right to having their lives end. That's their right. Only Obama, Holder, and the ACLU want to give them Miranda rights.

whataboutery again. And not in line with the USSC decisions. So wrong.

Yep. It is my opinion that you are not even bothering to substantiate that EIT is not torture, despite earlier telling us it was the same thing under a different name.

I didn't. You referred to EIT as torture. I was correcting the record. If that wasn't clear to you earlier, I pray it is now.

I refer to EIT as including torture because it does. Like "extraordinary rendition" (kidnap and sometimes transfer to vile regimes), "collateral damage" (civilian casualties) etc, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is simply Newspeak. It helps those who carry it out, authorise it or cheerlead for it to avoid having to use the real words, lest it prick their consciences.

I don't have to substantiate it. It's proven. If it was torture, Obama and Holder would be compelled to go after those responsible with criminal charges. They aren't. I rest my case. You, on the other hand, have to prove that your heroes (Obama and Holder) are wrong.

Enough with the ODS, it's getting very repetitive.

Obama is not my hero, and certainly Holder isn't. I believe that the US Adminsitration should be compelled to go after those responsible. Your case seems to be that the government you hate, run by people you despise, which does lots of things you fundamentally disagree with, happens to agree with you on one thing, so it and you must both be correct.

They have countries. And as humans they have the rights of redress.

They are not representatives of their country. They are not members of a recognized Army or armed forces of a recognized country. They are illegal combatants.

They have no right of redress. They ceased having that right when they declared war on the human race. They can recant and face justice or they can continue and take their chances.

Corrections:

1) they don't need to be representatives of any country. They are human beings.
2) not all of them are 'illegal combatants' - and even those that are, have not all be proven to be as Geneva suggests should happen. And until it is determined by due process that they are combatants, they have to be treated as civilians.
3) under the UN Convention, anyone who is tortured has a right of redress. Article 14: "Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation. "
4) they are not at war with the "human race". They are at war with various parts of it, for a variety of reasons, but they are not nihilists. They are religious fanatics who want primacy for their beliefs and ultimately the unification of the human race under a particular version of that religion.
5) On the battlefield, they take their chances. When captured, they become the responsibility of the captors.

The Constitution protects residents as well as citizens. If you don't agree to that, don't support importing people into US jurisdiction.

They should be held in Guantanamo, secret prisons, or under water. it's all the same to me. We can't give them a "trial of their peers" unless we put Manson on the jury.

You are leaping from "not torturing people" to something else. Please don't move goalposts.

But you trust the CIA?

Nice try. I said I don't trust Feinstein. She has political motivations. Her staffers have said the report was released because they were losing the majority. This was all politics.

I can understand that reasoning - because the new majority would like to bury the report.

Where do you think the committee gleaned the information from? Written CIA reports.

With access to the same documents, I could edit them and make them say the Queen of England is a terrorist. It's like writing history: the winners write history. In this case, the majority got to interpret history. It doesn't make it true.

Do you have evidence that the committee report is the result of 'editing' reports?

Please present such. Or at least quit making up flights of fancy.

So, all we will do is argue. I don't like your position. You don't like mine. So what?

I'm trying to show you why you are wrong about this. But you are right - you are not able to understand the jurisdiction of the Constitution, or that a suspect is not the same as a criminal, or that the USA has consistently said it would not do such things.

Maybe someone else might pick up on your bluster and see through it though.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, you began by using the definition of "née" that you preferred. You're not parsing them; you're reimagining them.

I know what "née" means. It's French and has a clear definition in that language and into English as a loanword. The use of "X née Y" means that what you call X is what was called Y orginally. Née comes from the same root as nativity, native etc - as in "born".

Basically, you used the wrong word, or used it incorrectly. I apologise for assuming you meant what you wrote.

Rickyp did bring in Reagan and you joined him. Regardless of what Reagan signed, he did so apart from 9/11 and to presume to know what he would/would not authorize in a situation no American President had faced is worse than mere conjecture. (Note well: Pearl Harbor is only analogous regarding numbers of deaths and the surprise of the attack. We knew what nation this was and we declared war immediately.)

Oh, can you just go back and READ who wrote what? Ricky pointed out that Reagan signed up to the Convention treaty, as evidence that he was against the use of it when he was President. You simply replied to snarkily tell us it was an anachronism.

He was responding to me. So, what matters is what I intended, not what he twisted it into. Why not ask what Lincoln, Washington, or Andrew Jackson would do? Who bloody cares and who can know? It's all conjecture and meaningless to the current controversy.

Two reasons. One because it is what he did do.

Secondly because it helpfully reminds of of the commitments that your country has made not to commit torture or render people to regimes that do. And to prosecute those who do commit torture without fear or favour.

Seriously, you equate psychological discomfort to "torture" and then get upset when I point out that most of the country is in psychological discomfort because of the man in the White House?

No, I equate severe mental mental suffering with torture. As is defined in the UN Convention, quoted above.

Such as things that would cause PTSD.

Not 'discomfort'. That is a word you have introduced yourself - I never used it in this thread until now. Seemingly so that you can create your own ridiculous means of making it all about OBAMA again...

Unless we agree on what "torture" is, we can't have a conversation that means anything. Oh, and btw, given that probably 3/4 of the countries in the world engage in something the UN would consider "torture," I'm not sure it has all that much real world meaning.

I go by the definition as supplied in the UN Convention that was agreed and ratified by your government, mine, and the rest of the world.

But if you have difficulty, that's not really a surprise. It seems Antonin Scalia doesn't even get that torture is UnConstitutional:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/383730/

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in on the debate surrounding the Senate torture report on Wednesday. "I don't know what article of the Constitution that would contravene," the AP quoted him telling a Swiss university audience in reference to torture.

It's a surprising statement for a justice to make. After all, the Supreme Court has held torture to be unconstitutional since its ruling in Wilkerson v. Utah in 1878. In that case, the justices wondered what part of the Constitution would forbid such a cruel and unusual punishment:

Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by the commentator referred to, and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.

I believe that is in the Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Note that the Amendment does not specify "citizens", or even "the People". Just that the Federal government is not to inflict such punishments.

All apologies to our puppets in the UK.

Oh, believe me, I am as angry that my country is complicit in this as I am about anything. But take your condescending tone and shove it.

And sorry, the Constitution does not only cover Americans. Where it does, it mentions "citizens". Where it widens out to non-citizens it mentions people or persons.

Sorry, but no it doesn't.

Sorry, but you really do not understand the Constitution. It does apply to non-citizens.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ights.html

There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office

And the Supreme Court concurs.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html

I suggest you read it. It's long, and goes into the legal history and differences between different types of overseas territory. But it concludes that the Constitution applies in Guantanamo Bay, and to anyone there, even non-citizens.

We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.

The specific decision is that habeus corpus applies. The way that the clause on habeus corpus is written is very similar to the Eighth Amendment: It simply expresses a limit to the power of government to do something, and does not specify whether that is affecting citizens, residents or any particular category of person.

Ask the President. He denies Constitutional rights to American citizens. Ask Anwar-Al-Awlaki. Oh, you can't? That's right. The President executed him. It's a joke that this man whines about Gitmo while executing Americans without trial or oversight.

And we are back to the whataboutery...

Regardless of whether the Drone programme and the treating of Americans who take up arms against the USA as enemy combatants and legitimate targets is Constitutional or not...

Torture remains Unconstitutional.

Foreign terrorists have the right to having their lives end. That's their right. Only Obama, Holder, and the ACLU want to give them Miranda rights.

whataboutery again. And not in line with the USSC decisions. So wrong.

Yep. It is my opinion that you are not even bothering to substantiate that EIT is not torture, despite earlier telling us it was the same thing under a different name.

I didn't. You referred to EIT as torture. I was correcting the record. If that wasn't clear to you earlier, I pray it is now.

I refer to EIT as including torture because it does. Like "extraordinary rendition" (kidnap and sometimes transfer to vile regimes), "collateral damage" (civilian casualties) etc, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is simply Newspeak. It helps those who carry it out, authorise it or cheerlead for it to avoid having to use the real words, lest it prick their consciences.

I don't have to substantiate it. It's proven. If it was torture, Obama and Holder would be compelled to go after those responsible with criminal charges. They aren't. I rest my case. You, on the other hand, have to prove that your heroes (Obama and Holder) are wrong.

Enough with the ODS, it's getting very repetitive.

Obama is not my hero, and certainly Holder isn't. I believe that the US Adminsitration should be compelled to go after those responsible. Your case seems to be that the government you hate, run by people you despise, which does lots of things you fundamentally disagree with, happens to agree with you on one thing, so it and you must both be correct.

They have countries. And as humans they have the rights of redress.

They are not representatives of their country. They are not members of a recognized Army or armed forces of a recognized country. They are illegal combatants.

They have no right of redress. They ceased having that right when they declared war on the human race. They can recant and face justice or they can continue and take their chances.

Corrections:

1) they don't need to be representatives of any country. They are human beings.
2) not all of them are 'illegal combatants' - and even those that are, have not all be proven to be as Geneva suggests should happen. And until it is determined by due process that they are combatants, they have to be treated as civilians.
3) under the UN Convention, anyone who is tortured has a right of redress. Article 14: "Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation. "
4) they are not at war with the "human race". They are at war with various parts of it, for a variety of reasons, but they are not nihilists. They are religious fanatics who want primacy for their beliefs and ultimately the unification of the human race under a particular version of that religion.
5) On the battlefield, they take their chances. When captured, they become the responsibility of the captors.

The Constitution protects residents as well as citizens. If you don't agree to that, don't support importing people into US jurisdiction.

They should be held in Guantanamo, secret prisons, or under water. it's all the same to me. We can't give them a "trial of their peers" unless we put Manson on the jury.

You are leaping from "not torturing people" to something else. Please don't move goalposts.

But you trust the CIA?

Nice try. I said I don't trust Feinstein. She has political motivations. Her staffers have said the report was released because they were losing the majority. This was all politics.

I can understand that reasoning - because the new majority would like to bury the report.

Where do you think the committee gleaned the information from? Written CIA reports.

With access to the same documents, I could edit them and make them say the Queen of England is a terrorist. It's like writing history: the winners write history. In this case, the majority got to interpret history. It doesn't make it true.

Do you have evidence that the committee report is the result of 'editing' reports?

Please present such. Or at least quit making up flights of fancy.

So, all we will do is argue. I don't like your position. You don't like mine. So what?

I'm trying to show you why you are wrong about this. But you are right - you are not able to understand the jurisdiction of the Constitution, or that a suspect is not the same as a criminal, or that the USA has consistently said it would not do such things.

Maybe someone else might pick up on your bluster and see through it though.

You're an idiot. "Formerly known as" does not acknowledge that your characterization was true. In fact, if I agreed with you, I would not have changed the word.

You're wrong and you can do whatever you want. The truth doesn't matter to you. that much is obvious.

I can rebut Danivon point by point, but it's like trying to convince the Sun to cool off--a complete waste of my time. In fact, that should be Danivon's name here.

I'm out. Best of luck.

So you can refute the points made about the Constitution, referring to USSC decisions going back to the 19th Century? Sorry, but you are plain wrong - The Constitution does not only protect American citizens.

As ever you default to insults. And then flounce out.

danivon wrote:So you can refute the points made about the Constitution, referring to USSC decisions going back to the 19th Century? Sorry, but you are plain wrong - The Constitution does not only protect American citizens.

As ever you default to insults. And then flounce out.

No, I called you a liar. You are.

I'll not interact with someone so dishonest.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:As ever you default to insults. And then flounce out.

No, I called you a liar. You are.

I'll not interact with someone so dishonest.

QED.

By the way, waterboarding used to be defined as torture, and as illegal, in the USA. A sheriff and three deputies from Texas were convicted for using it in the early 1980s. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 170_2.html

A US soldier was court-martialled after being photographed participating in waterboarding in Vietnam in 1968.

Waterboarding is defined as torture in an ECHR ruling (which applies to the 47 countries in the Council of Europe, which is basically the whole continent apart from Belarus and the Vatican).

There were more than three people subjected to waterboarding. The four that the has CIA admitted to are Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Mohammed al-Qahtani. Tapes of waterboarding were destroyed in 2005 by the CIA (now there's "editing" the evidence), so we may never know the true total. For some reason people were taken to places like Thailand and Poland to carry out the technique (perhaps to avoid US jurisdiction?).

And it is not just waterboarding. Gul Rahman died of hypothermia after being shackled to a wall in near-freezing temperatures. Among the cases listed are ones where people were forced to stand on broken feet in painful positions (which can certainly easily lead to permanent effects, as well as being severely painful).

Here is a direct example of Hayden's testimony contradicting CIA documents:

SENATOR LEVIN: [Reading a SSCI staff document, "Summary Notes of the February 14, 2007 ICRC Report"] "Prolonged stress standing position, naked, armed chained above the head[?]

DIRECTOR HAYDEN: "Not above the head. Stress positions are part of the EITs, and nakedness were part of the EITs, Senator."

Compared with:

This testimony is inaccurate.

There are multiple descriptions of CIA detainees being forced to stand with their arms shackled above their heads for extended periods of time at the CIA's DETENTION SITE COBALT (2717). In one example, a U.S. military legal advisor observed the technique known as "hanging," involving handcuffing one or both wrists to an overhead horizontal bar. The legal advisor noted that one detainee was apparently left hanging for 22 hours each day for two consecutive days to "break" his resistance. (2718)

CIA records indicate that multiple detainees were shackled with their hands above their heads at other CIA detention sites. For example, see detainee reviews in Volume III, to include 'Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (2720) Hassan Ghul, (2721) and According to CIA cables, Abu Zubaydah was handcuffed "high on the bars." (2722)

Draft OMS guidelines on interrogations, noted that detainees could be shackled with their arms above their heads for "roughly two hours without great concern," and that the arms could be elevated for between two and four hours if the detainee was monitored for "excessive distress." (2723)

(both from pages 497-8 of the executive summary of the report).

Hayden says chaining arms above the head is not sanctioned under EIT. The documents says it was used in various ways. He may well not have been fully advised.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:As ever you default to insults. And then flounce out.

No, I called you a liar. You are.

I'll not interact with someone so dishonest.

QED.

Right. You are a liar.

To first answer the question Danivon asked of me. Yes, some could go and attack because of the supposed "torture".

Do I have a problem with other countries doing the same thing to our soldiers? Nope. War is hell. To quote General R.E. Lee:

It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

Sassenach wrote:Brad, if I could ask you to temporarily set aside all of the tedious partisan stuff for a moment. Could you tell me in a more general sense what is your view on the acceptability of American agents practicing torture and other inhumane procedures in order to try and extract intelligence ?

It strikes me that there are only really 4 different possible responses to that question. These would be:

1) Torture is never acceptable and I would never condone it being carried out in my name.

2) Torture is unnacceptable but there may be some extreme situations which might call for it when all else fails. It should only ever be a last resort however.

3) I don't like the idea of torture but if it can be useful in saving lives then it's probably acceptable.

4) Screw it, these guys are terrorists and they have it coming.

I'd probably put myself in category 2, in that I don't think torture is acceptable but I can conceive of some hypotheticals where it might be the least worst option so it would be foolish to rule it out 100%. This doesn't mean that I support the idea that we should should reserve the right to use it in extremis though, more that if one of those situations came about and somebody resorted to torture in order to save a lot of lives (and it worked) then it would probably be wise to show a little tolerance in the circumstances. The CIA appear to have been operating somewhere between positions 3 and 4, which is something I could never support for the ethical reasons I just spelled out. Where do you sit ?

Category 2 for me.

ray

Category 2 for me

What does when all else fails even mean?

And how would you know that whatever you wring out of the torture victim is credible or real? How would you know that some other method wouldn't work more reliably?

Part of Brennan's rationale for the past use of torture by the CIA was that it was "unknowable whether torture was needed to gain intelligence".
His agency has tortured and he still doesn't know .

rickyp wrote:ray

Category 2 for me

What does when all else fails even mean?

And how would you know that whatever you wring out of the torture victim is credible or real? How would you know that some other method wouldn't work more reliably?

Part of Brennan's rationale for the past use of torture by the CIA was that it was "unknowable whether torture was needed to gain intelligence".
His agency has tortured and he still doesn't know .

There's chatter of a nuclear bomb being set off in NYC. A known terrorist in captivity may have some inside knowledge. It would be inhumane to the millions of people who live in NYC to not do whatever it takes to find out. No doubt you would risk their deaths for your principles.