Torture (American Exceptionalism in Tatters)

Demosthenes wrote:
He also throws Bush under the bus, which even the Democrats handling the report seemed not to want to do. So yay?

To be fair, I assumed that was Bush's purpose from the beginning. :lol:

Pretty sure this is a campaign photo:
IMAGE(http://blogdesuperheroes.es/wp-content/plugins/BdSGallery/BdSGaleria/12222.jpg)

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Dick Cheney says the CIA didn't go rogue, but that 'rectal rehydration' was not on the approved list of interrogation techniques. I swear this guy is pulling a 'you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall' like it's going to preserve his legacy.

I don't want Cheney on the wall. I want him *against* the wall.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4gMatgCIAAgLXB.png:large)

Louise Mensch is, and I use this term advisedly, a f****** c*** and nothing she says should be listened to ever. She is the worst kind of reactionary troll-for-clicks around.

Isn't she the former Conservative MP?

The current asinine meme among Right Wing nutbags is the picture of a guy jumping off the WTC with the statement that he would trade positions with anyone who got rectal hydration.

In every instance that shows up on my Facebook feed, I generally respond that our actions vis torture do nothing but ensure that events like the above will happen again.

That and to congratulate the poster on being a dumbass.

Also: if you yourself are okay with rectal hydration, that's fine: they'd come up with something you would find sufficiently degrading.... like forcing you to stand on two broken legs.

Maq wrote:
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4gMatgCIAAgLXB.png:large)

Louise Mensch is, and I use this term advisedly, a f****** c*** and nothing she says should be listened to ever. She is the worst kind of reactionary troll-for-clicks around.

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4gMatgCIAAgLXB.png:large)

Louise Mensch is, and I use this term advisedly, a f****** c*** and nothing she says should be listened to ever. She is the worst kind of reactionary troll-for-clicks around.

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

So... you think the torturer's opinions are valuable insight into... what? That's what Mensch is calling for. She's saying the report should have included insight from people who were sexually assaulting prisoners... why? She doesn't even explain what value they would have added... titillation for folks who enjoy that kind of stuff? She is quite literally dismissing the report because they chose not to focus on the individual people's feelings or statements from an organization that has already proven itself to lie on this very topic continuously and without care.

Right... when you are seeking transparency and honesty, the best people to interview are CIA officers. Makes sense to me.

imbiginjapan wrote:

Right... when you are seeking transparency and honesty, the best people to interview are CIA officers. Makes sense to me.

I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of your implications, should any such implications exist.

Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4gMatgCIAAgLXB.png:large)

Louise Mensch is, and I use this term advisedly, a f****** c*** and nothing she says should be listened to ever. She is the worst kind of reactionary troll-for-clicks around.

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

Their argument is that it was legal and they were just following orders.

Like the literal f*cking Nazis.

Reaper81 wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4gMatgCIAAgLXB.png:large)

Louise Mensch is, and I use this term advisedly, a f****** c*** and nothing she says should be listened to ever. She is the worst kind of reactionary troll-for-clicks around.

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

Their argument is that it was legal and they were just following orders.

Like the literal f*cking Nazis.

Befehl ist Befehl!!!

Nomad wrote:

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

Help me understand. I have read her tweet a few times and I guess I don't understand.

"There is literally NO oversight when a committee produces a report without speaking to one CIA officer who was there."

So is she saying that the events didn't happen? That the reports were faked? I don't think I understand what "NO oversight" means. Since obviously this is something that happened in the past so of course they can't provide oversight, so is she saying the report doesn't do? Or what does oversight mean exactly?

farley3k wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

Help me understand. I have read her tweet a few times and I guess I don't understand.

"There is literally NO oversight when a committee produces a report without speaking to one CIA officer who was there."

So is she saying that the events didn't happen? That the reports were faked? I don't think I understand what "NO oversight" means. Since obviously this is something that happened in the past so of course they can't provide oversight, so is she saying the report doesn't do? Or what does oversight mean exactly?

Can you please define the word "is"?

I don't think she knows either, to be honest. I didn't have the same strong reaction others did because that sentence literally didn't make sense to me.

"oversight".
IMAGE(http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/d95/74a/41d/resized/that-word-meme-generator-we-you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means-99d220.jpg)

It would seem logically that unless the CIA operatives were going to deign the torture happened at all their testimony would have justified the torture.

I guess that is valuable but really in then end that is just an "ends justify the means" situation.

farley3k wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

Help me understand. I have read her tweet a few times and I guess I don't understand.

"There is literally NO oversight when a committee produces a report without speaking to one CIA officer who was there."

So is she saying that the events didn't happen? That the reports were faked? I don't think I understand what "NO oversight" means. Since obviously this is something that happened in the past so of course they can't provide oversight, so is she saying the report doesn't do? Or what does oversight mean exactly?

I assumed she was saying that since those involved were not consulted as to the material within the report, there was no oversight preventing it from being completely biased. The assumptions there being that 1. The CIA can obviously be trusted to "do the right thing" and provide honest answers, and 2. Since the CIA can be trusted to do the right thing, the scathing content of the report must obviously be overwrought.

It makes sense if you believe in the conservative ideal of self regulating entities, and believe the US intelligence industry is one such entity. I'm not saying anyone should actually believe that, but it's pretty clear some people do.

It's hard to say the Democrats did this for political gain, because it's not going to get them any votes. Nor does it attack political figures, nor does it lay blame at their feet. I think the "it's partisan" stuff is simply another effort to discredit yet another investigation into intelligence service abuses in the US.

The fact that that Republicans *feel like* it's an implicit attack on their team is due to the fact that they put these policies in place, but then, the Democratic leadership was involved as well, as is Obama. Again; there's no political gain in this for Democrats, it's an effort to uncover some part of the truth that was illegally hidden from us.

I too think it wouldn't have been a bad idea to include the CIA's POV in the report (I'm assuming it's not, but haven't read any of it), if only to then completely dismantle their arguments.

However, there are two reasons I don't really care. 1, the CIA director lied, and 2. Dick Cheney admitted some methods used were not authorized. If the more machine now than man himself admits to that, what else is there to say?

Nomad wrote:

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument?

For the record where both Mensch and I both come from that's not a misogynistic slur, just a general one, but the point is taken this is a US-based forum and I regret the use of the term.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
imbiginjapan wrote:

Right... when you are seeking transparency and honesty, the best people to interview are CIA officers. Makes sense to me.

I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of your implications, should any such implications exist.

Bingo. I'm glad others got it.

Brennan is supposed to be speaking about this at 1:30pm EST

Want to take bets on the amount of bull$hit that comes out of his mouth?

"The justice department said it was legal" (yeah only after they rewrote the laws as a CYA)
"We got valid information that helped us stop attacks" (prove it, here's a hint, you can't.)
"It wasn't torture" (ok, please bend over right now and I'll shove your pureed dinner up your a$$ and you can decide)
We were following orders from our leadership (yeah because that makes what you did all ok)

Maq wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument?

For the record where both Mensch and I both come from that's not a misogynistic slur, just a general one, but the point is taken this is a US-based forum and I regret the use of the term.

Okay thanks for clarifying. I was equally uncomfortable with what I perceived as a sexist insult. I forget the word doesn't carry the same weight elsewhere.

I have even less hope anyone involved with this will be prosecuted than the cops outright murdering people. =\

Thank god I look white?

There's a whitehouse petition up to get Bush and Cheney tried for warcrimes:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...

I hope it gets enough votes, because I can't wait to see how the administration doesn't answer this one.

Well, I'm sure it painted a target on my head, but I went ahead and signed the petition.

Demosthenes wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4gMatgCIAAgLXB.png:large)

Louise Mensch is, and I use this term advisedly, a f****** c*** and nothing she says should be listened to ever. She is the worst kind of reactionary troll-for-clicks around.

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument? I think the report was partially biased by partisan ideology and was intended in part as a tool to embarrass political opposition, but I also think it was incredibly valuable as a scrutiny of our unacceptable methods of "warfare" and it would be foolish to dismiss.

So... you think the torturer's opinions are valuable insight into... what? That's what Mensch is calling for. She's saying the report should have included insight from people who were sexually assaulting prisoners... why? She doesn't even explain what value they would have added... titillation for folks who enjoy that kind of stuff? She is quite literally dismissing the report because they chose not to focus on the individual people's feelings or statements from an organization that has already proven itself to lie on this very topic continuously and without care.

As you can read in my response, I disagree with her and think the report was quite valuable and it would be unwise to dismiss it, so I'm not sure I'm the right person to defend her position.

Maq wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Instead of using a misogynistic slur to throw ad hominem attacks at Mench, why not address her argument?

For the record where both Mensch and I both come from that's not a misogynistic slur, just a general one, but the point is taken this is a US-based forum and I regret the use of the term.

Cool. As I said, I don't agree with her.

Robear wrote:

It's hard to say the Democrats did this for political gain, because it's not going to get them any votes. Nor does it attack political figures, nor does it lay blame at their feet. I think the "it's partisan" stuff is simply another effort to discredit yet another investigation into intelligence service abuses in the US.

The fact that that Republicans *feel like* it's an implicit attack on their team is due to the fact that they put these policies in place, but then, the Democratic leadership was involved as well, as is Obama. Again; there's no political gain in this for Democrats, it's an effort to uncover some part of the truth that was illegally hidden from us.

I'd love to think this is true, but I guess you have more faith in politicians than I do. It's not something that's limited to one side of the partisan divide either.

I read through the exec summary and it seems, at least to me, that they were very careful to say that Bush didn't know about the extent of this.

Cheney, otoh, went on television and tossed Bush under the bus.

If there is anyone trying to score political points, it is Cheney.