i thank you for an honest answer
Posted on 04/05/2014 8:42:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
People might think it is wrong for me to condemn a report I haven’t read. But since the report condemns a program I ran, I think I have justification.
On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to declassify and release hundreds of pages of its report on U.S. terrorist interrogation practices. Certain senators have proclaimed how devastating the findings are, saying the CIA’s program was unproductive, badly managed and misleadingly sold. Unlike the committee’s staff, I don’t have to examine the program through a rearview mirror. I was responsible for administering it, and I know that it produced critical intelligence that helped decimate al-Qaeda and save American lives.
The committee’s staff members started with a conclusion in 2009 and have chased supportive evidence ever since. They never spoke to me or other top CIA leaders involved in the program, or let us see the report. Without reviewing it, I cannot offer a detailed rebuttal. But there are things the public should consider.
The first is context. The detention and interrogation program was not built in a vacuum. It was created in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 men, women and children were murdered. It was constructed shortly after Richard Reid narrowly missed bringing down an airliner with explosives hidden in his shoes. It continued while U.S. intelligence learned that rogue Pakistani scientists had met with Osama bin Laden to discuss the possibility of creating crude nuclear devices.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
nope
It’s a short term fix and we need to be thinking long term. It is also wrong morally.
I am a female.
Have not been in combat. Doesn’t change what is right and wrong.
Information gained from torture is mostly unreliable. And torture is just plain wrong.
We are supposed to be people who keep their treaties
We are supposed to be people who are noble, honorable, not hyenas
you are the problem, not the solution
Your mindset will kill us all
That is absolutely not true. Torture works.
Whoever told you that was lying and it appealed to your sense of right and wrong, so you believed it.
It's apparent you have no personal experience in the matter.
No I have no experience in the matter
And just because our enemies do it is no reason for us to do it.
********************************
I guess it may partly depend on how one defines "torture", and for some, whether they and their loved ones are likely to be the victims of terrorism or war. For some, firmly held principles are dependent on their assurance of relative immunity to danger.
I agree. Just because our enemies torture is not reason for us to do it.
However, the fact that it works and that, sometimes, we find ourselves in existential war, it's necessary.
One could argue the bombings of Dresden and Nagasaki killed 10's of thousands of innocent people, children included...therefore was immoral. We should not have done it.
I'm happy we had hard, murderous men at the helm who were will to do so.
Nobility is protecting the innocent...it is the opposite of nobility to protect the evil.
I don't believe water boarding violates the UN Human Rights Convention. You also did not include the following US declarations and reservations signing the convention:
Upon signature :
Declaration:
"The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary."
Upon ratification :
Reservations:
"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions' includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.'
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.
I do find it amusing that the vast majority of UN signatories are real human rights violators who actually do torture their citizens and those of other countries.
Are you advocating that the American officials who ordered and carried out water boarding should be tried by the International Court of Justice and be imprisoned for their crimes? Isn't that part of the treaty?
No. One of the conditions in the treaty that was set by the US was that we would try our own people.
And we best not allow that to occur. In fact, even if it did you'd be hard pressed to find a jury to convict once it was demonstrated that it WORKED.
That's the great fear of the left...and even some relatively conservative humanitarians.
They never, ever want to see public record of the proof it works.
A person is a unique creation.
He can create himself too.
If he becomes a torturer, he has created a monster.
Very slippery slope.
On this we agree.
But it is demonstrative of the classic moral delimna: Is it OK to sacrifice a few to save the many?
It was existentially essential post 911 to determine if there were any other attacks coming and whether WMD attacks were on the near horizon.
The men who answered those questions for the nation bear a great moral burden, then and now.
The same could be said for those who dropped the bomb in WWII.
In fact they may go to hell for what they did so that others could live.
The Convention Against Torture prohibition of torture applies to everyone, including enemy combatants.
i thank you for an honest answer
In fact they may go to hell for what they did so that others could live.a very profound and yet disturbing thought...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.