I guess the takeaway here is that if you’re a white guy you can commit honest-to-God war crimes and some people will argue you not only should not be punished, but the crime shouldn’t even be mentioned - while anything a black person does wrong, or might have done wrong, makes them a “thug” and subject to immediate execution without trial.
In that case I’m willing to settle for tarring these CIA agents, then hanging them.
No, the takeaway is that the Democrat pussies have no guts to actually put anyone on trial for the supposed horrible crimes. But they can certainly blab about it to everyone.
And who do you think should be put on trial…if we “had the guts” of course?
I’m fairly certain the head of the CIA is an Original Classification Authority (OCA) and has classified documents that are classified simply because he said they were. These documents, CAN, in fact, be declassified.
Exactly. That’s the main takeway. A lot of people somehow missed the obvious racial angle here, so it’s a good thing you brought it up.
I think we need to find out if any CIA people involved in this program were black. Because if there were, then we should execute them immediately.
Well, those who were responsible for the horrible crimes, of course. The Congress has the documentation, right? The orders, where they came from, who signed them, etc? The whole leadership of the CIA, if that is where it came from. I will bet anyone the Democrat Congressional pussies that are shouting about the torture from the rooftops will not put anyone on trial.
By former heads of the CIA? Can you describe how that works?
Which committees are the Democrats in control of that can get this ball rolling, do you suppose?
Congress can’t put people on trial. That’s the role of the Justice Department, which investigated the matter and decided not to prosecute anyone.
Came in useful for congress, though, as they were able to offer this as supposed justification for declining to interview a single CIA person involved with the program.
The Justice Dept. For the last 6 years, I believe.
Upon preview, I see you might have meant “How does a former head of the CIA declassify documents” can you clarify your question?
Are you under the impression that once a person classifies a document, it is classified for ALL TIME unless that same person declassifies it? Hope the president doesn’t want to declassify anything George Washington classified Top Secret!
Snark aside, all documents are classified according to a Classification Guide. This guide is signed by an Original Classification Authority (OCA). When something is classified according to one of these guides, the reason for classification (such as Classification guide rule 10.2) is placed on the document. New head of the CIA can make a NEW classification guide and deem certain information no longer classified.
Easier in practice than my explanation makes it seem.
No, I am under the impression that former heads of the CIA have no power to declassify any documents. Do you think otherwise?
Once again, this is the post to which you were replying:
Where is the outrage from Americans? There is no moral debate- the report concluded that none of the torture tactics proved to be effective in acquiring information and/or saving lives. What the CIA has been doing is indistinguishable from North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc in how they treat their prisoners. Everyone in the Bush administration involved should be sitting in a jail cell right now. If it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable that the shooting of a thief like Michael Brown incites Americans more than the cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees, innocent in many cases as well. This country has gone to the dogs and Bush may have been the worst thing to ever happen to this country since the internment of japanese americans.
the Fox News discussion of this report was all too predictable as well Andrea Tantaros | Mediaite
For those who say that discussing the report is wrong, is it just as wrong when Fox discusses it…or is it just wrong when those who are against torture discuss it?
TERR. I am the one who wrote ‘Those six former CIA heads you mention have it in their power to prove that torture works.’ Your reply was so purposefully obtuse I assumed you weren’t actually interested in what it meant. Since you mention it again I’ll clarify. All they need to do it provide one single example of when and/or where torture worked. Heck, they could just whisper a clue to where the information can be found into a congress person’s ear. That’s all it would take. But no, they’d rather wrap themselves in the flag and shout about the boogey man. I, as an adult, do not find that kind of behavior very convincing.
Pablum. There is no need for what Feinstein did. The actions already stopped. I know how we all think we are so important and all, but no, things can be fixed—and were—with “we”, you or I knowing the details of what was just released. It serves zero positive function. If you’re an American or an ally, that is.
So when the government does something utterly evil, we should just ignore it?
Interesting perspective you’ve got there.
Oh I see. The “government” did something utterly evil. But of course no individual broke the law, so there is no one to prosecute.