If he’s not on the torturers’ side, why is John Kiriakou in prison right now?
If Obama opposed torture but couldn’t see a way to make it stick, why would an innocent man on his own side not benefit from the same refusal to punish anyone?
And even if Obama “opposed” torture but acts like someone who supports torture, including imprisoning the most significant critic of the CIA’s campaign of torture, what fucking use is he?
Mainly, on this issue, that he stopped the torture.
Doesn’t matter. The UN Convention prohibits torture of ANYBODY, affiliated with a nation or not, whether or not their nation signed on. No torture to anybody, no exceptions, ever. The US willingly signed on, because all civilized nations considered it to be morally reprehensible. Bush and Cheney decided that if they don’t call it torture, they could do what they want. Including waterboarding, a war crime when the Japanese did it to Americans.
Because he broke the law … wait, torture is illegal too but no one is in jail …
Somewhere, in an alternative universe there are jails full of fraudulent bankers, bribe-taking politicians and torturers …
I would. I would not condone torture to save my own life (or anyone else’s). That’s repugnant and the very epitome of cowardly.
How can torture be necessary to stop killing or terrorizing that they’ve already done? The purpose of killing them is to stop future killing/terrorizing NOT to stop things that have already passed.
Your scenario posited terrorists being in a house, and needing to be stopped. If the objective is to stop them from terrorizing, torture does NOT serve that purpose, but killing them does. Is killing them the ONLY way? No. Is it the best way? Apparently, or else they wouldn’t be getting bombed.
It’s not torture. I’m not willing to say exactly what torture *really *is, but this ain’t it.
The other side does it, so it’s okay if we do it.
This report was just released to distract from that guy’s testimony on Obummercare.
It’s okay, 'cause liberals would just give the terrorists milk and cookies to get the information.
Despite what the report says, we got usable information, so it’s okay.
Some liberal politicians signed off on it, so *obviously *the Left thinks torture is really okay.
Some kid was killed in a bomb blast, so torture really isn’t that bad.
Obama killed somebody with a drone strike, so why are you worried about enhanced interrogation, ya hypocrite?
Terrorists don’t get protection from the Bill of Rights, or they’re not a recognized enemy combatant, or some other type of legal hair-splitting, so it’s okay if we torture them.
Releasing this report may somehow lead to the death of some random American in some way… why do you hate America?
That about cover it?
Yes
You’re not arguing that the (threat of) torture was justifiable, only effective (except it wasn’t).
Since that is my position, the answer is yes.
Some people are struggling with the law: US society says torture is never “morally justifiable”.
It is the law of the land.
The issue here is Gov agencies deemed themselves above the law, and this report - by not naming the criminals - endoses that.
Sorry folks, you’re all out of democracy.
Knock it off, both of you.
[ /Moderating ]
Correct. I thought we were discussing morality here.
Weird how some say its liberals/conservatives/dem’s/rep’s that condone torture. I don’t get this line of though as haven’t all sides flipped or eventually flip on all positions, historically speaking?
Any ways, the real issue that I see if the legal framework that allows people within the USG make these decisions and then walk away from it. “Enhanced Interrogation”, can I use “Enhanced Driving” to get out of a speeding ticket? No, no I can’t. Why aren’t the people that conducted these interrogations being brought to whatever justice can be done? I’d like to see something along the lines of everyone going after ex-Nazi’s after WWII.
Regardless of any legal construct an immoral decision was made, they should be punished. Including the policy makers.
A more sobering reality is that Osama bin Laden won. He dragged us out into war that will cost us trillions, we depraved ourselves, and whatever we gained in the “region” is being taken back.
FWIW, from the reports I’m seeing, it looks like it had been stopped as a practical matter before he took office. He just made it official.
In the course of fights against terrorists or wars, you don’t attack only guys with actual guns who do the killing with their hands. You also attack the leadership and support personell (e.g. OBL, as one prominent example). This is because these people also have an important role, if more of a hands-off one, in the terror or war.
But in the case of leaders or operations people, whose role is in planning or facilitating, the terror or war that they’ve facilitated can be in the future even if they’ve already been captured. Their plans and their organizations can still be in place even after they’re locked up. When you’re torturing these people, it’s to gain info about their plans or organizations, based on the expectation that you expect these to be operational in the future. So what you’re doing is trying to prevent future harm, much as when you’re attacking and killing soldiers.
“Just?” I’d say that’s pretty substantial.
I’m not sure. There’s nothing he did that couldn’t just as easily be undone by him or some other president. What do you see as substantial?
Do you understand what “sociopathic” means?
I don’t know if that’s true or not. ISTM that these assertions are being made without accurate knowledge and understanding, and are based on general distaste for torture more than on facts.
Sure. But acknowledging the practice and making it official policy to no longer engage in it seems to set a higher bar than not doing those things.
.
Then ensure it stays completely illegal. If, by shear force of moral conviction you feel the need to torture someone, then you should be willing to stand trial for it. I see no brave moral agents standing up to say they’re willing to be tried in a court.
Very possibly. If so, that’s still a good and important thing, in my view.