CIA torture report paints picture of agency out of control

[Human]

I think it's obvious which side places a higher value on human lives. But your response is typical leftist moral grandstanding. The Left's support for the likes of the hateful Hamas in it's fight against Israel shows the hypocrisy of the Left.

So now I support Hamas? That's quite a jump from ''professedly civlized and enlightened nations must live up to the ideals of enlightened civilization''

So in other words you are content that innocents will be killed, enslaved, raped, etc, just so that a terrorist prisoner with relevant information can live peacefully in prison content in knowing that his mates can carry out their attacks on innocents.

I am content to oppose rape, enslavement, torture, murder and hatred in ways that are not rapist, oppressive, torturous, murderous or hateful.

Again and again I have told you that nobody is saying that Muslims are inferior. You leftists always insist on chanting the same old slogans just to falsely demonize your opponents.

What we see in the world is competing ideologies here. Islam is a supremacist ideology commanding it's followers to fight Jews and Christians until they pay the tax and feel themselves subdued under Muslim rule.

But western cultures, in spite of their many faults, tend have a greater respect for life and liberties than what is commanded in the Quran and evidenced from Muslims today who follow these commands. Islam is without doubt the inferior ideology.

Yes, we've established this. You think Islam is an inferior ideology. But do you think Muslims are inferior people? Should, for instance, an American soldier be subdued to torture so that a militant Muslim can stop a military charge on a village in Afghanistan? Or is torture for the protection of people something reserved only for Muslims?

Somewhat of a narrow view here. No mention of the Arab spring that destabilized the region, nor of the decades of extremism from Palestinian terrorists in their hateful attacks against Jews and even Christians. And I note no mention of the violent commands in the Quran for jihad to fight and subdue Jews and Christians until they are subdued under Muslim rule.

Since Iraq and Afghanistan, extremism has exponentially increased to a degree previously unseen. That is no coincidence.

I understand that there were people sharing that same sentiment trying to appease Hitler leading up to WW2.

But it's good to see you agree that western cultures are more civilized than our Muslim terrorist foes who follow the inferior supremacist ideology found in the Quran.

Asking for a self professedly civilized society to behave in a manner that befits it is not an attempt to appease the enemy, it is an appeal to moral integrity, if to which all nations and people adhered would result in all nations and people adhering to levels of moral integrity that render war, oppression and unmannerly international relationships a thing of the past.

If nobody is willing to stand with moral integrity, haz, then there will not be such a thing as moral integrity in the world.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Of course. I've said exactly that on many occasions. Many of the tenants of neo-conservatism, for example, qualify and why I am not a Republican. But then I could never be a Democrat either for exactly the same reason. I'm not disingenuous in that respect. David; however, has clearly shown that he, in fact, is.

The truth is that the top leaders in the Democratic party headed the committees that approved the torture and were "fully aware," as Jose Rodriguez pointed out, of exactly what was happening by intelligent briefing which included the enhanced-interrogation techniques being employed and whom they were being employed on as evidenced by the records kept.

But David chose to create a thread misrepresenting the truth of their involvement to politically attack a party he is opposed to in exactly the same way the Democrats who were briefed on and approved what happened chose to prepare a report misrepresenting their participation (and what actually occurred) to politically attack a party they are opposed to. It's disingenuous and why I call him out on his disingenuity and them out on their disingenuity.

What the young man views as a personal attack is really me holding David accountable for his disingenuous behavior and Democrats who approved the torture with full knowledge and whom now are trying to cover up their involvement and use the situation for political gain. This I should do, as we all should... that is if you're really against the use of torture which I myself am.

But then, in addition to opposing torture, I also oppose the wholesale murder of more than 56 million babies in the U.S. since 1973 which occurred in the face of staunch conservative opposition because of the fierce support of liberal Democrats for murdering the unborn. Never take the word of a liberal mass murderer at face value. Always fact check.

[video=youtube_share;o3y8VTLBTDI]http://youtu.be/o3y8VTLBTDI[/video]

There are forms of conservatism the same way as liberalism that seem to be incompatible with Jesus' teachings.

 

[Utah]

Any non-uniformed or non-state actor engaging in combat against us is considered an enemy combatant and a spy and can be summarily executed per Geneva Convention. The fact that we don't execute them but interrogate them using water shows a great deal of mercy on our part.

Terrorists on the other hand . . .

 

[kennethcadwell]

This may be off topic, but it strikes me how the Democratic party and the Republican party have changed over the years. The Democratic party is now the home of people in favor of a strong DC and progressives, liberals etc. It wasn't like that back in the day, and a lot of people have moved their business to the Republican party. This has been causing problems, due to the fact that not everybody around here wants to become a republican on the grounds of republican deeds even if they agree with the republicans.

I don't agree with the Republican or the Democratic agenda, both in the past few years and present time have been just as guilty as the other in bad agenda's and policies. For somebody to say one is better than the other, is still blinded by bias media sources that are government ran and politicians who say things they really are not for just to win support and votes. Like I said before I know a lot of Republicans and Democrats who are on both sides of the fence when it comes to certain policies, so to say all Democrats support this or all Republicans support that is false thinking for anybody.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I don't agree with the Republican or the Democratic agenda, both in the past few years and present time have been just as guilty as the other in bad agenda's and policies. For somebody to say one is better than the other, is still blinded by bias media sources ...

Reading through Susanna's post, I find a lot to agree with, and it certainly applies to the miscreants in the Senate who saw fit ot issue a "report" without benefit of a hearing, witnesses, testimony, evidence, or any of those other troubling and difficult things that got in the way of a good smear campaign.

The Democrats of Harry Truman, even JFK, were not sold out to socialism and big government the way today's party is. There is much to be said regarding Republicans who are the party power brokers being just as many of us have labeled them as an epithet: "RINOs" = Republican in Name Only. We say that because, at the heart of the party's platform, if not it's consistent legislative agenda, is smaller government, fiscal conservatism, social justice without social welfare, strong defense, well-defined foreign policy, and personal freedom, whereas the RINOs bear a much closer resemblance to their compatriots across the aisle.

The heart of the Democratic Party's agenda is very much what we see them trying to do: Undermine those personal freedoms, tax increases that amount to nothing more than wealth redistribution -- and don't kid yourself that it will affect "only the rich" because "only the rich" cannot fund their desired and planned socialist state -- and big government, which in their mind equates to "Big Brother" only kinder and gentler than Orwell pictured him. What the Democratic Party has become is anti-American in regards to what this nation has, up until Obama was elected, stood for.

... that are government ran ...

Claiming the media are "government run" is alarmist and cannot be substantiated. However, without any overt government influence, most of the privately owned media are biased to the liberal-socialist agenda and are cooperating with the undermining of the Constitution by refusing to report the obvious scandals that Democrats are willing to foment in order to seize the power they so desperately desire.

... and politicians who say things they really are not for just to win support and votes.

Politicians have always done that. Reference Caligula, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler.

Like I said before I know a lot of Republicans and Democrats who are on both sides of the fence when it comes to certain policies, so to say all Democrats support this or all Republicans support that is false thinking for anybody.

Perhaps. But the political spectrum is a rainbow, not sepia. And I stand by the comments herein regarding the Democratic Party. If Truman was buried in a graveyard, he would probably be known as "Pinwheel Harry" among the other occupants. If he were alive today, he'd be very old, and very Republican.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Reading through Susanna's post, I find a lot to agree with, and it certainly applies to the miscreants in the Senate who saw fit ot issue a "report" without benefit of a hearing, witnesses, testimony, evidence, or any of those other troubling and difficult things that got in the way of a good smear campaign.

The Democrats of Harry Truman, even JFK, were not sold out to socialism and big government the way today's party is. There is much to be said regarding Republicans who are the party power brokers being just as many of us have labeled them as an epithet: "RINOs" = Republican in Name Only. We say that because, at the heart of the party's platform, if not it's consistent legislative agenda, is smaller government, fiscal conservatism, social justice without social welfare, strong defense, well-defined foreign policy, and personal freedom, whereas the RINOs bear a much closer resemblance to their compatriots across the aisle.

The heart of the Democratic Party's agenda is very much what we see them trying to do: Undermine those personal freedoms, tax increases that amount to nothing more than wealth redistribution -- and don't kid yourself that it will affect "only the rich" because "only the rich" cannot fund their desired and planned socialist state -- and big government, which in their mind equates to "Big Brother" only kinder and gentler than Orwell pictured him. What the Democratic Party has become is anti-American in regards to what this nation has, up until Obama was elected, stood for.

Claiming the media are "government run" is alarmist and cannot be substantiated. However, without any overt government influence, most of the privately owned media are biased to the liberal-socialist agenda and are cooperating with the undermining of the Constitution by refusing to report the obvious scandals that Democrats are willing to foment in order to seize the power they so desperately desire.

Politicians have always done that. Reference Caligula, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps. But the political spectrum is a rainbow, not sepia. And I stand by the comments herein regarding the Democratic Party. If Truman was buried in a graveyard, he would probably be known as "Pinwheel Harry" among the other occupants. If he were alive today, he'd be very old, and very Republican.

I have seen plenty of Republicans that want more government power over the people, including a handful of them the past few years that have been tied to a population control agenda. They to have been wanting to raise taxes on people, and mainly on those who are already struggling to live.
Look at Romney's policy for instance, he wanted to raise taxes on the middle class people but lower them on the rich.
Putting more money in rich people's hands, and taking more from those who are already struggling. Bush sr. did the same thing, and Clinton spent most his time in office cleaning up Bushes mess. Remember the economy got bad under Reagan and Bush sr., it then got a little better under Clinton, but then between Bush jr and Obama the economy really got bad. It is slowly getting better now though.
The Republicans that are in office as tried to take away personal freedoms just as much as the Democrats, and some of the Republicans that have ran for office want to initiate a lock them up and throw away the key policy on everybody who commits a crime. That also is not right.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Look at Romney's policy for instance, he wanted to raise taxes on the middle class people but lower them on the rich.

Romney lost, so it's a moot point, but that's not what his tax plan was at all.

Putting more money in rich people's hands ...

... by having them pay a fair share, rather than the unfair share they pay now. Obama would like you to think the rich get all the breaks, but -- as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before -- the top one percent earners in the U.S. pay 50% of the taxes, the top ten percent pay 70%, and the bottom 20% pay nothing! So you need to stop whining about how great the rich have it.

... and taking more from those who are already struggling.

How does one take "more" of nothing?

Bush sr. did the same thing, and Clinton spent most his time in office cleaning up Bushes mess.

That's laughable. Clinton lied to the American people, claiming he was leaving a surplus when in reality, he did nothing but remove debt from the accounts-receivable side of the Treasury ledger and pretend it didn't exist. He didn't clean up anything. He made it worse.

Remember the economy got bad under Reagan and Bush sr. ...

Revisionist history. The facts:

Forbes, 5/5/11: Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double-digit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax ratesto restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

​

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

And this ...

... it then got a little better under Clinton ...

... is partially true, but only because Clinton had to deal with a GOP majority in both houses, forcing him to abandon his leftist socioeconomic agenda and stay in the middle of the road. He deserves absolutly no credit whatsoever for doing anything positive to the economy, given it was GOP policies he was being forced to enact, not his own.

... but then between Bush jr and Obama the economy really got bad.

If the economy got bad because of the housing bubble, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse in 2008, the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of Barney Frank and the other leftists who demanded the federal lending programs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, make it easier for people who couldn't afford housing to get home loans by reducing required opening equity and lowering interest rates.

Where is the logic in that? If they can't afford housing, how are they going to pay off a bad loan they had no business getting in the first place? The answer, of course, that it wasn't logical, and well over 80% of the loan recipients proved that by defaulting on loans that Freddie and Fannie underwrote, and which banks -- recognizing the loans for the bad paper they were -- bundled them as sold them as securities to investment houses which got caught holding the bag when the bottom of it ripped open.

It is slowly getting better now though.

Yeah, the lowest labor force participation rate in two generations, and trading four million full-time jobs for 3.5 million part time jobs is lots better. Not.

The Republicans that are in office as tried to take away personal freedoms just as much as the Democrats ...

Proof, please. Accusations are easy. Facts will be near impossible to come by.

... and some of the Republicans that have ran for office want to initiate a lock them up and throw away the key policy on everybody who commits a crime. That also is not right.

Again, broad-based unsupportable statements are easy to make. Without facts, they can be ignored -- which both of these will be.

 

[Billyd]

Romney lost, so it's a moot point, but that's not what his tax plan was at all.

... by having them pay a fair share, rather than the unfair share they pay now. Obama would like you to think the rich get all the breaks, but -- as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before -- the top one percent earners in the U.S. pay 50% of the taxes, the top ten percent pay 70%, and the bottom 20% pay nothing! So you need to stop whining about how great the rich have it.

How does one take "more" of nothing?

That's laughable. Clinton lied to the American people, claiming he was leaving a surplus when in reality, he did nothing but remove debt from the accounts-receivable side of the Treasury ledger and pretend it didn't exist. He didn't clean up anything. He made it worse.

Revisionist history. The facts:



And this ...

... is partially true, but only because Clinton had to deal with a GOP majority in both houses, forcing him to abandon his leftist socioeconomic agenda and stay in the middle of the road. He deserves absolutly no credit whatsoever for doing anything positive to the economy, given it was GOP policies he was being forced to enact, not his own.

If the economy got bad because of the housing bubble, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse in 2008, the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of Barney Frank and the other leftists who demanded the federal lending programs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, make it easier for people who couldn't afford housing to get home loans by reducing required opening equity and lowering interest rates.

Where is the logic in that? If they can't afford housing, how are they going to pay off a bad loan they had no business getting in the first place? The answer, of course, that it wasn't logical, and well over 80% of the loan recipients proved that by defaulting on loans that Freddie and Fannie underwrote, and which banks -- recognizing the loans for the bad paper they were -- bundled them as sold them as securities to investment houses which got caught holding the bag when the bottom of it ripped open.

Yeah, the lowest labor force participation rate in two generations, and trading four million full-time jobs for 3.5 million part time jobs is lots better. Not.

Proof, please. Accusations are easy. Facts will be near impossible to come by.

Again, broad-based unsupportable statements are easy to make. Without facts, they can be ignored -- which both of these will be.

IMHO, both of you should stop arguing about secular economics and spend a few days studying Christian economics. You will find what God expects you to do with what he has blessed you with, along with how he expects you to earn it.

 

[Thailand_Paul]

Paul, I just came back from the dentist and I assure you no enemy terrorist endured more than I did during that hour and a half. And I can argue that we don't inflict anything on anyone; our enemies inflict it upon themselves for not fessing up in the first place. And getting a little wet is much more mild than people being shot, raped and disintegrated.

Are you bipolar? You're insulting, you're nice, you're insulting, you're nice.

Fessing up, when in some cases it has been proven they had nothing to fess up to............hmmm....makes sense to me,,,Not.

Bipolar? ummm not that I'm aware of. Insulting? No intention to do so, however I have a feeling that any readers who suffer from Bipolar disorder may be a little insulted by your question / comment...but hey keep up the great work and don't let it stop you.

 

[Human]

Any non-uniformed or non-state actor engaging in combat against us is considered an enemy combatant and a spy and can be summarily executed per Geneva Convention. The fact that we don't execute them but interrogate them using water shows a great deal of mercy on our part.

Terrorists on the other hand . . .

That isn't mercy, so much as faux restraint used for propaganda fuel. ''Look how kind we are, we only torture them, but we don't kill them!'' However, if it weren't for the fact that these men had information the US can use, I wouldn't think the sniper bullet would stay unfired in the chamber, Utah.

The definition of mercy is 'compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm'. There is a clear juxtaposition there between punishment/harm and forgiveness/compassion. To punish or harm is to neither forgive nor show compassion.

 

[Human]

Romney lost, so it's a moot point, but that's not what his tax plan was at all.

... by having them pay a fair share, rather than the unfair share they pay now. Obama would like you to think the rich get all the breaks, but -- as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before -- the top one percent earners in the U.S. pay 50% of the taxes, the top ten percent pay 70%, and the bottom 20% pay nothing! So you need to stop whining about how great the rich have it.

The top 10% also make more money than the other 90% combined. The bottom 20% pay nothing because, first of all, most of them are unemployed, and secondly, to tax minimum wage in America is absolutely absurd and unaffordable for those who earn it. The rich are taxed heavily because they can afford it, the poor aren't taxed because between living costs and the pittance the government call minimum wage, they're already skirting the poverty line.

How does one take "more" of nothing?

By telling people who can barely afford rent and food they have to find outrageous sums of money from thin air to educate their children out of the poverty cycle?

That's laughable. Clinton lied to the American people, claiming he was leaving a surplus when in reality, he did nothing but remove debt from the accounts-receivable side of the Treasury ledger and pretend it didn't exist. He didn't clean up anything. He made it worse.

Revisionist history. The facts:



And this ...

... is partially true, but only because Clinton had to deal with a GOP majority in both houses, forcing him to abandon his leftist socioeconomic agenda and stay in the middle of the road. He deserves absolutly no credit whatsoever for doing anything positive to the economy, given it was GOP policies he was being forced to enact, not his own.

If it was the GOP policies he was forced to enact, then why are you blaming him and his 'lefty politics' for the economic downturn? lol. Make up your mind.

If the economy got bad because of the housing bubble, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse in 2008, the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of Barney Frank and the other leftists who demanded the federal lending programs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, make it easier for people who couldn't afford housing to get home loans by reducing required opening equity and lowering interest rates.

If people can't afford housing, there's a fundamental flaw in the socioeconomic system there, don't ya think? Might be an idea for the government to increase minimumwage, or subsidize housing for the lowest-earners, or stop paying astronomical interest to privatized banks, or heck, they could even go the whole way and stop charging usury on federal loans. Usury from the bank, usury from the currency-rental, usury from the fed .. is it any wonder the average Joes are bled dry?

Where is the logic in that? If they can't afford housing, how are they going to pay off a bad loan they had no business getting in the first place? The answer, of course, that it wasn't logical, and well over 80% of the loan recipients proved that by defaulting on loans that Freddie and Fannie underwrote, and which banks -- recognizing the loans for the bad paper they were -- bundled them as sold them as securities to investment houses which got caught holding the bag when the bottom of it ripped open.

And the foreclosures ensued. Do you know how many houses are now owned directly or indirectly by financial institutions? Lol. Property is power, my friend, and banks and financial institutions are only after more of that.

Yeah, the lowest labor force participation rate in two generations, and trading four million full-time jobs for 3.5 million part time jobs is lots better. Not.

People are sick of being forced into a situation where their only means of sustenance is submission to an economic system where purchase power is dictated by governments and banks. By and large, people have to work, and they have to work under banks' and governments' terms, regardless of whether it is good for their lives or not.

 

[Thailand_Paul]

Any non-uniformed or non-state actor engaging in combat against us is considered an enemy combatant and a spy and can be summarily executed per Geneva Convention. The fact that we don't execute them but interrogate them using water shows a great deal of mercy on our part.

Terrorists on the other hand . . .

Summary execution is NOT legal under the convention(s) under non-wartime laws.
The fact that the US, England and other (leading) countries sidestep these laws or pick and choose which parts of the convention(s) they will abide by says a lot about the times we live in.

"Military jurisdiction[edit]

Under the jurisdiction of military law, summary execution is still illegal in almost all circumstances, as a military tribunal would be the competent judge needed to determine guilt and declare the sentence of death. However, there are certain rare exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal."

 

[Utah]

Fessing up, when in some cases it has been proven they had nothing to fess up to............hmmm....makes sense to me,,,Not.

Bipolar? ummm not that I'm aware of. Insulting? No intention to do so, however I have a feeling that any readers who suffer from Bipolar disorder may be a little insulted by your question / comment...but hey keep up the great work and don't let it stop you.

Yawn . . . one should not be insulted if a question about a disorder can lead to awareness and treatment.

Your arrogance is unbecoming.

 

[kennethcadwell]

IMHO, both of you should stop arguing about secular economics and spend a few days studying Christian economics. You will find what God expects you to do with what he has blessed you with, along with how he expects you to earn it.

I know what you say is right, it just upsets me when others try to claim that Republicans are more Christian than Democrats. Trying to spout off that they are not as corrupt in their policies as the other, when both have been caught in failed, bad, and lame corrupted policies.
My point in bringing up Romney was that he did say he was going to raise the taxes on middle class families and lower them on the rich. If you take Christian economics into it from what the bible says, then you will see that a true Christian who has money or is rich would not have an issue with paying out more. As the bible says those who have are to help those who don't.
I come from a middle class to lower middle class family and I have seen the struggles they went through under each president. That is why I can say under Reagan and the Bushes they struggled more than under Clinton. Plus how can a person realistically say that the middle class pays nothing in taxes. Sorry but the middle class out numbers the upper class, and we very much do pay our fair share of taxes. And most struggle with the high tax rates, and cost of living that we live in forcing people to work two and even three jobs just to survive.