Jonathan Gruber, the face of the Democrat Party
- Thread starter Scout 4u
- Start date
A
ag-man
Guest
Real loser is the CIA. Report makes them look like it was the 1970s all over again.
Ds and John McCain look smart. Torture was horrendously bad policy. We knew it would be at the time if we looked with a rational eye.
Ds and John McCain look smart. Torture was horrendously bad policy. We knew it would be at the time if we looked with a rational eye.
A
ag-man
Guest
So before the senate republicans take power, the democrats are airing all the dirty laundry, which has no positive aspects, but in fact, puts our intelligence community at greater risk of retaliatory strikes.....and you say this makes the democrats look smart. Not to me, it doesn't.
That report needed to come out. You have to acknowledge the past in order to avoid repeating the mistakes.
What positive aspects were they supposed to point out? They only killed one guy? They only committed a few hundred felonies? The report is terrible because our behavior was deplorable. It was an indefensible policy, the report was going to make it look bad.
3 of the Republicans on the committee voted to release the report. There was a bipartisan desire to get this out there.
In the words of Senator McCain, "What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow...And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure - torture's ineffectiveness - because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much."
McCain was fantastic today, downright Presidential. He reminded me why I voted for him. It boggles the mind how he ran such a terrible campaign in 2008.
Releasing these reports and not doing it again is what makes us different. We aren't Soviet Russia or Iran; we don't get to pretend bad things didn't happen.
This post was edited on 12/9 1:37 PM by Neutron Monster
What positive aspects were they supposed to point out? They only killed one guy? They only committed a few hundred felonies? The report is terrible because our behavior was deplorable. It was an indefensible policy, the report was going to make it look bad.
3 of the Republicans on the committee voted to release the report. There was a bipartisan desire to get this out there.
In the words of Senator McCain, "What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow...And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure - torture's ineffectiveness - because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much."
McCain was fantastic today, downright Presidential. He reminded me why I voted for him. It boggles the mind how he ran such a terrible campaign in 2008.
Releasing these reports and not doing it again is what makes us different. We aren't Soviet Russia or Iran; we don't get to pretend bad things didn't happen.
This post was edited on 12/9 1:37 PM by Neutron Monster
Former CIA folks respond with their own website. Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
CIASavedLives
CIASavedLives
Between this CIA stuff and the domestic spying of the NSA, we desperately need a second Church Commission.
A
ag-man
Guest
Who is going to benefit? And how?
Does the American populace and all our enemies need to know all about the inner workings of our intelligence community? If they encountered something that did or didn't work to make us safer, can they not change policy without telling the world?
I fail to see how there is any benefit to this. If there was, why are they just now releasing information from 6-10 years ago?
Does the American populace and all our enemies need to know all about the inner workings of our intelligence community? If they encountered something that did or didn't work to make us safer, can they not change policy without telling the world?
I fail to see how there is any benefit to this. If there was, why are they just now releasing information from 6-10 years ago?
Probably because they are going to slip something else by us today while everyone is looking the other direction.
We benefit as a people. We benefit by acknowledging our past mistakes and by making sure we have fixed our past mistakes.
This report must be viewed as a lesson for the future. There will be future crises which test us. WWII led to Japanese internment. The war on terror lead to torture. We must use this as a reminder to never torture again.
The idea that this is somehow giving away the secrets of the "inner workings" of our intelligence community is laughable. We should not be in the business of torture! We have nothing to hide here. It's not like we're exposing how we intercept electronic signals.
As for the timing, Bush wouldn't help with such a report, and it takes a very, very long time to get a CIA report redacted for public consumption to avoid the disclosure of classified information. From what I've read, the classified document was 6,000 pages. The public report is like 525 pages. That's a huge amount of data which has been kept classified. The last couple years have been about getting approval to release a document like this.
A
ag-man
Guest
So the American people and our enemies are being fed 500 pages of a 6000 page report, basically for the sole purpose of making the U.S. intelligence community look bad, and this is a benefit?
Numerous people have said the information recieved from the interrogations saved American lives. Numerous people have said it did not. I fail to see how releasing this report helps America in any way.
Senator Feinstein and Obama have been warned that releasing this information could lead to more attacks on U.S. citizens. It appears to me to be a partisan investigation with partisan results. The innocent blood, if any should result, will be on Obama and Feinstein's hands.
Numerous people have said the information recieved from the interrogations saved American lives. Numerous people have said it did not. I fail to see how releasing this report helps America in any way.
Senator Feinstein and Obama have been warned that releasing this information could lead to more attacks on U.S. citizens. It appears to me to be a partisan investigation with partisan results. The innocent blood, if any should result, will be on Obama and Feinstein's hands.
Isn't transparency a conservative principle?
Why would a conservative have an issue with this?
Releasing this information teaches us what we did poorly and how we learn from our mistakes.
Why would a conservative have an issue with this?
Releasing this information teaches us what we did poorly and how we learn from our mistakes.
A
ag-man
Guest
Teaches who Expect? The American people? Our enemies?
I do not write policy, nor do our enemies. If the intelligence community learned from their mistakes, great, no need to tell everybody about it when no good can come from it.
I do not write policy, nor do our enemies. If the intelligence community learned from their mistakes, great, no need to tell everybody about it when no good can come from it.
I disagree; giving people carte blanche to cover up mistakes is horrific government policy.
What you are saying is the exact opposite of what every Republican argues for on anything related to the Obama White House. I'm saying you can't have it both ways.
I agree that we should protect information to a certain extent - we can't release information about ongoing collection methods, sources, etc. I don't think those reservations apply at all to a program of torturing people we already have in custody.
Even if you release all of this, you could torture people again tomorrow if you really wanted to do so. There's nothing about this which impacts your ability to collect data.
Further, while the headlines are sensational, there's nothing really that new here in terms of foreign relations issues - our torture program has been public knowledge for over a decade.
A
ag-man
Guest
So if we can't have it both ways, why is this info being made public when Obama tries to hide his and his administration's mistakes?
It is political. Whether or not your morality let's you agree with torture or not, is not the question.
If this report proved beyond any doubt that the interrogation practices worked to save American lives, would the democrats want it released? ...................That's what I thought.
Political gamesmanship, with not a care about how this might effect the people trying to keep us safe.
It is political. Whether or not your morality let's you agree with torture or not, is not the question.
If this report proved beyond any doubt that the interrogation practices worked to save American lives, would the democrats want it released? ...................That's what I thought.
Political gamesmanship, with not a care about how this might effect the people trying to keep us safe.
I tend to believe if they had great proof of that torture was so great it would have come out long before now. It's been over a decade. If they had some great smoking gun, we'd have heard it by now. There were far too many people in the CIA and in the Bush administration who would love to be able to make the case that we prevented a second 9/11 or we saved the lives of soldiers.
This is my Occam's Razor viewpoint on this issue. It's the simplest explanation to why we've never heard anything specific about supposedly great intel from torture.
My point is Congress is supposed to provide oversight of the exec branch; it's hypocritical to be ok with hearings on Obamacare but not with this. This is a legislative branch report, not an executive branch report. There's a certain element of this that is a dog and pony show just like any other legislative branch, I agree with that, but I think there's a couple of good substantive points in here (the stuff about the CIA lying to the Bush admin is the most interesting to me from a public policy perspective.)
Torture is more than a moral issue. One can morally be ok with torture but not be ok with the US doing it. If you believe it doesn't produce good intel and/or the costs of it from a foreign relations perspective are higher than the potential benefits, you could be ok with torture but not support it. I think torture fails both morally and in terms of actual effectiveness; the intel we gathered was not worth the PR disaster it has been.
This is my Occam's Razor viewpoint on this issue. It's the simplest explanation to why we've never heard anything specific about supposedly great intel from torture.
My point is Congress is supposed to provide oversight of the exec branch; it's hypocritical to be ok with hearings on Obamacare but not with this. This is a legislative branch report, not an executive branch report. There's a certain element of this that is a dog and pony show just like any other legislative branch, I agree with that, but I think there's a couple of good substantive points in here (the stuff about the CIA lying to the Bush admin is the most interesting to me from a public policy perspective.)
Torture is more than a moral issue. One can morally be ok with torture but not be ok with the US doing it. If you believe it doesn't produce good intel and/or the costs of it from a foreign relations perspective are higher than the potential benefits, you could be ok with torture but not support it. I think torture fails both morally and in terms of actual effectiveness; the intel we gathered was not worth the PR disaster it has been.
What did we or the world learn today from this report we didn't already know? NOTHING! There is only one reason it's being "released" today.
Do you have anything to add other than attacking the messenger?
The topic is whether our values as a country have sunken so
low we think torturing people is ok. You and your Fox kind want to
throw a baby fit about releasing this information. The entire point
is that we have to be better than this.
I agree with Mr. McCain.
The topic is whether our values as a country have sunken so
low we think torturing people is ok. You and your Fox kind want to
throw a baby fit about releasing this information. The entire point
is that we have to be better than this.
I agree with Mr. McCain.
Yes,cit took this long to get it redacted to the point it could be released.
No one is going to vote on torture in 2016 unless dick Cheney or George tenet are running for president. It's a dead issue. Think about it - was it even mentioned in 20112 or 2014 as a campaign issue?
I think it's going to be a flavor of the week discussion
No one is going to vote on torture in 2016 unless dick Cheney or George tenet are running for president. It's a dead issue. Think about it - was it even mentioned in 20112 or 2014 as a campaign issue?
I think it's going to be a flavor of the week discussion
1st, I didn't attack anyone.
2nd, You didn't name anything this "report" told anyone we didn't already know.
3rd, Torture would be preferrred to death by most people.
4th, McCain is wrong.
A
ag-man
Guest
Just so I got this right Duck
"Whether our values as a country have sunken so low we think torturing people is ok."
Putting a wet towel on a terrorist face........bad
Going in a mother's womb and murdering unborn baby.......ok
Got it
And my mother wonders why I'm not a liberal ???
"Whether our values as a country have sunken so low we think torturing people is ok."
Putting a wet towel on a terrorist face........bad
Going in a mother's womb and murdering unborn baby.......ok
Got it
And my mother wonders why I'm not a liberal ???
Re: Just so I got this right Duck
According to you zealots, taking the morning after pill is abortion.
Using regular birth control is abortion.
I wish you cared as much about the living as you do a small sac in a woman's
reproductive system that doesn't even have an embryo yet.
Defending torture? Really? There were innocent men tortured and
you think that's just the cost of doing business? Remind me not to hire you
as my accountant.
According to you zealots, taking the morning after pill is abortion.
Using regular birth control is abortion.
I wish you cared as much about the living as you do a small sac in a woman's
reproductive system that doesn't even have an embryo yet.
Defending torture? Really? There were innocent men tortured and
you think that's just the cost of doing business? Remind me not to hire you
as my accountant.
A
ag-man
Guest
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Question
You are President
We Know a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into New York Harbor and will be detonated within 24 hours
We have in custody two men that we know have knowledge of where the bomb is, and when it will explode killing millions of people.
Do you say get all the information you can from them but you must be nice about it.
Or do you slowly cut one of the men apart until him, or the other guy talks, thus saving the lives of millions of Americans?
Absolutily torture, Obama says never
I say if you dont have the guts to cut the guys fingers off one at a time to save our country you shouldnt be president.
What would You do
1. Torture two men
2. Let millions of Americans die
????
You are President
We Know a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into New York Harbor and will be detonated within 24 hours
We have in custody two men that we know have knowledge of where the bomb is, and when it will explode killing millions of people.
Do you say get all the information you can from them but you must be nice about it.
Or do you slowly cut one of the men apart until him, or the other guy talks, thus saving the lives of millions of Americans?
Absolutily torture, Obama says never
I say if you dont have the guts to cut the guys fingers off one at a time to save our country you shouldnt be president.
What would You do
1. Torture two men
2. Let millions of Americans die
????
Re: Question
The problem with that example is that it has nothing to do with what we did post 9/11.
There's also no guarantee they wouldn't just lie to you.
The problem with that example is that it has nothing to do with what we did post 9/11.
There's also no guarantee they wouldn't just lie to you.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Re: Question
Dumb??
North Korea has Nuclear Weapons
Pakistan has Nuclear Weapons
Iran will soon have Nuclear weapons
You dont need a balistic missile to get a nuclear weapon into the United States, Put it on a 50' pleasure yacht, sail around the world with it on board a common 50' pleasure yacht right into a Harbor in the USA.
People more worried about this scenario than a balistic missile
What would you do?
Dumb??
North Korea has Nuclear Weapons
Pakistan has Nuclear Weapons
Iran will soon have Nuclear weapons
You dont need a balistic missile to get a nuclear weapon into the United States, Put it on a 50' pleasure yacht, sail around the world with it on board a common 50' pleasure yacht right into a Harbor in the USA.
People more worried about this scenario than a balistic missile
What would you do?
As I claim??? What was in that report we don't already know?
All i've implied is that this was released as a distraction. The Gruber hearings were the same day.
There are problems with this report though.
1) It only tells one side. There is no CIA imput.
2) It throws our partners around the world under the bus. How do we get coalitin support now.
3) To claim we got zero info is just wrong. Telling the CIAs side would show that.
4) Unless you place value in the "confession" aspect, there is nothing to gain.
5) There are no recommendations as to how to improve the program.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Re: Question
Yes I know exactly how they work. People go on about how difficult it is to build a nuclear weapon, and if you are talking about a modern high yield device with the core sourounded by shaped charges that all must be detonated at the same millisecond to compress the fissile material to critical mass they are correct.
But anyone with enough weapons grade material can make a "low yield " device similar to the bombs used in WW2 very easily. A target core is placed at one end of a heavy tube with the projectile material at the other end with a high explosive charge to shoot it into the target material . It's big and heavy and crude but it goes boom Bigtime .
Bin Laudin tried numerouse times to get a weapon, one of these days someone will get one and won't be pretty
Yes I know exactly how they work. People go on about how difficult it is to build a nuclear weapon, and if you are talking about a modern high yield device with the core sourounded by shaped charges that all must be detonated at the same millisecond to compress the fissile material to critical mass they are correct.
But anyone with enough weapons grade material can make a "low yield " device similar to the bombs used in WW2 very easily. A target core is placed at one end of a heavy tube with the projectile material at the other end with a high explosive charge to shoot it into the target material . It's big and heavy and crude but it goes boom Bigtime .
Bin Laudin tried numerouse times to get a weapon, one of these days someone will get one and won't be pretty
Re: Question
You have been watching too many movies!
Let's say you are the President and the stock market is at an all time high, unemployment as low as it has been in 8 years, more people have health insurance than ever before, consumer confidence rising monthly.
Should we impeach the President?
You have been watching too many movies!
Let's say you are the President and the stock market is at an all time high, unemployment as low as it has been in 8 years, more people have health insurance than ever before, consumer confidence rising monthly.
Should we impeach the President?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
I remember when kU* basketball could buy players but other teams couldn't- Latest: Veer2Eternity
-
-