The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Politicians aren't carrying out torture orders, either. So it wasn't even the question I asked. The people in the FBI, or CIA carrying out these orders ARE required to pass such evaluations.

And they also are required to and trained to carry out orders. In some cases, even illegal orders.

[StrangeSox]

I have to ask, if it doesn't work, why do they continue to do it, even if "behind closed doors"?

 

False belief that it does? Sadism? Desire to "punish them"? No reason to believe that people are 100% rational.

 

Are you and others claiming that the people who work for the government that carry out these orders are sick individuals that are mentally ill and love to see people suffer, IE, actual sociopaths? If so, how do they have jobs that require extensive psych evaluations to attain? Is the government purposefully employing these people to do these things that they outwardly say don't work? Is the government further, making sure these sickos are passing these psych evaluations so they have people on staff to do these things, that again, they say doesn't even work? If so, why?

 

I'm not for torture, I'm just asking the questions nobody seems to be asking themselves.

 

Nobody is asking them because they're kinda of irrelevant and pointless. I know people who would have no problem with torturing terrorists who have passed security clearance psych evaluations.

 

We know that people were tortured. Period.

[Y2HH]

And they also are required to and trained to carry out orders. In some cases, even illegal orders.

 

So again, answer the questions I asked. If it doesn't work, and the leaders in charge say it doesn't work, and it's illegal, why do they hire people to do it and order them to do it? It's pretty obvious they're in on it at a pretty high level. Someone is purposefully seeking out pretty mean people that couldn't possibly pass one of those psych evaluations in a legit fashion in order to torture people.

 

Sounds to me like another case of, listen to what we say, not what we do.

 

It's obvious that people in very powerful positions of the FBI, CIA and the military believe it works, and are going out of their way to make sure they have people around capable of carrying it out for them.

[StrangeSox]

Why couldn't you pass a psych test while (wrongly) believing that torture is morally justified in some circumstances?

 

Hell, are you even superficially knowledgeable about all of the terrible s*** the CIA has been involved with around the world e.g. most of Central and South America since at least the 50's?

[Y2HH]

Why couldn't you pass a psych test while (wrongly) believing that torture is morally justified in some circumstances?

 

Hell, are you even superficially knowledgeable about all of the terrible s*** the CIA has been involved with around the world e.g. most of Central and South America since at least the 50's?

 

Oh, I know, but when the highest people in power are against it, why aren't they getting rid of it? For all their talk, it seems to still be rampant throughout all levels of the government involved in terror.

 

I'm just pointing out that they while they say it doesn't work, the actual actions of the government say otherwise, because they're still doing it.

[Balta1701]

Oh, I know, but when the highest people in power are against it, why aren't they getting rid of it? For all their talk, it seems to still be rampant throughout all levels of the government involved in terror.

 

I'm just pointing out that they while they say it doesn't work, the actual actions of the government say otherwise, because they're still doing it.

When did this part happen?

[Y2HH]

When did this part happen?

 

So Obama and his cabinet aren't against torture? I was pretty sure they are outwardly against it and have said as much.

[Balta1701]

So Obama and his cabinet aren't against torture? I was pretty sure they are outwardly against it and have said as much.

They issued an "Executive order" against it but then chose not to pursue prosecutions. I think the "not pursuing prosecutions" part says an awful lot to me.

[StrangeSox]

I'm just pointing out that they while they say it doesn't work, the actual actions of the government say otherwise, because they're still doing it.

 

Governments (people, really) never do stupid, ineffective-to-self-damaging things? Huh, I guess I imagined the past ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

 

I also haven't dug into the report yet (557 pages, ugh) but I don't see any indication that torture policies survived beyond the Bush administration.

[Y2HH]

They issued an "Executive order" against it but then chose not to pursue prosecutions. I think the "not pursuing prosecutions" part says an awful lot to me.

 

I agree, it says it all as far as I'm concerned. But that goes back to my original point...for all the proof it doesn't work, why does the government appear in almost every regard to believe it does?

[Balta1701]

I agree, it says it all as far as I'm concerned. But that goes back to my original point...for all the proof it doesn't work, why does the government appear in almost every regard to believe it does?

You've answered your own questions. Some of them are sociopaths. I feel fine in applying that word to the people in the previous administration who started, arranged, and ordered this program. Others just go along for the ride since they know they will not be prosecuted.

 

Some are just people who get caught up in the situation and are unwilling and unable to say no. That's a long standing psychological phenomenon as well...people will follow the sociopath when they are trained to do so.

[StrangeSox]

I agree, it says it all as far as I'm concerned. But that goes back to my original point...for all the proof it doesn't work, why does the government appear in almost every regard to believe it does?

 

I dunno, why is Osborne's answer to the UK's sputtering economy "MORE AUSTERITY!"? People in power can wrongly believe things in spite of lots of evidence.

 

Either way, it's not really relevant. It could be 'effective' to shoot a suspect's family members one by one until they confess, but it would still be morally reprehensible (not to mention completely illegal). The case against torture isn't a pragmatic one, it's a philosophical one.

[Y2HH]

I dunno, why is Osborne's answer to the UK's sputtering economy "MORE AUSTERITY!"? People in power can wrongly believe things in spite of lots of evidence.

 

Either way, it's not really relevant. It could be 'effective' to shoot a suspect's family members one by one until they confess, but it would still be morally reprehensible (not to mention completely illegal). The case against torture isn't a pragmatic one, it's a philosophical one.

 

I agree. I just don't think the government does. It's obvious the previous administration didn't agree, but I don't think the current one does, either. I think they absolutely believe it works, and their actions say as much. And I believe it's still going on, just under deeper cover.

[Jake]

I'd imagine gut feelings often take precedence over hard evidence in these intelligence operations. Yeah, the numbers might say that normally torture doesn't work, but this guy won't talk! That kind of reasoning.

[StrangeSox]

http://instagram.com/p/YSnkv2ssV9/

 

stay classy!

[Y2HH]

http://instagram.com/p/YSnkv2ssV9/

 

stay classy!

 

Both sides have taken sad opportunities to politicize this.

[Balta1701]

I agree. I just don't think the government does. It's obvious the previous administration didn't agree, but I don't think the current one does, either. I think they absolutely believe it works, and their actions say as much. And I believe it's still going on, just under deeper cover.

Although you can apply deserved skepticism since they don't have subpoena power, it is worth noting this part of their public statement associated with the report:

At the time of this writing, the United States is still detaining people it regards as dangerous. But in some instances the treatment of supposed high-value foes has been

transformed in significant ways.

The U.S. military, learning from its experience, has vastly improved its procedures for

screening captives and no longer engages in large-scale coercive interrogation techniques. Just

as importantly, the regime of capture and detention has been overtaken by technology and

supplanted in large measure by the use of drones. If presumed enemy leaders — high-value

targets — are killed outright by drones, the troublesome issues of how to conduct detention and

interrogation operations are minimized and may even become moot.

The appropriateness of the United States using drones, however, will continue to be the subject

of significant debate — indeed, it was recently the subject of the ninth-longest filibuster in U.S.

history — and will probably not completely eliminate traditional combat methods in counterterror and counter-insurgency operations in the foreseeable future. As we have seen, any

combat situation can generate prisoners and the problems associated with their detention and

interrogation. As 2012 ended, the U.S. military was believed to still be taking in about 100 new

prisoners each month at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan, most of them seized in

night raids around the country. But interviews by Task Force staff with recent prisoners appear

to show a stark change in their treatment from the harsh methods used in the early years of U.S.

involvement in Afghanistan.

While authoritative as far as it goes, this report should not be the final word on how events

played out in the detention and interrogation arena.

The members of the Task Force believe there may be more to be learned, perhaps from

renewed interest in the executive or legislative branches of our government, which can bring to

bear tools unavailable to this investigation — namely subpoena power to compel testimony and

the capability to review classified materials.

[StrangeSox]

conservatives are using the identity of the Boston bombers as an excuse to derail immigration reform

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-l...boston-bombing/

[Jake]

Maine Governor claims that wind turbines have little motors in them to turn the blades and make you think they're working

[StrangeSox]

Asked about this curious claim, the University spokesperson’s first response was to literally laugh out loud.

 

 

 

(bolding in original)

[StrangeSox]

The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 19, 2013

 

If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 19, 2013

 

[Balta1701]

Keep in mind that Graham isn't just an angry citizen; he's not even just a U.S. senator. He is also a trained lawyer, a colonel in Air Force Reserve, and a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the legal arm of the Air Force.

Link.

[StrangeSox]

Conservative Voter ID mailer photoshops out black people

 

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Why? What is even the point of doing something like that? To accomplish what, exactly?

[Soxbadger]

lol

 

In the top picture the lady in the hoodie has the same face as the lady standing next to her.