Thread: new CIA torture report

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...ort/index.html



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA interrogators threatened an al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill to try to scare him into giving up information, according to a long-concealed inspector-general's report due to be made public on Monday, sources familiar with the report confirmed to CNN.



Your tax dollars at work....

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='23 August 2009 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1251067166' post='10244']

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...ort/index.html



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA interrogators threatened an al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill to try to scare him into giving up information, according to a long-concealed inspector-general's report due to be made public on Monday, sources familiar with the report confirmed to CNN.



Your tax dollars at work....

[/quote]





What are the laws on threatening rather than using a drill? What admin did this happen under and do we really care? If it is against the law do we agree with the law if it results in useful intel?

[quote name='lakeman' date='23 August 2009 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1251068553' post='10253']

What are the laws on threatening rather than using a drill? What admin did this happen under and do we really care? If it is against the law do we agree with the law if it results in useful intel?

[/quote]

Good question in whether it is legal to threaten its use. I would like to know that answer.



I am 100% against torture no matter who does it (Bush, Obama, ect.). I guess the gray area is what the defintion of torture is.

Most state and local laws specify that threatening someone with a deadly weapon is a "terrorist threat".



'Course, DC is federal territory, so not entirely sure what applies there. Federal law was whatever

George Bush wanted it to be, for a while there, so not sure how much of all that they've unraveled.

If they shot them and killed them it would be murder, or if they injured them go ahead and charge them assault with a deadly weapon, hell add the aggrevated version if you wish. If they didn't use the drills then they only scared them. I don't see torture in that. Fear is not something that can be measured on a universal scale, thus its subjective to the individual. Some people are deathly afraid of spiders, is the government guilty of torture if they don't get the exterminator there?

[quote name='Dispondent' date='23 August 2009 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1251079982' post='10310']

If they shot them and killed them it would be murder, or if they injured them go ahead and charge them assault with a deadly weapon, hell add the aggrevated version if you wish. If they didn't use the drills then they only scared them. I don't see torture in that. Fear is not something that can be measured on a universal scale, thus its subjective to the individual. Some people are deathly afraid of spiders, is the government guilty of torture if they don't get the exterminator there?

[/quote]



Once again, Dispondent - you and I don't decide what torture is. That word is defined by AGREEMENT, between at least 117 nations who signed the United Nations Conventions, of which the US is one.



If we break the treaty, then who's going to trust us with any future treaties or alliances or agreements?



The "full faith and credit of the United States Government" is in play here, D - that's not just an economic concept, y'know.



Have you read your Constitution? International treaties have the FULL FORCE OF LAW in this country. Anything the United States signs its name to, is the Law. So, if the UN says it's torture, then by golly it IS torture.



And I'm pretty sure, electric drills and mock executions, are included in the UN definition.



"Severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical".... yep, sounds about right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...gainst_Torture



All the signatory countries are listed. And, there's our name, right there on the list.

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='23 August 2009 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1251081898' post='10319']

Once again, Dispondent - you and I don't decide what torture is. That word is defined by AGREEMENT, between at least 117 nations who signed the United Nations Conventions, of which the US is one.



If we break the treaty, then who's going to trust us with any future treaties or alliances or agreements?



The "full faith and credit of the United States Government" is in play here, D - that's not just an economic concept, y'know.



Have you read your Constitution? International treaties have the FULL FORCE OF LAW in this country. Anything the United States signs its name to, is the Law. So, if the UN says it's torture, then by golly it IS torture.



And I'm pretty sure, electric drills and mock executions, are included in the UN definition.



"Severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical".... yep, sounds about right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...gainst_Torture



All the signatory countries are listed. And, there's our name, right there on the list.

[/quote]



Yes an agreement that cannot and will not be enforced by anyone. Did you know we signed an agreement to never allow genocide to happen again after WWII? You see how effective that was in Rwanda? Where were the arguments then? Half a million people died there, and people want to quibble about this? Wow!



Mental pain is a subjective concept and is not defined in any specific manner in any treaty we have signed. Show the specific evidence of what constitutes mental pain or suffering and we might have something to talk about.



What are the signatory countries doing to fullfill their duties to the agreement? I don't see an armada of ships off our coast to make sure we pay the price, I don't see them doing a damn thing.



You are pretty good at understanding concepts and theories, I'll give you that, but when it comes to reality much of what you argue falls to the way side.