Senate Report on CIA Interrogation

[GeoffreyB]

Which nations would you suggest we nuke ? There are terrorists in just about all countries. Nuclear weapons and nuclear fallout is not very precise.

You must have missed my comment about giving them a timeline to put their house in order 

But since you hypothetically ask, how about we start with the upwind countries in the Middle East that we know harbor our known enemies? I'm sure the others would find that sense of personable responsibility pretty quickly.

And since the terrorists don't abide by UN or NATO rules, I'm not against the use of Neutron bombs, might give those downwind a moment to reconsider their stance.

If the thought of the unpleasant business (and it surely is unpleasant) of dealing with the USA's enemies is too distasteful for an individuals sensitivities, they have every right to either successfully do it better themselves or shut up about how it's done.   What difference does it make. 

[Gavin_Sons]

So it seems most agree that torture is ok.

Yes, torture the crap out of those isis rag heads and all of their followers. So what if a couple died. They all need to die for what they do to inniocent people every day. So I say yes, do whatever it takes to get the information you need to take them down.

[old2soon]

If certain people DO NOT step up for this distasteful task you may as well start studying the koran now. And get used to the public beheadings in your town square or main street. I believe whatever the C I A did should have remained under wraps. If that walking turd feinstein or her family were subjected to those folks from isis because she outed them I WOULD NOT lose much sleep over her. BUT that just MIGHT be me. IF one of our Soldiers or Airmen dies because of this we need to give those politicos that outed the C I A to our fun loving friends at isis. RIDE SAFE.

[Patrick]

I just watched the Cheney interview with Bret Baier. Interesting.

[specialdose]

         
                    Say what you will about Cheney but he is passionate about what he believes to be true. He looked relaxed even
                when Bret hit him with some of the accusations leveled against him. If his health had been better and he had run, I
                would have voted for him. Good interview.

[Skinhead]

 If we become as barbarous as they it kind of negates the idea that we are superior in are society. And I do believe we are superior.

It is hard to be superior when they are bombing society.  Get as medieval as necessary on their asses, eradicate them,  then return to SOP.

[Jess from VA]

While this gets a bit theoretical, it is relevant to this discussion.

Some of the oldest and perhaps best treatises on war come from Sun Tzu Art of War, and others.  I read them during another life (and they are still around here somewhere).  They were taken to heart by Ho Chi Minh and Mao and are/were part of communist doctrine.

Part of this states that war is so terrible and costly in terms of human life and treasure, that expediency and even humanity dictates you attack your enemy and annihilate both his means to make war, and his will to make war.  You kill without mercy all of your enemy, his women and children, his institutions, his beliefs, and in so doing, his will to fight.... as well as his army and war fighting material.  You win as quickly as you can, when and if you can.  And that in the long run, you save the lives of your own men and your enemy's people by avoiding protracted war (and save treasure as well).

Of course this is contrary to Hague and Geneva, which are very good rules indeed if you get lucky enough to be involved in what may be called a civilized war, with enemies that will try their best to follow them as you will do.  These rules are especially good when you have a situation where both sides have POWs of the other side in their custody, for no one wants their captive soldiers to be abused in such captivity.  But trying to find examples of such civilized war are difficult.

Sherman's March was right out of communist doctrine (before it existed).  It happened because it was feared the Civil War might go on for years and years.  It happened in desperation to end the war.

Look at the extensive and unrestricted bombing of Japan and Germany, and of course Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  While military authorities issued findings that such bombing, under the circumstances presented in those wars, were consistent with the Rule of Proportionality of Hague and Geneva, hundreds of thousands of (or several million) non combatants were killed in those raids.  The firebombing of Japan killed many more people than the two atom bombs.  (I personally am in complete agreement that what we did what was necessary to win that war, esp considering that it was estimated that we would lose a million (more) men taking Japan in a ground offensive.) (We lost around 407,000 military personnel in that war, and some 13,000 civilian deaths)

But Hague and Geneva were written in 1899 and 1907 at a time the World powers believed future wars would be fought by uniformed, organized, disciplined armies, with new technologies, and with front lines. Like WWI, WWII, and Korea (sort of), but not in Vietnam and never since (except probably the Kuwaiti/Iraq invasion), and probably never again. They are still good rules, and the US sets the example (the best it can) to continue to follow them as an example to all organized nations.

But things have changed.  When the enemy wears no uniforms, follows no rules of war, fights with perfidy (dirty tricks) as the principle rule, with no front lines, no way to ID friend from foe, and kill, maim or torture any who oppose them, they have abandoned any right they may have to claim we are not following our own rules.  

Roughing up a few hundred (or a thousand) men really seems to pale in comparison to the tactics of our
enemy, who no one doubts would go to any length at all, however horrible, to get information from any of our men (if they had any to give, which is pretty doubtful at the platoon/company level).  I don't think I'd let myself be taken alive over there in any event.

And so my point is that the morality of using aggressive interrogation (I do not call it torture, using that term is the same thing as asking a man when he stopped beating his wife.  Using that term is an attempt to win the argument with no substantive discussion.  No one claims we used the rack, or cut off fingers, or poked out eyes, or burned men alive, or electrocuted their genitals, or tortured in sadistic rapture for the pure fun of it) in an attempt to save lives and shorten the war is NOT suspect or wrong.  We tried to not kill or permanently cripple anyone, with rules in place (not always successfully), and given the circumstances of this war and our enemy, those actions are moral and justified.

However, going public with it is wrong for all the reasons already discussed; it should all be highly classified and never discussed in public, ever.   There is absolutely no right for the public to know a damn thing about it.

And I am happy it was handed off to civilian contractors, it is a nasty, stinking business and active duty military war fighters have enough on their plates as it is.

Sorry for the book.  I was an instructor of Hague and Geneva and use of deadly force, and treatment of POWs, and remain student of war, and this subject is one worth discussing.  

[Serk]

Jess - Nothing much to add, but wanted to thank you for your book, very insightful reading and background form someone who knows a lot more about the intricacies at play here than I do!

[Jess from VA]

Welcome Serk.

I would add/ask this.... if almost any rational soldier/marine/sailor/airman/contractor risking his life and fighting for our country in THIS war on the ground over there would rather fight to the death (or shoot himself with his last round) than be taken alive by the enemy (and I think that's a fair assumption), why should there be any debate at all about (non-lethal or permanent disabling) hard interrogation of that enemy?  If it can save lives and shorten the war (God forbid we win one), don't we owe it to them?

They play run/hide, blend in, use civilians as shields, mostly fight by sneak attack or IEDs, and are hard to find.  They are poster children for every violation of armed conflict rules in the book (and revel in that fact).  We need to ask their buddies where to find them.  We need to know where they keep the guns and bombs and bullets and RPGs.  We need to know a lot of things.

Debate and decide the bright line rules about death and injury, fine, and enforce them.  BUT DO NOT PUBLISH THEM the enemy should not know exactly what they are nor should anyone else (it's called a secret).  Then get on with it.  

And tell the enemy that hard interrogation is policy (SOP) in no uncertain terms publicly, and see how that affects his recruiting.  Hurt his morale and will to win.  Make him want to shoot himself rather than be taken by us (thou we will not kill him and he knows it).  Unlike our men.  

And except for the one or more non lethal/permanent disabling, but perhaps painful/fearful interrogations, I bet he is getting better food, clothing, water, shelter, medical and secure care-taking than any of our prisoners could ever expect to receive (until the beheading).

If you make it your plain and public policy that you will behead any captured Americans with a paring knife (and send us videos of it for your glorification) (and announce you'd kill us all if you could), why can't we smack you around or waterboard you?  You're lucky we don't use the rack or cut your fingers off.  Or better yet, you're lucky we don't line you up and just start shooting you one by one until someone does talk.  Authorized executions for illegal combatants.  But not by honorable firing squad, just one behind the ear... which is not torture at all when performed correctly.   But we don't do that.

Now if they stepped back and promised to strictly comply with traditional treatment and protection of POWs and stop all their other Hague/Geneva violations (and proved they meant it), we would instantly go back to traditional name, rank, and serial number questions only, and happily so.  

You either fight a war to win or you get the hell out!!!  You damn well owe that to the troops as well. War fought by only a strategy of attrition is not one I care to fight in (or have my fellow servicemen fight in).  Protracted war should never be the plan (or the result of your defective plan).  

If we can not (or will not) fight to win, doesn't it seem that our continued long presence there simply reinforces their jihad/21st century christian crusade mentality and call to arms, like flies to a flame? Perhaps if we left (still supporting Israel), they might do us the favor of killing each other off for a few years while we come up with a better plan.  

What I've often wondered about is with all the billions in pharmaceuticals, why is there not a decent truth serum?  Or a course of IV-push drugs over several days bringing him up to talk, with no residual disability.  This would be much easier on everyone.  Even if it only worked a percentage of the time it would be worth having.  (Of course the reason we don't have one is it would not be available by prescription)



 

[specialdose]

     
                     Jess, thank you for both of your eloquent and succinct mini-books. Very informative. I must say after reading both
                of them I agree with every word and thank you for your wisdom and insight. You would make Charles krauthammer smile.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, if I understand correctly you say we should fight like our enemy fights ? I understand the rationale for that. For me this subject comes down to two things. Does the interrogation work (do we get accurate info) and do we as a nation want to do it (is it at the core of our values). I think those 2 things are still up for debate, I certainly don't have the answers.

[hubcapsc]

Jess, if I understand correctly you say we should fight like our enemy fights ? I understand the rationale for that. For me this subject comes down to two things. Does the interrogation work (do we get accurate info) and do we as a nation want to do it (is it at the core of our values). I think those 2 things are still up for debate, I certainly don't have the answers.

I don't think he's saying that... none of our prisoners got their heads or fingers chopped off..

This morning I saw where one of the designers of the interrogation process compared slapping
Sheikh Mohammed around like we did then to shooting hellfire missles at (enemy) family
gatherings where children and grandma are present like we do now...

-Mike

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, if I understand correctly you say we should fight like our enemy fights ? I understand the rationale for that. For me this subject comes down to two things. Does the interrogation work (do we get accurate info) and do we as a nation want to do it (is it at the core of our values). I think those 2 things are still up for debate, I certainly don't have the answers.

I don't think he's saying that... none of our prisoners got their heads or fingers chopped off..

This morning I saw where one of the designers of the interrogation process compared slapping
Sheikh Mohammed around like we did then to shooting hellfire missles at (enemy) family
gatherings where children and grandma are present like we do now...

-Mike

It wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood someone I agree you on the use of drones, I'm not sure that it is noble to take out women and children. But there again what can you do. If the terrorist is surrounding himself with them.

[GeoffreyB]

Jess,

What a well thought out and well crafted response.  Thank you.

A lot more eloquent than my "kill 'em all if they don't comply" rant.

If you ever get to Dallas, I'd buy you a beer or two!

[Jess from VA]

Jess, if I understand correctly you say we should fight like our enemy fights ? I understand the rationale for that. For me this subject comes down to two things. Does the interrogation work (do we get accurate info) and do we as a nation want to do it (is it at the core of our values). I think those 2 things are still up for debate, I certainly don't have the answers.

Well, the point about the true results of of hard interrogation is a good one.  And I really don't know the truth about how well it works.  I agree if it does not or only rarely works, then 10 million for doing it is probably a waste of money.  But I believe if we can show even occasional decent results of intel gathering that saves our guys lives from time to time, or helps us drop a JDam right on the bad guy's hideout,  then it should continue.

I am not really saying we should fight like the enemy fights, what I am saying is when the enemy violates the law of armed conflict every day in every way, they do not deserve the (full) protection of the laws of armed conflict, and we should not be strictly bound to it ourselves re interrogations of POWs.  And hard interrogation short of death and permanent disability is far kinder than our enemy would treat our men in their hands.  The laws of armed conflict depend on a significant degree of mutual reciprocity, and if they reject it entirely, we should be able to alter it a bit ourselves, esp when such alteration directly remedies some of the most damaging problems caused by their failure to follow it.

And of course, the UN can kiss my, every American's, and every service member's ass if they don't like it.

And I think how our military operates in a foreign war is not up to a general American population consensus; the general population is not fighting a ruthless enemy daily, they are sitting at home, fat, dumb and happy.  And the general American population (and the entire world) should never know (and have absolutely no right to know) anything about how we interrogate these men.  The general population is entitled to a war fighting policy and strategy that minimizes American fighting man losses, and wins the war expeditiously and efficiently.

The number and consistency of US military suicides is deeply troubling (I suppose there is always some of this in all wars).  I do not know if today's common soldier/marine is simply not raised to be as tough as were our men in WWII, but if it is related to how terrible the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is, then we owe it to our men to use every resource and strategy available to increase the morale and welfare of the men, show that we are behind them all the way, and actually let them win the war expeditiously (including hard interrogations) (and excluding overly restrictive, politically correct, and generally pussified rules of engagement).

And Geoff, I like beer (and TX).  

Thanks Larry, I like Mr Krauthammer a lot.  He would be a great Secretary of State.

[Patrick]

CIA chief Brennan is having a press conference. Its interesting.

Seems to me that if we talk about impeachment, Feinstein is the one to be impeached.

[Serk]

And Geoff, I like beer (and TX).  

I'm about 1/2 mile from Geoff's town... Make it to this part of the world and I'll add a few adult beverages to the deal...

[Jess from VA]

Serk, every year I consider riding out to Mark's (Mr. Hotglues's) GOTF.

It is a really long haul and I keep punting. 

I tried really hard for nearly a year to go straight to TX from the USAF in '92, but I could not line up a decent job.  The decent job ended up in Sodom on the Potomac... lucky me. 

(I nearly went to Liberia, and am particularly glad that fell through, though my assigned quarters were to be next door to the CIA station chief in a protected compound, and I was going to be authorized to bring all the firearms I wanted with me)  Talk about a job AND an adventure.

[Serk]

Serk, every year I consider riding out to Mark's (Mr. Hotglues's) GOTF.

At risk of getting very off topic, 2015 will be the 15th year in a row I go to Mr. Glue's shindig, wouldn't miss it for the world, you really should come on down for it. If you need to, you can fly even, we won't make fun of ya' for it... At least not much...

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

While this gets a bit theoretical, it is relevant to this discussion.

Some of the oldest and perhaps best treatises on war come from Sun Tzu Art of War, and others.  I read them during another life (and they are still around here somewhere).  They were taken to heart by Ho Chi Minh and Mao and are/were part of communist doctrine.

Part of this states that war is so terrible and costly in terms of human life and treasure, that expediency and even humanity dictates you attack your enemy and annihilate both his means to make war, and his will to make war.  You kill without mercy all of your enemy, his women and children, his institutions, his beliefs, and in so doing, his will to fight.... as well as his army and war fighting material.  You win as quickly as you can, when and if you can.  And that in the long run, you save the lives of your own men and your enemy's people by avoiding protracted war (and save treasure as well).

Of course this is contrary to Hague and Geneva, which are very good rules indeed if you get lucky enough to be involved in what may be called a civilized war, with enemies that will try their best to follow them as you will do.  These rules are especially good when you have a situation where both sides have POWs of the other side in their custody, for no one wants their captive soldiers to be abused in such captivity.  But trying to find examples of such civilized war are difficult.

Sherman's March was right out of communist doctrine (before it existed).  It happened because it was feared the Civil War might go on for years and years.  It happened in desperation to end the war.

Look at the extensive and unrestricted bombing of Japan and Germany, and of course Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  While military authorities issued findings that such bombing, under the circumstances presented in those wars, were consistent with the Rule of Proportionality of Hague and Geneva, hundreds of thousands of (or several million) non combatants were killed in those raids.  The firebombing of Japan killed many more people than the two atom bombs.  (I personally am in complete agreement that what we did what was necessary to win that war, esp considering that it was estimated that we would lose a million (more) men taking Japan in a ground offensive.) (We lost around 407,000 military personnel in that war, and some 13,000 civilian deaths)

But Hague and Geneva were written in 1899 and 1907 at a time the World powers believed future wars would be fought by uniformed, organized, disciplined armies, with new technologies, and with front lines. Like WWI, WWII, and Korea (sort of), but not in Vietnam and never since (except probably the Kuwaiti/Iraq invasion), and probably never again. They are still good rules, and the US sets the example (the best it can) to continue to follow them as an example to all organized nations.

But things have changed.  When the enemy wears no uniforms, follows no rules of war, fights with perfidy (dirty tricks) as the principle rule, with no front lines, no way to ID friend from foe, and kill, maim or torture any who oppose them, they have abandoned any right they may have to claim we are not following our own rules.  

Roughing up a few hundred (or a thousand) men really seems to pale in comparison to the tactics of our
enemy, who no one doubts would go to any length at all, however horrible, to get information from any of our men (if they had any to give, which is pretty doubtful at the platoon/company level).  I don't think I'd let myself be taken alive over there in any event.

And so my point is that the morality of using aggressive interrogation (I do not call it torture, using that term is the same thing as asking a man when he stopped beating his wife.  Using that term is an attempt to win the argument with no substantive discussion.  No one claims we used the rack, or cut off fingers, or poked out eyes, or burned men alive, or electrocuted their genitals, or tortured in sadistic rapture for the pure fun of it) in an attempt to save lives and shorten the war is NOT suspect or wrong.  We tried to not kill or permanently cripple anyone, with rules in place (not always successfully), and given the circumstances of this war and our enemy, those actions are moral and justified.

However, going public with it is wrong for all the reasons already discussed; it should all be highly classified and never discussed in public, ever.   There is absolutely no right for the public to know a damn thing about it.

And I am happy it was handed off to civilian contractors, it is a nasty, stinking business and active duty military war fighters have enough on their plates as it is.

Sorry for the book.  I was an instructor of Hague and Geneva and use of deadly force, and treatment of POWs, and remain student of war, and this subject is one worth discussing.  

Well said Jess, lots of info I didn't know before. I really appreciate you taking the time to share it with us.

[Patrick]

And here some are upset over pouring water in some dickheads nose or depriving them of sleep, etc.  How many Americans have they beheaded ?  And, its just reported they beheaded 4 young kids this morning.

[specialdose]

            For anyone following this thread and PRO IET this is a must watch. Chris Wallace/ Jose Rodriguez.
        Rodriguez knocked it out of the park. This man is telling the truth. I applauded him and was watching
        on the dvr. Nancy and a lot more are lying through their teeth. There is no shame in his game.


                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzzY2qlLK9g

[Oss]

Torture is not the same as Execution
Or Genocide

If you can still speak with a liberator - soldier who helped liberate an
extermination camp in WWII  they will tell you that telling the world
what happened is of paramount importance  What separates us from them is the truth
being told and not hidden

I agree with them, they were there, they saw, they cant forget and neither
should we and we should continue to teach our kids and grandkids and their kids

But it sickens me that bleeding asshole liberals are so quick to equate
what our people do to persue a lead from someone who has already
sworn to kill us with what the SS did in Germany or what the Japanese did
to our boys in the Phillipines and the Chinese and South Koreans

If a few die, that is not the same as a course of conduct to kill all of a people

Classified material well that is a thorny subject, if it could still help our enemy it should stay hidden, if its just an ugly wart we want hidden it should come out as we all have a right to know

I only know it was political that it came out and that makes it stink to me right there

[baldo]

Torture is not the same as Execution
Or Genocide

If you can still speak with a liberator - soldier who helped liberate an
extermination camp in WWII  they will tell you that telling the world
what happened is of paramount importance  What separates us from them is the truth
being told and not hidden

I agree with them, they were there, they saw, they cant forget and neither
should we and we should continue to teach our kids and grandkids and their kids

But it sickens me that bleeding asshole liberals are so quick to equate
what our people do to persue a lead from someone who has already
sworn to kill us with what the SS did in Germany or what the Japanese did
to our boys in the Phillipines and the Chinese and South Koreans

If a few die, that is not the same as a course of conduct to kill all of a people

Classified material well that is a thorny subject, if it could still help our enemy it should stay hidden, if its just an ugly wart we want hidden it should come out as we all have a right to know

I only know it was political that it came out and that makes it stink to me right there

Not all liberals equate the two.....

[czuch]

Pig eyes feinstein is pissed they would actually listen in on her exalted personage.
She's just a little better than the rest of us usuals.
Sun Tsu is totally worth a read.

[Patrick]

Pig eyes feinstein is pissed they would actually listen in on her exalted personage.
She's just a little better than the rest of us usuals.
Sun Tsu is totally worth a read.

She is shocked at the response. I find liberals usually are shocked at the truth. What a completely one sided farse that report is. And she didn't expect such responses ?  
I'd like to see her impeached and brought up on treason charges.

[The emperor has no clothes]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-flawed-reports-important-lesson-1418345866
I thought this was a good article by Peggy Noonan. (Not a liberal by any means)

[Willow]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-flawed-reports-important-lesson-1418345866
I thought this was a good article by Peggy Noonan. (Not a liberal by any means)

"To read the Full Story subscribe or log-in"

I didn't bather.  She starts off by saying, "Americans regardless of party should agree that torture is wrong."

It's an interesting comment, but fraught with implication and assumption.  I don't think Americans, even within parties, agree on what exactly torture is.

Another point is that it is really easy to make general statements from what we believe to be outside the target zone.  What about specifics.  If someone who had already proven himself to be a criminal element was known for a certainty to hold information that could foil a planned attempt on my child's or your child's life would I still agree that torture is wrong if that proved to be the only way to get that information out of him.  I can assure I would not.

I'm sure it was an interesting article but what little of it showed was already flawed.   

[Jess from VA]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-flawed-reports-important-lesson-1418345866
I thought this was a good article by Peggy Noonan. (Not a liberal by any means)

The “torture report” exists. It shouldn’t — a better, more comprehensive, historically deeper and less partisan document should have been produced, and then held close for mandatory reading by all pertinent current and future officials

I don't know what else is written, but this is certainly true. (not less-partisan, but non-partisan, purely objective..... if that is even possible anymore).  Held close, means classified, at least Secret (noforn).

Americans, regardless of party should agree torture is wrong.  

It depends on what your definition of torture is, if you say it includes slapping, shoving, sleep deprivation, water boarding, verbally causing fear, and the like, then I completely disagree.  With this enemy in this war, IT'S RIGHT (and it's not torture, it's aggressive interrogation).

If this enemy wants to follow the laws of armed conflict, we can easily go back to name, rank and serial number.  Until then.......... it's on bitch.  

Just like hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gassing, guillotine, if performed correctly, is NOT cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment.

There is nothing wrong with trying to interpret proper application of the Constitution to things that did not exist back then.  This does not mean the Constitution is a rubber band.   

[BF]

If it stops more lunatic barbaric mooslums from flying planes into our buildings again, or whatever else they're planning, I'm good with whatever means are necessary to stop it. 

12 volt battery clipped to their nether regions?  I'm good with it. 

Hanging upside down and pouring water on them?  I'm good with it. 

Using a blow torch or a set of bolt cutters on them?  I'm good with it. 

Make no mistake, they're in a war with the us and the rest of the civilized world.  They will stop at nothing to achieve their goals of world domination.

We shouldn't stop at anything either when it comes to stopping them. 

[Jess from VA]

The problem with actual torture is virtually everyone will admit to anything or say anything to make it stop.  We need accurate intel.  And people die or go insane and you can't interrogate them anymore.

Though I'm with you in spirit.

   

[Willow]

The problem with actual torture is virtually everyone will admit to anything or say anything to make it stop.  We need accurate intel.  And people die or go insane and you can't interrogate them anymore.

Though I'm with you in spirit. 

And that, my friend, is why it should only be applied by trained experts, those who have been taught to take the subject to the edge but not push him (or it) over.

I am strongly opposed to amateur torture.   

[Serk]

The problem with actual torture is virtually everyone will admit to anything or say anything to make it stop.  We need accurate intel.  And people die or go insane and you can't interrogate them anymore.

Though I'm with you in spirit. 

And that, my friend, is why it should only be applied by trained experts, those who have been taught to take the subject to the edge but not push him (or it) over.

I am strongly opposed to amateur torture.   

Torture to punish the enemy, revenge, to humiliate, etc, I am against.

What some would define as torture, in order to get information from someone to stop the deaths of Americans? Yeah... I'm okay with that.

There's a difference.

[The emperor has no clothes]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-flawed-reports-important-lesson-1418345866
I thought this was a good article by Peggy Noonan. (Not a liberal by any means)

"To read the Full Story subscribe or log-in"

I didn't bother.  She starts off by saying, "Americans regardless of party should agree that torture is wrong."

It's an interesting comment, but fraught with implication and assumption.  I don't think Americans, even within parties, agree on what exactly torture is.

Another point is that it is really easy to make general statements from what we believe to be outside the target zone.  What about specifics.  If someone who had already proven himself to be a criminal element was known for a certainty to hold information that could foil a planned attempt on my child's or your child's life would I still agree that torture is wrong if that proved to be the only way to get that information out of him.  I can assure I would not.

I'm sure it was an interesting article but what little of it showed was already flawed.  

Exactly who were you planning on bathing ? (I owed you one)

[Willow]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-flawed-reports-important-lesson-1418345866
I thought this was a good article by Peggy Noonan. (Not a liberal by any means)

"To read the Full Story subscribe or log-in"

I didn't bother.  She starts off by saying, "Americans regardless of party should agree that torture is wrong."

It's an interesting comment, but fraught with implication and assumption.  I don't think Americans, even within parties, agree on what exactly torture is.

Another point is that it is really easy to make general statements from what we believe to be outside the target zone.  What about specifics.  If someone who had already proven himself to be a criminal element was known for a certainty to hold information that could foil a planned attempt on my child's or your child's life would I still agree that torture is wrong if that proved to be the only way to get that information out of him.  I can assure I would not.

I'm sure it was an interesting article but what little of it showed was already flawed.  

Exactly who were you planning on bathing ? (I owed you one)

Why whatever did you mean?   

Yes.  Yes, you did.   

[specialdose]

               Anyone who did not catch this last night, Megan Kelly, well worth a 30 min watch. 2nd part is tonight.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpIGr8w85Y

[Patrick]

               Anyone who did not catch this last night, Megan Kelly, well worth a 30 min watch. 2nd part is tonight.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpIGr8w85Y

I agree whole heartedly. Its a must see.