How Times Change

[Nutz]

That is my fault. Sorry TK. You are right though.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

I don't know who came up with it, but everyone uses it because it's pithy and exciting.

Who came up with the name "Obamacare"? Why does everyone use that instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

 

[Nutz]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

Ratings driven media

 

[LoneLaugher]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

Way to admit your factual error. You have such credibility!

 

[rightwinger]

America has values


We do not torture.......or at least we didn't used to

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

I don't know who came up with it, but everyone uses it because it's pithy and exciting.

Who came up with the name "Obamacare"? Why does everyone use that instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

So, what do you think "coercive interrogation techniques" means? It's a fancy term for torture is it not? They went to great length not to refer to it as torture, but basically insinuated as much throughout the report.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

I don't know who came up with it, but everyone uses it because it's pithy and exciting.

Who came up with the name "Obamacare"? Why does everyone use that instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

So, what do you think "coercive interrogation techniques" means? It's a fancy term for torture is it not? They went to great length not to refer to it as torture, but basically insinuated as much throughout the report.

What ridiculous euphemism would you prefer they had used?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

I don't know who came up with it, but everyone uses it because it's pithy and exciting.

Who came up with the name "Obamacare"? Why does everyone use that instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

So, what do you think "coercive interrogation techniques" means? It's a fancy term for torture is it not? They went to great length not to refer to it as torture, but basically insinuated as much throughout the report.

Way to man up! You are awesome.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday released a report detailing the supposed 'torture' of detainees at the hands of the CIA. That day while addressing the Senate she, at the end of her speech, said that releasing the report was "about American values and morals" further suggesting that it was also about "the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, [and] our rule of law." This is the full quote:

"It's really about American values and morals. It's about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law.

"These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime. And if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our nation a great one.

"There is a reason why we carry the banner of a great and just nation. So we submit this Study on behalf of the committee, to the public, in the belief that it will stand the test of time. And with it, the report will carry the message "never again."

Now, lets hop in the time machine, to oh, about 12 years ago, roughly 9 months after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11. Many of us were still angry, and wanted those who orchestrated those attacks to feel the full brunt of American fury. Not many of us cared about the human rights of those who helped murder 3000 innocent people on American soil.

After the attack, many people were blaming gaps and miscues in our intelligence for failing to stop the terrorists from carrying out their deadly task, including Dianne Feinstein, suggesting that those attacks shook us to the point where we needed "to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves." Little did we know, that some of those "things" included using enhanced interrogation techniques to bring terrorists to justice.

On May 26, 2002, the New York Times published an article which quoted Feinstein, who addressed where the US would be in the fight against global terrorism had the attacks never occurred.

First she truthfully points out that it would be 'business as usual' if those attacks had not occurred that day:

''I have no question in my mind that had it not been for 9/11 -- and I'd do anything if it hadn't happened -- that it would have been business as usual."

But then she states:

''It took that real attack, I think, to kind of shiver our timbers enough to let us know that the threat is profound, that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.''

In the years following, did she know about the 'torture' that took place? She's been a member of the Committee since 2001. But nobody knows, and it would be purely speculative to suggest she did or didn't. But her views now appear to be in stark contrast to the ones she held after the 9/11 attacks.

So she's come to her senses. Maybe you should try that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

I don't know who came up with it, but everyone uses it because it's pithy and exciting.

Who came up with the name "Obamacare"? Why does everyone use that instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

So, what do you think "coercive interrogation techniques" means? It's a fancy term for torture is it not? They went to great length not to refer to it as torture, but basically insinuated as much throughout the report.

What ridiculous euphemism would prefer they had used?

They simply should have called it torture. And to that effect I'll retract my previous statement and state that there are 131 references to 'torture' in the report, in the footers and the body of the report, excluding the title. It basically says the CIA tortured it's detainees for no means to an end and lied about it.

The basis for the title most likely came from this, in p.4 of the foreword, which Feinstein concludes:

"Even so, existing U.S. law and treaty obligations should have prevented many of the abuses and mistakes made during this program. While the Office of Legal Counsel found otherwise between 2002 and 2007, it is my personal conclusion that, under any common meaning of the term, CIA detainees were tortured."

Now, that is her 'personal' conclusion. She basically calls those in the White House Legal Counsel liars and substitutes her own conclusion in place their findings. She also ignored investigations by Eric Holder and his Justice Department into the issue, and they found that the CIA engaged in no wrongdoing as far as the enhanced interrogation techniques were concerned. Did torture take place? Yes. But did it take place all the time? No. I find that is quite hard to believe.

So, it is for all intents and purposes "The Torture Report."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The report isn't titled "Torture" any more than the ACA is titled "Obamacare".

The title of the report is "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program"

Then why is it everyone is referring to it as "The Torture Report" then? Can you explain who or what came up with that moniker?

I don't know who came up with it, but everyone uses it because it's pithy and exciting.

Who came up with the name "Obamacare"? Why does everyone use that instead of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

So, what do you think "coercive interrogation techniques" means? It's a fancy term for torture is it not? They went to great length not to refer to it as torture, but basically insinuated as much throughout the report.

What ridiculous euphemism would prefer they had used?

They simply should have called it torture. And to that effect I'll retract my previous statement and state that there are 131 references to 'torture' in the report, in the footers and the body of the report, excluding the title. It basically says the CIA tortured it's detainees for no means to an end.

The basis for the title most likely came from this, in p.4 of the foreword, which Feinstein concludes:

"Even so, existing U.S. law and treaty obligations should have prevented many of the abuses and mistakes made during this program. While the Office of Legal Counsel found otherwise between 2002 and 2007, it is my personal conclusion that, under any common meaning of the term, CIA detainees were tortured."

Now, that is her 'personal' conclusion. She basically calls those in the White House Legal Counsel liars and substitutes her own conclusion in place their findings. She also ignored investigations by Eric Holder and his Justice Department into the issue, and they found that the CIA engaged in no wrongdoing as far as the enhanced interrogation techniques were concerned. Did torture take place? Yes. But did it take place all the time? No. I find that is quite hard to believe.

So, it is "The Torture Report" for all intents and purposes.

I don't care what you call it. Call it whatever you want. But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them. The White House Counsel's office is just the President's lawyers.

 

[whitehall]

The radical left is so full of hatred that they will throw the entire Country under the bus in front of our allies and the volatile Mid East when they are defeated in the voting booth. The problem for democrats is that they think all Americans are as dumb as their dwindling base.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. Whether they are the President's lawyers or not, I amount her 'personal conclusion' to hearsay.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. Whether they are the President's lawyers or not, I amount her 'personal conclusion' to hearsay.

The "findings" of the White House Counsel's office hold no legal weight. They're not judges.

 

[JoeB131]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

Seriously, Templar?

I don't think you can call it anything EXCEPT torture.

Here's the problem with your argument, that in the aftermath of 9/11 Feinstein and others were willing to write Bush a blank check.

In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, we rounded up an interned 110,000 Americans who had the bad luck of either being born in Japan or having ancestors born there. Some of them were children.

Because we went along with something because we were frightened does not make it okay.

Especially since a lot of these guys weren't actually guilty of what we thought they were.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the foreword, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.