|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
WASHINGTON –- The 1,000-page omnibus spending package released Tuesday night is reigniting a fight over rules for U.S. financing of coal plants abroad.
In October 2013, the Treasury Department announced that it would stop providing funding for conventional coal plants abroad, except in "very rare" cases. And in December 2013, the Export-Import Bank announced a new policy that would restrict financing for most new coal-fired power plants abroad. The bank, often called Ex-Im, exists to provide financial support to projects that spur the export of U.S. products and services. The change in coal policy aligned with President Barack Obama's June 2013 call to end U.S. funding of fossil fuel energy projects abroad unless the products include carbon capture technology.
But the language in the omnibus blocks both Ex-Im and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S.'s development finance institution, from using any funds in the bill to enforce these new restrictions on coal projects.
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, touted this prohibition in his statement on the spending package. He said the measure would help "to increase exports of U.S. goods and services." Rogers told The Hill that coal exports "are just about the only bright light in the coal business these days."
Environmental groups have fought for years to get the government's financial institutions to stop funding fossil fuel projects abroad, including a number of coal-fired power plants, mines, pipelines and natural gas export terminals. Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said in a statement that including this rider in the omnibus "undercuts one of the most important contributions President Obama has made to climate policy internationally."
Source
|
harrumph. Reminds me of some fisherman, focusing on a short-sighted self-interest goal rather than an overall good; and causing politicians to make bad decisions to support that.
|
Interesting video though.
|
States with legal hemp cultivation and medical marijuana programs just got historic support from Congress.
Included in the federal spending bill released late Tuesday are amendments that prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to go after state medical marijuana operations and that block the Drug Enforcement Administration from using funds to interfere in state-legal industrial hemp research.
“The enactment of this legislation will mark the first time in decades that the federal government has curtailed its oppressive prohibition of marijuana and has instead taken an approach to respect the many states that have permitted the use of medical marijuana to some degree," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who in May introduced the medical marijuana protections amendment with co-sponsor Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), told The Huffington Post Wednesday.
“This is a victory for so many, including scores of our wounded veterans, who have found marijuana to be an important medicine for some of the ailments they suffer, such as PTSD, epilepsy and MS," Rohrabacher added.
If passed, the bill would protect medical marijuana programs in the 23 states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, as well as 11 additional states that have legalized CBD oils, a non-psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that may be therapeutically beneficial in severe cases of epilepsy.
A number of studies in recent years have shown the medical potential of cannabis. Purified forms may attack some forms of aggressive cancer. Marijuana use also has been tied to better blood sugar control and may help slow the spread of HIV.
Still, under the Obama administration, the DEA and several U.S. attorneys have raided marijuana dispensaries that complied with state laws. The DEA still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance with "no currently accepted medical use."
But marijuana's "sober cousin," hemp, also received protections in the spending bill. Hemp is the same plant species as marijuana -- cannabis sativa -- but it contains little to no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana associated with the "high" sensation. The farm bill, which President Barack Obama signed into law in February, legalized industrial hemp production in states that permit it.
Eighteen states have legalized industrial hemp production, and more than a dozen others have introduced legislation that would authorize research, set up a regulatory framework or legalize the growing of industrial hemp.
Source
|
On December 11 2014 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2014 11:02 nunez wrote:On December 10 2014 10:50 oneofthem wrote:On December 10 2014 10:40 nunez wrote:
surveillance = storing backups, got it.
should rename to international backup agency.
here's a backup of you hiring a prostitute,
we keep it lying around just in case anyone
needs it... the NSA has enough problems to deal with already, no time for looking at your choice of prostitutes. i thank my lucky stars that i am the epitome of insignificance. The point is the NSA have no way to know the relevance of any information beforehand, so they stock everything no ? I'm pretty sure there is a nunez file somewhere in a big hard drive.
yes, but since i am insignificant (unlike f.ex a senator on an investigative committee, a whistleblower, an american activist) it's less likely that i'm gonna get bopped.
|
On December 11 2014 13:06 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2014 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:On December 10 2014 11:02 nunez wrote:On December 10 2014 10:50 oneofthem wrote:On December 10 2014 10:40 nunez wrote:
surveillance = storing backups, got it.
should rename to international backup agency.
here's a backup of you hiring a prostitute,
we keep it lying around just in case anyone
needs it... the NSA has enough problems to deal with already, no time for looking at your choice of prostitutes. i thank my lucky stars that i am the epitome of insignificance. The point is the NSA have no way to know the relevance of any information beforehand, so they stock everything no ? I'm pretty sure there is a nunez file somewhere in a big hard drive. yes, but since i am insignificant (unlike f.ex a senator on an investigative committee, a whistleblower, an american activist) it's less likely that i'm gonna get bopped.
killing a tiger might be more desirable but also harder, renditioning a norwegian ant to kraplakistan to get fisted to death by danglers is practically consequence free. especially once they get their random haiku generating scripts perfected.
|
On December 11 2014 14:25 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2014 13:06 nunez wrote:On December 11 2014 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:On December 10 2014 11:02 nunez wrote:On December 10 2014 10:50 oneofthem wrote:On December 10 2014 10:40 nunez wrote:
surveillance = storing backups, got it.
should rename to international backup agency.
here's a backup of you hiring a prostitute,
we keep it lying around just in case anyone
needs it... the NSA has enough problems to deal with already, no time for looking at your choice of prostitutes. i thank my lucky stars that i am the epitome of insignificance. The point is the NSA have no way to know the relevance of any information beforehand, so they stock everything no ? I'm pretty sure there is a nunez file somewhere in a big hard drive. yes, but since i am insignificant (unlike f.ex a senator on an investigative committee, a whistleblower, an american activist) it's less likely that i'm gonna get bopped. killing a tiger might be more desirable but also harder, renditioning a norwegian ant to kraplakistan to get fisted to death by danglers is practically consequence free. especially once they get their random haiku generating scripts perfected.
Maybe they already have. :-O
|
clenched fist, iron will
suicide by shitknuckle
he died doing his job
|
On December 11 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers. I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus. If they had cared enough to interview, Show nested quote +The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated. WSJRead the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up.
Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ...
Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances.
|
On December 11 2014 21:33 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers. I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus. If they had cared enough to interview, The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated. WSJRead the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up. Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ... Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances.
The new talking point is going to be about how torture is better than drone strikes... Which will be followed shortly by how it wasn't really torture, and then "well, I'd rather get waterboarded than dead".
Saying we shouldn't have released the report because the terrorists will use it as a recruiting tool, followed shortly by how "They hate us no matter what" so the idea that Guantanamo is recruiting terrorist is ridiculous.
The cognitive dissonance must be dizzying.
|
Behind the CIA report, Congress has been arguing about an AUMF (authorization for the use of military force) against ISIS. The administration wants broad authorization without a clear mission to give them maximum latitude in carrying out and continuing the war on terrorism. They're also sort of asking by refusing to put this to a straight up vote or make a deal in Congress. The most apt analogy is that they're a boy who wants to dance with a girl but is scared of getting rejected by asking directly.
To be fair, Congress is also very confused and very divided on what they want, although both sides do agree the administration is leading this very poorly. Democrats want a restriction on ground troops, particularly in Syria. President Obama has already committed himself to refusing a ground mission and if he wants to expand the operation to include ground forces, he should come to Congress and get that authorization explicitly. But Republicans and the administration feel this is tying the president's hands and shackling the US mission, which includes giving information to ISIS about America's next moves and making it too predictable. The other big issue is a sunset provision, meaning a deadline on operations. It seems the number Congress wants is three years, which threads the needle between giving enough leeway for an effective campaign but an end date so it doesn't become a quagmire and a perpetual war. Lots of critics note that three years is even worse than shackling Obama, it shackles the next president who doesn't even know it yet. The response to that is the next president can see where things fall and ask for new authorization if it's necessary, which just smells like political disaster in the making.
Basically it's a very tough issue and this is a war nobody wants, but nobody has any better ideas for ISIS either. Keeping them around, especially with Assad still in power in Syria and the Iraqi regime in a very fragile state, is not acceptable.
|
On December 11 2014 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2014 21:33 mcc wrote:On December 11 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers. I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus. If they had cared enough to interview, The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated. WSJRead the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up. Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ... Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances. The new talking point is going to be about how torture is better than drone strikes... Which will be followed shortly by how it wasn't really torture, and then "well, I'd rather get waterboarded than dead". Saying we shouldn't have released the report because the terrorists will use it as a recruiting tool, followed shortly by how "They hate us no matter what" so the idea that Guantanamo is recruiting terrorist is ridiculous. The cognitive dissonance must be dizzying.
Oh that started already. That's actually almost word for word what hannity said on the radio yesterday afternoon.
|
If anyone should be prosecuted, this man:
Dick Cheney discussed the newly released Senate torture report Wednesday on Fox News, and in particular challenged a finding that former President George W. Bush hadn't been briefed on the CIA's harsh interrogation methods until years after they'd already been in use.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked the former vice president whether the agency deliberately kept Bush in the dark about its so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.
"Not true. Didn't happen," Cheney responded. "Read his book, he talks about it extensively in his memoirs. He was in fact an integral part of the program, he had to approve it before we went forward with it."
Asked if there was ever a point where he knew more about the CIA's activity than the President, Cheney said "I think he knew everything he needed to know and wanted to know about the program."
Baier then asked if the former President knew about the "details" of the program. The report -- which Cheney called "full of crap" -- described brutal interrogation methods including waterboarding, extensive sleep deprivation, threats to harm detainees' families and "rectal feeding."
"I think he knew certainly the techniques, we did discuss the techniques," Cheney said. "There was no effort on our part to keep him from that."
Source
|
Somebody from within the Republican Party needs to tell Dick Cheney to stop giving interviews lol. Surely Karl could give him a call.
|
Not sure if it's really funny or really sad.
|
The House Republican who could end up undoing a District of Columbia voter referendum to legalize marijuana has a blunt message for residents of the capital city: If you don’t like it, move out.
“That’s the way the Constitution was written,” Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland said in an interview Wednesday. “If they don’t like that oversight, move outside of the federal district to one of the 50 states that is not covered by the jurisdiction of Congress as a whole.”
Harris, 57, is the leader of a small band of anti-marijuana hardliners in Congress who worked behind the scenes to insert language in a must-pass spending bill that attempts to nullify a pro-pot referendum approved by 70 percent of D.C. voters in last month’s elections.
The situation leaves Republicans in an awkward position — not only contradicting their long-standing philosophical views that the federal government shouldn’t meddle in local affairs but also out of step with a clear majority of voters who back more liberal marijuana laws.
Just as the party scrambled to catch up on rapidly changing public opinion on social issues like the rights of gays to serve openly in the military or to marry, the marijuana measure is forcing the party to find its footing on an issue when all Republicans don’t agree.
In interviews on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, GOP views were decidedly mixed on the issue — and some believed Republicans should focus on other battles instead.
“I believe in more local autonomy on that,” said Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-minded Kentucky Republican who will likely run for president in 2016. “I think Colorado, the District, most localities should be able to make that decision for themselves.”
Added Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.): “It’s not something I would have put in.”
Though D.C. boasts a population of 640,000 residents and a city council and mayor’s office that govern local affairs, the Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over the federal capital, an authority conservatives have long exploited to push a range of social policies from abortion to guns — and even marijuana.
“They may have a say, but not the complete say,” argued Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, referring to voters in D.C.
Conservative Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, the House majority whip, said this when asked about reining in D.C. pot laws: “It’s a constitutional responsibility.”
“Washington, D.C., has a lot to offer,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). “Recreational marijuana shouldn’t be one of them.”
The measure was included in a $1.01 trillion spending package that Congress must pass by Thursday or risk a government shutdown. Along with Harris, Louisiana Rep. John Fleming and the powerful House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers of Kentucky, the lead negotiator for House Republicans, pushed hard for the measure behind the scenes.
Source
|
On December 11 2014 21:33 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers. I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus. If they had cared enough to interview, The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated. WSJRead the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up. Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ... Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances.
Fair point I think, but it's pretty hard to gauge the usefulness of our intelligence gathering when a big portion of it was to prevent attacks. If it succeeds and stops attacks then your point can be made and if it fails and doesn't find any info about attacks your point can be made as well. How are we really supposed to judge the effectiveness of defensive intelligence gathering?
|
Why is it common practice to attach random stuff to other random stuff? That doesn't make any sense.
What has Marihuana use in DC to do with some big federal spending bill? This practice appears to be commonplace in the US, but it is so incredibly dishonest and weird.
|
As much as I am for relaxation of the drug laws for marijuana... basically Washington DC is a military base with the Speaker as the base commander.
Personally, what I would like to see happen, is that a tight polygon be drawn encompassing the White House, Supreme Court, the Capital and mabye a few other buildings close to the Mall. That is the new Washington, DC...and everything else is given back to Maryland.
|
On December 12 2014 02:47 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2014 21:33 mcc wrote:On December 11 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:That should be obvious. Even the article Danglars links provides no real evidence, only a bald assertion that "torture works sometimes." Of course all the evidence is classified. Of course. We are just supposed to trust the torturers. I don't know if you actually care if it works or not, whether or not that would change your opinion. For a lot of the people I talk to, it's a moral and legal argument for no and never. I think the Senate democrat hatchet job is testimony itself that they're scared to let the full story out--otherwise they'd have invited Republicans and interviewed scores of people. Leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on these methods from the get-go (waterboarding in particular), and this is their save-face moment. Right before they lose the majority in the Senate, make a name for themselves and throw the intelligence community under the bus. If they had cared enough to interview, The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks. [...]
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it. [...]
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated. WSJRead the link to see the whole post and who collaborated on writing it. It saved thousands of American lives and prevented another attack. In the interests of historical accuracy, read into what was done with spies and false-uniform enemies in WW2, and spies and deserters in the civil war. I hear the calls for a new kind of warfare, but let's not forget how brutal war is and how many American soldiers are counting on intelligence that hardened Al-Qaeda terrorists won't willingly give up. Saying it saved any lives is conjecture and pretty poor one that you(and the article) make. "Had the attack occured" is pretty poor argument. Had I had a billion dollars ... Though as you note efficacy of torture is quite irrelevant for a lot of people in this circumstance. Fighting inefficient terrorist groups is not a reason to resort to torture, they are not a threat of any significant magnitude. Taboo on torture has more benefits for society than any benefits the torture can bring in current circumstances. Fair point I think, but it's pretty hard to gauge the usefulness of our intelligence gathering when a big portion of it was to prevent attacks. If it succeeds and stops attacks then your point can be made and if it fails and doesn't find any info about attacks your point can be made as well. How are we really supposed to judge the effectiveness of defensive intelligence gathering?
You need to compile a set of data that has success rates for similar plots in times when torture was not used. Then average damage done by such plots (plot detected = 0 damage, but still counts toward the average as 0-value point). Then compare it with similar data set for times when torture is used.
Unsure if this is practically possible due to low number of data points. But the main point is that the argument in the article is flawed. If you lack good information it does not make guessing a good information source.
Anyway as I said efficacy of torture is irrelevant. Terrorists are not really a big threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
