EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2868
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 09 2016 22:14 LemOn wrote: Is there any data on this really? CIA and the like must be getting intel from them - hard to believe the do it just for kicks The issue is twofold: - there is pressure to get intel (comrades in battle, insurgents plant bombs, plan attacks) so people get desperate to try everything for it - the presumed "enemy combatant" in custody is a accessible target for revenge, you can let out your frustrations about the conflict, killed/injured friends etc. on that nameless unimportant enemy brown bearded guy. (even when he is a german citizen just abducted to afghanistan for shits and giggles example) And can you seriously still argue "where is the data" when the senate review of the torture program stated as first finding: Summary #1: The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
NEW YORK — When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks. Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. “It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t. “It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.” Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections a “pure trolling,” while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000. But the descriptions of Clinton’s remarks highlight the trap in which the Democratic presidential front-runner now finds herself. In a previous election cycle, no one would much care about the former secretary of state’s comments to Goldman. They represent the kind of boilerplate, happy talk that highly paid speakers generally offer to their hosts. Nobody pays nearly a quarter of a million dollars to have someone criticize their alleged misdeeds. But 2016 is different. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
to me the ethics of the situation most easily comes down to the exhaustion of alternatives. set this standard sufficiently high and you can't really justify torture at all, even if you like it in the extreme hypothetical trolley sort of case. throw in the incredibly damaging propaganda use of torture by opponents it is just very bad in practice as well. even if you get good and actionable intel it probably is still a big net loss long term. btw here is cia's response to the senate report in particular challenging lack of effective intel. it is oen thing to claim it is not an effective method, whcih the senate report is doing, and another to say it did not yield anything. though this is no justification of course. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/CIAs_June2013_Response_to_the_SSCI_Study_on_the_Former_Detention_and_Interrogation_Program.pdf | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 09 2016 23:04 oneofthem wrote: the cia claim a few high value targets were tortured and popped some good intel. the problem with them is twofold though. first, that torture was used in general. second, the use of torture and other degrading treatment in the process of handling lower value targets. it does seem like a pet project gone awry with some unethical experimentation overtones. to me the ethics of the situation most easily comes down to the exhaustion of alternatives. set this standard sufficiently high and you can't really justify torture at all, even if you like it in the extreme hypothetical trolley sort of case. throw in the incredibly damaging propaganda use of torture by opponents it is just very bad in practice as well. even if you get good and actionable intel it probably is still a big net loss long term. can you please argue in good faith and stop trotting out disproven claims again and again and again, we had this years ago when the senate review came out: #2: The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness. the CIA claimed effectiveness to cover their asses when it was not actually there, as the review showed. what new data do you have to amend the findings of the report? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8501 Posts
On February 09 2016 23:14 oneofthem wrote: effectiveness is nto the same as yielding nothing. former involves a nromative standard of what is efficient, whcih the senate report did not specify. it's pretty vacuous as a statement which shows the whole purpose of the report in the first place. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21664 Posts
On February 09 2016 23:19 Doublemint wrote: which shows the whole purpose of the report in the first place. The CIA cared enough to illegally tap the computers of the Senators working on the report. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8501 Posts
On February 09 2016 23:31 Gorsameth wrote: The CIA cared enough to illegally tap the computers of the Senators working on the report. I think that's what you call due diligence in those circles. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%. http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/ if only | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 09 2016 23:35 Doublemint wrote: I think that's what you call due diligence in those circles. sending senators pictures of their children in a crosshair is the usual standard i thought? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21664 Posts
On February 09 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote: anyway more interesting is this report from umass-amherst, basically one of the far left economic departments, on the positive effects of the bernie fiscal plan. http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/ if only Since when does CNN post satire pieces? On February 09 2016 23:35 Doublemint wrote: I think that's what you call due diligence in those circles. Ok, you got me confused. Are you being sarcastic or do you seriously not see what is wrong with an intelligence organization hacking into their own oversight committee? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42638 Posts
On February 09 2016 16:19 LemOn wrote: Well it obviously still brings in results or they wouldn't do it. Not really. Interrogators say it doesn't work and that they don't use it. You have to understand that Gitmo was basically just a science project for a pair of psychologists who didn't really know much about torture beyond binge watching 24 and got some ex special forces guys to throw everything at the wall and see what stuck. No useful intelligence was gained from it and a lot of the people tortured were either the wrong guys or random victims of the "give us name, get money" program. In 2001 the CIA thought that Al Qaeda might be training its operatives to resist torture so the found two psychologists, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, and asked them to invent a way to bypass resistance training. For nearly 100m in government money they were able to come up with "if you torture people enough maybe they'll stop resisting" and that was the foundation for the American torture program. The actual professional interrogators were never involved. You're making an assumption of government competence and then working forwards from there. That's a very bad assumption to make and in this case is completely false. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21664 Posts
On February 10 2016 00:06 DickMcFanny wrote: That's not satire, ever heard of the New Deal? Sanders' proposal would have much the same effect, just without the benefit of being alone on the international market. 30+% more median income then projected, record low poverty, more then double the projected economic growth and the deficit of 1.3 trillion being turned into a major surplus in under 8 years? I'm no Economist but those numbers look strait out of fairy land. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 10 2016 00:19 Gorsameth wrote: 30+% more median income then projected, record low poverty, more then double the projected economic growth and the deficit of 1.3 trillion being turned into a major surplus in under 8 years? I'm no Economist but those numbers look strait out of fairy land. Even Reddit shat on it. When Reddit shits on a pro-Bernie piece, you know it's bad. It's some uber left wing economist by the name of Friedman NOT Milton. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 10 2016 00:19 Gorsameth wrote: 30+% more median income then projected, record low poverty, more then double the projected economic growth and the deficit of 1.3 trillion being turned into a major surplus in under 8 years? I'm no Economist but those numbers look strait out of fairy land. this message was bought to you by priorities usa action. | ||
| ||
