Now a few words from the CIA (real words; actor interpretations)

Yes, American citizens can differ on this issue. But I will not equivocate on my own position: the practices described in this video exceed the acceptable interrogation tactics of a civilized nation, and whether or not they may have been effective in some instances does not justify them.

Comments

Anonymous said…

There is no document at the CIA that claims even one tortured at any of the black sites actually stopped terrorism. Cheney continues to make the claim, but neither the CIA Inspector General, the Red Cross, of Carl Levins report could find even ONE time where the tortured gave up any information. One high level target was yapping his ass off, but when the goons squad came and started torturing him, he clammed up. Right Dick Head you stopped terrorism. YOU dick head created terrorism. We know from Jane Mayers book, and from Mike Isikoff that the guvment delivered millions to Afganis and Iraqis who would point to someone involved in terrorism. One war lord whose wife and child died in childbirth turned in the Obstetrican. The guy was tortured for years and finally was let go when Obama took office. Another 80 year quadriplegic chained to the floor was picked because he was "sitting" near where a bomb went off. These neo con, christian crusader ignored the rule of law, hired Pinochet goons to do their dirty work. The only bunch coming out of this with any credibility is the FBI, who refused to engage in torture, because "they" knew it was unlawful.

August 25, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Hube said…

That's fine that you won't equivocate, Steve; however, it still doesn't persuade me given your past (IMO) rationalizations for much more horrific acts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

August 25, 2009 at 8:48 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog