Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...“I think any normal, conscionable man would have to consider carefully doing something like this,” Dr. Jessen said in a newly disclosed deposition. “I deliberated with great, soulful torment about this, and obviously I concluded that it could be done safely or I wouldn’t have done it.”

The two psychologists — whom C.I.A. officials have called architects of the interrogation program, a designation they dispute — are defendants in the only lawsuit that may hold participants accountable for causing harm.

The program has been well documented, but under deposition, with a camera focused on their faces, Drs. Jessen and Mitchell provided new details about the interrogation effort, their roles in it and their rationales. Their accounts were sometimes at odds with their own correspondence at the time, as well as previous portrayals of them by officials and other interrogators as eager participants in the program.

Aho Old Guy wrote:
F uck yeah. USA! USA! USA!
Psychologists Open a Window on Brutal C.I.A. Interrogations

...“I think any normal, conscionable man would have to consider carefully doing something like this,” Dr. Jessen said in a newly disclosed deposition. “I deliberated with great, soulful torment about this, and obviously I concluded that it could be done safely or I wouldn’t have done it.”

The two psychologists — whom C.I.A. officials have called architects of the interrogation program, a designation they dispute — are defendants in the only lawsuit that may hold participants accountable for causing harm.

The program has been well documented, but under deposition, with a camera focused on their faces, Drs. Jessen and Mitchell provided new details about the interrogation effort, their roles in it and their rationales. Their accounts were sometimes at odds with their own correspondence at the time, as well as previous portrayals of them by officials and other interrogators as eager participants in the program.

Thank you for your service Dr. Mengele, errr, Jessen. We get it --- you were just "following orders"

CAA Flagship wrote:WARNING: The above link is to the New York Times.

JohnStOnge wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:WARNING: The above link is to the New York Times.

Which means it has a lot more credibility than anything Trump says.

JohnStOnge wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:WARNING: The above link is to the New York Times.

Which means it has a lot more credibility than anything Trump says.

Aho Old Guy wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Which means it has a lot more credibility than anything Trump says.

The Righties hate it when that dang LIB'RUL MEDIA quotes video-taped depositions from court proceedings in their news articles.

They prefer destroying the video-tape evidence against them ...

Aho Old Guy wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Which means it has a lot more credibility than anything Trump says.

The Righties hate it when that dang LIB'RUL MEDIA SELECTIVELY quotes video-taped depositions from court proceedings in their news articles.

They prefer destroying the video-tape evidence against them ...

JohnStOnge wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:WARNING: The above link is to the New York Times.

Which means it has a lot more credibility than anything The Hildabeast says.

CID1990 wrote:

Aho Old Guy wrote: The Righties hate it when that dang LIB'RUL MEDIA quotes video-taped depositions from court proceedings in their news articles.

They prefer destroying the video-tape evidence against them ...

Is that the same as removing transcripts from the national archives, or is that different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gil Dobie wrote:Funny how there was no torture from 2009-2016.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Aho Old Guy wrote: The Righties hate it when that dang LIB'RUL MEDIA SELECTIVELY quotes video-taped depositions from court proceedings in their news articles.

They prefer destroying the video-tape evidence against them ...

FIFY

CID1990 wrote:So

If you have a dude...

And he's part of a group that has a dirty bomb

And you already know that nuke is in the US

And when you interrogate him, he gives you the, "I wanna see Ivytalk" speech

Do you call Ivy, or do you pull out hid fingernails? (While telling him it's his balls if he lies)?

Bisonfanatical wrote:

CID1990 wrote:So

If you have a dude...

And he's part of a group that has a dirty bomb

And you already know that nuke is in the US

And when you interrogate him, he gives you the, "I wanna see Ivytalk" speech

Do you call Ivy, or do you pull out hid fingernails? (While telling him it's his balls if he lies)?

Hard call..

It starts out cut and dried like this, until innocent people have lost their rights under the guise of this very situation.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Bisonfanatical wrote: Hard call..

It starts out cut and dried like this, until innocent people have lost their rights under the guise of this very situation.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I'm not allowing for this guy to be innocent

My scenario assumes there is no doubt

The question is- is there a situation where real torture is acceptable?

Bisonfanatical wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I'm not allowing for this guy to be innocent

My scenario assumes there is no doubt

The question is- is there a situation where real torture is acceptable?

I don't think it should ever be acceptable for any government institution to torture people.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Bisonfanatical wrote: I don't think it should ever be acceptable for any government institution to torture people.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Even if you have irrefutable evidence that the person has knowledge of an impending attack on a large population center?

I'm inclined to agree that torture is pretty much off limits in 99.99% of all circumstances- but I'm reluctant to say "never".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bisonfanatical wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Even if you have irrefutable evidence that the person has knowledge of an impending attack on a large population center?

I'm inclined to agree that torture is pretty much off limits in 99.99% of all circumstances- but I'm reluctant to say "never".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can see you're point, but it is such a slippery slope. To empower any government with that choice and to trust them that absolute power will not corrupt absolutely?

Whether or not a large group dies by a suicide bomber or a building being blown up or a dirty bomb, dead is dead.
You can't stop crazy nor can you protect every one from every thing.

I am a person that leans towards an eye for an eye. Like Russia or israel, you hit us buy accident or on purpose and we are going to nail your group or organization hard and brutal ... unfortunately, that gives them the first strike ... but not the last.

CID1990 wrote:

Bisonfanatical wrote: I can see you're point, but it is such a slippery slope. To empower any government with that choice and to trust them that absolute power will not corrupt absolutely?

Whether or not a large group dies by a suicide bomber or a building being blown up or a dirty bomb, dead is dead.
You can't stop crazy nor can you protect every one from every thing.

I am a person that leans towards an eye for an eye. Like Russia or israel, you hit us buy accident or on purpose and we are going to nail your group or organization hard and brutal ... unfortunately, that gives them the first strike ... but not the last.

We entrust the government to kill these same people - every day

If they have actionable intelligence I doubt pouring water on their faces is more extreme than sending them off to the ol dirt nap

Part of the problem is that we have expanded the definition of torture

CID1990 wrote:

Bisonfanatical wrote: I can see you're point, but it is such a slippery slope. To empower any government with that choice and to trust them that absolute power will not corrupt absolutely?

Whether or not a large group dies by a suicide bomber or a building being blown up or a dirty bomb, dead is dead.
You can't stop crazy nor can you protect every one from every thing.

I am a person that leans towards an eye for an eye. Like Russia or israel, you hit us buy accident or on purpose and we are going to nail your group or organization hard and brutal ... unfortunately, that gives them the first strike ... but not the last.

We entrust the government to kill these same people - every day

If they have actionable intelligence I doubt pouring water on their faces is more extreme than sending them off to the ol dirt nap

Part of the problem is that we have expanded the definition of torture

Aho Old Guy wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
We entrust the government to kill these same people - every day

If they have actionable intelligence I doubt pouring water on their faces is more extreme than sending them off to the ol dirt nap

Part of the problem is that we have expanded the definition of torture

Really, Cid? I don't think so.

Calling torture 'enhanced interrogation' is bogus as Hell. The CIA was 100% wrong to sully America with it, John Yoo was a dumb ass to '(re-)define' (NOT EXPAND) it, Bush/Cheney et. al. were jerk-offs to open the door, and Jack Ass Richard Burr (and 90%+ of Righties) who refuse to release the final report are putting politics before the best interests of America.

Axis soldiers/leaders were executed for 'enhanced interrogation' techniques. Rightfully so. I'm not suggesting the same fate for the morons who brought this shame upon America, but to brush it off is pathetic, hypocritical, and against the ideals of our nation.

SHAME !!