Thoughts on the CIA Report

[qazplm]

actually no you aren't good

1. ethics in the battlefield is a far cry from a unified system that applies globally. There was nothing like that until the Lieber Code.

2. You think we lost Vietnam and drew in Korea because of the Geneva Convention?? That may be one of the craziest things I've read on here. What does Desert Storm have to do with the Geneva Convention? A political decision to pull out was not made because of the Geneva Convention. You clearly don't understand what the GC does and does not do. It had nothing to do with the outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other war we fought.

3. Again, the laws were written for the most part before Obama was even born. I thought you wanted Obama to follow the law?

4. Collateral damage is not against the GC. Again, if you understood the GC you'd know it explicitly allows that collateral damage to some degree is unavoidable. It does not require eliminating it, only that the concept of proportionality be used. Why don't you spend a little time studying what it actually is then come back.

5. "Clandestine" units are not relieved from following the GC. They still follow the Law of War. They followed them in their attack on OBL's house for example. They could have just dropped a bomb on the whole place, they instead went in with a surgical strike team.

6. The idea that "war's bad so why have rules" is something few people have advocated going back a long time.

 

[qazplm]

The law of war

covers everyone to some degree. We don't follow the rules for POWs and lawful combatants that are in the Geneva Convention for unlawful combatants (terrorists), but the Law or War (or Law of Armed Conflict) still has basic rules we have to follow even with unlawful combatants. The fact that they act lawlessly doesn't mean we drop our morals too.

 

[qazplm]

perhaps

he realizes that if we do whatever we want because some of our enemies do whatever they want, then we have no moral ground to expect any of our enemies not to torture our own Soldiers. We have laws against murder, but not everyone follows them, should we not have those laws then?

 

[GMM]

James Mitchell

He interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Check out what KSM told him:

"[The Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats' report] shows al Qaeda and the al Qaeda 2.0 folks, ISIL, that we're divided and that we're easy targets, that we don't have the will to defeat them because that's what they know. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told me personally, 'Your country will turn on you, the liberal media will turn on you, the people will grow tired of this, they will turn on you, and when they do, you are going to be abandoned."

Unfortunately, KSM was right.

KSM predicted what the Dems would do to me

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: actually no you aren't good

Originally posted by qazplm:

6. The idea that "war's bad so why have rules" is something few people have advocated going back a long time.

And why? Because even the people declaring the wars understand that wars are fought by humans with families and lives of their own who should be treated as humans, even if you're trying to kill them.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
I too found it odd to see people posing at the south pool (which was again the only one on when we visited). Inside the museum, no one was posing, particularly in the historical exhibition, which I thought was particularly well done. The history behind the construction of the WTC towers was very interesting, but the memorial exhibitions were very heavy.

I drew comparisons to the Nagasaki memorial in Japan. As an American touring there, it was one of the most awkward places I'd ever been. That said, I don't know if Nagasaki is as emotional today as the WTC site was for me simply because I can remember everything from that day so vividly. Interestingly, I was stationed in Japan at the time...

There were a couple of occasions where I was near-tears in the historical exhibition and once at the memorial pools. It was a far more emotional visit for me than the Pearl Harbor/Arizona memorial.

For years, I had felt as if 9/11 was almost just a cliche, because we were so beaten over the head with it every day. Being at the memorial really changed that. It brought the actual day (and weeks after) back again. It's a beautifully done memorial. Listing the names, and putting the flowers in names for their birthday was a particularly moving touch. I think what is most impactful is seeing all the names of innocent people in the location they died. You can look into the giant holes in the ground and see the emptiness where the lives of these people once were. I'll never forget it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I'm stating a fact

Originally posted by BoilerJS:
Why do we have to comply with the Geneva conventionn here? These aren't soldiers we captured they are terrorists.
Did they drop leaflets over the twin towers before they levelled them? Sorry but if I were in control of the whole Middle East debacle I'd make the whole area one huge glass bowl. We can drill through glass to get to the oil over there.

I'm sure that you would just haphazardly bomb hundreds of millions of people to death without reservatoin. No hyperbole here.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I didn't know that. We saw flowers around, and noticed a few put inside some of the names, but just figured it was family members. Now that you mention it, they were all the same type, cut the same way, so it makes sense. Thanks for sharing!

 

[qazplm]

Re: I'm stating a fact

well, they are just Muslims so no big whoop he'd say...

 

[Purdue97]

I would really recomed watching Megyn Kelly from FoxNews

She had an aired interview with Mitchell on last night, and Part II tonight I believe.

Pretty interesting interview, that gives his perspective.

I will say, he does throw the Democrat Senate committee under the bus pretty bad though as they conducted their report without
1) Talking to CIA
2) Talking to him
3) Talk to any of the Republicans involved.

The report damns him pretty hard as a torturer that took liberties beyond what was allowed. The Dems that did the report did not even realize he was the one that reported the abuses. He also admits that water boarding with some people is just not effective so that IMO, does give him more credibility than just about anyone else IMO.



This post was edited on 12/16 6:23 PM by Purdue97

 

[Purdue97]

Really says who

It did not work-

-Did that come from the Director of the CIA? No.
-Did that come from the Director of the program? No.
-Did that come from soldiers on the ground? No.

It did not work comes from Obama and the Senate Democratic committee, the same people that did not talk to any of the Republicans involved in the program, the Director of the CIA, or the Director of the Program. And, to say the least, that 80 million dollar cost is refuted to see the least.

I really recomend you watch the Mitchel interview. Granted, it will make your heroes in Washington DC look poor, but that is their own fault.

 

[Purdue97]

That is not how intelligence works

To work, you'd need to show that you got actual, true actionable intelligence.

That is not how intelligence usually works. It is often pieced together, corroborated, projected, and that is acted upon.

If it wasn't true it didn't work, and especially if it wasn't true anymore than chance.
If it wasn't actionable it didn't work either. Intelligence does you nothing if there's nothing you can do with it.

Well, again, see my above statement. Also, many times it is untrue statements that lead to good intelligence, or lead to people/places being investigated more. I mean, that is really one of the things that led to OBL being discovered. Three or four high value targets all told a different story about OBL courier. That raises alarm bells among intelligence officers and combat arms soldiers out in the field. Run into a group of people that are suspected terrorists/insurgents etc., and one of the things that tips us off is if they all have a different story. Thae hard part is determining the truth-that said, it does not make that information irrelevant.

The unasked question is, is there another way to get actionable intelligence that does work and/or is better than torture?
If the answer is yes, then you should be doing that for both practical and moral reasons.

That is only unasked in that Democrat report on torture. It is common knowledge that better ways to get information could involve protection or relocating a family. Those methods simply do not work with guys that are well funded hard core radicals. And really, how would one be able to tell if there was a better way to garner actionable intelligence unless you at least try EIT?

This post was edited on 12/16 6:14 PM by Purdue97

This post was edited on 12/16 6:21 PM by Purdue97

 

[Purdue97]

Re: with all due respect, you need a history lesson

That is a legal lesson, and maybe a lecture on ethics, but definitely not a history lesson, or a lesson on war in general.

 

[Purdue97]

I think you might have missed a point in all of this

Qazplm is stating that water boarders(Nazis) got convicted in WWII. And has gone on a legal issues in war lecture on why torture against combatants should not be used.

But yet in WWII dropping nukes on civilians and carpet bombing Europe was considered ok. Now drone attacks launched in a country that the US did not declare war on and kills kids is admissble.

You state that it was hyperbole to drop bombs and kill hundreds of millions. Seems to me that similar things were done before and it was ruled legal.

It is why infantry guys on up largely do not give a crap about legality in war issues. They really make no sense. Accomplish the mission and stay alive.

 

[qazplm]

I'm stating facts

F A C T S.

Dropping nukes was done by one country over a week-long period. The moral implications of that and fire bombing were in a state of flux. We'd just gotten the ability to do such things, and we didn't even know the implications fully of what dropping nukes would do, and probably didn't fully appreciate the innocent life lost with fire bombing.

Drone attacks aren't REMOTELY comparable in size or scope to either of those two things. "killing kids" happens in every war and will continue to happen. Again, study the concept of proportionality.

Infantry guys don't give a crap? Yeah, they absolutely do give a crap, the smart ones do anyways. I've represented a couple of guys in various stages of trials/appeals who I guarantee you wish they'd given more of a crap. Accomplishing the mission includes doing it IAW the Law of War/Law of Armed Conflict, and following the ROEs is not exactly "optional."

 

[qazplm]

Re: That is not how intelligence works

1. nonsequitor. I said nothing about it being complete, but each piece you get has to be you know accurate, and it has to lead to something actionable otherwise it's worthless.

2. no untrue statements that are false confessions don't lead to anything. They are simply statements made to stop the torture and they are based more on what the suspect thinks the torturer wants to hear than anything else. The fact that you have four stories, all of which are probably not true, does not help you figure out the truth.

3. LOL at number 3. How do we know torture doesn't work until we try it? I mean, it's this brand new thing no one has tried or studied or had experience with before in human history.

 

[Purdue97]

You obviously do not work in intel or out in the field

1. To say intelligence is worthless unless it is acted upon is just complete ignorance. It often leads to non action.

2. Not sure what to say on that either. If one has statements from 3-4 people, on an individual or place or town, that conflict with each other, but it is known they all know the person or location-that tells one at the least that more investigating needs to be done.

3. It is not an umbrella. Torture will work on some and not on others. If normal interogations are getting one nowhere, by all means it should be graduated too. Will it work? Maybe or maybe not.

 

[Purdue97]

Uh ok

Never said that you were not stating facts. I just simply pointed the large discrepancy among actions that are deemed legal and illegal in war. How some things are deemed to be ok, but others are frowned upon, is mind boggling.

ROE is not optional, but on the other hand it usually leaves enough leeway for one to make a choice. I have a few friends that are in Leavenworth, some for up to a decade for War Crimes. Unfortunately, they all pretty much say they would do the same thing again. None of them are in there for a clear cut sexual assault or murder-all happened while in contact. Yeah, we listen to the ROE instructions but in the end it is about the man next to you, the mission, and getting out alive.

 

[qazplm]

I said actionable

not acted upon. It has to be something that is actionable, think about the difference between actionable and acted upon and get back to me.

Yes, brilliant. We learned nothing from this group of people. Hmmm, guess we are going to have to do more investigating.

There's no evidence that torture works on anyone.

 

[qazplm]

no it isn't mind boggling

it's pretty clear what the distinctions are and for the most part pretty darn understandable.

The vast majority of combat Soldiers end up going through entire deployments without violating it, so it must not be THAT hard to understand or comply with, and apparently for the vast majority it isn't about getting out alive and nothing else because if it were, we'd have a lot more ROE violations than we have.

 

[Stairwayto7]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by Stairwayto7:
But rather I understand when humans are reduced to nothing but the evils of this world they frequently resort to evil. So if our country is going to dabble in war, we have to be willing to handle the byproducts of war.

This post was edited on 12/15 8:28 PM by Stairwayto7

Sorry, rectal feeding and hydrating, keeping people in coffins, are not byproducts of war; they are byproducts of sick f$&@s.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Of course those cases crossed the line, those instances were a demonstration of how sick some people are. But my issue here is how the spin of the report is saying that all forms are one in the same. I assert making that claim is foolish. The people that did those things should be punished because there was no point to those. However the coffin tactic is common in SERE school, because claustrophobia is form of "breaking" someone's will.
Posted from Rivals Mobile