The Evil Genius Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 I would think that if McCain thinks she should be disqualified, a lot of the GOP would respect that. But then again, his party has abandoned him too. If only he would do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, SoulSkin said: It was Susan Collins who asked her that. "...Collins then noted that as a candidate, Trump had said he was in favor of waterboarding — and even more extreme measures. "If the CIA has a high-value terrorism suspect in its custody," Collins said, "and the president gave you a direct order to waterboard that suspect, what would you do?" "I do not believe the president would ask me to do that,"..." Pretty good summary from NPR with related questions from Warner and a few others. Also has the video to the whole nomination hearing: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/09/609681289/gina-haspel-confirmation-hearing-cia-nominee-faces-senators-questions Yes he would. And that answer alone is disqualifying. If US is going to torture to extract information, at least have the balls to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, bearrock said: Yes he would. And that answer alone is disqualifying. If US is going to torture to extract information, at least have the balls to admit it. EXACTLY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said: I AM focusing on a guy who is breaking the law. I dont care what his motivations are. And if you do, well then I guess that's a way to justify almost anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, Larry said: Dr. Strangelove Nice pull!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, twa said: they also set up a system to protest and such....and the rule of law Funny how people react when the government establishes rules to shield themselves from dissenting voices. It’s interesting that you a self avowed states rights guy who as I recall has at times defended the secession of the South during the Civil War would now conveniently be seeking to maintain civility and law and order. But then you’re the same guy who said that protests should be non-disruptive, and out of public view. You’d have made a fine Tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Dissenting voices or being a ass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, SoulSkin said: It was Susan Collins who asked her that. "...Collins then noted that as a candidate, Trump had said he was in favor of waterboarding — and even more extreme measures. "If the CIA has a high-value terrorism suspect in its custody," Collins said, "and the president gave you a direct order to waterboard that suspect, what would you do?" "I do not believe the president would ask me to do that,"..." Pretty good summary from NPR with related questions from Warner and a few others. Also has the video to the whole nomination hearing: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/09/609681289/gina-haspel-confirmation-hearing-cia-nominee-faces-senators-questions Like much of this hearing, you can get the answers if you actually go through everything. Quote "Senator, my moral compass is strong," Haspel said. "I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral — even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it." Prodded again by Warner, Haspel said, "No. I believe that CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with American values." She referenced a change in american values/morals/philosophy on it. She made it clear she would stick with the views of today, including "even if it was technically legal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 As a side note, I find it frustrating that our political leaders would use the term torture. They know full well what such a lack of nuance in a public hearing is going to get for answers. They do it anyways, then they turn around and stomp their feet about it. They want to score political points while also being too big a ******* to ask the questions that should have been asked. If you want to know her morality concerns don't ask her about torture. Ask her about water boarding, sleep deprivation, loud noises, altering of diet, other psychological manipulations, use of drugs. You know - the details. instead they use the word torture, and sound like 90% of the public discussing the issue. no wonder our public has no nuance in their view and conversation of it, our leaders set the example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 51 minutes ago, tshile said: She referenced a change in american values/morals/philosophy on it. She made it clear she would stick with the views of today, including "even if it was technically legal" It was definitely more acceptable to the general public just after 9/11. I found the next part of the quote (after the part about not believing Trump would ask her to waterboard a terrorism suspect) interesting, and maybe indicative of her having a different personal view on it now than she had then. "But, she added, before pausing for a brief moment, "We have, today in the U.S. government, other U.S. government entities that conduct interrogations. DOD uses the Army Field Manual, and they conduct battlefield interrogations" — and the CIA has expertise that can support those interrogations. The FBI can also help, she said. "CIA is not the right place to conduct interrogations," Haspel said, adding, "We don't have interrogators, and we don't have interrogation expertise." Saying that her nomination reflects a respect for her opinion, Haspel said, "My experiences during those days after 9/11 inform my views. I'm extremely knowledgeable, and I'm also extremely knowledgeable about the price CIA working-level men and women out in the trenches paid for decisions made after 9/11." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, twa said: Dissenting voices or being a ass? Depends on if it was your tea being thrown into the harbor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 For me the issue with Haskell's answers on the subject is that she doesn't seem to want to take any personal stance on it. She keeps passing it off on what others think of it and that she will follow their recommendations. That is good & well when the administration is forbidding the use of it, but Trump is on record saying he wants to bring it back and "go further" whatever that means. So would she, at risk of being fired, deny it being used if say the current administration's "morals, ethics, and philosophy" on it changed all of a sudden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 58 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: Who is that disgusting piece of slime? The same guy in this exchange with Sean Hannity about attacking North Korea with nuclear weapons: SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Well, when I say no good option -- if we have to strike, we're going to incinerate that place. The nuclear fallout, correct me if I'm wrong -- the fallout potential is dramatic. I mean, potentially -- am I right, or overstating the fact that millions could potentially die here? MCINERNEY: Yeah, but they'll be mostly North Koreans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Here's another doozy from this McInerney clown, a Fox News contributor on military issues: McInerney often promotes outlandish ideas about purported threats from Muslim countries. For instance, shortly after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370 went missing in early March 2014, McInerney began promoting on Fox News the theory that the plane could have been hijacked and sent to Pakistan, possibly to be loaded with conventional or nuclear weapons and used in a terrorist attack. Ridiculed by one commentator as a “Tom Clancy plot,” McInerney’s theory got picked up by a host of right-wing figures, including Rupert Murodch, who took to Twitter shortly after McInerney’s appearance to claim that the plane had been “effectively hidden” and may have been stashed away in “Northern Pakistan, like Bin Laden.” https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mcinerney_thomas/ or this one: McInerney has also peddled the bizarre and thinly sourced theory, popularized by Frank Gaffney and other Islamophobic conspiracy theorists, that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government in an effort to impose sharia law on the United States. In a January 2014 talk radio interview, McInerney declared, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.” Pressed to elaborate on the allegation, McInerney added, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 or 15 of them in the U.S. government.” Thanks Fox News for giving this **** stain a platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, NoCalMike said: For me the issue with Haskell's answers on the subject is that she doesn't seem to want to take any personal stance on it. She keeps passing it off on what others think of it and that she will follow their recommendations It doesn't come across that way to me at all. To me it comes across as someone being extremely particular about the language they're using, because the language the other people are using carries potentially serious legal ramifications, and not just for her. The senators want to play dumb with a question like "Do you think Torture is immoral?", or treat Haspel like she's dumb. Everyone (or at least everyone should, Haspel clearly does) understands that question does not exist in a vacuum, but they want to pretend it does. Then they want to grandstand with this "It's a yes or no question" bull****. Predictably the media ran wild with it. Her answers were crystal clear to me. Some people just didn't like them. I think the 'why' for each of those people is not necessarily the same. Some people are dense/dumb. Others have agendas (note: having an agenda does not necessarily make your motives bad...) Some are playing for the cameras. Some aren't capable of nuance. Some people have morals that make it all over the line with no exceptions ever. Each person has their own reason. I wish we could get a view of what went on behind closed doors and compare it to what went on in the public hearing. I bet it was a completely different conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, tshile said: As a side note, I find it frustrating that our political leaders would use the term torture. They know full well what such a lack of nuance in a public hearing is going to get for answers. They do it anyways, then they turn around and stomp their feet about it. They want to score political points while also being too big a ******* to ask the questions that should have been asked. If you want to know her morality concerns don't ask her about torture. Ask her about water boarding, sleep deprivation, loud noises, altering of diet, other psychological manipulations, use of drugs. You know - the details. instead they use the word torture, and sound like 90% of the public discussing the issue. no wonder our public has no nuance in their view and conversation of it, our leaders set the example. I read the rest of the thread and think good points are made but I wanted to add a few things. One, I feel like this is a big part of why so many people don't trust politicians or the media. Now I admit many people just paint with far too broad a brush and use examples like this to dismiss everything they hear. But I agree situations like this hurt the trust in the media and the politicians. Two, you made a good point about "torture". I'd like to hear what people think is torture and what isn't. Is it a physical and/or mental thing? Drill bit through the knee cap I think we can all agree is torture. I think most here would say pretty much all physical considerations would be torture. So what about mental? Waterboarding is a mental treatment. I imagine most here would be against it. What about sleep deprivation? Is that torture or just softening up the mind a bit? Is there an hours limit? What about good cop/bad cop? Not in a violent manner but someone walks in and acts like a jerk then someone else comes in and plays good cop. That could easily be mental torture. Point is where is your line? And why does that need to be the line of the whole country? Like tshile said, the questions were far too broad. Three, I'd like to see someone do in depth research and find old clips of some of these people and their opinions on September 12th, 2001. The views of the society change over time. We need to be careful judging things that happened in the past by today's standards. I've seen where politicans were against gay marriage 30 years ago but are now for it and forgiven. But others revise their views from something they said 30 years ago and they are still just thought of as bigots. It's almost like there is a different standard depending on if you support that person or not instead of judging everyone by the same criteria. Shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I'd like to hear what people think is torture and what isn't. That's the problem - everyone has a different definition. Maybe a more accurate way to word it is: there are a lot of different defintions. From where I sit - everyone appears to be against Torture. We all just define it differently. We all have different standards for everything - the context of a situation matters. Listening to the questions over NPR this morning was frustrating. Our senators were behaving like cable news talk show hosts. But it works. They all got their little clips circulated around Twitter and got praised for being so awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Everyone opposes torture as long as they get to define it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 I hope this is true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 @TheGreatBuzz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture#Definition_of_torture They started the definition out very specific and all-encompassing, then threw in a sentence at the end to make the entire thing ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Hey look. It's someone who went through it and uses the term. Maybe it is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Hey look. It's someone who went through it and uses the term. Maybe it is relevant. If by relevant you mean "I didn't read anything you guys said" then, sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 15 minutes ago, tshile said: @TheGreatBuzz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture#Definition_of_torture They started the definition out very specific and all-encompassing, then threw in a sentence at the end to make the entire thing ambiguous. I watched a documentary a while ago where it talked about "torture" that we used. The guy defending our actions used a bunch of legal jargon, much of which was over my head, to show that nothing we did was torture. I admit that we did somethings I don't think we should but my big takeaway was that defining torture is kinda like defining porn. But I know it when I see it ... 11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Hey look. It's someone who went through it and uses the term. Maybe it is relevant. My grandfather was a POW in WW2. He was tortured. Is his definition more or less relevant here? McCain definetly deserves time in the "what is torture" conversation. But he didn't go out of his way here to define it either. Which was the point of what tshile and I were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 On the question of what is/what isn't "Torture" wasn't the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" purposely made up in order to muddy the waters on that question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.