Our dysfunctional Congress is spending days trying to smear Strzok and the FBI while they are completely ignoring the fact that Russian intelligence interfered with our election process. The real problem is the Russians are using cyber warfare to attack our democracy and other western democracies. They will undoubtedly increase their effort in the future since they were somewhat successful. We should be focusing on countering this threat and doing everything we can to defend ourselves in the future because they will only become more successful in the future if we ignore the attack.
I am extremely impressed by Strsok’s ability to defend the integrity of the FBI, highlight some of tRump’s disgusting behavior and make his antagonists look like blubbering idiots. More politicians should have his integrity and forthrightness.
I was appalled by the open and vicious display of sleaze by the GOP in Congress – which only made Strzok’s integrity and ability that much more dramatic by comparison. Colbert had fun with this, but truthfully watching Strzok was the best part for me: https://youtu.be/siYIEmHOvDU
I doubt seriously that the Republicans berating Strzok understood that they were being gamed. All they would have understood would have been Strozk confessing to their charges like Star Chamber.
In reading the transcript of the hearing I come away with the impression that he gave as good as he got or a little better.
However, in watching the video of the various exchanges, I came away with the impression that he is a liar. His tone, his attitude and his facial expressions conveyed a much different message than his words.
by that you were referring to his admitted opinions? which are perfectly acceptable, even for fbi employees. as always, your favorite ploy is the same as the president’s – lie, lie, lie…
A February 2018 comprehensive review by The Wall Street Journal of Strzok’s messages showed that “texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump”.14
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-fbi-life-of-peter-strzok-and-lisa-page-as-told-in-their-text-messages-1517589380You know, the Wall Street Journal, that commie rag…
Later, when additional emails were discovered a few days before the election, Strzok supported reopening the Clinton investigation.26 He then co-wrote the letter27 that Comey used to inform Congress, which “reignited the email controversy in the final days” and “played a key role in a controversial FBI decision that upended Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”26
Boy, so totally biased against Trump that he would say, “No, No! Hillary must win, we shouldn’t investigate this!” Oh, wait. He didn’t do that, did he?
Hey Bas, looks like you didn’t bother to follow the links I provided to declassified US documents on torture. Typical of you. You don’t dare read anything that might pop your bubble.
Does Torture Work? The C.I.A.’s Claims and What the Committee Found
A report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence describes a years-long C.I.A. effort to justify its harsh interrogation tactics. Even before the agency interrogated anyone, the C.I.A.’s lawyers wrote in a November 2001 memo that it would be easier to defend against torture allegations if the tactics saved lives. Here are eight cases cited in the report where the C.I.A. made the case that its tactics thwarted plots and led to the capture of terrorists, and how the committee’s report undercut those accounts.
I have a knowledge and bias about interrogation techniques. I was commissioned as an Army strategic intelligence officer. For 18 years I taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School. I have spent decades studying which interrogation techniques work, and which do not. The institutional experience, research, and science consistently point to the efficacy of rapport-based techniques and the unreliability of coercion.
It is tempting and easy to employ a false calculus when thinking about torture. If one assumes that a suspect is a terrorist who knows of a plot to murder 500 people, it’s easy to dismiss a brutal interrogation as “he deserved worse!” If retribution is the object of an interrogation, then brutality has some appeal. But if what is really desired is vital intelligence, why employ an interrogation strategy that is more likely than not to make a suspect catatonic? Put that another way: if torture is the fastest way to truth, why isn’t it standard practice in everyday criminal law?
The reason the justice system disallows torture is not judicial faintness of heart. It is because torture is unreliable. People confess to crimes they didn’t commit under the pressure of coercive interrogation. One study of proven false confessions shows that the average length of police interrogations in those instances is 16 straight hours.
David Irvine
Former Army Strategic Intelligence Officer,
Retired Brigadier General,
Practicing Attorney in Salt Lake City https://www.justsecurity.org/18207/torture-unreliable-inestimably-costly/
Bassy refuses to mention the fact that until political pressure forced the Army and CIA to renounce torture as ineffective, both used it, trained people to use it and obtained valuable intel from it.
I gave Bassy the link to the KUBARK manual but he apparently didn’t have the stomach to read it. To read the fact that our government (among nearly all the rest of the world) absolutely considered torture to be useful. Or maybe he did read it. He sure did fail to respond after I gave him the proof of the US position on torture prior to the 9/11 and Gitmo fall out.
It is so tiresome to have people like Bassy lie about previous debates. Very frustrating that we can’t link back to those discussions without knowing the date and comic they took place on.
@AndyLit: I’m a psychologist. Actual research has shown that the MOST effective means to gather information is not, in fact, torture. We’ve known this for a long time now. Centuries, in fact. In WWI, all sides got information through much more subtle techniques, enough so that the British began training in counter-interrogation techniques in WWII.
The American Psychological Association categorically bans it for ethical reasons, but it is also clearly shown it DOES NOT WORK. It’s quite simple, really: People will say anything under torture to stop the pain, so you can’t trust anything they say. If you can persuade them to reveal information unwittingly or even willingly, it is much more trustworthy.
In addition, if you want to “turn” someone, the best way is to show that you will treat them better than their own people, not worse; as well as building a positive relationship.
Here’s one article: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/the-humane-interrogation-technique-that-works-much-better-than-torture/383698/
Here’s one from the British Psychological Association: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/12/11/rapport-building-interrogation-is-more-effective-than-torture/
And anyone asserting they understand the effectiveness of torture without having experienced it should note this:
“Our research suggests that the legal standard for evaluating torture is psychologically untenable. People cannot appreciate the severity of interrogation practices they themselves are not experiencing—a psychological constraint that in effect encourages torture.” (Nordgren, McDonnell, Loewenstein, Psychological Science, vol 22, issue 5, 2011. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611405679)
Note that John McCain, someone who has experienced extensive torture, is categorically opposed to it.
Aww, Poor andy. Can he point to where I did “lie about previous debates”? I said above, that he said torture works despite my efforts to show it is not reliable. (A word he seems unwilling to address.) Is that my lie? That I said he said torture works? Funny, if so because he is still insisting that it works.
Yep it is hard to argue with moving targets that lie.
“Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were having an affair, sent private messages to each other expressing political opinions, which they have every right to do. There is no evidence at all that their OPINIONS interfered with the professionalism of their work.
“Both Strzok and Page worked on BOTH the Trump and Hillary investigations. If they had wanted to stop Trump, they could have easily done so. They had all the information. They had all the documents.
“All they had to do was strategically “leak” the information about Trump being investigated for ties to Russia and it would have been all over. But NO such leak occurred.
“Strzok and Page could have stopped Trump if they had violated policy. BUT THEY DIDN’T.
“The only FBI leaks were in the New York office, with rogue FBI agents in New York leaking information on the Hillary investigation to Rudy Giuliani, which Rudy DID use to attack Hillary.Oh, and the fact that then-FBI head, still (at that point) a life-long Republican, publicly announced an investigation of Hillary’s e-mails (which would soon close with ZERO indictments, guilty pleas or convictions at trial), while remaining silent about the far more serious investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia which remains open and has already resulted in numerous indictments, guilty pleas and one conviction at a completed trial, with more of all of those yet to come.
@Baslim the Beggar I will give you a thumbs up on your very carefully worded comment. You told only the truth.
Problem is, you told only a small part of the truth. Which most people consider lying by omission. You failed to mention that my points on torture were very limited and specific. You failed to mention that I directed you to the proof that our own government was of the opinion that it works.
In fact, once that proof was laid on the table, you simply vanished and never again responded.
Nice try, but your comments continue to show that you think torture works. Not once have you questioned the reliability of torture as a method of gaining information. Instead, you want to point to one single source. That makes you the kind of person not worth engaging with. And you keep trying to claim I lie. I stopped my part of the previous conversation for the same reason as now. I find your opinion to be of the same moral value that I would expect from an ally of the Gestapo. Which is to say, without any value.
@Baslim the Beggar You are an amusing tool. As I have said in the past, there are 3 basic applications for torture. 2 to gain information, the other as a tool to repress a domestic population.
The use of torture in military/intel situations does work. Why in the world why I claim it doesn’t?
The fact that you claim I gave you a “single source” just proves you didn’t even bother looking at it. At the time we had this discussion I specifically instructed to make note of the footnotes in several documents so you could access the numerous sources listed there. That “single source” happens to be the NSA archives of declassified US documents pertaining to torture along with publications from intelligence/military sources in other nations.
You terminated last time because you refused to access the information I gave you and were unwilling to admit same. I suspect you are doing the same now for the same reason. You refuse to look at information that will undermine your position.
Oh, and thanks for playing the Nazi card. Which actually brings up a question for you to ponder.
Tell me, oh wise one, how the Gestapo in France managed to extract information that resulted in the capture and/or death of so many partisans? What, exactly, do you think was going on at 84 Avenue Foch? Milk and cookies? Good cop, bad cop? Trust building exercises?
Watching Gomer Pyles and the other gnats buzzing around setting fire to themselves, the agent didn’t have to work very hard to let them prove their stupidity, or the fact they feed anxiously on every pile of fecal matter Trump drops for them.
I repeat. I terminated last time because I find your position morally repugnant. And using the Gestapo in France to validate your opinion? Yes, that says a lot too.
You still refuse to address the central point of efficacy. Did Miss Noor Kahn give away her information to the Gestapo despite the most severe and degrading torture? No.
Do you even consider that torturers have every reason to inflate their success? Doesn’t seem like it.
Reliability. I keep pitching that and you keep missing it. Dumb, dumb, and dumber.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/nazi-interrogator-revealed-value-kindness-84747a little more about Scharf here:
One of the most incredible points in the testimony was when Mr. Strzok said that he didn’t appreciate the false phrasing of a question or statement and then Gowdy said that he didn’t give a damn about that. Indeed. If anyone had the right to take something personally, it was Mr. Strzok, not Mr. Gowdy. Strzok had the goods on trump and didn’t let anyone else know, which is too bad for the rest of us, since we now have to put up with trump, but it is super ironic that this point is lost on the GOP!
Well said. When Andy starts desperately invoking the Nazis to justify his morally repugnant position, you know he’s lost not only the argument but all sense of decency. “Ich bin ein Third Reicher.”
Bassy, you are either dense or deliberately ignoring history. Citing the rare example of successful resistance does not negate the established body of evidence to the contrary.
The example of the Gestapo in France isn’t a matter of validating my opinion. It is a presentation of historic fact confirming my statement. There are a handful of published accounts of people successfully resisting torture at the hands of the Nazis. Noor Kahn, Odette Sansom, Pierre Brossolette, Lise Lesevre and the stories of a few others have been substantially documented.
None of which changes the fact that the Gestapo was successful in their efforts. I have addressed the “central point of efficacy” repeatedly. It is you who have failed to pursue the documentary evidence on the topic. The various war crimes trial records are filled with stories of those who failed to resist torture.
You persist in trying to conflate my very simple statement of fact into a discussion of morality. This permits you to ignore the basic fact that you refuse to admit for fear it will somehow taint you. Fact do not have morality or ethics or ideology. They simply ARE.
I will leave you with this catchphrase from the “war on terror”. It was, and quite possibly still is, in use during the period the US was extensively using the rendition program. Used by our own intel operators.
“If you want to make them talk, send them to Jordan. If you want to get them killed, then send them to Egypt.”
Gosh Steve, you’re beginning to catch on. Sort of.
Long before the topic was brought up here by Basilim, I have made it very clear that I believe that torture is justified in certain limited circumstances. That being to acquisition of intelligence that will make the difference between life and death for American lives or those of our allies.
If the price of locating the IED before it kills our troops happens to be knocking the crap out of a ISIS fighter, I am not going to condemn our people for doing it.
If the price of thwarting the next suicide airliner plot is teeth and toenails for an al-qeda operative, I will vote for the airline passengers every time.
I place the value of American lives above those of terrorists who seek to kill us.
As for the argument that if we do it others can justify doing it to us, well, in case you hadn’t noticed, our Islamist enemies have never stopped doing it. Our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan and a number of other hot spots understand what you apparently do not. If they are taken alive by one of the terror groups, it is almost inevitable that they will be tortured, mutilated and murdered simply because of who they are.
Is it “good”? No, not at all. Does it work? Yes, it does. Which is why the US had a rendition program to allies who are less squeamish.
My original point has never been about the morality, despite Basilim’s efforts to frame it that way. It is simply that in some applications, torture does work. To deny that reality is simply ridiculous.
I found it interesting that Storzok had more class when confronted by TheTexas Goober to NOT respond back: "Sir have you ever asked how your idol Mr. Trump looks into the eyes of his wife, or ex-wives. Or maybe Newt, or McCain, or others in your party that pay for play, then hide under the blanket, maybe with some of the closet queen evangelical “purists” caught with their pants down? No, integrity isn’t necessary to join your party of pinheads.
Poor Andy, he so much wants to avoid responsibility for outcomes which are immoral.
He claims that simply saying “Torture works” has no moral aspect. Which is why I find his opinions to be of zero worth.
Suppose someone (No, not me!) says, “Killing every Republican in the US will win the government for the Democrats.”
It is likely a true statement.
But the concept expressed in it is supremely immoral and disgusting to any person who is not a psychopath. (For those who are hard of comprehension, that means I disavow belief in the statement. )
But according to Andy, none need to disavow the concept, that disavowing it is not relevant.
But I feel that if I do not disavow it, I am giving implicit sanction to some idiot(s) to go kill some of my countrymen. I have a moral responsibility to not do that.
Torture is generally regarded as both illegal and immoral, just as calling for the murder all Republicans would be.
Sanctioning torture, no matter where it occurs is condoning an immoral process. And as I said, it facilitates the brutality of tyrants and other psychopaths.
Poor Bassy, so absolutely desperate to discredit my words that he is functionally incapable of discussing a distasteful topic without descending to moral condemnation and accusations of insanity.
It becomes clear that he/she could never have earned a passing grade in debate. Yes, Bassy, killing every Pub would win the govt for Dems. But that is a silly strawman that merits no serious discussion.
The use of torture by virtually every nation on earth is a basic reality. Simply “disavowing” the practice and running away solves nothing and ignores the ongoing reality.
Calling me a monster makes you feel good and plays well with the liberals but is functionally irrelevant to the discussion. As if I had said “Crucifixion works” and you had screamed “monster” and refused to discuss the mechanics of the act. It is REALITY. And it still happens even today.
The following should come as no surprise, but Andylit has previously been smoked out and roundly criticized (i.e., busted) in other corners of this site for essentially serving as a faithful frontman for Trump when it comes to Russian meddling in our last presidential election.
From a Steve Breen thread dated 27 December 2017, pushback from some more of his critics:
—“You are missing the point. The aim of Putin and Co. is not to change votes per se, but to undermine the integrity of our system of government by destroying confidence in our institutions. They have been doing the same thing with the European liberal democracies, and have been called out by both Merkel and Macron in no uncertain terms. They don’t really give a damn who gets elected as long as they have been able to weaken faith in the liberal democratic system. You are ringing in a straw man argument here by emphasizing change of votes as the purpose of Russian meddling—-which you may be well aware of if you’re one of the Russian moles.”
—“So who’s the desperate one trying to deflect?“
—“Regurgitating the Russian talking points that the meddling ‘if it actually happened,’ ‘didn’t change any voting machine votes,’ except when it did.”
——-
So, here we are several months later: Same Andy song, different thread.
Andylit comes across to me as lacking in basic humanity and empathy. Given that, there is little point in discussing these topics with someone lacking in the basic values that guide ethical behavior in most normal humans. The only value I have seen him espouse is that of winning. Anything is permissible as long as you win. I have to confess that I have not read all his arguments on this thread, but I did read enough of them to convince me of the accuracy of my previous conclusions about Andylit.
Steve, I love the cherry picking. Always nice to see comments out of context used as “proof” of a point. Good job. One of these days you are going to have to choose. Am I a Nazi or a Russian troll? Oh, gosh, I’m sorry Steve. You don’t actually call a person a Nazi. You reference that other people say I’m a Nazi.
Bassy, you have called me that and worse on other threads over the last year or so. To deny it an absolute lie. We have clashed since the day I made the statement that your rhetoric is absolutely contrary to the philosophy of your screen name. I believe I said Heinlein was rolling in his grave, or words to that effect.
Martens, we had a dustup in which we disagreed at a fundamental level. But I credit you with reminding me of Godwin’s law and that I should never be blase about playing the Nazi card. Perhaps you can have that chat with Steve.
Here is the basic problem. Steve and Bassy are archetypal liberal knee-jerks (yes Steve, you ARE a liberal). When they encounter an idea they disagree with they attack the person. Not the idea, but the person. This is especially true if they have crossed swords on other topics elsewhere on the boards.
To Bassy and Martens (Steve appears to be hopeless), the purpose of debate is to debate. The goal in a debate is to stay on topic and prove your point with facts and logic. To inject personality or vitriol into the discussion is just plain stupid. To attack the person right out of the gate is….gosh….rather Trumpian.
Ah, can’t point to an instance of “monster” or “insane” so make something up. Since I do not recall using those words, I will ask for proof.
Hmm, Heinlein, eh. Well, I seem to recall that you were willing for other people to practice torture, but not do it yourself. I wonder what RAH would say to that… Well, of course, I know. I actually just re-read Space Cadet. His view on expecting others to do the dirty work for you was quite clear. And is expressed in quite a number of his books.
No doubt you did say something like Heinlein was rolling in his grave. I know I did not call you names for that, as I have not done so to any of the few others who seem to take exception to my cat. And that includes the guy who thought Heinlein would flog me. I think most of you have a poor understanding of Heinlein, even the cranky old Heinlein.
Bassy, you know as well as I do that trying to search past cartoons for comment content is problematic.
You also know that you have tossed out quite a few nasty names at me over the past year. If you want to cloak yourself in faux indignation, go right ahead.
What would RAH say? Perhaps you should re-read Friday. His treatment of torture was rather cavalier. As for being willing for others to do my work, well, I guess we won’t know the answer unless I find myself in a Barbara Mackle situation with the kidnapper.
My point at that time was that your liberal leftist ideology is the antithesis of Basilim. Would he have flogged you? No, unless you got in his way. Would he have scorned your political ideas? Absolutely.
As for your cat, a fine looking character. We have 5 at the moment. The number varies but never drops too low.
Faux indignation? That’s what I am reading from you. I know have not called you insane or a monster, nor anything else of that sort. You also know nothing about my ideology. You only think you do, and you have shown in this sequence a real tendency to invent false beliefs. And to lie about what I have written.
And yet I have told no lies. I said you said torture works. That’s the truth. I also said I regard your opinion of no value because of that. You have only provided me with more reason to place no value on it with your constant lies about me.
Repubs are finally getting the message. Now, will they act on it?
From CNN:
“Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker said the President "us look like a pushover’ and that Putin was probably eating caviar on the plane home. ‘I was very disappointed and saddened with the equivalency that he gave between them (the US intelligence agencies) and what Putin was saying,’ said Corker, a Tennessee Republican who is not seeking re-election.
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell . . . .released a statement through a spokesman, backing the US intelligence community’s assessment and saying ‘Russia is not our friend.’‘As the Leader has said many times, Russia is not our friend, and he agrees with the findings of the intelligence community regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere in our elections,’ McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said in that statement. ‘Those positions have not changed.’
“Trump’s comments that appeared to equivocate Putin’s denial of Russian election meddling and the US intelligence community’s assessment were commonly evoked in the steady stream of criticism. Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska, issued a blistering statement just minutes after the press conference wrapped.Sassy rebuked Trump’s statement that he held ‘both countries responsible’ for the deteriorated relationship between the United States and Russia." . . .
Hey everyone – including Steve. Why are you even bothering to debate with/answer that Russian bot, AndyLit? He isn’t worth your fingers taping on you computer’s keys. Just ignore him/it. Really. Easy to just slide past his garbage. Eventually he will just fade away from this site because he’s being ignored. As he should be.
well-i-never almost 6 years ago
15 minutes to ask a pointless question.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Our dysfunctional Congress is spending days trying to smear Strzok and the FBI while they are completely ignoring the fact that Russian intelligence interfered with our election process. The real problem is the Russians are using cyber warfare to attack our democracy and other western democracies. They will undoubtedly increase their effort in the future since they were somewhat successful. We should be focusing on countering this threat and doing everything we can to defend ourselves in the future because they will only become more successful in the future if we ignore the attack.
Walrus Gumbo Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Gnatzis!
NRHAWK Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I am extremely impressed by Strsok’s ability to defend the integrity of the FBI, highlight some of tRump’s disgusting behavior and make his antagonists look like blubbering idiots. More politicians should have his integrity and forthrightness.
Motivemagus almost 6 years ago
I was appalled by the open and vicious display of sleaze by the GOP in Congress – which only made Strzok’s integrity and ability that much more dramatic by comparison. Colbert had fun with this, but truthfully watching Strzok was the best part for me: https://youtu.be/siYIEmHOvDU
superposition almost 6 years ago
Comparing job requirements for a member of Congress vs FBI agent, who is the most trustworthy?
https://www.fbiagentedu.org/fbi-requirements/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41946.pdf
retpost almost 6 years ago
If you watched the Republicans…….“Remember in November”.
montessoriteacher almost 6 years ago
I was glad to see the Democrats stand up to the bizarre display by the GOP at this hearing.
lobo1939 almost 6 years ago
I doubt seriously that the Republicans berating Strzok understood that they were being gamed. All they would have understood would have been Strozk confessing to their charges like Star Chamber.
Radish the wordsmith almost 6 years ago
Did you or did you not hold the opinions of a democrat?
Only loyal Trump republicans are allowed to work for the FBI.
Jail the Republican liars and thieves.
Teto85 Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Another great one. Thank you Mr Benson.
Alberta Oil Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Truly a proud moment to show the world how dignified the American system can be. Well done!
braindead Premium Member almost 6 years ago
No Trump Disciple comments?
Especially about DD Wiz’s comments above.
.
In the meantime, House Republicans are doing everything they can to sabotage investigation into Russ-e-an attacks on the United States.
#TraitorTrump
dogday Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Face it: SOMEbody is hiring better people than everyone else is electing.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
In reading the transcript of the hearing I come away with the impression that he gave as good as he got or a little better.
However, in watching the video of the various exchanges, I came away with the impression that he is a liar. His tone, his attitude and his facial expressions conveyed a much different message than his words.
Radish the wordsmith almost 6 years ago
The republicans looked like the off kilter out of touch with reality mad dogs that they are.
gopher gofer almost 6 years ago
⇧ @andylit
“his admitted bias”…
by that you were referring to his admitted opinions? which are perfectly acceptable, even for fbi employees. as always, your favorite ploy is the same as the president’s – lie, lie, lie…
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I watched the Colbert show edit.
So, righties, defenders of the constitution (supposedly), what is with the chairman trying to deny consultation with the FBI lawyer?
Looked like the HUAC hearings under “Tail-Gunner Joe” McCarthy. Complete with sleazy “did you smirk at your wife?” crap.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
A February 2018 comprehensive review by The Wall Street Journal of Strzok’s messages showed that “texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump”.14
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-fbi-life-of-peter-strzok-and-lisa-page-as-told-in-their-text-messages-1517589380You know, the Wall Street Journal, that commie rag…
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Later, when additional emails were discovered a few days before the election, Strzok supported reopening the Clinton investigation.26 He then co-wrote the letter27 that Comey used to inform Congress, which “reignited the email controversy in the final days” and “played a key role in a controversial FBI decision that upended Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”26
Boy, so totally biased against Trump that he would say, “No, No! Hillary must win, we shouldn’t investigate this!” Oh, wait. He didn’t do that, did he?
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@SteveBenson:
I had a discussion with Andy a while back.
He believes that torture works. Yep, he said that, despite my citing evidence that it certainly does not deserve to be relied on.
Which is why I find his opinions to be of no value.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@Baslim the Beggar
Hey Bas, looks like you didn’t bother to follow the links I provided to declassified US documents on torture. Typical of you. You don’t dare read anything that might pop your bubble.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Does Torture Work? The C.I.A.’s Claims and What the Committee Found
A report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence describes a years-long C.I.A. effort to justify its harsh interrogation tactics. Even before the agency interrogated anyone, the C.I.A.’s lawyers wrote in a November 2001 memo that it would be easier to defend against torture allegations if the tactics saved lives. Here are eight cases cited in the report where the C.I.A. made the case that its tactics thwarted plots and led to the capture of terrorists, and how the committee’s report undercut those accounts.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-torture-work-the-cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html
I have a knowledge and bias about interrogation techniques. I was commissioned as an Army strategic intelligence officer. For 18 years I taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School. I have spent decades studying which interrogation techniques work, and which do not. The institutional experience, research, and science consistently point to the efficacy of rapport-based techniques and the unreliability of coercion.
It is tempting and easy to employ a false calculus when thinking about torture. If one assumes that a suspect is a terrorist who knows of a plot to murder 500 people, it’s easy to dismiss a brutal interrogation as “he deserved worse!” If retribution is the object of an interrogation, then brutality has some appeal. But if what is really desired is vital intelligence, why employ an interrogation strategy that is more likely than not to make a suspect catatonic? Put that another way: if torture is the fastest way to truth, why isn’t it standard practice in everyday criminal law?
continued….
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
The reason the justice system disallows torture is not judicial faintness of heart. It is because torture is unreliable. People confess to crimes they didn’t commit under the pressure of coercive interrogation. One study of proven false confessions shows that the average length of police interrogations in those instances is 16 straight hours.
David Irvine
Former Army Strategic Intelligence Officer,
Retired Brigadier General,
Practicing Attorney in Salt Lake City https://www.justsecurity.org/18207/torture-unreliable-inestimably-costly/
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
You’re asking Andylit to read too much.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Bassy refuses to mention the fact that until political pressure forced the Army and CIA to renounce torture as ineffective, both used it, trained people to use it and obtained valuable intel from it.
I gave Bassy the link to the KUBARK manual but he apparently didn’t have the stomach to read it. To read the fact that our government (among nearly all the rest of the world) absolutely considered torture to be useful. Or maybe he did read it. He sure did fail to respond after I gave him the proof of the US position on torture prior to the 9/11 and Gitmo fall out.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/#kubark
It is so tiresome to have people like Bassy lie about previous debates. Very frustrating that we can’t link back to those discussions without knowing the date and comic they took place on.
Motivemagus almost 6 years ago
@AndyLit: I’m a psychologist. Actual research has shown that the MOST effective means to gather information is not, in fact, torture. We’ve known this for a long time now. Centuries, in fact. In WWI, all sides got information through much more subtle techniques, enough so that the British began training in counter-interrogation techniques in WWII.
The American Psychological Association categorically bans it for ethical reasons, but it is also clearly shown it DOES NOT WORK. It’s quite simple, really: People will say anything under torture to stop the pain, so you can’t trust anything they say. If you can persuade them to reveal information unwittingly or even willingly, it is much more trustworthy.
In addition, if you want to “turn” someone, the best way is to show that you will treat them better than their own people, not worse; as well as building a positive relationship.
Here’s one article: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/the-humane-interrogation-technique-that-works-much-better-than-torture/383698/
Here’s one from the British Psychological Association: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/12/11/rapport-building-interrogation-is-more-effective-than-torture/
And anyone asserting they understand the effectiveness of torture without having experienced it should note this:
“Our research suggests that the legal standard for evaluating torture is psychologically untenable. People cannot appreciate the severity of interrogation practices they themselves are not experiencing—a psychological constraint that in effect encourages torture.” (Nordgren, McDonnell, Loewenstein, Psychological Science, vol 22, issue 5, 2011. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611405679)
Note that John McCain, someone who has experienced extensive torture, is categorically opposed to it.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Aww, Poor andy. Can he point to where I did “lie about previous debates”? I said above, that he said torture works despite my efforts to show it is not reliable. (A word he seems unwilling to address.) Is that my lie? That I said he said torture works? Funny, if so because he is still insisting that it works.
Yep it is hard to argue with moving targets that lie.
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
From poster, “braindead GC INSIDER,” earlier”:
“No Trump Disciple comments? Especially about DD Wiz’s comments above.”
.
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
Encore, please::
“DD Wiz GC INSIDER, about 11 hours ago
“Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were having an affair, sent private messages to each other expressing political opinions, which they have every right to do. There is no evidence at all that their OPINIONS interfered with the professionalism of their work.
“Both Strzok and Page worked on BOTH the Trump and Hillary investigations. If they had wanted to stop Trump, they could have easily done so. They had all the information. They had all the documents.
“All they had to do was strategically “leak” the information about Trump being investigated for ties to Russia and it would have been all over. But NO such leak occurred.
“Strzok and Page could have stopped Trump if they had violated policy. BUT THEY DIDN’T.
“The only FBI leaks were in the New York office, with rogue FBI agents in New York leaking information on the Hillary investigation to Rudy Giuliani, which Rudy DID use to attack Hillary.Oh, and the fact that then-FBI head, still (at that point) a life-long Republican, publicly announced an investigation of Hillary’s e-mails (which would soon close with ZERO indictments, guilty pleas or convictions at trial), while remaining silent about the far more serious investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia which remains open and has already resulted in numerous indictments, guilty pleas and one conviction at a completed trial, with more of all of those yet to come.
“THE ONLY BIAS BY THE FBI WAS IN FAVOR OF TRUMP.”
Take another bow DD. :-)
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@Baslim the Beggar I will give you a thumbs up on your very carefully worded comment. You told only the truth.
Problem is, you told only a small part of the truth. Which most people consider lying by omission. You failed to mention that my points on torture were very limited and specific. You failed to mention that I directed you to the proof that our own government was of the opinion that it works.
In fact, once that proof was laid on the table, you simply vanished and never again responded.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Nice try, but your comments continue to show that you think torture works. Not once have you questioned the reliability of torture as a method of gaining information. Instead, you want to point to one single source. That makes you the kind of person not worth engaging with. And you keep trying to claim I lie. I stopped my part of the previous conversation for the same reason as now. I find your opinion to be of the same moral value that I would expect from an ally of the Gestapo. Which is to say, without any value.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@Baslim the Beggar You are an amusing tool. As I have said in the past, there are 3 basic applications for torture. 2 to gain information, the other as a tool to repress a domestic population.
The use of torture in military/intel situations does work. Why in the world why I claim it doesn’t?
The fact that you claim I gave you a “single source” just proves you didn’t even bother looking at it. At the time we had this discussion I specifically instructed to make note of the footnotes in several documents so you could access the numerous sources listed there. That “single source” happens to be the NSA archives of declassified US documents pertaining to torture along with publications from intelligence/military sources in other nations.
You terminated last time because you refused to access the information I gave you and were unwilling to admit same. I suspect you are doing the same now for the same reason. You refuse to look at information that will undermine your position.
Oh, and thanks for playing the Nazi card. Which actually brings up a question for you to ponder.
Tell me, oh wise one, how the Gestapo in France managed to extract information that resulted in the capture and/or death of so many partisans? What, exactly, do you think was going on at 84 Avenue Foch? Milk and cookies? Good cop, bad cop? Trust building exercises?
Dtroutma almost 6 years ago
Watching Gomer Pyles and the other gnats buzzing around setting fire to themselves, the agent didn’t have to work very hard to let them prove their stupidity, or the fact they feed anxiously on every pile of fecal matter Trump drops for them.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I repeat. I terminated last time because I find your position morally repugnant. And using the Gestapo in France to validate your opinion? Yes, that says a lot too.
You still refuse to address the central point of efficacy. Did Miss Noor Kahn give away her information to the Gestapo despite the most severe and degrading torture? No.
Do you even consider that torturers have every reason to inflate their success? Doesn’t seem like it.
Reliability. I keep pitching that and you keep missing it. Dumb, dumb, and dumber.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/nazi-interrogator-revealed-value-kindness-84747a little more about Scharf here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/01/27/torture-science-efficacy/
But finally, your position simply helps give tyrants and other psychopaths reasons to assert brutality. Tha’s why your view is morally despicable.
montessoriteacher almost 6 years ago
One of the most incredible points in the testimony was when Mr. Strzok said that he didn’t appreciate the false phrasing of a question or statement and then Gowdy said that he didn’t give a damn about that. Indeed. If anyone had the right to take something personally, it was Mr. Strzok, not Mr. Gowdy. Strzok had the goods on trump and didn’t let anyone else know, which is too bad for the rest of us, since we now have to put up with trump, but it is super ironic that this point is lost on the GOP!
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
Well said. When Andy starts desperately invoking the Nazis to justify his morally repugnant position, you know he’s lost not only the argument but all sense of decency. “Ich bin ein Third Reicher.”
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@Baslim the Beggar
Bassy, you are either dense or deliberately ignoring history. Citing the rare example of successful resistance does not negate the established body of evidence to the contrary.
The example of the Gestapo in France isn’t a matter of validating my opinion. It is a presentation of historic fact confirming my statement. There are a handful of published accounts of people successfully resisting torture at the hands of the Nazis. Noor Kahn, Odette Sansom, Pierre Brossolette, Lise Lesevre and the stories of a few others have been substantially documented.
None of which changes the fact that the Gestapo was successful in their efforts. I have addressed the “central point of efficacy” repeatedly. It is you who have failed to pursue the documentary evidence on the topic. The various war crimes trial records are filled with stories of those who failed to resist torture.
You persist in trying to conflate my very simple statement of fact into a discussion of morality. This permits you to ignore the basic fact that you refuse to admit for fear it will somehow taint you. Fact do not have morality or ethics or ideology. They simply ARE.
I will leave you with this catchphrase from the “war on terror”. It was, and quite possibly still is, in use during the period the US was extensively using the rendition program. Used by our own intel operators.
“If you want to make them talk, send them to Jordan. If you want to get them killed, then send them to Egypt.”
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
Let’s cut to the chase:
For Andy, if torture “works,” it’s good.Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Gosh Steve, you’re beginning to catch on. Sort of.
Long before the topic was brought up here by Basilim, I have made it very clear that I believe that torture is justified in certain limited circumstances. That being to acquisition of intelligence that will make the difference between life and death for American lives or those of our allies.
If the price of locating the IED before it kills our troops happens to be knocking the crap out of a ISIS fighter, I am not going to condemn our people for doing it.
If the price of thwarting the next suicide airliner plot is teeth and toenails for an al-qeda operative, I will vote for the airline passengers every time.
I place the value of American lives above those of terrorists who seek to kill us.
As for the argument that if we do it others can justify doing it to us, well, in case you hadn’t noticed, our Islamist enemies have never stopped doing it. Our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan and a number of other hot spots understand what you apparently do not. If they are taken alive by one of the terror groups, it is almost inevitable that they will be tortured, mutilated and murdered simply because of who they are.
Is it “good”? No, not at all. Does it work? Yes, it does. Which is why the US had a rendition program to allies who are less squeamish.
My original point has never been about the morality, despite Basilim’s efforts to frame it that way. It is simply that in some applications, torture does work. To deny that reality is simply ridiculous.
Walter Kocker Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I would argue we don’t have a democracy, we have a kakistocracy, or at the very least, a kleptocracy.
Dtroutma almost 6 years ago
I found it interesting that Storzok had more class when confronted by TheTexas Goober to NOT respond back: "Sir have you ever asked how your idol Mr. Trump looks into the eyes of his wife, or ex-wives. Or maybe Newt, or McCain, or others in your party that pay for play, then hide under the blanket, maybe with some of the closet queen evangelical “purists” caught with their pants down? No, integrity isn’t necessary to join your party of pinheads.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Poor Andy, he so much wants to avoid responsibility for outcomes which are immoral.
He claims that simply saying “Torture works” has no moral aspect. Which is why I find his opinions to be of zero worth.
Suppose someone (No, not me!) says, “Killing every Republican in the US will win the government for the Democrats.”
It is likely a true statement.
But the concept expressed in it is supremely immoral and disgusting to any person who is not a psychopath. (For those who are hard of comprehension, that means I disavow belief in the statement. )
But according to Andy, none need to disavow the concept, that disavowing it is not relevant.
But I feel that if I do not disavow it, I am giving implicit sanction to some idiot(s) to go kill some of my countrymen. I have a moral responsibility to not do that.
Torture is generally regarded as both illegal and immoral, just as calling for the murder all Republicans would be.
Sanctioning torture, no matter where it occurs is condoning an immoral process. And as I said, it facilitates the brutality of tyrants and other psychopaths.
NeoconMan almost 6 years ago
Gotta agree with Andy here on the subject of torture. To hell with morals; I’m frightened and I wanna live.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@Baslim the Beggar
Poor Bassy, so absolutely desperate to discredit my words that he is functionally incapable of discussing a distasteful topic without descending to moral condemnation and accusations of insanity.
It becomes clear that he/she could never have earned a passing grade in debate. Yes, Bassy, killing every Pub would win the govt for Dems. But that is a silly strawman that merits no serious discussion.
The use of torture by virtually every nation on earth is a basic reality. Simply “disavowing” the practice and running away solves nothing and ignores the ongoing reality.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/12/torture-report-amnesty.html
Calling me a monster makes you feel good and plays well with the liberals but is functionally irrelevant to the discussion. As if I had said “Crucifixion works” and you had screamed “monster” and refused to discuss the mechanics of the act. It is REALITY. And it still happens even today.
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
The following should come as no surprise, but Andylit has previously been smoked out and roundly criticized (i.e., busted) in other corners of this site for essentially serving as a faithful frontman for Trump when it comes to Russian meddling in our last presidential election.
From a Steve Breen thread dated 27 December 2017, pushback from some more of his critics:
—“You are missing the point. The aim of Putin and Co. is not to change votes per se, but to undermine the integrity of our system of government by destroying confidence in our institutions. They have been doing the same thing with the European liberal democracies, and have been called out by both Merkel and Macron in no uncertain terms. They don’t really give a damn who gets elected as long as they have been able to weaken faith in the liberal democratic system. You are ringing in a straw man argument here by emphasizing change of votes as the purpose of Russian meddling—-which you may be well aware of if you’re one of the Russian moles.”
—“So who’s the desperate one trying to deflect?“
—“Regurgitating the Russian talking points that the meddling ‘if it actually happened,’ ‘didn’t change any voting machine votes,’ except when it did.”
——-
So, here we are several months later: Same Andy song, different thread.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Andy lies again. Where did I say Andy is a monster? Where did I say Andy was insane?
Andy’s critical reading and “debating” skills leave much to be desired.
Why would I want to discuss cruxification (a capital punishment, not a method of interrogation) with someone who takes no moral position on torture?
Andy’s attempts to call me a sissy are neither relevant to any serious discussion nor true. Talk about failing debate class… sheesh.
martens almost 6 years ago
Andylit comes across to me as lacking in basic humanity and empathy. Given that, there is little point in discussing these topics with someone lacking in the basic values that guide ethical behavior in most normal humans. The only value I have seen him espouse is that of winning. Anything is permissible as long as you win. I have to confess that I have not read all his arguments on this thread, but I did read enough of them to convince me of the accuracy of my previous conclusions about Andylit.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
You guys are an absolute hoot.
Steve, I love the cherry picking. Always nice to see comments out of context used as “proof” of a point. Good job. One of these days you are going to have to choose. Am I a Nazi or a Russian troll? Oh, gosh, I’m sorry Steve. You don’t actually call a person a Nazi. You reference that other people say I’m a Nazi.
Bassy, you have called me that and worse on other threads over the last year or so. To deny it an absolute lie. We have clashed since the day I made the statement that your rhetoric is absolutely contrary to the philosophy of your screen name. I believe I said Heinlein was rolling in his grave, or words to that effect.
Martens, we had a dustup in which we disagreed at a fundamental level. But I credit you with reminding me of Godwin’s law and that I should never be blase about playing the Nazi card. Perhaps you can have that chat with Steve.
Here is the basic problem. Steve and Bassy are archetypal liberal knee-jerks (yes Steve, you ARE a liberal). When they encounter an idea they disagree with they attack the person. Not the idea, but the person. This is especially true if they have crossed swords on other topics elsewhere on the boards.
To Bassy and Martens (Steve appears to be hopeless), the purpose of debate is to debate. The goal in a debate is to stay on topic and prove your point with facts and logic. To inject personality or vitriol into the discussion is just plain stupid. To attack the person right out of the gate is….gosh….rather Trumpian.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Ah, can’t point to an instance of “monster” or “insane” so make something up. Since I do not recall using those words, I will ask for proof.
Hmm, Heinlein, eh. Well, I seem to recall that you were willing for other people to practice torture, but not do it yourself. I wonder what RAH would say to that… Well, of course, I know. I actually just re-read Space Cadet. His view on expecting others to do the dirty work for you was quite clear. And is expressed in quite a number of his books.
No doubt you did say something like Heinlein was rolling in his grave. I know I did not call you names for that, as I have not done so to any of the few others who seem to take exception to my cat. And that includes the guy who thought Heinlein would flog me. I think most of you have a poor understanding of Heinlein, even the cranky old Heinlein.
So just more lies from andy.
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
crickets ……
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Bassy, you know as well as I do that trying to search past cartoons for comment content is problematic.
You also know that you have tossed out quite a few nasty names at me over the past year. If you want to cloak yourself in faux indignation, go right ahead.
What would RAH say? Perhaps you should re-read Friday. His treatment of torture was rather cavalier. As for being willing for others to do my work, well, I guess we won’t know the answer unless I find myself in a Barbara Mackle situation with the kidnapper.
My point at that time was that your liberal leftist ideology is the antithesis of Basilim. Would he have flogged you? No, unless you got in his way. Would he have scorned your political ideas? Absolutely.
As for your cat, a fine looking character. We have 5 at the moment. The number varies but never drops too low.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Faux indignation? That’s what I am reading from you. I know have not called you insane or a monster, nor anything else of that sort. You also know nothing about my ideology. You only think you do, and you have shown in this sequence a real tendency to invent false beliefs. And to lie about what I have written.
And yet I have told no lies. I said you said torture works. That’s the truth. I also said I regard your opinion of no value because of that. You have only provided me with more reason to place no value on it with your constant lies about me.
30
SteveBenson8 creator almost 6 years ago
Repubs are finally getting the message. Now, will they act on it?
From CNN:
“Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker said the President "us look like a pushover’ and that Putin was probably eating caviar on the plane home. ‘I was very disappointed and saddened with the equivalency that he gave between them (the US intelligence agencies) and what Putin was saying,’ said Corker, a Tennessee Republican who is not seeking re-election.
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell . . . .released a statement through a spokesman, backing the US intelligence community’s assessment and saying ‘Russia is not our friend.’‘As the Leader has said many times, Russia is not our friend, and he agrees with the findings of the intelligence community regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere in our elections,’ McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said in that statement. ‘Those positions have not changed.’
“Trump’s comments that appeared to equivocate Putin’s denial of Russian election meddling and the US intelligence community’s assessment were commonly evoked in the steady stream of criticism. Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska, issued a blistering statement just minutes after the press conference wrapped.Sassy rebuked Trump’s statement that he held ‘both countries responsible’ for the deteriorated relationship between the United States and Russia." . . .
(cont. below)
GoneGirl almost 6 years ago
Hey everyone – including Steve. Why are you even bothering to debate with/answer that Russian bot, AndyLit? He isn’t worth your fingers taping on you computer’s keys. Just ignore him/it. Really. Easy to just slide past his garbage. Eventually he will just fade away from this site because he’s being ignored. As he should be.