Dilbert_X wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
I don't condone torture.Pick one.Some methods of torture and interrogation are used for a reason though.
Really, its not been shown that torture in Iraq or Afghanistan ever produced anything useful.
Even if it did it wouldn't be moral, and there would have been better ways to achieve the same objective so what would be the point, apart from so some Jack Bauer fantasist can feel better about himself?
One of these statements does not hinge on the other.Dilbert_X wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
I don't condone torture.Pick one.Some methods of torture and interrogation are used for a reason though.
Um, both. That was kind of my point.Dilbert_X wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
I don't condone torture.Pick one.Some methods of torture and interrogation are used for a reason though.
Really, its not been shown that torture in Iraq or Afghanistan ever produced anything useful.
Even if it did it wouldn't be moral, and there would have been better ways to achieve the same objective so what would be the point, apart from so some Jack Bauer fantasist can feel better about himself?
Torture is the worst way of getting actual intel.RAIMIUS wrote:
Um, both. That was kind of my point.Dilbert_X wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
I don't condone torture.Pick one.Some methods of torture and interrogation are used for a reason though.
Really, its not been shown that torture in Iraq or Afghanistan ever produced anything useful.
Even if it did it wouldn't be moral, and there would have been better ways to achieve the same objective so what would be the point, apart from so some Jack Bauer fantasist can feel better about himself?
I agree. Torture is not moral.
I also believe that it can produce information. Is it the most efficient and reliable way? Maybe not. I don't have the expertise in behavioral psychology to really speak to how it works at more than a 2-college course level.
In light of a lack of expertise in behavioral psychology, we could look at the massive amount of data on the subject. The US and other countries engage in torture and not-torture. Which provides more useful information?RAIMIUS wrote:
Um, both. That was kind of my point.Dilbert_X wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
I don't condone torture.Pick one.Some methods of torture and interrogation are used for a reason though.
Really, its not been shown that torture in Iraq or Afghanistan ever produced anything useful.
Even if it did it wouldn't be moral, and there would have been better ways to achieve the same objective so what would be the point, apart from so some Jack Bauer fantasist can feel better about himself?
I agree. Torture is not moral.
I also believe that it can produce information. Is it the most efficient and reliable way? Maybe not. I don't have the expertise in behavioral psychology to really speak to how it works at more than a 2-college course level.
Malaysia and Singapore is doing pretty well in their counter-terrorism OPs.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
In light of a lack of expertise in behavioral psychology, we could look at the massive amount of data on the subject. The US and other countries engage in torture and not-torture. Which provides more useful information?RAIMIUS wrote:
Um, both. That was kind of my point.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pick one.RAIMIUS wrote:
I don't condone torture.
Really, its not been shown that torture in Iraq or Afghanistan ever produced anything useful.
Even if it did it wouldn't be moral, and there would have been better ways to achieve the same objective so what would be the point, apart from so some Jack Bauer fantasist can feel better about himself?
I agree. Torture is not moral.
I also believe that it can produce information. Is it the most efficient and reliable way? Maybe not. I don't have the expertise in behavioral psychology to really speak to how it works at more than a 2-college course level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21203233Former CIA agent Kiriakou get 30 months for name leak
A former CIA agent who leaked a covert officer's name to the media has been sentenced to 30 months in prison.
John Kiriakou, 48, pleaded guilty in 2012 to violating an intelligence law. No-one had been convicted under the statute in 27 years.
He admitted passing on the name of a former officer who was part of the interrogation of detainees, including alleged waterboarding.
Defence lawyers argued that Kiriakou was a whistleblower.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected that argument, and said she would have given him a longer sentence if she could.
A plea deal required the former agent be sentenced to 30 months.
The investigation began after lawyers for suspected terrorists filed a legal brief, including details not provided by the government.
The trail led back to Kiriakou, according to court records.
Prosecutors said the former officer leaked the name of a covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed it to a researcher working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.
They argued Kiriakou was merely seeking to increase his fame and public stature by trading on his insider knowledge.
A separate charge, involving an alleged disclosure to a New York Times reporter, was dropped as part of the plea deal, the Times reports.
Kiriakou was an agent with the CIA between 1990 and 2004.
In 2002, he led an operation that captured Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda financier, who was allegedly waterboarded 83 times.
In 2007, Kiriakou said in an interview with ABC News that waterboarding had been used to break down Zubaydah.
Kiriakou later worked as a consultant for the US news network and published a book, entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror. A charge related to the book was also dropped in the plea deal.
Must be a pretty shit spy for getting caught leaking info.13/f/taiwan wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21203233Former CIA agent Kiriakou get 30 months for name leak
A former CIA agent who leaked a covert officer's name to the media has been sentenced to 30 months in prison.
John Kiriakou, 48, pleaded guilty in 2012 to violating an intelligence law. No-one had been convicted under the statute in 27 years.
He admitted passing on the name of a former officer who was part of the interrogation of detainees, including alleged waterboarding.
Defence lawyers argued that Kiriakou was a whistleblower.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected that argument, and said she would have given him a longer sentence if she could.
A plea deal required the former agent be sentenced to 30 months.
The investigation began after lawyers for suspected terrorists filed a legal brief, including details not provided by the government.
The trail led back to Kiriakou, according to court records.
Prosecutors said the former officer leaked the name of a covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed it to a researcher working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.
They argued Kiriakou was merely seeking to increase his fame and public stature by trading on his insider knowledge.
A separate charge, involving an alleged disclosure to a New York Times reporter, was dropped as part of the plea deal, the Times reports.
Kiriakou was an agent with the CIA between 1990 and 2004.
In 2002, he led an operation that captured Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda financier, who was allegedly waterboarded 83 times.
In 2007, Kiriakou said in an interview with ABC News that waterboarding had been used to break down Zubaydah.
Kiriakou later worked as a consultant for the US news network and published a book, entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror. A charge related to the book was also dropped in the plea deal.
How are CIA agents(or any other persons for that matter) suppose to expose any unethical or illegal conduct committed by the governmental organization they work for without opening themselves up to criminal liability? This seems more as a ploy to ensure that no one speaks out against the agency.
I find the assertion that no one has been convicted under that statute in 27 years difficult to believe. The statute is violation of their non-disclosure agreement regarding classified information. People get convicted under that statute regularly.13/f/taiwan wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21203233Former CIA agent Kiriakou get 30 months for name leak
A former CIA agent who leaked a covert officer's name to the media has been sentenced to 30 months in prison.
John Kiriakou, 48, pleaded guilty in 2012 to violating an intelligence law. No-one had been convicted under the statute in 27 years.
He admitted passing on the name of a former officer who was part of the interrogation of detainees, including alleged waterboarding.
Defence lawyers argued that Kiriakou was a whistleblower.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected that argument, and said she would have given him a longer sentence if she could.
A plea deal required the former agent be sentenced to 30 months.
The investigation began after lawyers for suspected terrorists filed a legal brief, including details not provided by the government.
The trail led back to Kiriakou, according to court records.
Prosecutors said the former officer leaked the name of a covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed it to a researcher working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.
They argued Kiriakou was merely seeking to increase his fame and public stature by trading on his insider knowledge.
A separate charge, involving an alleged disclosure to a New York Times reporter, was dropped as part of the plea deal, the Times reports.
Kiriakou was an agent with the CIA between 1990 and 2004.
In 2002, he led an operation that captured Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda financier, who was allegedly waterboarded 83 times.
In 2007, Kiriakou said in an interview with ABC News that waterboarding had been used to break down Zubaydah.
Kiriakou later worked as a consultant for the US news network and published a book, entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror. A charge related to the book was also dropped in the plea deal.
How are CIA agents(or any other persons for that matter) suppose to expose any unethical or illegal conduct committed by the governmental organization they work for without opening themselves up to criminal liability? This seems more as a ploy to ensure that no one speaks out against the agency.
Is a journalist the best person to go to with that sort of information? Really?13/f/taiwan wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21203233Former CIA agent Kiriakou get 30 months for name leak
A former CIA agent who leaked a covert officer's name to the media has been sentenced to 30 months in prison.
John Kiriakou, 48, pleaded guilty in 2012 to violating an intelligence law. No-one had been convicted under the statute in 27 years.
He admitted passing on the name of a former officer who was part of the interrogation of detainees, including alleged waterboarding.
Defence lawyers argued that Kiriakou was a whistleblower.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected that argument, and said she would have given him a longer sentence if she could.
A plea deal required the former agent be sentenced to 30 months.
The investigation began after lawyers for suspected terrorists filed a legal brief, including details not provided by the government.
The trail led back to Kiriakou, according to court records.
Prosecutors said the former officer leaked the name of a covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed it to a researcher working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.
They argued Kiriakou was merely seeking to increase his fame and public stature by trading on his insider knowledge.
A separate charge, involving an alleged disclosure to a New York Times reporter, was dropped as part of the plea deal, the Times reports.
Kiriakou was an agent with the CIA between 1990 and 2004.
In 2002, he led an operation that captured Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda financier, who was allegedly waterboarded 83 times.
In 2007, Kiriakou said in an interview with ABC News that waterboarding had been used to break down Zubaydah.
Kiriakou later worked as a consultant for the US news network and published a book, entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror. A charge related to the book was also dropped in the plea deal.
How are CIA agents(or any other persons for that matter) suppose to expose any unethical or illegal conduct committed by the governmental organization they work for without opening themselves up to criminal liability? This seems more as a ploy to ensure that no one speaks out against the agency.
A false confession aiding to a dangerous mistake.After being extraordinarily rendered by the United States to Egypt in 2002, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under threat of torture at the hands of Egyptian officials, fabricated information relating to Iraq’s provision of chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda. In 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell relied on this fabricated information in his speech to the United Nations that made the case for war against Iraq.
Where else would he go? File a complaint with the UN? Torture is illegal across the globe but the US and many other nations have and still participate in it to this day. He leaked information about illegal misconduct and was right in doing so. If the system won't remedy the issue the next best move is to use the press. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Is a journalist the best person to go to with that sort of information? Really?
Does sound like "selling a story" tbh
