View Full Version : Disgusting bias of 60 minutes report Leslie Stahl
Bubblehead1980
04-30-12, 10:03 PM
I always enjoyed 60 minutes, would watch it with my grandpa(lol yes yes, the jokes about CBS being the old network) but usually a good show, esp before Ed Bradley and Andy Rooney passed. I have never cared for Leslie Stahl but her bias was very evident in her interview with Former CIA head on Sunday where they discussed his book and the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA on a limited number of enemy combatants which were legal and no doubt prevented attacks.These methods are often called "torture" by those who oppose them, even though they do not meet the definition of torture.Anyway, for those who missed it, watch it, it was an interesting interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57423533/hard-measures-ex-cia-head-defends-post-9-11-tactics/?tag=pop;stories
TLAM Strike
04-30-12, 10:40 PM
The moment she called one of our guys a 'spy', that was all I needed hear to know her bias.
You don't call our nationals spies unless they are working for the other side. :nope:
Our guys are Officers.
Foreigners who work for us are Agents
The bad guys are Spies.
...
also great to know this guy apparently pimp slapped Abu Zubaydah. :salute:
Stealhead
04-30-12, 10:51 PM
Why are they only spies if they are the enemy?That is just silly thinking if your job is to gather intelligence then you are a spy I do not care who you work for if your job is directly related to espionage then you are a spy.
My step father would laugh at your ideology he was a spook in the USAF and was offered a job with the CIA later(that he turned down).He goes to reunions and all the guys pride themselves on having spied on the Chinese and Soviets they openly admit that they spied on them.They laugh about how they would "find" the right channels by snooping(spying) in on radio networks and the stupid mistakes the Reds made that gave away what networks where the good ones.
Spy:
A person who secretly collects and reports information about an enemy or competitor.
Work for an organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.
Not every officer in the CIA is a direct spy that is true but they actively commit or control acts of espionage.
Tribesman
05-01-12, 02:18 AM
You don't call our nationals spies unless they are working for the other side. :nope:
Our guys are Officers.
Foreigners who work for us are Agents
The bad guys are Spies.
Its General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett. :yeah:
which were legal and no doubt prevented attacks.
Their legality has always been extremely dubious even when people supporting them really try and stretch the truth to try and make them appear slightly less illegal, as for "preventing attacks" there is plenty of doubt about that and precious little proof to support the claim.
Also as to effectiveness, even the organisations involved have backtracked from those claims though people like the one interviewed are still pushing it for their own benefit.
These methods are often called "torture" by those who oppose them, even though they do not meet the definition of torture.
They are torture, they fit the definition of torture.
Simple measure Bubbles which clarifies it all at beyond question.
Does your government and your military class it as torture when it is another country doing it?:yep:
That spy is a joke, a self serving fool trying to justify himself and make a buck into the bargain. He even trots out the same old lines which are long since known to be absolute bollox.
Catfish
05-01-12, 03:57 AM
Yep it's that easy - if they are the good guys they are officers, and they don't torture, but ask politely in their white-tiled cellars, with "enhanced interrogation techniques".
The enemy, on the other hand ...
"We are the good guys", so it's all allowed for the greater good - but they tell it everywhere, maybe that's part of the problem ?
You have to be utterly egoistic and need a thorough lack of perceptance or brain wash to believe that it's all necessary for the greater good. Certainly, young people even if intelligent can be easily manipulated. Any Secret Service 'officers' and their 'infantry' for the lower jobs really believe in what they are doing, at least until they find out what's really going on and reach the age of 50 - some not even then:
Duane Clarridge Defends the Empire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNgCyDsvi84&feature=related
Real 'officers' still having their quarterpound of brain don't speak about that like Clarridge anyway.
I do not say it is not necessary sometimes, but some services of that kind tend to become self-sufficient and search for reasons (and funding) for their own existence - be the danger real or made-up (see Anthrax attack), there is no real control.
In the former GDR (then being behind the iron curtain) there was a road with a name of a german (then=soviet) spy, followed by "Kundschafter des Friedens", roughly translated a "scout of freedom" :DL Now that's some doublespeak (Orwell was in the british secret service).
Bilge_Rat
05-01-12, 06:43 AM
Whether "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are "Torture" or are "Not Torture" is a matter of semantics and is really irrelevant. Whatever "they" are, they are legal under U.S. laws which is why no one has been prosecuted under the Obama administration.
Whether EITs are effective or not is an age old debate going back to the dawn of time, no one really knows, but the practical question always comes back to whether you use every tool available to you or not.
Tribesman
05-01-12, 07:17 AM
Whether "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are "Torture" or are "Not Torture" is a matter of semantics and is really irrelevant.
Not once people claim it is not or claim to have a definition.
Since that comes up in the OP and was the subject of the interview it cannot be irrelevant.
Whatever "they" are, they are legal under U.S. laws which is why no one has been prosecuted under the Obama administration.
No and no.
They were rescinded in 2009 on the basis that they were contrary to federal law banning torture.
The reason there were no prosecutions is because the administration decided not to prosecute people for following faulty government directives.
Herr-Berbunch
05-01-12, 07:37 AM
Its General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett. :yeah:
Baaaaaaaah! :03:
Baaaaaaaah! :03:
:salute:
Herr-Berbunch
05-01-12, 07:41 AM
:salute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daa8ZnxC-0Y
:D
Bilge_Rat
05-01-12, 08:01 AM
I may regret this, but here goes. :D
Not once people claim it is not or claim to have a definition.
Since that comes up in the OP and was the subject of the interview it cannot be irrelevant.
It is irrelevant in the sense that the real question is not the definition, but whether it was legal. I personally believe EITs are torture since the Nazis used the same techniques against our boys in WW2.
No and no.
They were rescinded in 2009 on the basis that they were contrary to federal law banning torture.
The reason there were no prosecutions is because the administration decided not to prosecute people for following faulty government directives.
What was rescinded in 2009 were legal opinions on whether EITs were legal. The opinions were certainly an aggressive interpretation on what is "Torture" in a legal sense, but no one has been able to show that they had no legal basis whatsoever.
The fact that the opinions were formally disavowed in 2009 does not mean that the legal reasoning behind them is no longer valid or that it would not be invoked by a defense attorney should the DOJ attempt a prosecution.
If the DOJ is of the opinion that a crime has been committed, it has no choice but to enforce the law. However, it is impossible to convict someone of a crime, when lawyers themselves cannot even agree if a crime has been committed (i.e. whether EITs are "Torture" in a legal sense).
Back to you, Sir. :arrgh!:
mookiemookie
05-01-12, 08:49 AM
Apparently destruction of evidence is now called "getting rid of ugly visuals." :rotfl2: I'd love to see the judge's face when someone tried that one.
Tribesman
05-01-12, 08:55 AM
It is irrelevant in the sense that the real question is not the definition, but whether it was legal.
Yet the legality of "not really torture honestly" hinges on the definition of torture as torture is illegal.
I personally believe EITs are torture since the Nazis used the same techniques against our boys in WW2.
Agreed, though I was unsure on choosing the USSR or democratic korea as examples to avoid the nazi comparison.
What was rescinded in 2009 were legal opinions on whether EITs were legal. The opinions were certainly an aggressive interpretation on what is "Torture" in a legal sense, but no one has been able to show that they had no legal basis whatsoever.
Well there lies the problem, the opinion was a result of what was called proffesional misconduct but it was decided the proffesional misconduct was not deliberate.
If the opinions had a decent legal basis they wouldn't be able to describe them as a result of misconduct.
If the DOJ is of the opinion that a crime has been committed, it has no choice but to enforce the law.
Not at all, all prosecutions are a matter of weighing the factors to see if it is prudent to proceed.
Bilge_Rat
05-01-12, 10:13 AM
Well there lies the problem, the opinion was a result of what was called proffesional misconduct but it was decided the proffesional misconduct was not deliberate.
If the opinions had a decent legal basis they wouldn't be able to describe them as a result of misconduct.
Well I would take the OPR's report with a grain of salt, it is an internal report from the DOJ, after the democrats took over, saying the Bush administration lawyers committed "professional misconduct". To me, it smacks of political payback. The final DOJ recommendation in 2010 took the position that there was no misconduct.
If you look at the memos, it is pretty obvious that the Bush WH asked the question of how far they could push EITs without being in clear violation of the "Torture" statutes. That is the type of opinion lawyers get asked for all the time, it is not misconduct by any stretch.
"Torture" is defined as infliction of "severe physical pain or suffering". Does "Waterboarding" meet that definition? Is it "severe" enough? you got me, it could be argued both ways.
You have to admit there is a certain liberal bias in the news media. The Bush administration was pilloried for taking the position that EITs were not "Torture". It was seen as an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Yet now you have a President who has decided that he can unilaterally order the assassination of U.S. citizens if he deems them to be a threat to national security and you hear scarcely a peep. :o
mookiemookie
05-01-12, 11:04 AM
Yet now you have a President who has decided that he can unilaterally order the assassination of U.S. citizens if he deems them to be a threat to national security and you hear scarcely a peep. :o
Scarcely a peep? I seem to recall it being a pretty big deal at the time with plenty of news coverage. We even had a multi-page discussion of it here in GT. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188297
Scarcely a peep? I seem to recall it being a pretty big deal at the time with plenty of news coverage. We even had a multi-page discussion of it here in GT. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188297
Well I agree that "scarely a peep" is a bit of an exaggeration but it was kind of tame compared to the massive media coverage and vitrol generated every time Bush made a move.
Bilge_Rat
05-01-12, 12:30 PM
Scarcely a peep? I seem to recall it being a pretty big deal at the time with plenty of news coverage. We even had a multi-page discussion of it here in GT. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188297
I believe that is the first time I have ever seen a GT thread used as a reference. :ping:
Stealhead
05-01-12, 03:30 PM
@Catfish
George Orwell was never a member of any British intelligence agency he was a Colonial Police officer in Burma I take it you have never read his essay "Shooting an Elephant".
There should be a special tax on remade movies. Can't come up with an original plot or character? Pay a hefty fine for your lack of originality.
:)
Tribesman
05-02-12, 03:11 AM
"Torture" is defined as infliction of "severe physical pain or suffering".
Bilge rat, why are there words missing from the definition?
Does "Waterboarding" meet that definition?
Try the full definition and ask the question again.
See if you can fit it with some examples the US calls torture, perhaps go for the USS Peublo or the Iranian Embassy for some nice non physical cases of torture.
Catfish
05-04-12, 06:08 AM
The moment she called one of our guys a 'spy', that was all I needed hear to know her bias.
You don't call our nationals spies unless they are working for the other side. :nope:
Our guys are Officers.
Foreigners who work for us are Agents
The bad guys are Spies.
...
Wow, this ^ is really epic.
It's indeed that easy (contains strong words):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV_q-mVAAA&feature=related
Platapus
05-04-12, 06:34 AM
Spy is a term used by laypeople, nothing more.
How often does the press refer to something called a "spy satellite"? :damn:
redsocialist
05-17-12, 05:53 PM
This is typical western propaganda, the CIA crimes are much worse as it is the largest terrorist organization over known to mankind
Takeda Shingen
05-17-12, 05:55 PM
This is typical western propaganda, the CIA crimes are much worse as it is the largest terrorist organization over known to mankind
You mean the Catholic Church? Doubtful.
Tribesman
05-17-12, 05:58 PM
You mean the Catholic Church? Doubtful.
The Catholic church didn't do torture, it was enhanced inquisiton techniques
Takeda Shingen
05-17-12, 06:07 PM
The Catholic church didn't do torture, it was enhanced inquisiton techniques
:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
Sailor Steve
05-17-12, 07:04 PM
Good one! Now stolen for future (but properly credited) sig use. :sunny:
Takeda Shingen
05-17-12, 07:21 PM
Nice job trying to hide the evidence kid, maybe the admins at subsim would like to see their monitors are abusing their privileges. How would you like that?
Ooh, a second account, and from last year. Yeah, that's a big no-no. Looks like I was right about you after all. Can I sniff 'em out or what?
Skybird
05-17-12, 07:41 PM
Hm, yes, I never understood or forgave that torture was not called torture. I do not rule it out in all imaginable scenarios, though see it'S usefulness quite limited in opportunity. But to claim that implementing physical AGONY on the body (which is the purpose of waterboarding), and according cramps, physical reactions, psychological reactions, is not painful and is not torturing, is hypocrisy. If you use such means, then have the balls to call them by their proper names.
And of course waterboarding was/is effective just because it is so painful, and such terryfying to the mental soul. The body is made to believe that it dies. The psyche is reacting accordingly. There is severe physical pain and mental terror involved - that qualifies as torture, absolutely. If it were not so painful, why were some of the subjects then so cooperative afterwards? Were they thirsty and expressed their thankfulness for being given some water to drink?
In interrogation scenarios (torture also is used for non-discriminating terror against a population, and to break and destroy individuals) where the subject knows that it cannot escape but just can delay further torture when lying to avoid further aversive stimuli, torture can work and produce useful information. Point is the confessions must be immediately verifiable and checkable, and the subjkect must be convionced that it is so. Where that is not possible, I agree that the use of torture creates results that cannot be trusted.
In principle and for ethical reasons I oppose the use of torture as an ordinary tool of law-enforcement and crime research. Only where information refused by a suspect can end to major, serious, extraordinary damage for the community, or the victim(s) of a crime will suffer death or find miserable suffering, I must step back from principle rejection of torture - again for ethical reasons, for my ethics do not allow me to put the interest and well-being of a perpetrator above the interests of his victim(s) to stay alive and escape a gloomy fate.
Victim's interest goes first, perpetrator's interest is subordinate to that - that is my ethics. Their interests by far do not weigh equal. Not at all. Itr is immoral to see their interests as equal. And it is perverse to prioritize the interest of the perpetrator if the victim pays with its health or its life for that priority-setting.
I admit though that the problem lies in how to define criterions that make sure that no innocents gets tortured. That is a real dilemma, and I have no fail-safe solution to that. That possibility is a terrifying scenario, and that'S why I do not accept torture as a regular tool of law enforcement and policework, but being reserved for rare and extreme cases. Considering the individual case and not acting on the basis of routine patterns, is indispensable. It must be an exception from the rule, and not creepingly become a routine (like tazing, for example).
Ooh, a second account, and from last year. Yeah, that's a big no-no. Looks like I was right about you after all. Can I sniff 'em out or what?
Well to be fair, he's not exactly original in his naming...
I wonder how much the Chinese Politburo pays him...
We're going up in the world to have our own incompetent Communist on the board. We should put him in a pen with Yubba for entertainment. :yep:
antikristuseke
05-17-12, 08:46 PM
They would probably agree on too many things and end up committing suicide instead of facing the truth.
Stealhead
05-17-12, 09:00 PM
Well the date is an odd choice in that second profile name anyway it should have said 1893 or perhaps the year of the Long March.
What did the Commie surfer say?
Ohm papa mao mao... :DL
Stealhead
05-17-12, 10:07 PM
Mao don't surf.
Mao don't surf.
Not for want of trying:
http://joelinker.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mao-swimming-head.jpg
Chairman Meow on the other hand:
http://www.dailystoke.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/surfing_cat.jpg
Not for want of trying:
http://joelinker.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mao-swimming-head.jpg
:DL
Actually he's not swimming. He's standing on the heads of oppressed Chinese peasants. :yep:
:DL
Actually he's not swimming. He's standing on the heads of oppressed Chinese peasants. :yep:
Does that count as surfing? Body surfing perhaps? :03:
Does that count as surfing? Body surfing perhaps? :03:
:haha::har:
The moment she called one of our guys a 'spy', that was all I needed hear to know her bias.
You don't call our nationals spies unless they are working for the other side. :nope:
Our guys are Officers.
Foreigners who work for us are Agents
The bad guys are Spies.
Oh yes of course. Just like Palestinians are terrorists but the Contras in Nicaragua were Freedom Fighters.
Sadaam was a great ally of the West until 15 minutes before Bush Sr. announced the First Gulf War when he finally gave up trying to save one of his favourite proxies against Iran/Russia.
So how is it then? One has an unpatriotic bias when they refuse to use the canned propagandized nomenclature dreamt up by some spinster doing his best to warp the perception of the public to prevent obviously dubious activities from being regarded in a way which would jeopardize an upcoming election?
I never understood why people felt that patriotism meant buying all the BS their own side was peddling.
How do you even have a conversation with someone about politics and the world if their definition of Journalism is that someone is disgusting if they aren't a cheerleader for the home team.
Are we sure they knocked that wall down in Berlin?
As for the matter of torture. Well it may be useful, it may not be. It may have helped prevent some attacks, it may not have. Either way one should call it what it is. If you can't torture people and be honest about it without losing an election then don't do it, or pay the price of defending freedom and be a one term ducky.
What I find insulting is this insistence that A. they will insist they don't torture, and B. that they get credit for the results of said nonexistent torture. Its like a rapper that wants everyone to believe he wasn't really a Crip and yet insists his street cred is real as evidenced by the sales of his record.
Stealhead
05-18-12, 10:51 PM
:DL
Actually he's not swimming. He's standing on the heads of oppressed Chinese peasants. :yep:
Not to mention that "Yangtze Swim" was a total political stunt to make him appear strong after his failed "Great Leap Foward" of course the ones challenging his authority were no better.The water should have been red from the blood of those oppressed.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.