Disgusting bias of 60 minutes report Leslie Stahl
 

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_16...ag=pop;stories

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:

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.

Its General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett. :yeah:


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.

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.

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=SNgCy...eature=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).

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.

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.

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.

Baaaaaaaah! :03:

:salute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daa8ZnxC-0Y

:D

I may regret this, but here goes. :D

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.


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!:

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.

Yet the legality of "not really torture honestly" hinges on the definition of torture as torture is illegal.

Agreed, though I was unsure on choosing the USSR or democratic korea as examples to avoid the nazi comparison.

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.

Not at all, all prosecutions are a matter of weighing the factors to see if it is prudent to proceed.

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

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