The Torture Report

Filed in National by on December 9, 2014

CIA Torture Report

Massimo Calabresi frames the debate over the report:

What effect will assigning blame have? The CIA says it is so burned by the EIT program that it is permanently out of the business of interrogation and Dianne Feinstein, the hawkish head of the Senate Intelligence committee, says that’s fine. The purpose of her report, she says, is to ensure such a program is never again acceptable to Americans.

But plenty of others, from ex-CIA officer Jose Rodriguez, to former Vice President Dick Cheney, to former CIA chief Michael Hayden, say the program should be available for use if there is another major attack on the U.S. Even Obama’s CIA chief says only that the EIT program is not now “appropriate,” suggesting it might be in other circumstances.

Ultimately, the report’s value lies in answering that simple question: should we ever do it again?

Republicans are for torture. That is what they are saying when they attack the release of the report while at the same time defending the actions of the torturers employed by the US government on the orders of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And their answer to that question from Mr. Calabresi is “Absolutely.” And that is because they have no morals. No conscience.

The truly disturbing thing about this report is not the revelations of what they did in our name, but how many Americans will just shrug, or join the Republican critics.

About the Author ()

Comments (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Delaware Dem says:

    Andrew Sullivan is live blogging their reading of the report, highlighting the findings.

  2. Delaware Dem says:

    The Washington Post has 20 key findings about the report.

  3. Delaware Dem says:

    The Daily Beast has the most gruesome moments found in the report.

  4. Delaware Dem says:

    The report will conclude that the CIA’s interrogation techniques never yielded any intelligence about imminent terrorist attacks. Investigators didn’t conclude that no information came from the program at all. Rather, the committee rejects the CIA’s contention that information came from the program that couldn’t have been obtained through other means.

    “When you put detainees through these [torture sessions] they will say whatever they can say to get the interrogations to stop,” the Senate aide said.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed 20 cited examples of intelligence “successes” that the CIA identified from the interrogation program and found that there was no relationship between a cited counterterrorism success and the techniques used. Furthermore, the information gleaned during torture sessions merely corroborated information already available to the intelligence community from other sources, including reports, communications intercepts, and information from law enforcement agencies, the committee found.

  5. Delaware Dem says:

    So seven of the 39 prisoners given the full torture treatment gave no intelligence at all. How can you justify torturing them by the “saving lives” canard? If no intelligence was gleaned at all, their torture was utterly irrelevant to seeking intelligence. For seven torture victims, it was worthless on its face.

  6. pandora says:

    Wow. I wish I could say I was shocked…

  7. Jason330 says:

    Ultimately, the report’s value lies in answering that simple question: should we ever do it again?

    I call bullshit on that as a goal. Torturing doesn’t work, that is a fact – but that is beside the point. No report can tell whether or not we should torture. Our national conscience, our humanity should tell us.

    I’m old enough to remember when we had a national conscience. Back then the United States was exceptional. Not so much anymore.

  8. Dorian Gray says:

    Reading it now…

    How about that bit on the forced aggressive rectal exams? So we raped people as well. Very nice…

    And that cold water routine was invented by the Gestapo. And those found guilty of doing it were executed… BY THE ALLIES!

    The disgrace and shame… I can’t even really get my head around it right now.

  9. Delaware Dem says:

    I likewise am reading it. Yes, it is factually accurate to say that the CIA intentionally and forcibly raped prisoners, all the while threatening the lives and health of prisoner’s children, wives and mothers. As Andrew Sullivan says, these are the actions and tactics of criminals, Jihadists and totalitarian states. They became the tactics of the US under Bush and Cheney, both of whom should be, in a just world, read their Miranda rights and taken into custody at this very moment.

  10. Delaware Dem says:

    Some of the most important CIA-led interrogations were carried out by people with no specialist training or expertise, some of whom had histories of violence:

    • CIA employed people who had “personal and professional problems of a serious nature” – including histories of violence and abusive treatment of others. The report found that that should have called into question their employment, let alone their suitability to participate in the sensitive CIA program.

    • Two psychologists were employed as outside contractors – neither of them had any experience as an interrogator, nor did either have specialised knowledge of al-Qaeda, a background in counterterrorism, or any relevant cultural or linguistic expertise. They personally conducted some of the most important interrogations. In 2005, they formed a company to expand their work with the CIA. Shortly thereafter, the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the program. The CIA paid the company more than $80 million.

    Again, remember what we were told: that this was a professional program staffed by the very best of the CIA. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was pioneered by two goons paid a fortune to do what no serious interrogator or anyone with a moral sense would ever dream of. These were Cheney’s men – doing what his panicked mind thought would actually work. And the result was crime after crime after crime.

    Noting the Telegraph’s coverage also highlights the deep and eternal damage done to the US by this foul program. America’s moral standing in the world has been permanently crippled, with all the attendant damage to our national security and alliances. And that’s something we have to understand better: far from improving our safety, Cheney’s war crimes made us – and make us – far less safe, our alliances now crippled, our foes given the biggest propaganda coup they could ever imagine. Bush and Cheney did this to this country. And they remain proud of it.

  11. Jason330 says:

    If you want to know how morally bankrupt Charlie Copeland is, just read his statement on the torture report. It is nauseating.

    Delaware GOP Responds To Release Of CIA Report

    NEWARK, DE — The Chairman of the Delaware Republican Party Charlie Copeland today issued the following statement regarding the release of a report by the Democratic controlled Senate concerning interrogation practices under the Bush Administration:

    “Every American should be outraged by the efforts of the outgoing Democratic controlled US Senate’s attempt to play politics with America’s national security and the lives of Americans living and working abroad. This attempt by the Democrats in the Senate to take one last shot at the Bush Administration is nothing more than a display of bitterness on their part following loses in the November Election.

    “Today’s release of a report detailing CIA interrogation practices will put thousands of American servicemen and servicewomen, pro-democracy workers, members of religious organizations who do missionary work, and other humanitarian workers in danger of terrorist retribution. Americans, regardless of party affiliation, should be outraged by this move.

    “Delaware citizens need to ask what their US Senators, Tom Carper and Chris Coons, have to say about this desperate move by their political party, and the threat it poses to American citizens at home and abroad.”

  12. Delaware Dem says:

    And then read John McCain’s statement, which is below. Charlie Copeland is pure evil.

  13. Delaware Dem says:

    FLOOR STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON CIA INTERROGATION METHODS

    Dec 09 2014
    Washington, D.C. ­–

    U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA interrogation methods:

    “Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

    “I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

    “I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

    “The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

    “They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

    “What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

    “By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

    “I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

    “I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

    “I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

    “I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

    “I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

    “The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.

    “Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

    “There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

    “Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

    “Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

    “What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

    “Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

    “The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

    “But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

    “We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

    “Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

    “Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

    “Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

    “Thank you.”

  14. mouse says:

    From the lying maggots who claim they are the moral majority, the party of God, the party of patriotism, the party of our heritage condones torture. Do these animals even understand the implications of violating the Geneva conventions ?

  15. mouse says:

    Exactly, US exceptionalism is dead

  16. SussexAnon says:

    “Ultimately, the report’s value lies in answering that simple question: should we ever do it again?”

    No, the reports value should lie in who is going to go to jail for this. We all know it isn’t going to happen, but if the debate is framed as “but should we do it again” we are already lost as a nation.

    The report also shows the CIA tortured their own informants. Good job.

  17. mouse says:

    Good for John McCain

  18. rustydils says:

    I think we should have just asked the terrorist who killed 3000 americans in the world trade center in the nicest possible way, who all was responsible. The same friendly technique will hopefully work when we finally catch the beheaders. We certainly dont want to ruffle any feathers just because terrorist are brutally murdering Americans

  19. SussexAnon says:

    Maybe if a certain someone paid more attention to intelligence reports prior to 9-11, none of this would have been necessary, eh Rusty?

  20. Jason330 says:

    Hmmm.. A little simple police work or… ignore terrorism then throw 200 years of history and tradition out the window? That’s a tough one.

  21. To me, the key takeaway from the report is something that should be common knowledge: Dick Cheney is one of the most notorious war criminals in history.

    He was the one guy at the center of all this. The ‘intel’ that they got from one of the tortured is/was the phony link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which, of course, served to ‘justify’ our invasion of Iraq. A misbegotten war based on intel garnered from torture. Intel that was wrong. Yo, Rusty, tell me how many died in Iraq for, um ‘freedom’. How many came back broken? All b/c of a phony war propped up, at least in part, from intel from those we tortured?

    The R’s, also of course, insisted on limiting the scope of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s work to the CIA, not to Cheney or the Bush Bunglers. As for ‘W’ himself, what a defense: “I had no clue.” Yes he did. He had wanted to invade Iraq from Day One of his administration.

    And all these assholes can say is “Benghazi”.

    This country is broken and ain’t getting any better. Half of the country reacting like the release of the report is the real crime. Not war crimes perpetrated in violation of whatever principles we have left.

  22. jason330 says:

    Great points. Copeland’s statement above is a nauseating example of how fall we’ve fallen.

  23. Dorian Gray says:

    The Gestapo was just keeping the Fatherland safe.
    The SAVAK is just keeping Iran safe.
    The “work” camps in North Korea are to ensure safety.
    The activities in the dungeons on Egypt and Eastern Europe just keep us safe.

    So anal rape and beatings are good police work. Clever argument… hadn’t heard that one before.

  24. Jason330 says:

    The Stockholm syndrome exhibited by middle class Republicans is remarkable. At every moment of the day and with regard to any issue that arises – it is as if their “security” is at stake, and they are willing to pay LITERALLY any price to feel safe.

    All I can say is, Bravo! Congrats 1%! You did it. Nice work with “Citizens United” and all the rest. You’ve won. It is your country now to despoil pollute, apply annal feedings and move on to somewhere else. Our national sense of what “America” means is completely gone.

  25. Dave says:

    “Republicans are for torture.” Some are.

    “FLOOR STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ” Some are not.

    A powerful statement in my opinion and powerful closing.

    “Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.”

    I think we are still exceptional or at the very least we have some exceptional Americans. Of course, I’m prone to see the glass as half full.

  26. Dorian Gray says:

    @Dave I admire your sanguine nature. Considering that protests are still ongoing in many cities due to police violence, the drone campaign hums along, the CIA tortured people and is still defended (see Cheney, R, Rogers M, Hayden, M, et al), &c., &c… I can’t share your positive outlook.

    It’s interesting. You know what depresses me more than cops killing unarmed black people or drones incinerating innocents drinking tea in Yemen or CIA agents anally raping detainees… that after we find out the dirty truth people don’t have the decency or humility to accept the nastiness that was done and perhaps show a bit of regret. The fucking disgusting pigs who have no remorse and feel no shame. These are very ill, very scary people. The fact that they exist sickens me.

    Maybe a feeling of guilt that we overreacted so terribly would help.

  27. Dave says:

    I admit, I’m an optimist at heart. I recognize the evil in the world, but I also recognize the good that, most of the time, goes unnoticed, uncelebrated, and unrewarded. I refuse to be influenced by the media meme, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

    I also am not ravaged by guilt and blame. We violated our principles and values. We lost our way. Recognize it and do what it takes to restore our values. I guess I don’t spend a lot of time wallowing in guilt because we lose valuable time in moving forward. It’s sort of like taking the wrong exit off of 95 and bemoaning the fact that I’m on the wrong road. Instead I immediately look for the most efficient reroute to get me back on course (with some appropriate grumbling about lost time).

    It’s my pragmatic nature, which is a more pronounced characteristic than my optimism.

  28. fightingbluehen says:

    Of course you all know that the government will never completely take torture off the table, no matter who is president.
    Scenario: They catch someone who they know definitively has planted some sort of deadly device in a populated area.

  29. Dorian Gray says:

    Dave – So you can blow it off and just take the next exit. That’s nice. I personally think the situation is a bit more grave than missing a turn on the street. Moreover, I can’t see this idea being a prudent way to deal with heinous crimes… “Hey, it’s in past. Let’s move on.” By this logic wouldn’t we just let every criminal free?

  30. Jason330 says:

    FBH – According to McCain (who is an expert having been tortured), and other experts, applying torture in that mythical “ticking time bomb” scenario would not produce any actionable information.

    It makes good TV though.

  31. Geezer says:

    “Scenario: They catch someone who they know definitively has planted some sort of deadly device in a populated area.”

    I saw that episode! Like, about 20,000 times. And that’s the only place where such a thing would ever happen — in fiction.

    I realize this might be a higher mental function that you’re capable of, but imagine yourself in the terrorist’s shoes instead of the torturer’s. If you know the bomb will go off soon, you know that all you have to do is hold out until that time. Part of the supposed “effectiveness” of torture is that people think it will never end, so that motivation would be lacking. So it’s not even sophisticated fiction — it’s a children’s story.

    Honestly, you people.

  32. ben says:

    I wish the defenders of torture would just be honest about their blood lust.

    It isnt about getting information or saving lives. it’s about punishment and retribution. Part of me would LOVE to see the child molester/ rapist ilk tortured to death…. publicly … that is why i am in no place to make public policy.

  33. Dorian Gray says:

    You could even take a further step back. Evidence indicates we tortured at least 26 people who were eventually released when it was proven they weren’t who we thought they were or were otherwise innocent. Oh, pardon us. So sorry….

    We weren’t punishing the convicted/guilty with torture – which is constitutionally prohibited anyway. These people hadn’t been convicted of anything!

  34. pandora says:

    Given the report, I’m having a hard time with the “always look on the bright side of life” argument.

  35. Dave says:

    I get that. Even so, when I’m faced with inhumanity, I look around and find some humanity to balance it out. It’s an I Ching kind of thing. Still, I thought doom and gloom was the province of the far right (and lately, my mom)!

  36. fightingbluehen says:

    “I realize this might be a higher mental function that you’re capable of, but imagine yourself in the terrorist’s shoes instead of the torturer’s. If you know the bomb will go off soon, you know that all you have to do is hold out until that time. Part of the supposed “effectiveness” of torture is that people think it will never end, so that motivation would be lacking. So it’s not even sophisticated fiction — it’s a children’s story.”

    How do you know what the bad guy is thinking? Maybe he didn’t think he would get caught. Maybe the person is not connected to the “cause” completely, and would start talking instantly. The fact is that you couldn’t know.

    You call it “a children’s story”. I call it highly unlikely, but still a possibility.
    I believe they would try no matter what they are telling you now.

  37. Jason330 says:

    “I call it highly unlikely, but still a possibility.”

    ..is what a dumb person would say.

  38. pandora says:

    Bad guy? How old are you?

  39. fightingbluehen says:

    Pandora, please don’t make me look up quotes where people you probably respect highly have used the common term “bad guy” when referring to bad guys.

  40. fightingbluehen says:

    You know, you have to have balls of steel (no disrespect to Hillary) to be President. That’s why whoever is President deserves the benefit of the doubt if they are acting in a way that they truly believe is in the best interest of the Country.

    The types of unfortunate and unsavory actions that have to be taken under the stewardship of the Presidency require a certain disconnect or callousness for lack of a better description. It’s actually a sacrifice of their own soul to be honest.
    I couldn’t do it.

  41. SussexAnon says:

    Your “highly unlikely” scenario led to the torture of innocent people and CIA informants. And in the end, didn’t stop “Saturday Matinee detached from reality” ticking time bombs.

  42. Point of Order says:

    FBH:
    One of the problems I’ve always had with the “ticking time bomb” scenario is that law enforcement is smart enough to catch the guy/gal. smart enough to know they know where the bomb is, but not smart enough to back trace their movements. Does that make sense. This scenario isn’t about the worst that could happen, I believe it was created to justify torture.

    Loss of life is a personal tragedy, loss of humanity is a social tragedy. We will grieve for those we lose, but who will grieve our collective death of compassion. We are altogether too comfortable with “collateral” loss of life from errant drone strikes. And we have the tone deafness of the hypocrite to be appalled with the likes of ISIS/ISIL. Blood does indeed call for blood. We must stop feeding our rationalizations that “it’s OK to torture under certain circumstances.”

    Last summer we were squeamish when executions went badly, but want to reserve the right to torture?

    I just don’t get it.

  43. fightingbluehen says:

    I don’t think anybody wants to reserve the right to, or justify torture.
    Like I said before. People are sometimes called on to compromise their integrity in the hope that it will save lives. The same way that a President has to order people to be murdered, as it is with the case of Obama and drone strikes on individuals.

    Torture is not the only way to extract information either.
    Threatening the welfare of family members or other loved ones is another.
    I’m sure they did that too, but we just haven’t heard about it.

  44. pandora says:

    If you believe that torture is justified then why restrict it? What I’m saying is… if you believe torture works and is necessary to save lives then you should be okay with all forms of torture. I’m not okay with that, but if that’s your argument then why do people who support torture draw a line at certain forms of torture? It makes no sense. Their argument is the ends justify the means, yet they draw a line.

  45. Jason330 says:

    People are sometimes called on to compromise their integrity [on TV] in the hope that it will save lives. [IN REAL LIFE Torture is reprehensible an contrary to our values.] [Similarly, the] President ordering people to be murdered with drone strikes [is illegal, reprehensible and contrary to our values].

    Fixed.

    Odd how the people bitching and moaning about Obama being a dictator are the same ones who get a boner from idea of him his killing and torturing people.

  46. mouse says:

    There are some real morally and mentally damaged people in this nation. At some point we will have to confront them

  47. donviti says:

    torture is partisan…I don’t know if you can get a better idea of where we are as a country politically when torture, an illegality in our nation, is debatable.

  48. fightingbluehen says:

    Go get ‘em mouse! You can start with Obama and Hillary because they were in the situation room while drone strikes along with the collateral damage took place, and don’t forget Holder because he sanctioned the executions.

    While you are at it you can confront all the people who knew this was happening and didn’t care, and after you vote for Hillary, you can confront yourself.

  49. mouse says:

    If the Republicans would nominate someone who was reasonable and not obsessed with sexual issues or a Billionaire who made his wealth by raiding pension funds, I might not vote for Hillary. I do not support murder by drone

  50. SussexAnon says:

    Obama’s drone strikes are a war crime unto themselves.

  51. mouse says:

    If I was a child whose family was murdered by a drone strike, I would dedicate my life to revenge