CIA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "Research on Human SUBJECTS": Crime Against Humanity

• WrestlerBoy
  
  Posts: 1963
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 2:06 PM GMT

  The Guardian has just published a document obtained by the ACLU via an FOIA request. The document remains, at this moment, still heavily encrypted and not copy-and-pastable. I have, therefore, written out, myself, the most astounding pericopes. The document is, supposedly, in relation to EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, aka, Torture). Save the opening title of the document, the capitalization is mine.
  
  Note: It is a Crime Against Humanity to perform physical experiments upon a human being without that human being's "informed consent". Further, it is a War Crime to perform such experiments on human beings in captivity. The raison d'etre for the United States' EIT against such human beings - to obtain information for the prevention of specific terrorist acts or specific terrorist activities - is hereunder clearly demolished, as our true purpose is "human experimentation" in order to contribute to "GENERALIZABLE knowledge." The entire document is 41 pages long, and can be viewed here:
  http://www.theguardian.com/law/ng-interactive/2015/jun/15/human-experimentation-cia-document
  
  "AR 2-2 (U) LAW AND POLICY GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (Formerly HR 7-1). (Page 1, title, et seq.)
  
  (c) HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION. The CIA shall not sponsor, contract for, or conduct RESEARCH on human SUBJECTS except in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. The subject's INFORMED CONSENT shall be documented as required by those guidelines. (Page 1
  
  (3) "Research on HUMAN SUBJECTS " means a formal investigation, designed to develop or contribute to GENERALIZABLE KNOWLEDGE, the SUBJECTS of which are PERSONS about whom a SCIENTIST conducting RESEARCH obtains data through intervention or interaction with the person....
  
  Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered and MANIPULATION OF THE SUBJECT... (is) performed for RESEARCH PURPOSES. (Page 19)"

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 4:49 PM GMT

  I haven't read the source but if the report characterizes the techniques as experimentation or research on humans, than I think it misses the mark. Coercion is different than experimentation or research. A good contrast is the experimentation or research on the human body performed by the Nazis. There was no other goal to those actions than to see how the body reacted.
  
  BTW - I have asked many who stated they opposed those techniques how they would feel if a terrorist said a dirty bomb was located in a city where their next of kin lived and said the bomb would go off soon. Would they be willing to have the terrorist experience a few minutes of discomfort or anxiety if it meant a chance to save their loved one's life. Each one answered affirmative, emphasizing it "in a heartbeat". So I asked, if it is ok for your loved ones, how about other's loved ones?
  
  Some would try and dodge the question saying my scenario was "hypothetical, not real world". I took away that excuse by saying plans or policies are based on hypothetical situations that haven't occurred yet. They had no answer.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 7:29 PM GMT

  BeepBopImABot said

  socalfitness saidI haven't read the source but if the report characterizes the techniques as experimentation or research on humans, than I think it misses the mark. Coercion is different than experimentation or research. A good contrast is the experimentation or research on the human body performed by the Nazis. There was no other goal to those actions than to see how the body reacted.
  
  BTW - I have asked many who stated they opposed those techniques how they would feel if a terrorist said a dirty bomb was located in a city where their next of kin lived and said the bomb would go off soon. Would they be willing to have the terrorist experience a few minutes of discomfort or anxiety if it meant a chance to save their loved one's life. Each one answered affirmative, emphasizing it "in a heartbeat". So I asked, if it is ok for your loved ones, how about other's loved ones?
  
  Some would try and dodge the question saying my scenario was "hypothetical, not real world". I took away that excuse by saying plans or policies are based on hypothetical situations that haven't occurred yet. They had no answer.

  
  
  You try to make it seem as if that scenario encompasses all cases. By your logic, just because that’s one hypothetical scenario then it is okay to torture all suspected terrorists and justify it by that hypothetical scenario. But the truth is that your scenario encompasses an extreme and I don’t think that all torture cases could be put into this extreme category. Nothing is black and white; everything is subjective and has a gray area.
  
  I would argue that in cases that don’t fall into the extreme, torture is wrong and should be banned. However, like I said everything has a shade of gray. If a said terrorist has hidden a bomb in a populated city and it was set to go off, then you have crossed into extreme territory; and once you have exhausted all other methods of obtaining that information then and only then can you morally justify torture.
  

  
  In general, I agree that if we precluded anything for fear of it taken to extreme, we would be paralyzed. In other words, anything could be taken to represent the camel nose under the blanket.
  
  In this case, I don't consider waterboarding to be torture. Realize there are experts, legal, psychological, and medical folks on both sides of the argument.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 8:24 PM GMT

  Your opinion is well stated, though I have a different threshold for what I would consider torture. Pain has been defined as being physical, psychological, or emotional. Perhaps any duration of physical pain can be considered as torture. Perhaps even some duration of physical discomfort could become physical pain. Psychological or emotional pain would have to be of some duration before I would consider it torture. Not sure what that duration would be. It can get pretty subjective.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Svnw688
  
  Posts: 3350
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 11:15 PM GMT

  socalfitness saidYour opinion is well stated, though I have a different threshold for what I would consider torture. Pain has been defined as being physical, psychological, or emotional. Perhaps any duration of physical pain can be considered as torture. Perhaps even some duration of physical discomfort could become physical pain. Psychological or emotional pain would have to be of some duration before I would consider it torture. Not sure what that duration would be. It can get pretty subjective.

  
  
  Jesus, conservatives are still peddling the pro-torture argument? You do realize most experts say that physical and emotional torture leads to bad/faulty intelligent (e.g., people will LIE and say anything to make the pain stop).
  
  Let me finish your thought for you, since we can all see where you're going with this. Let's just cut their fingers off, one at a time, like Samuel L. Jackson's character in Unthinkable. That's 10 negotiation points conservatives--imagine how much actionable intelligence we could extract each person! We'll be dirty bomb free now--just give me my hedge clippers.
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 11:37 PM GMT

  BeepBopImABot said

  socalfitness saidYour opinion is well stated, though I have a different threshold for what I would consider torture. Pain has been defined as being physical, psychological, or emotional. Perhaps any duration of physical pain can be considered as torture. Perhaps even some duration of physical discomfort could become physical pain. Psychological or emotional pain would have to be of some duration before I would consider it torture. Not sure what that duration would be. It can get pretty subjective.

  
  
  I agree completely, we would have to define parameters for what we consider torture to be since it can be subjective.
  
  I enjoyed the conversation, and its nice to know that we can have a civil discourse on a topic without getting nasty even thought we may disagree on some points.

  
  Thanks, same here. Noticed another reply of yours in a different thread and was impressed. You just have to cut out all the chaff that many here put out.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 11:45 PM GMT

  Svnw688 said

  socalfitness saidYour opinion is well stated, though I have a different threshold for what I would consider torture. Pain has been defined as being physical, psychological, or emotional. Perhaps any duration of physical pain can be considered as torture. Perhaps even some duration of physical discomfort could become physical pain. Psychological or emotional pain would have to be of some duration before I would consider it torture. Not sure what that duration would be. It can get pretty subjective.

  
  
  Jesus, conservatives are still peddling the pro-torture argument? You do realize most experts say that physical and emotional torture leads to bad/faulty intelligent (e.g., people will LIE and say anything to make the pain stop).
  
  Let me finish your thought for you, since we can all see where you're going with this. Let's just cut their fingers off, one at a time, like Samuel L. Jackson's character in Unthinkable. That's 10 negotiation points conservatives--imagine how much actionable intelligence we could extract each person! We'll be dirty bomb free now--just give me my hedge clippers.

  
  Not going to waste much time with you. CIA, including two Directors, stated information was valuable in getting Bin Laden. Senate report disagrees, so you can believe what you want. But evaluating all the information available publicly, I put more stock in the professionals at the CIA. Understand the military does not condone its use and say it is not effective, but the military is not as skilled as the CIA in these areas.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 11:52 PM GMT

  In Cheney Nation they love talking about the hypothetical case of the terrorist tortured til he gives the information that will save thousands of lives.
  
  What our tortured thinkers don't give us is one single example of their fantasy scenario in real life.
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 11:56 PM GMT

  Notwithstanding the immorality of torture, there is very little evidence that it actually provides reliable information - often the opposite is true.
  
  
  The CIA waterboarded its gold-star detainee, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 183 times in a single month to force him to reveal potential further strikes, according to the Senate's 500-page report Tuesday on CIA interrogation techniques.
  
  The campaign — which also included tactics with such evocative names as "rectal rehydration" and "attention grab" — was largely fruitless and took place while the CIA plotted to block FBI access to Mohammed, the report says.
  
  One interrogator reported informing superiors that the harsh techniques weren't working and complained that "I'm ostracized whenever I suggest [Mohammed and another detainee] did not tell us everything. How dare I think KSM was holding back."
  
  And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records."
  
  http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/rectal-hydration-inside-cias-interrogation-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-n265016

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Lincsbear
  
  Posts: 2613
  
  
  Jun 15, 2015 11:57 PM GMT

  How many of those who seem to think torture is acceptable would be happy to see another country use these techniques against US citizens if they thought them a threat?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:00 AM GMT

  All the left wing sources interpret what the CIA did and think they know better. They think they are in a position to say the CIA, including two Directors, were wrong about CIA operations.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:04 AM GMT

  socalfitness saidAll the left wing sources interpret what the CIA did and think they know better. They think they are in a position to say the CIA, including two Directors, were wrong about CIA operations.

  
  
  Perhaps the CIA interrogator who said the harsh techniques didn't work, knew better than you or the two CIA directors.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:08 AM GMT

  socalfitness saidAll the left wing sources interpret what the CIA did and think they know better. They think they are in a position to say the CIA, including two Directors, were wrong about CIA operations.

  
  
  
  One of those esteemed CIA directors gave classified information to his mistress and is now representing the Saudi Arabian government via his investment banking gig with KKR.
  
  I think it's safe to question the thinking of these guys.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:12 AM GMT

  Ex_Mil8 said

  socalfitness saidAll the left wing sources interpret what the CIA did and think they know better. They think they are in a position to say the CIA, including two Directors, were wrong about CIA operations.

  
  Perhaps the CIA interrogator who said the harsh techniques didn't work, knew better than you or the two CIA directors.

  
  Perhaps he also knows better than the Ex-CIA Clandestine Service chief, who defended the interrogation methods and said "Bottom line, we saved lives". I'll believe him and the 2 Directors (Panetta and Tenant) over the others, mostly politicians and their staffs.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:17 AM GMT

  socalfitness said
  Perhaps he also knows better than the Ex-CIA Clandestine Service chief, who defended the interrogation methods and said "Bottom line, we saved lives". I'll believe him and the 2 Directors (Panetta and Tenant, PresentMind) over the others, mostly politicians and their staffs.

  
  
  How about this politician?
  
  Senator John McCain on Waterboarding and Torture
  
  "One, it doesn't work. If you put enough physical pain on somebody, they will tell you whatever they think that you want to hear in order to -- for the pain to stop.
  
  And second of all, what about our moral standing in the world?"
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/14/senator_john_mccain_on_waterboarding_and_torture_112075.html
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:22 AM GMT

  Perhaps he also knows better than the Ex-CIA Clandestine Service chief, who defended the interrogation methods and said "Bottom line, we saved lives"
  
  
  Let's see. You trust the guy directing the torture when he says torture worked.
  
  Do you not think he might have a tiny conflict of interest?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:29 AM GMT

  Disagree with McCain on this issue. Simple as that.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:36 AM GMT

  socalfitness saidDisagree with McCain on this issue. Simple as that.

  
  
  That's torture victim, McCain. Again - unless you're a torture victim yourself - he is probably better qualified than you to talk on the subject.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 12:42 AM GMT

  Ex_Mil8 said

  socalfitness saidDisagree with McCain on this issue. Simple as that.

  
  
  That's torture victim, McCain. Again - unless you're a torture victim yourself - he is probably better qualified than you to talk on the subject.

  
  The methods of the North Vietnamese in the 1960s are probably different than those of the CIA in 2000+. Plus, I am echoing the words of some professionals who are more qualified than McCain.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• WrestlerBoy
  
  Posts: 1963
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 2:44 AM GMT

  BeepBopImABot said

  socalfitness saidI haven't read the source but if the report characterizes the techniques as experimentation or research on humans, than I think it misses the mark. Coercion is different than experimentation or research. A good contrast is the experimentation or research on the human body performed by the Nazis. There was no other goal to those actions than to see how the body reacted.
  
  BTW - I have asked many who stated they opposed those techniques how they would feel if a terrorist said a dirty bomb was located in a city where their next of kin lived and said the bomb would go off soon. Would they be willing to have the terrorist experience a few minutes of discomfort or anxiety if it meant a chance to save their loved one's life. Each one answered affirmative, emphasizing it "in a heartbeat". So I asked, if it is ok for your loved ones, how about other's loved ones?
  
  Some would try and dodge the question saying my scenario was "hypothetical, not real world". I took away that excuse by saying plans or policies are based on hypothetical situations that haven't occurred yet. They had no answer.

  
  
  You try to make it seem as if that scenario encompasses all cases. By your logic, just because that’s one hypothetical scenario then it is okay to torture all suspected terrorists and justify it by that hypothetical scenario. But the truth is that your scenario encompasses an extreme and I don’t think that all torture cases could be put into this extreme category. Nothing is black and white; everything is subjective and has a gray area.
  
  I would argue that in cases that don’t fall into the extreme, torture is wrong and should be banned. However, like I said everything has a shade of gray. If a said terrorist has hidden a bomb in a populated city and it was set to go off, then you have crossed into extreme territory; and once you have exhausted all other methods of obtaining that information then and only then can you morally justify torture.
  

  
  
  Oh dear...it is not a "report", the language characterizing it as "experimentation and research on human subjects....for generalizable knowledge" IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S DIRECTIVE ("Policy and Law") on the matter? THAT'S the "issue", get it?

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Jun 16, 2015 3:02 AM GMT

  socalfitness said

  The methods of the North Vietnamese in the 1960s are probably different than those of the CIA in 2000+. Plus, I am echoing the words of some professionals who are more qualified than McCain.

  
  
  You are echoing the words of some professional torturers.
  
  
  You're going to need some new sources to keep this BS going.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM