Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491781)

Without addressing your argument, let me just say you have no credibility on this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491780)

Catch 22 needs to be rewritten for today.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491778)

Also,

3. We think torture achieved all sorts of wonderful things that we can't tell you about because of national security.
4. The Senate doesn't know everything.
5. Because of 4., the Senate can't prove 3. is wrong.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491779)

So what do people think about issuing pardons as the only way to establish that torture is, in fact, illegal?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491781)

Without addressing your argument, let me just say you have no credibility on this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491785)

If Obama is not going to prosecute anyone -- and he isn't -- then it's hard to imagine anyone else ever doing it. So a pardon seems like better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491777)

I believe the CIA's position today is as follows:

1. Because we took action based on enhanced interrogation techniques, regardless of whether that action was effective or the information we based it on accurate, EIH produced actionable intelligence and thus ehanced our mission (even if it did not optimize it).
2. Regardless of whether EIT produced AI and so can be considered mission enhancing even if not mission optimal, both our agents and Dick Cheney enjoyed it.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491788)

I'm just sorry that we no longer have anyone here who will explain that this was all just fine. Spanky to say that the "ticking time bombs" (with the 3-year fuses, I guess) justify anything, and Slave to explain how "forced rectal feeding" isn't really any worse than the therapeutic enemas that liberal Hollywood celebrities pay for. That sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491787)

Wouldn't a pardon be the President formally saying "it's okay, I forgive you for torturing people and lying to the government about it"?

Doing nothing would be preferable to doing something wrong.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491785)

If Obama is not going to prosecute anyone -- and he isn't -- then it's hard to imagine anyone else ever doing it. So a pardon seems like better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491791)

"I forgive you because you acted on poor legal advice."

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491791)

"I forgive you because you acted on poor legal advice."

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 491796)

That's kind of where I'm at.

This is going to have interesting fall out abroad, though.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491799)

It will be worse if Obama pardons the people involved.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491798)

Question -- If you put "Acted on poor legal advice" into a translation program, and have it translated into German and back into English, does it come out "Just following orders"?