CIA Chief Brennan: I would not carry out waterboarding if ordered by Trump or Cruz

[JDragon]

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...waterboarding-republican-president-trump-cruz

New CIA Chief may be necessary if you wanna go all medieval.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Trump could just have him waterboarded until he relents.

And lol @ the CIA guy acting like he's above putting a moist rag over some terrorist's mouth. Please.

 

[uncommon]

coming from the guy who blew up hastings

 

[KnightTemplar]

Technically correct. He wouldn't personally carry out the water-boarding. He'd order another CIA agent to do it for him

 

[Arkain2K]

Somebody should remind Brennan that April Fools was on the 1st of this month, not the 11th.

 

[JDragon]

Technically correct. He wouldn't personally carry out the water-boarding. He'd order another CIA agent to do it for him

Also, if a President Trump or Cruz ordered somebody else to order Brennan, he might do it himself

 

[Michaelangelo]

Why is he trolling?

 

[RIPWarrior]

He might not but someone else will.

Seems like a PR comment to me.

 

[ironwolf]

I'd do it.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Even the military expects - requires, to be more precise - members to refuse to carry out unlawful orders.


The Geneva convention unequivocally outlaws torture:

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-geneva-conventions/p11485

Common Article Three
This article of the Geneva Conventions bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs. Until recently it remained unclear whether the article applied to CIA interrogators, located overseas, who were questioning high-ranking members of al-Qaeda and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants.” In July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay.

 

[JDragon]

Even the military expects - requires, to be more precise - members to refuse to carry out unlawful orders.


The Geneva convention unequivocally outlaws torture:

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-geneva-conventions/p11485

That's why Trump called the Geneva convention 'a problem'.

Also, it seems that the existence of it never seemed to be an issue for Bush and his aides.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

International law is a farce anyway. It only works on small nations, or when many nations gang up on a big one. No one's going to do that to the US cuz they poured a little water on a jihadis face.

 

[sub_thug]

Political theater. The CIA does not want to be branded in the international community as an organization that likes to torture the people that it interrogates, regardless of whether or not those are methods that specific agents are authorized to use. The methods of HUMINT collection is not a "red/blue" issue, nor should it be part of the public debate or knowledge. What the clandestine services do should remain clandestine.

 

[ShoelessRye]

CIA will just contract it out. They won't put themselves in legal jeopardy or America's reputation in jeopardy in the future by doing the torture in house. Turn the suspected terrorist over to a different government for "interrogation" while the CIA is there just as a witness. Or just disappear the suspected terrorist - "interrogate" them at some blacksite and then kill them when finished with the body never being found.

Another possibility is a "rogue agent" - if CIA is willing to kill and die, why not torture and then go to prison for life? So you get some 24-esque scenario and need information so some agent "takes one for the cause" and blowtorches the terrorists balls or something and gets the info but is arrested and sentenced to life in prison via military tribunal or something.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I'd do it.

Have a like. Not for the comment but for your awesome t-shirt avatar. I love me some Bro Science

 

[mcgoatp4p#1]

International law is a farce anyway. It only works on small nations, or when many nations gang up on a big one. No one's going to do that to the US cuz they poured a little water on a jihadis face.

help me understand this. if its just 'a little water' on their face and its no big deal as you say, why would they even do it? whats the purpose of doing something so harmless?

 

[MTT]

 

[SMEAC]

Words mean nothing in this instance

 

[ultramanhyata]

Brennan added, "In fact, if either one of those guys gets elected president I just might have to pull the Agency's 'Operation Lone Gunman' out of mothballs."

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

help me understand this. if its just 'a little water' on their face and its no big deal as you say, why would they even do it? whats the purpose of doing something so harmless?

Because it sucks. But that doesn't mean it's harmful.

Hope that helped.