ABC News Outs Interrogation Psychiatrists

[IDBillzFan]

Nice. So nice. They even have video of the reporters tracking one down and asking him what his role is in the CIA. Beautiful stuff here, people. Beautiful.

 

"Mr. Mitchell, what was your role at the CIA? Did you break the law, Mr. Mitchell? Do you fear you'll be prosecuted?"

 

What a bunch of !@#$ing maroons.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not sure what problem you have with that article. Please explain.

[erynthered]

Nice. So nice. They even have video of the reporters tracking one down and asking him what his role is in the CIA. Beautiful stuff here, people. Beautiful.

 

"Mr. Mitchell, what was your role at the CIA? Did you break the law, Mr. Mitchell? Do you fear you'll be prosecuted?"

 

What a bunch of !@#$ing maroons.

 

 

 

A G-Wiz a day is good money? Thats funny.

[Booster4324]

Nice. So nice. They even have video of the reporters tracking one down and asking him what his role is in the CIA. Beautiful stuff here, people. Beautiful.

 

"Mr. Mitchell, what was your role at the CIA? Did you break the law, Mr. Mitchell? Do you fear you'll be prosecuted?"

 

What a bunch of !@#$ing maroons.

 

 

 

Talk about throwing guys under a bus.

 

"The whole intense interrogation concept that we hear about, is essentially their concepts," according to Col. Steven Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator.

 

Question please as I really do not see much of a problem with this, especially as used on guys we really know were involved. I have not a single issue with waterboarding someone like Abu Zubaydah that we have no doubt is involved. However, do you feel it is appropriate to use such tactics on ones we just suspect? No real proof whatsoever mind you, just a suspicion? Also, how does us not using such tactics hurt the national defense? I hear this complaint thrown around quite a bit. I mean, how many of these high level al-Qaida guys have we caught recently? Thank you for any response.

[IDBillzFan]

Not sure what problem you have with that article. Please explain.

What is the benefit of outing these guys? Honestly. Where's the upside to letting everyone know specifically who and where they are? Any? Any at all?

 

Answer: not a single bit. Except now, two guys and their families will be under the media microscope and their lives will be turned upside down as media rummages through their trash and essentially buries whatever life they had. And that's not to mention what happens if the people who mean to do harm to our country decide to track them down themselves.

 

But they got the story, so I'm sure ABC News is very proud of outing people who absolutely, positively did not need to be outed.

 

Unless you want to explain to me what the upside to this is? Did you need to know who they were?

[IDBillzFan]

Question please as I really do not see much of a problem with this, especially as used on guys we really know were involved. I have not a single issue with waterboarding someone like Abu Zubaydah that we have no doubt is involved. However, do you feel it is appropriate to use such tactics on ones we just suspect? No real proof whatsoever mind you, just a suspicion? Also, how does us not using such tactics hurt the national defense? I hear this complaint thrown around quite a bit. I mean, how many of these high level al-Qaida guys have we caught recently? Thank you for any response.

You may have the wrong guy for this question. I'm one of the few people who remembers what happened on 9/11. I'm one of the few people who remembers watching innocent, hard working people jump out of buildings to their splattering death because whatever the hell was happening in the building with them presented a worse fate. So I don't give a crap who you need to drunk under water or stick in a box with a caterpillar so long as there's even the slightest chance of getting information. And for the record, when you're dealing with people who think nothing of decapitating innocent Americans, or stringing their bodies up from bridges, then the idea of being nice makes me puke.

 

And again, what is the upside to outing these guys? Can anyone answer that for me? Anyone? Anyone at all?

 

Of course not. It was reckless, and irresponsible, and I look forward to the day when these types of left-wing journalists find themselves in need of their country. Oh, wait...they ARE in need of their country or they wouldn't be able to freely release this type of idiotic tripe.

[Wacka]

What the F happened to treason laws?

 

The left gets all worked up when a CIA desk jockey outs herself and then gets publicly outed by a reporter, but when real CIA agents gets outed and it could possibly jeopardize their live, they think it's OK.

[Booster4324]

You may have the wrong guy for this question. I'm one of the few people who remembers what happened on 9/11. I'm one of the few people who remembers watching innocent, hard working people jump out of buildings to their splattering death because whatever the hell was happening in the building with them presented a worse fate. So I don't give a crap who you need to drunk under water or stick in a box with a caterpillar so long as there's even the slightest chance of getting information. And for the record, when you're dealing with people who think nothing of decapitating innocent Americans, or stringing their bodies up from bridges, then the idea of being nice makes me puke.

 

And again, what is the upside to outing these guys? Can anyone answer that for me? Anyone? Anyone at all?

 

Of course not. It was reckless, and irresponsible, and I look forward to the day when these types of left-wing journalists find themselves in need of their country. Oh, wait...they ARE in need of their country or they wouldn't be able to freely release this type of idiotic tripe.

 

I actually find the story useless. The guys who designed the program are probably blameless. Someone told them what to do and what limits they had. At the least they approved the ideas, and that person may have some explaining to do.

 

Still my question stands, if you cannot answer it, perhaps some other can. Should such tactics be used on people we only suspect of terrorist activities? Do you support such tactics? How does us suspending such tactics as far as the public is concerned (there is probably a hush hush, dont ask don't tell policy for people we KNOW are involved-if not then this is probably a colossal screw up) hurt National Defense?

 

Anyone?

[Kelly the Dog]

What is the benefit of outing these guys? Honestly. Where's the upside to letting everyone know specifically who and where they are? Any? Any at all?

 

Answer: not a single bit. Except now, two guys and their families will be under the media microscope and their lives will be turned upside down as media rummages through their trash and essentially buries whatever life they had. And that's not to mention what happens if the people who mean to do harm to our country decide to track them down themselves.

 

But they got the story, so I'm sure ABC News is very proud of outing people who absolutely, positively did not need to be outed.

 

Unless you want to explain to me what the upside to this is? Did you need to know who they were?

IF the story is true, which I have no idea whether it is or not, then yes, I definitely want to know. This is what reporters do. It's their job. IIRC, I thought you wanted to be one back in the day.

 

This happens to be a very big story. Frankly, as I said before, I don't think they should be taking Bush and the CIA and the administration to court over it, because I do think we need to move on. And arguing over this stuff in the courts will cause so much acrimony that it will severely hinder a lot of the stuff we need to do to get back on track as a country.

 

But it's hard to say that, because basically, I think it was torture, and I think they knew it was torture and I think they knowingly broke the law. So I am actually promoting the idea of looking the other way, which is very troubling. The only way I can justify it is that some people don't believe it was torture, and it's hard to put a distinct definition on it, but it does seem to me that most of the scholars in the area do.

 

But just because I think we should not prosecute administration officials, that doesn't mean I think reporters should stop doing their jobs and just ignore everything that went on. There may be a lot of stuff we don't know about. It's a huge story.

[Booster4324]

IF the story is true, which I have no idea whether it is or not, then yes, I definitely want to know. This is what reporters do. It's their job. IIRC, I thought you wanted to be one back in the day.

 

This happens to be a very big story. Frankly, as I said before, I don't think they should be taking Bush and the CIA and the administration to court over it, because I do think we need to move on. And arguing over this stuff in the courts will cause so much acrimony that it will severely hinder a lot of the stuff we need to do to get back on track as a country.

 

But it's hard to say that, because basically, I think it was torture, and I think they knew it was torture and I think they knowingly broke the law. So I am actually promoting the idea of looking the other way, which is very troubling. The only way I can justify it is that some people don't believe it was torture, and it's hard to put a distinct definition on it, but it does seem to me that most of the scholars in the area do.

 

But just because I think we should not prosecute administration officials, that doesn't mean I think reporters should stop doing their jobs and just ignore everything that went on. There may be a lot of stuff we don't know about. It's a huge story.

 

I disagree (from what we know so far) as it seems they were really just peons. Should the media investigate it? Yes. Should they out two guys for doing the job they were paid for? Probably not. Find me a tape of Cheney cackling madly as he orders them dunked and we can talk.

[DC Tom]

I disagree (from what we know so far) as it seems they were really just peons. Should the media investigate it? Yes. Should they out two guys for doing the job they were paid for? Probably not. Find me a tape of Cheney cackling madly as he orders them dunked and we can talk.

 

They particularly shouldn't do it in such a salacious manner. That article wasn't investigative reporting, it was tabloid journalism at it's worst, specifically designed to incite rather than inform.

[Booster4324]

They particularly shouldn't do it in such a salacious manner. That article wasn't investigative reporting, it was tabloid journalism at it's worst, specifically designed to incite rather than inform.

 

I am not sure I would go that far. The majority of the article, I freely grant. There were some relevant facts though. I think the article could have had significance if they left out the names of the people involved.

[Kelly the Dog]

I disagree (from what we know so far) as it seems they were really just peons. Should the media investigate it? Yes. Should they out two guys for doing the job they were paid for? Probably not. Find me a tape of Cheney cackling madly as he orders them dunked and we can talk.

 

You may be right, but this is how things work in that field. Reporters write stories based on what they know at the time. I think we have every right to know, IF this is true, who these guys were if they were just psychologists without any interrogation experience. That's a big story, IMO. No one is accusing them of crimes in this article. But they look to be major players in a major story.

 

I personally think it would be a terrible idea to prosecute anyone for doing their jobs EVEN THOUGH I believe the law expressly states that that fact is no excuse when it comes to torture.

[Booster4324]

You may be right, but this is how things work in that field. Reporters write stories based on what they know at the time. I think we have every right to know, IF this is true, who these guys were if they were just psychologists without any interrogation experience. That's a big story, IMO. No one is accusing them of crimes in this article. But they look to be major players in a major story.

 

I personally think it would be a terrible idea to prosecute anyone for doing their jobs EVEN THOUGH I believe the law expressly states that that fact is no excuse when it comes to torture.

 

Well if they advocated pulling out their toenails or shoving bamboo shoots up their nails I could see your point. If they advocated using it on suspects, again I see your point.

[GG]

You may be right, but this is how things work in that field. Reporters write stories based on what they know at the time. I think we have every right to know, IF this is true, who these guys were if they were just psychologists without any interrogation experience. That's a big story, IMO. No one is accusing them of crimes in this article. But they look to be major players in a major story.

 

I personally think it would be a terrible idea to prosecute anyone for doing their jobs EVEN THOUGH I believe the law expressly states that that fact is no excuse when it comes to torture.

 

One doesn't have to be convicted, or even accused of a crime for their world to be turned upside down. Just ask anyone who works for AIG.

 

Investigative journalism my ass. The story would have had the same effect that you're looking for without naming names. But somebody consciously decided to print the names and the city where they work. That's yellow journalism at its finest.

 

But rest assured that US will never torture anyone in their possession anymore. That job will now be done by Saudis, Egyptians, etc. I'm sure the enemy combatants, or whatever name of the day is, will relish that opportunity.

[Kelly the Dog]

One doesn't have to be convicted, or even accused of a crime for their world to be turned upside down. Just ask anyone who works for AIG.

 

Investigative journalism my ass. The story would have had the same effect that you're looking for without naming names. But somebody consciously decided to print the names and the city where they work. That's yellow journalism at its finest.

 

But rest assured that US will never torture anyone in their possession anymore. That job will now be done by Saudis, Egyptians, etc. I'm sure the enemy combatants, or whatever name of the day is, will relish that opportunity.

 

Chances are, if the names were not used, people on the right would be making all kinds of threads and accusations about "Oh, right, who are these people?!", "The liberal media just makes stuff up!", "they just make these false allegations without any names, without any proof!"

 

Yellow Journalism, as far as I know, distorts or exaggerates items in order to sensationalize it and get more people to read it because of that distortion or exaggeration. I don't see how this is "yellow journalism at its finest", no one has ever heard of these guys and the story would be the same with or without the names.

 

Actually, in retrospect, they probably could have kept the names out of the story and it would have been the same. But again, I think people would have complained about that, too.

[IDBillzFan]

The story would have had the same effect that you're looking for without naming names. But somebody consciously decided to print the names and the city where they work. That's yellow journalism at its finest.

 

But rest assured that US will never torture anyone in their possession anymore. That job will now be done by Saudis, Egyptians, etc. I'm sure the enemy combatants, or whatever name of the day is, will relish that opportunity.

Exactly.

 

Look at the lead again.

 

As the secrets about the CIA's interrogation techniques continue to come out, there's new information about the frequency and severity of their use, contradicting an 2007 ABC News report, and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture.

 

Look at it again. And again. Since when is "apparently" enough to run photos and location?

 

This isn't journalism. It's irresponsible bullschit for the sake of yelling about something that has absolutely, positively NO value except to promote the plans of the Obama administration to pussify this country and let everyone else do the torturing EXCEPT us.

 

And K-Dog, I spent three brief years in journalism, and one of the main reasons I got out (aside from the pitiful money you earn when you DON'T create a story like this) is that even back then, no one was interested in anything other than selling ink, and if that meant staging photos or pushing the limits of implied and inferred, so be it. Case in point; they provide photos and locations of two guys who "apparently" were directing the "brutal" sessions which Jesus Christ Almighty "calls torture."

 

Reckless and irresponsible for the sake of getting webhits. Maybe the adminstration can get Acorn to load some homeless people on a bus and protest outside their homes.

 

Plus, who in their right !@#$ing mind wants to work for the CIA now? No one worth hiring, that's for goddamn sure.

 

But I can see your point how important it is to release this stuff. We should all sleep better knowing that ABC News has our back.

[DC Tom]

I am not sure I would go that far. The majority of the article, I freely grant. There were some relevant facts though. I think the article could have had significance if they left out the names of the people involved.

 

The only relevant fact is that two psychologists were contracted by the CIA to design a ten-step interrogation program, the last step of which was waterboarding.

 

Everything else in that article was slant.

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly.

 

Look at the lead again.

 

 

 

Look at it again. And again. Since when is "apparently" enough to run photos and location?

 

This isn't journalism. It's irresponsible bullschit for the sake of yelling about something that has absolutely, positively NO value except to promote the plans of the Obama administration to pussify this country and let everyone else do the torturing EXCEPT us.

 

And K-Dog, I spent three brief years in journalism, and one of the main reasons I got out (aside from the pitiful money you earn when you DON'T create a story like this) is that even back then, no one was interested in anything other than selling ink, and if that meant staging photos or pushing the limits of implied and inferred, so be it. Case in point; they provide photos and locations of two guys who "apparently" were directing the "brutal" sessions which Jesus Christ Almighty "calls torture."

 

Reckless and irresponsible for the sake of getting webhits. Maybe the adminstration can get Acorn to load some homeless people on a bus and protest outside their homes.

 

Plus, who in their right !@#$ing mind wants to work for the CIA now? No one worth hiring, that's for goddamn sure.

 

But I can see your point how important it is to release this stuff. We should all sleep better knowing that ABC News has our back.

You actually should be applauding Obama for not wanting to prosecute. He's breaking the law himself by not doing it, and it's abundantly clear that he himself doesn't want to. He says it every chance he gets and he chooses words like "mistake" expressly to avoid any kind of legal action.

 

He's going to do what he should be doing, leaving it up to the justice department. But it's very very clear that if it were up to him, he would not be prosecuting. It is, however, illegal to torture, and it's illegal to know about torture and not do anything about it. And waterboarding has always been known as torture, and there are numerous cases going back 100 years saying so. Again, I personally think we should just look the other way even though it was against the law.

 

I'm not, however, going to start telling reporters what they can or can't follow. I think reporters are some of the biggest scumbags, too, btw. I just don't think we can censor them.

[GG]

Chances are, if the names were not used, people on the right would be making all kinds of threads and accusations about "Oh, right, who are these people?!", "The liberal media just makes stuff up!", "they just make these false allegations without any names, without any proof!"

 

Yellow Journalism, as far as I know, distorts or exaggerates items in order to sensationalize it and get more people to read it because of that distortion or exaggeration. I don't see how this is "yellow journalism at its finest", no one has ever heard of these guys and the story would be the same with or without the names.

 

Actually, in retrospect, they probably could have kept the names out of the story and it would have been the same. But again, I think people would have complained about that, too.

 

Only idiots would clamor that the story is fake because they wouldn't name the psychiatrists? Ask, why hasn't a single CIA agent been "outed" by the media, yet people understand that there are real agents conducting these interrogations.

 

Only idiots need the actual names, case in point on the retardia site when someone reputable shares an inside story but doesn't divulge the source. Idiots complain, others appreciate the scoop.

 

Look at this case again and see if this hasn't been distorted or sensationalized to editorialize the journalists' story. Seems as yellow as the snow in the Rich Stadium parking lot.