Home Home Home
Home
Translation Jobs
Ocultar Paneles
Ingreso de Miembros

Nombre de usuario

Contraseña
Presione para obtener ayuda
Seleccionar el idioma del sitio
ESEspañol
ENEnglish
Foros
Está usted navegando como invitado. Por favor ingrese para tener acceso a más funciones.
Moderadores
Abdelouadoud El Omrani
Message format
Thread information
Last Activity November 20, 2009 12:42 PM

7 replies
1300 viewings

Búsqueda en el Sitio
Notification

Toggle e-mail notification

XML RSS Feed
Recommend Us
stumbleupon|digg|del.icio.us|reddit|facebook
Legend
Posted Messages:
5000 5000
2000 2000
1000 1000
500 500
100 100
25 25
Colour Coding:
  • Administrator
  • Forum Moderator
  • Registered User
Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.Barry LePatner
Page: 1
Back Reply
« Thread »
Torture

Barack Obama visits CIA to calm uproar over release of secret memos

President Barack Obama made his first visit to the Central Intelligence Agency on Monday in an attempt to calm an uproar among America's spies over his release of secret memos about interrogation techniques.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we have made some mistakes - that's how we learn," Mr Obama said in a speech at the agency's headquarters.

"So I want to make a point that...I understand that it's hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples and would willingly and gladly kill innocents."

Last week, Mr Obama released documents written by officials in President George W. Bush's administration that contained details of the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects between 2002 and 2005.

Although Mr Obama said that neither CIA interrogators nor the authors of the memos should be prosecuted, civil liberties groups have demanded that torture charges be brought, arguing that the "Nuremberg defence" of following orders is unacceptable.

The methods, which were eventually prohibited by the Bush administration, included sleep deprivation for up to 11 days, forced nudity and stress positions as water-boarding, in which "water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches" for "20 to 40 seconds".

It was also revealed that Zubaydah was placed in a box with an insect in order to exploit his fear of them.

Leon Panetta, Mr Obama's CIA chief, and four most recent former heads of the spy agency had all implored the US president not to release the memos, stating that doing so would damage national security and demoralise CIA operatives.

Mr Obama described the methods as part of a "dark and painful chapter in our history" and Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, defended the decision to publicise them, stating that it had "enhanced America's image abroad" and deprived al-Qaeda of "propaganda tools".

Gary Berntsen, a former CIA officer who led the agency's paramilitary team that searched for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, said his former colleagues were "horrified" by Mr Obama's actions.

"When you make this public you define for al-Qaeda the limits of the playbook we would use against them. This allows them to prepare themselves.

"Part of the problem is that this administration can't control themselves in terms of continuing to throw mud at their predecessors. The decision seemed to be political."

The release of the documents and the outlawing of the techniques, he suggested, could come to haunt Mr Obama. "What do you do when you capture a terrorist who has a bio-weapon or fissile material if you have a standard that won't allow for anything at all? What he's done is close down his room for manoeuvre."

Michael Hayden, who retired in January as CIA chief, told Fox News: "What we have described for our enemies, in the midst of a war, are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al-Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information."

He argued that Mr Obama's actions - which were lauded by civil liberties groups - put interrogators in the "horrible position" of fearing prosecution even if they'd been told by the White House that the methods they'd been instructed to use were legal.

Mr Hayden, a former Air Force general appointed by Mr Bush but well regarded within the CIA and viewed as a non-partisan intelligence professional, added that the methods were effective.

"Most of the people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say, 'I don't want my nation doing this ... and they didn't work anyway.' That back half of the sentence isn't true," he said.

"The use of these techniques against these terrorists really did make us safer, it really did work," he said.

 

So I was wondering, In the light of this statment

"The use of these techniques against these terrorists really did make us safer, it really did work," by, Mr Hayden, a former Air Force general appointed by Mr Bush

Do you feel safer?

Option Votes
4 votes - [22.22%]
.  
14 votes - [77.78%]
.  

Posted:
April 20, 2009 7:03 PM
Post #174055
Dina Elsayed Imam
Photo
Veteran
100100252525
Mother tongue: Arabic
Posts: 278
Joined: November 22, 2008
Location: Egypt
 
Torture

Barack Obama visits CIA to calm uproar over release of secret memos

President Barack Obama made his first visit to the Central Intelligence Agency on Monday in an attempt to calm an uproar among America's spies over his release of secret memos about interrogation techniques.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we have made some mistakes - that's how we learn," Mr Obama said in a speech at the agency's headquarters.

"So I want to make a point that...I understand that it's hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples and would willingly and gladly kill innocents."

Last week, Mr Obama released documents written by officials in President George W. Bush's administration that contained details of the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects between 2002 and 2005.

Although Mr Obama said that neither CIA interrogators nor the authors of the memos should be prosecuted, civil liberties groups have demanded that torture charges be brought, arguing that the "Nuremberg defence" of following orders is unacceptable.

The methods, which were eventually prohibited by the Bush administration, included sleep deprivation for up to 11 days, forced nudity and stress positions as water-boarding, in which "water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches" for "20 to 40 seconds".

It was also revealed that Zubaydah was placed in a box with an insect in order to exploit his fear of them.

Leon Panetta, Mr Obama's CIA chief, and four most recent former heads of the spy agency had all implored the US president not to release the memos, stating that doing so would damage national security and demoralise CIA operatives.

Mr Obama described the methods as part of a "dark and painful chapter in our history" and Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, defended the decision to publicise them, stating that it had "enhanced America's image abroad" and deprived al-Qaeda of "propaganda tools".

Gary Berntsen, a former CIA officer who led the agency's paramilitary team that searched for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, said his former colleagues were "horrified" by Mr Obama's actions.

"When you make this public you define for al-Qaeda the limits of the playbook we would use against them. This allows them to prepare themselves.

"Part of the problem is that this administration can't control themselves in terms of continuing to throw mud at their predecessors. The decision seemed to be political."

The release of the documents and the outlawing of the techniques, he suggested, could come to haunt Mr Obama. "What do you do when you capture a terrorist who has a bio-weapon or fissile material if you have a standard that won't allow for anything at all? What he's done is close down his room for manoeuvre."

Michael Hayden, who retired in January as CIA chief, told Fox News: "What we have described for our enemies, in the midst of a war, are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al-Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information."

He argued that Mr Obama's actions - which were lauded by civil liberties groups - put interrogators in the "horrible position" of fearing prosecution even if they'd been told by the White House that the methods they'd been instructed to use were legal.

Mr Hayden, a former Air Force general appointed by Mr Bush but well regarded within the CIA and viewed as a non-partisan intelligence professional, added that the methods were effective.

"Most of the people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say, 'I don't want my nation doing this ... and they didn't work anyway.' That back half of the sentence isn't true," he said.

"The use of these techniques against these terrorists really did make us safer, it really did work," he said.

 

So I was wondering, In the light of this statment

"The use of these techniques against these terrorists really did make us safer, it really did work," by, Mr Hayden, a former Air Force general appointed by Mr Bush

Do you feel safer?


Reply|Quote|Edit
Posted:
April 20, 2009 8:00 PM
Post #174058—in reply to #174055
David Kallans
Photo
Expert
10005001001002525
Mother tongue: English
Posts: 1752
Joined: April 13, 2007
Location: United States
 
RE: Torture

Whether I feel safer is not particularly relevant.  The United States is a signatory to the International Convention Against Torture which categorically bans torture in all circumstances.  Making people feel "safer" is not a permissible grounds for deviation from the treaty, which explicitly states that there are absolutely no exceptions to the total ban.

More fundamentally, though, there are many things that would make us safer that are not ipso facto justifiable.  Most crime in the US is committed by black and Hispanic males between the ages of 13 and 30.  We would therefore be safer if we simply locked up every such person as a preventitive measure.  Notions of justice and basic human decency keep us from doing so, however.

One should always beware when safety is claimed as a justification, because you can bet your bottom dollar that something sinister will follow in its train.


Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Posted:
April 21, 2009 12:47 AM
Post #174063—in reply to #174058
Jacek K.
TC Master
Photo
Mother tongue: Polish
Joined: February 18, 2003
Location: Poland
 
RE: Torture

Each time the idiots take away water from me when boarding a plane I ask myself the same question: Do I feel safer thanks to waterboarding voodoo? And each time the answer is a resounding NO! One has nothing to do with the other.



[Edited by Jacek K. on April 21, 2009 1:21 AM]

Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Posted:
April 21, 2009 1:34 AM
Post #174065—in reply to #174055
Abdelouadoud El Omrani
TC Master
Photo
Expert
2000252525
Mother tongues: Arabic, French
Posts: 2093
Joined: February 5, 2003
Location: Qatar
 
RE: Torture

 No human being is allowed -in any circumstance whatsoever- to torture another humam being. The Intelligence professionals must solve their problems and do their job while respecting this rule. When a professional meets a problem, he has to solve it respecting the ethics of his/her profession. We do that as translators, so why shouldn't the intelliigence guys do the same?

Salaam

Ouadoud


Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Posted:
April 21, 2009 3:33 AM
Post #174070—in reply to #174065
Jacek K.
TC Master
Photo
Mother tongue: Polish
Joined: February 18, 2003
Location: Poland
 
RE: Torture

Originally written by Abdelouadoud El Omrani on April 21, 2009 7:34 AM

 No human being is allowed -in any circumstance whatsoever- to torture another humam being.

Neither is he allowed, by the Ten Commandments and by law, to kill anyone...


Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Posted:
April 21, 2009 5:35 AM
Post #174091—in reply to #174070
Jacek K.
TC Master
Photo
Mother tongue: Polish
Joined: February 18, 2003
Location: Poland
 
RE: Torture

Now, it goes without saying that to allow for exceptions to both killing (which you can watch on TV just about 24 hrs. a day, 7 days a week) and, consequently, torture is as easy as a piece of cake. Today's example reads:

In thinking through the complicated issues surrounding torture, I've looked for guidance to none other than Leo Strauss. My own views about Strauss and his influence in the United States are ambivalent, as you can see here. But I think he's at his strongest in discussing what he called the "permanent problems" of politics. This is especially true of pages 156-164 of Natural Right and History, where he examines the complexities involved in thinking about political life in moral terms.

Strauss begins by noting that Aristotle (in Book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics) asserts, with little explanation, that natural right is changeable -- in other words, that standards of what is right and wrong vary from time to time and place to place. According to Strauss, this claim follows not from historical relativism but rather from the multi-faceted and ambiguous character of political morality itself. Simply put, political morality sometimes means commutative and distributive justice (what the parts of the political community deserve or are owed according to commonly accepted standards of fairness), while at other times political morality means the common good (what is required for the political community as a whole to survive and thrive).

Under normal circumstances, the two parts of political morality cohere enough that the tensions between them rarely show themselves. But in extreme situations -- situations in which (in Strauss's words) "the very existence or independence of a society is at stake" -- there may be "conflicts between what the self-preservation of society requires and the requirements of commutative and distributive justice. In such situations, and only in such situations, it can justly be said that the public safety is the highest law."

This, in Strauss's view, is what Aristotle meant when he asserted that natural right is changeable. Under normal circumstances, the common rules of political morality tell us that torture is simply wrong. (The example of torture is mine; Strauss focuses on espionage.) But in a sufficiently extreme situation -- when faced with an "an absolutely unscrupulous and savage enemy" -- torture may become not merely a permissible evil but a positive good that is necessary to fulfill the highest law of political morality (which is the defense of the common good).  http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/linker/archive/2009/04/20/thinking-about-torture.aspx
 


Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Posted:
April 21, 2009 8:06 AM
Post #174110—in reply to #174091
Jacek K.
TC Master
Photo
Mother tongue: Polish
Joined: February 18, 2003
Location: Poland
 
RE: Torture

Obama feels the love at the CIA

Were they clapping for the new president at Langley because he won't punish them, or because they don't have to torture anyone anymore?

Obama feels the love at the CIA
 


Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Posted:
April 29, 2009 11:04 AM
Post #174790—in reply to #174065
Harry Bornemann
TC Master
Photo
Elite Veteran
50010010010025
Mother tongue: German
Posts: 843
Joined: December 31, 2002
Location: Mexico
 
RE: Torture
Tortured people will admit anything the torturer wants to hear, only to end the pain for a moment. Seeing this in the light of ae911truth.org makes it even more suspicious.
Reply|Quote|Edit|Delete
Page: 1
Back Reply
« Thread »
Principal | Foros | Albums | Búsqueda
Series de Artículos Recientes | Hoy | Esta Semana | 25 Principales
Estadísticas del Foro | Quién Está En Línea | Citas Aleatorias
New TC Terms Móvil | Configuraciones del Foro | Ingresar
TranslatorsCafé.com

Seleccionar el idioma del sitio English | Español | Ver más...

Copyright © ANVICA Software Development 2002—2009. Todos los derechos reservados.
Política de Privacidad. Términos y Condiciones de Uso. El uso de este sitio da por hecho la aceptación de estos términos y condiciones por parte del usuario.
Comentarios y sugerencias por correo electrónico a TranslatorsCafe.com webmaster
Directorio de traductores, intérpretes y agencias de traducción.

Excención de Responsabilidad de los Foros: Las opiniones expresadas en los foros son exclusivamente de los autores y no son necesariamente las opiniones del dueño del sitio y/o de los moderadores. Si el lector considera que una publicación le ha ofendido, entonces ella o él debe establecer una queja al moderador del foro. Ésta debe establecerse dentro de las 24 horas, pero por favor, respete el hecho de que el moderador puede estar viviendo en una zona horaria diferente. El uso de los foros significa su acuerdo con la Reglas de Publicación del Foro.