Scubasteve0719

You're willing to make a completely definitive statement that instantly calls for the firing/prosecution of the officer involved in the case, but have a very limited understanding of the facts of the case?  Does anyone else see something wrong there?
 
Let's just review some of the facts of the Ferguson case alone.  A notable portion of the witness testimony in the case was proven to be fabricated or otherwise inaccurate; the "hands up" notion has been greatly perpetuated by the media and yet it makes no logical sense.  Why was Brown's blood/organic material present inside of the police vehicle if he was not actively attacking the officer inside or otherwise trying to gain entry into the vehicle?  Why was Brown shot in the hand (a VERY unlikely hit) unless he was actively reaching for the gun?  Why would an officer with no disciplinary marks on his record shoot a robbery suspect that was allegedly surrendering on a crowded street in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses around?  Why were there witness testimonies that corroborated the officer's story? How did the officer get marks on his face and neck?
 
The case against Officer Wilson makes very little logical sense and is backed up by nothing but witness claims that contradict available pieces of evidence.  When we dig through much of the 'outrage' against cases such as this in particular, much of it based upon a limited grasp of the facts.  The decision of individuals to take absolute stances on issues that they know very little about is shortsighted and potentially dangerous for all involved.

It's a very unfortunate tragedy that your son had a weapon.
 
It's an unfortunate tragedy that he had to put it into an officer's face.
 
It's not like you have anything to do with the way your son behaved himself.
It's just an unfortunate tragedy that the way you educated him allowed him to have a gun and threaten people with it. 
 
So yes, my prayers (Sincerely!) go to you and your loss.
I really sorry about this, because it was an officer who had to kill your son and now it's the officer who has to live with another life taken by him.
 
It's bad when people die. But sometimes it's the only way to prevent other people from dying, and I'm more sorry that this kid's parents didn't tell him enough that you just can't break the law and you can't threaten people with gun. 

Can't we just declare marshal law there already? If these people wanna act like ignorant, entitled pricks who think it's okay to set off explosives, wield hand guns, or engage in acts of civil disobedience, then let's lock them down 24/7. Slap up road blocks with the National Guard. Nobody in, if they want to leave the town then let them out. Anybody on the street is subject to arrest. It's quite clear that the PD can't handle this. If they won't respect the men and women in blue, then maybe they'll respect a man or woman dressed in camo, armed with an M4 who don't fuck around. Jesus Christ, people amaze me to this day. This country is going down the shitter, due to self entitled pricks who think they know everything.


*rant over*

Ignorance is the main source of the problem. These people call racism with every incident, and it's because of ignorance and the racist media. I'd bet my soul that half of these rioters don't even know this guy had a gun.

The fact that there are protests over the shooting of an armed robbery suspect that aimed a loaded firearm at (and therefore intending to shoot) a police officer is abhorrent, disgusting, and ridiculous.  Kudos to the officer for a good shot, taking another criminal off of the streets, and coming out alive in such a hostile political climate.

http://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/Constitution_2013_Final_Printed.pdf
 
Paragraph XI
 
What you describe doesn't make sense to me. A Grand jury doesn't care about evidence, they just act all whilly nilly and do what they want with a person's indictment? 
 
While I can agree with the need for more transparency overall, and that an officer involved case should have full disclosure, I'm not sure if I understand correctly but isn't an indictment just a charge of a serious offense not a verdict? And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a lawyer), but if an indictment is reached then the person goes to trial and is then able to challenge the charges? In which case the prosecutor has to prove his case anyway. Sounds like you just want to get rid of the grand jury and go straight to the trial in and of itself. 

Some people doesn't budge after all that. These interrogation methods aren't a new thing either, they've been here for quite a bit and the public has known as well. Also there are no "good guys" in the world today. You may be right of some individuals that they are still "good guys", but they hardly get into the news. It's sad but no one cares about the good things happening, they want to see the bad stuff as today's current events. My opinion is, if the interrogation methods have been public for years, why are we dealing with it now. 

I'm trying not to give up on peace and harmony. As each day passes and I meet new people, my faith in world peace disappears more and more.

You are correct in a number of ways, however many politicians still vote against their constituents from time to time. It happens. 
 
However if you think a politician cannot be persuaded to join Congress because of the pay you are dead wrong. How would you like $174,000 a year for life, unlimited free haircuts (up to $50,000 a year), $50,000 every 4 years to rearrange your office furniture. The ability to have up 18 personal assistants, oh and 18 assistants for each of those assistants. Plus, free healthcare and personal protection, oh and let's not forget you only have to work 100 days out of the year. Oh and if you are high ranking such as the President you can get the taxpayers to pay for your multiple multi-million dollar vacations.
 
I'm not saying all politicians are in it for the money but the money definitely doesn't hurt their decisions. Congress when given the chance will always help themselves. Those few who don't agree with it are drowned out by the voice of the many.  

The American people tend to separate themselves from the American government. I have yet to meet someone here in the United States that can say "I love our government and I feel that they make the right decisions" without laughing or walking away.
 
According to Yahoo News, In our last mid-term election, only 63% of Americans participated in the voting, why some may ask? Because Americans are tired of the bull shit, hate to put it in such blunt terms. We vote people into office, and they don't do what they said they would do. It's all the same each election and the American people don't care anymore.

Torturing a terrorist who is willing to hide behind kids and women, and then shoot you dead in the back? I see no problem with that. When you don't know who the enemy is, you start to lose perspective on morals. When they've abandoned all morals, it's hard to keep yours. When you see a group of people; children, women and men, and know damn well that any of them or ALL of them could pull at AK out, or blow themselves up, it starts to justify torture. 
 
It's different when you're fighting a known enemy (country vs country), and you can have respect and decency for the combatants. They don't use dirty, underhanded, and moral-less tactics.
 
Seeing what I've seen recently, it was disturbing, but just about 90% of them actually had something they were hiding. I don't think there's any reason to change our interrogation tactics. 

Pushing to change how the United States government does its business is never betraying the nation. It is living up to the principles of a representative democracy, in which the people of the United States (within certain limits that operate solely to prevent the government from doing certain things, never to force it to do something) ultimately decide how the United States government operates. Not the very small percentage who have devoted their careers to focusing on a single thing; they do not get to do whatever they think is best. It's not ultimately up to them; it's up to the general public. No one claims that a random person off the street knows anything about national security, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get a say in what the government should be doing. That's the only way it can be in a democracy.

Don't know...now the CIA sounds fun...lol


 
I don't even know what to say to this...only that you have no idea what you said....it seems like you are saying it's okay for "suspected terriorst" (even innocent people who have not committed a crime) to be tortured, beaten, abused, and in some cases killed.
 
Now with everything that I have said (from past post too) I have no issue with torture. I do in fact, have a issue with a federal government agency lying to the American people about what they did...and that innocent American citizens charged with no crime were beated and killed under the suspect of terrorist activities.
 
Bet you would feel deferent if the CIA was doing this stuff to you without a reason.
 

*cough cough, choke spit*. I think it already has, *choke, drinks water*

Dear, never thought of it that way, what you just mentioned is wrong and plain embarrassment. I think an acceptable form would be one that breaks down the suspect and convices them to confess or maybe show a stack of files they have against the suspect and throw it at them, but definitely not what you just metioned.

The point I was attempting to construct is as follows: 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. Everyone cares. Our invasion of Iraq results in upwards of 200,000 people killed. How many people give a damn? The argument I'm drawing from this is that many opinions espoused about the torture report are ethnocentric. I think people don't have a problem with the torture, like with the dead Iraqis, because of the ethnic and national backgrounds of those being tortured. I think a lot more people would have a problem with it if it was a prototypical American being tortured, or if such things occurred in our civilian criminal justice system.
 
In regards to Saddam Hussein, sure, he was an awful guy, but we helped him become that. Pumped him up with aid during the Iran-Iraq war. Shit, the man has a key to city of Detroit. Furthermore, I'm not so sure his capture and execution was necessarily a net gain for Iraq. I am in no way justifying his crimes, but I think the point that Hussein's regime kept Iraq stable, and contributed to the stability of the region is worth considering. What happened after he was ousted? A massive power vacuum was created. Power vacuums are hotbeds for conflict. There was no insurgency in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. I think it could be argued that had the U.S. invasion not occurred, ISIS would not exist. and the mess we see in Iraq today would cease to exist.  

Hahaha, thank you. 
 
I think  you're definitely right that people are way too preoccupied to pay attention to the things that really do matter. 

Okay I lament, I have no argument for that. Well done.
 
However I will say that Americans are being detained, may or may not be being tortured, and are then beheaded, and it seems like the American public cares more about Dancing with the Stars than that.
 
I adjourn for now, good debate *reaches for handshake*.   

Now this I can agree with you on. Quite frankly no matter which side they are "on", it's good to hear a foreign opinion for sure.
 
But on another note, I do disagree that you are using the 200,000 killed in the Iraq war in this argument. I don't see why it is needed in the argument. Yes that many people and possibly many many more were killed (including civilians, women, and children), it happens. Part of war. Look at the death tolls of WWII. However I don't think it is entirely relevant because this argument is about the CIA and interrogation and the CIA is absolutely not solely responsible for that much loss of life in the Iraq campaign.
 
So since you brought up the 200,000, I'm going on a tangent, but think about the thousands of people Saddam tortured and killed before the Gulf War and after it (including innocent people who he claimed had helped the Americans in 90-91). And I think you can make a viable argument that the CIA was very helpful in bringing him to justice with or without Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Was bringing him to justice worth it? 
 
Also Sam what you mentioned earlier about the comparisons is accurate, and you make a valid argument. I do believe the US has a lot to learn in the representing itself department.
 
Now on another note, I still want to bring up the point I made earlier that no one mentioned. The politicians who released this report were told that releasing this report would very likely result in backlash and attacks on Americans overseas and endanger many more American lives. However they still decided to release it. Personally I'm glad that we finally have clarity but at what cost? If there is an attack next week and it costs 500 American lives was it worth it? 

Also I would like to add that this report was made solely on the testimony from the Lawyers for the people that were detained, and no interviews were conducted with the CIA agents in charge of the camps and detainees. That's another talking point that needs to be addressed.