3 ms·

From the "no shit, Sherlock" files? I mean, I don't mean to be flippant - or perhaps I do, it's late - but I genuinely didn't think there was still that much d

From the "no shit, Sherlock" files? I mean, I don't mean to be flippant - or perhaps I do, it's late - but I genuinely didn't think there was still that much debate on this. It's not like the Bush administration denies that they engaged in torture, they merely play semantic games by redefining the torture they engaged in as not-torture. Now we have some distance and are able to remind ourselves that this not-torture is actually, ya know, torture, then there's not really much left to debate is there? That is actually a question, because I'd love to hear responses from folks who haven't internalized that the US did indeed engage in torture - and I am not attacking you for it if that's the case. I've possibly been laboring under a wildly inaccurate assumption.

willurd 14y ago
"I genuinely didn't think there was still that much debate on this" You'd be surprised. Many people will deny anything happens until CNN/NBC/Fox/Insert-Big-Media-Company-Here tells them otherwise. Because of that, we need more things like this, more sources of information we can point to and say "do you believe us now?" Also, any time an official refuses to look into the past, in this case because it's not productive to "look backward", that's a pretty sure sign that somebody is hiding something (and this report proves it). No educated person on the planet truthfully believes that knowing and understanding the past is unproductive. Not one.