View Full Version : Another piece of leftist propaganda down the drain...
PaceAdvantage
04-21-2009, 11:30 PM
...and by one of Obama's top guys no less...Intel chief: Harsh techniques brought good info
Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight
By Peter Baker
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/nyt_logo_140x252.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/index.html?partner=msnbcpolitics)updated 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.View the rest here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592)
I agree with Cheney , let's release all the docs and then we can stop the childish games this country has been playing on this front and see what is what.
The lame arguments against release have obviously been a political sham as even Darth Cheney is calling for the release now.
Plus , he wants to write a book.
Asi say always, put it out there, let's see what we have.
PaceAdvantage
04-22-2009, 01:28 AM
I guess that whole "Torture never gets you any good info...they'll just tell you anything they think you want to hear to make it stop!" argument that has been repeated here lately is shot to shit....
Bubba X
04-22-2009, 07:44 AM
I'm glad they released the document and that MSNBC and the Times reported it.
For the one-thousandth time, there's nothing wrong with doing what you need to do. But when you cannot control your soldiers to the point of them not taking and transmitting pictures, you have a problem.
delayjf
04-22-2009, 09:44 AM
The lame arguments against release have obviously been a political sham as even Darth Cheney is calling for the release now.
Every director of the CIA, including the current one has argued against release of the documents, its more a matter of national security than politics.
ArlJim78
04-22-2009, 09:54 AM
they will do everything they can to keep Bush/Cheney front and center.
theirs is a perpetual campaign, so they need to keep the oppostion propped up.
it will also serve as a circus, to distract the attention of the media and public away from the ruinous direction they're taking the country.
Bubba X
04-22-2009, 10:21 AM
they will do everything they can to keep Bush/Cheney front and center.
theirs is a perpetual campaign, so they need to keep the oppostion propped up.
it will also serve as a circus, to distract the attention of the media and public away from the ruinous direction they're taking the country.:jump: :jump:
Yes, the Main Stream Media Bias Conspiracy Cabal must have met all night to devise this latest perpetuation upon the unsuspecting masses.
Total, utter, B.S.
More likely an Obama conspiracy and the puppy dogs at CNN roll over for him.
People in intelligence agree releasing this stuff serves no American purpose and is dangerous to do. Not being too familiar with intelligence, Obama and his staff do not agree.
This, btw, is the same team that told up 8 billion in pork was trivial but 100 million in budget offsets ( not cuts) was a significant move.
The "change" we are getting is the daily switch from lies to double talk.
ArlJim78
04-22-2009, 10:36 AM
:jump: :jump:
Yes, the Main Stream Media Bias Conspiracy Cabal must have met all night to devise this latest perpetuation upon the unsuspecting masses.
Total, utter, B.S.
you misunderstood, the cabal is in the White House, not the media.
but since you brought it up, with regard to the media, you guys that still cling to the fantasy that its unbiased make me laugh. it's common public knowledge that they're biased. they have fessed up already, and everyone has moved on. well almost everyone.
Some even have tingly legs.
Yet they march on.
I guess that whole "Torture never gets you any good info...they'll just tell you anything they think you want to hear to make it stop!" argument that has been repeated here lately is shot to shit....
What a complete load of crap,the opinion that torture does not yield reliable info is not a left wing opinion or a ring wing opinion it's a professional interrogator opinion.And furthermore if in some instances it does yield good info there is no way of proving that other methods would not have yielded the same or better info.The sad thing about it is I know that you know this already,but you trot out this crap as red meat for the goobers.:ThmbDown:
boxcar
04-22-2009, 01:01 PM
What a complete load of crap,the opinion that torture does not yield reliable info is not a left wing opinion or a ring wing opinion it's a professional interrogator opinion.And furthermore if in some instances it does yield good info there is no way of proving that other methods would not have yielded the same or better info.The sad thing about it is I know that you know this already,but you trot out this crap as red meat for the goobers.:ThmbDown:
Really? No way of "proving", eh? If interrogation methods A, B and C were used on a particular subject and produced no results, but method D that involved harsher techniques did, then I'd say you have all the proof you need.
It's also eminently reasonable to believe that softer, kinder, gentler and, generally, politically-correct interrogation methods would be the very first avenues explored. If these failed, then justifiably it would be time to move on to different strategies.
Boxcar
Every director of the CIA, including the current one has argued against release of the documents, its more a matter of national security than politics.
So Cheney, who SHOULD know, is wrong or just a terror symp now?
Or he is being misquoted when he wants the release of all the other side of the docs to show what we got from the "interviews"?
How would one go about that without giving up those "sources and methods" we heard so much about.
Also, on a related point, I guess those of you who foolishly maintained that ABUGraB was just a couple of low life scum in the military run amuck will now see that the very actions taken were of course sanctioned by the WH and on down.
It's no wonder then that the green light shown all the way out to the field.
At least have the honesty to admit that whole deal was a false slam on the enlisted who got the shit dumped on them as usual.
What a disgrace that whole deal was and I don't mean the actions, but the prosecutions.
pathetic.
I guess that whole "Torture never gets you any good info...they'll just tell you anything they think you want to hear to make it stop!" argument that has been repeated here lately is shot to shit....
no PA, you MUST reduce the world to a binary choice it seems or you become befuddled.
Both can be true and it takes no great insight to see that logic.
I hate to come off like a know it all , but really now.
lamboguy
04-22-2009, 01:09 PM
imagine that!
they will do everything they can to keep Bush/Cheney front and center.
theirs is a perpetual campaign, so they need to keep the oppostion propped up.
it will also serve as a circus, to distract the attention of the media and public away from the ruinous direction they're taking the country.
You are off into fairy tale land now...
SO the MSM is dragging Cheney to these interviews, he is being told he will be 'boarded if he doesn't get on every outlet and talk talk talk.
it's a tough room to be humble- i feel like i have to strap on the training wheels in here. :rolleyes:
:lol:
ArlJim78
04-22-2009, 01:35 PM
You are off into fairy tale land now...
SO the MSM is dragging Cheney to these interviews, he is being told he will be 'boarded if he doesn't get on every outlet and talk talk talk.
good god man, are you really this dense? I've already explained it to Bubba and you still missed it? i'm saying the ADMINISTRATION won't let the media forget about Bush/Cheney. I didn't say it is the media taking the initiative, they're just following along for the sensational stories that are sure to follow.
it was Obama that released the top secret documents, its Obama thats talking about possibly prosecuting people over it.
if Obama doesn't do these things Cheney doesn't come out of his shell and say anything?
its OBAMA that continues to talk about all the mistakes of the past administration even though he won and is the president.
Bubba X
04-22-2009, 01:45 PM
What's next?
Maybe:
It was Obama who stole the Lindbergh baby!
Almost as good as your "They" did it; "They're" to blame post. And on and on and on.
:lol:
jballscalls
04-22-2009, 01:45 PM
good god man, are you really this dense? I've already explained it to Bubba and you still missed it? i'm saying the ADMINISTRATION won't let the media forget about Bush/Cheney. I didn't say it is the media taking the initiative, they're just following along for the sensational stories that are sure to follow.
it was Obama that released the top secret documents, its Obama thats talking about possibly prosecuting people over it.
if Obama doesn't do these things Cheney doesn't come out of his shell and say anything?
its OBAMA that continues to talk about all the mistakes of the past administration even though he won and is the president.
unfortunately the first term is always just a 4 year campaign for the second term
What a complete load of crap,the opinion that torture does not yield reliable info is not a left wing opinion or a ring wing opinion it's a professional interrogator opinion.And furthermore if in some instances it does yield good info there is no way of proving that other methods would not have yielded the same or better info.The sad thing about it is I know that you know this already,but you trot out this crap as red meat for the goobers.:ThmbDown:
It is the opinion of Obama's experts that it is.
Cheney has requested that memos that will support it be unclassified.
The fact is that we have gained vital info from using extended interrogation techniques, so your conclusion that it is not effetive is, well, laughable.
Where is your little :lol: that you use when you post? It would fit here.
Are you saying Obama is a liar and his people are morons?
The definition of torture Bush used was ok'd by congress.
A guy water boarded 183 times and has no ill effects tells me it is well worth using.
BTW, part of the definition of torture included putting a caterpillar in a guy's cell.
:lol:
Rookies
04-22-2009, 01:59 PM
good god man, are you really this dense? I've already explained it to Bubba and you still missed it? i'm saying the ADMINISTRATION won't let the media forget about Bush/Cheney. I didn't say it is the media taking the initiative, they're just following along for the sensational stories that are sure to follow.
it was Obama that released the top secret documents, its Obama thats talking about possibly prosecuting people over it.
if Obama doesn't do these things Cheney doesn't come out of his shell and say anything?
its OBAMA that continues to talk about all the mistakes of the past administration even though he won and is the president.
Jim, any of us who have lived under democracy in parliamentary/ presidential systems know that part of the best offense of espousing your positions is a condemnation of the prior admin, if they were the opposition.
That goes on EVERYWHERE ! Hell, Cheney used to use it as a defense in Bush's SECOND term. "If only Clinton had... ", it was a bit much as there is a rough time standard for this stuff. Obama isn't even close to going over the line with that after 100 days. Most governments get a year, before the populace says: " Ok, enough of blaming the other guy. What have you done? "
President Obama has tons of political currency, precisely because virtually the whole world was so appalled by the actions of his predecessor. Cons know now that he is the real meal deal. Unlike Bubba, he ain't interested in a BJ in the Oval Office ! He isn't content to sit back and nurse his popularity. He is going all out to correct many of Bush's excesses and forge ahead with major social/ political changes.
Bubba X
04-22-2009, 02:10 PM
Jim, any of us who have lived under democracy in parliamentary/ presidential systems know that part of the best offense of espousing your positions is a condemnation of the prior admin, if they were the opposition.
That goes on EVERYWHERE ! Hell, Cheney used to use it as a defense in Bush's SECOND term. "If only Clinton had... ", it was a bit much as there is a rough time standard for this stuff. Obama isn't even close to going over the line with that after 100 days. Most governments get a year, before the populace says: " Ok, enough of blaming the other guy. What have you done? "
President Obama has tons of political currency, precisely because virtually the whole world was so appalled by the actions of his predecessor. Cons know now that he is the real meal deal. Unlike Bubba, he ain't interested in a BJ in the Oval Office ! He isn't content to sit back and nurse his popularity. He is going all out to correct many of Bush's excesses and forge ahead with major social/ political changes.
Jim's busy.
He's looking for "everyone knows," "common knowledge" quips to support his latest "Vast left wing conspiracy theory" perhaps from, but certainly not limited to the following:
-It was Obama who shot J.R.
-It was Obama who killed Kenny.
-It was Obama who moved the cheese.
ArlJim78
04-22-2009, 03:07 PM
Jim, any of us who have lived under democracy in parliamentary/ presidential systems know that part of the best offense of espousing your positions is a condemnation of the prior admin, if they were the opposition.
That goes on EVERYWHERE ! Hell, Cheney used to use it as a defense in Bush's SECOND term. "If only Clinton had... ", it was a bit much as there is a rough time standard for this stuff. Obama isn't even close to going over the line with that after 100 days. Most governments get a year, before the populace says: " Ok, enough of blaming the other guy. What have you done? "
President Obama has tons of political currency, precisely because virtually the whole world was so appalled by the actions of his predecessor. Cons know now that he is the real meal deal. Unlike Bubba, he ain't interested in a BJ in the Oval Office ! He isn't content to sit back and nurse his popularity. He is going all out to correct many of Bush's excesses and forge ahead with major social/ political changes.
Bush's excesses? can you say that with a straight face? what are Obama's "major social/political changes". you don't think they're excessive?
Obama has to keep campaigning, the excessive focus on Bush is a strategic decision. it is nothing about correcting past wrongs and no the whole world wasn't appalled by his predessor, that's a media created view. if they were appalled at the US under Bush, then they're still appalled.
you know who is appalled at us now, for one the political opposition to the dictator in Venezuela. Chavez is running around talking about his great victory, how he got the US to come around to his point of view. the sad part is he is right. we are currently being governed like some tinpot dictatorship, with a megalomaniac at the helm.
It is one thing to bad mouth the previous administration.
I accept that - in fact, you better be able to take it.
But this group is looking past that and talking about prosecution.
That is beyond tolerable.
They want to prosecute people whose job it was to make legal determinations - and did so - as their jobs. Their legal opinions were that what we did was legal ( it was also completely known by those now doing the about face).
It is a akin to saying you can sue anyone you want, but if you lose, you go to jail.
Jim makes valid points - just ignore Bubba's usual worthless diatribe. Last time he was struck with a thought he was in the hospital two weeks and sued. :rolleyes:
Hillary tried the same BS in a hearing this week. Asked what she thought about Cheney's request to un-classify certain memos that would expose the lie about torture not being effective, she puled a Da-Bubba and started knocking Cheney personally. The chairman quickly set the bitch straight - he told her she was asked a direct question about specific memos and not her insignificant opinion of Cheney and that her credibility was in question if she did not answer the questions. Classy move - no matter what side, that is how you run inquests - no room for personal BS.
You cannot set this kind of precedent for political reasons. What bothers me most about this sham of a government is that they won - fair and square - both houses and the WH and will likely re-structure the court - legally, fairly, no matter how much I puke. And yet still they refuse to do the work fo the people and are 100% focused on personal financial gains, power grabs, and securing future elections. This is not leadership, it is absurd.
Google Diane Feinstein and check out her latest bribbery and breech of ethics. This bitch belongs in prison. Nice touch, she plays legal paddy cake with people's lives sole as an act of personal revenge and as a cover for her own illegal manipulating of the system. This is the same bitch who almost allowed the Hillside Strangler to escape becasue she could not keep ver rather large and loose mouth shut about the case. Nothing has changed - she is still a POS opportunist who has beens stealing and lying her way through life for decades. A completely useless human being. And butt ugly too!
Really? No way of "proving", eh? If interrogation methods A, B and C were used on a particular subject and produced no results, but method D that involved harsher techniques did, then I'd say you have all the proof you need.
It's also eminently reasonable to believe that softer, kinder, gentler and, generally, politically-correct interrogation methods would be the very first avenues explored. If these failed, then justifiably it would be time to move on to different strategies.
Boxcar
Sorry but your little A B C assertion, is a pure logical fallacy,which proves nothing.And you second assertion with respect to interrogation technique is, shall we say eminently unreasonable.
slewis
04-22-2009, 07:11 PM
If anyone on this board, (or country for that matter) would like to get a bet down that ANYONE will be prosecuted and jailed over this issue....
Not only are you a fool........ but I'll book every dime your dumb right wing or left wing ass wants to pluck down.
This issue gets a chuckle at most...... let's move on:bang:
It is the opinion of Obama's experts that it is.
Cheney has requested that memos that will support it be unclassified.
The fact is that we have gained vital info from using extended interrogation techniques, so your conclusion that it is not effetive is, well, laughable.
Where is your little :lol: that you use when you post? It would fit here.
Are you saying Obama is a liar and his people are morons?
The definition of torture Bush used was ok'd by congress.
A guy water boarded 183 times and has no ill effects tells me it is well worth using.
BTW, part of the definition of torture included putting a caterpillar in a guy's cell.
:lol:
Exhibit A: Tom Goober gobbles the red meat.
boxcar
04-22-2009, 08:27 PM
Sorry but your little A B C assertion, is a pure logical fallacy,which proves nothing.And you second assertion with respect to interrogation technique is, shall we say eminently unreasonable.
Yes, I can see how someone of your ilk would reach these fallacious conclusions.
Boxcar
If anyone on this board, (or country for that matter) would like to get a bet down that ANYONE will be prosecuted and jailed over this issue....
Not only are you a fool........ but I'll book every dime your dumb right wing or left wing ass wants to pluck down.
This issue gets a chuckle at most...... let's move on:bang:
s
what kinda perturbs me is that obviously the actions or most all the actions of the "bad apples" at AbuGrab were authorized by the head honchos and so why did Bush not at least give those poor slobs they tried and convicted a pardon before he left.
Seems to me those service people were tried on false charges to cover up the non release of this info now coming out.
I think it's a disgrace a true injustice done to those US citizens and service members.
:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :mad: :confused:
good god man, are you really this dense? I've already explained it to Bubba and you still missed it? i'm saying the ADMINISTRATION won't let the media forget about Bush/Cheney. I didn't say it is the media taking the initiative, they're just following along for the sensational stories that are sure to follow.
it was Obama that released the top secret documents, its Obama thats talking about possibly prosecuting people over it.
if Obama doesn't do these things Cheney doesn't come out of his shell and say anything?
its OBAMA that continues to talk about all the mistakes of the past administration even though he won and is the president.
ar
before the election, before the memos Cheney was running off at the mouth , look it up.
also, cheney wants to write a book, did he just want to do that now that the memo and data is coming out?
who is DENSE????
oh really.
:p
if you believe that a previous admin broke the law then that is a little more serious than your "mistake" reference.
It can't be a MISTAKE , the torture part, they didn't mistakenly start the torture, there are millions of pages of docs stating the contrary.
So, your mistake is a mistake in this case. :)
It is either prosecution time or not, but in neither case was a mistake made.
legal or not legal, but not any mistaken notions apply.
It does not seem to me that bama wants prosecutions, he was foolishly looking for a middle ground to placate his goofy left(imo) by releasing and hopes to get on down the road.
It would not surprise me if he released under threat of release by other parties. There were many that felt abused by Bush/Cheney and would not hesitate to leak even if bama did not release.
If this stuff turns into show trials, his term is over when that starts.
The country will grid lock.
can Cheney really be that nefarious! ;)
imo.
It is one thing to bad mouth the previous administration.
I accept that - in fact, you better be able to take it.
But this group is looking past that and talking about prosecution.
That is beyond tolerable.
They want to prosecute people whose job it was to make legal determinations - and did so - as their jobs. Their legal opinions were that what we did was legal ( it was also completely known by those now doing the about face).
It is a akin to saying you can sue anyone you want, but if you lose, you go to jail.
Jim makes valid points - just ignore Bubba's usual worthless diatribe. Last time he was struck with a thought he was in the hospital two weeks and sued. :rolleyes:
Hillary tried the same BS in a hearing this week. Asked what she thought about Cheney's request to un-classify certain memos that would expose the lie about torture not being effective, she puled a Da-Bubba and started knocking Cheney personally. The chairman quickly set the bitch straight - he told her she was asked a direct question about specific memos and not her insignificant opinion of Cheney and that her credibility was in question if she did not answer the questions. Classy move - no matter what side, that is how you run inquests - no room for personal BS.
You cannot set this kind of precedent for political reasons. What bothers me most about this sham of a government is that they won - fair and square - both houses and the WH and will likely re-structure the court - legally, fairly, no matter how much I puke. And yet still they refuse to do the work fo the people and are 100% focused on personal financial gains, power grabs, and securing future elections. This is not leadership, it is absurd.
Google Diane Feinstein and check out her latest bribbery and breech of ethics. This bitch belongs in prison. Nice touch, she plays legal paddy cake with people's lives sole as an act of personal revenge and as a cover for her own illegal manipulating of the system. This is the same bitch who almost allowed the Hillside Strangler to escape becasue she could not keep ver rather large and loose mouth shut about the case. Nothing has changed - she is still a POS opportunist who has beens stealing and lying her way through life for decades. A completely useless human being. And butt ugly too!
on the narrow point, so if you can buy a LAWYER and get him to write an opinion, then anything goes.
I don't like it.
some do i guess.
and , if nothing else just on the lawyer angle , that's the way the system works, you really don't have a chance to try an opinion until after it has been written and used.
then the results of that are fair game.
Gestapo used the same if more moral torture memo, didn't save them.
slewis
04-22-2009, 09:39 PM
s
what kinda perturbs me is that obviously the actions or most all the actions of the "bad apples" at AbuGrab were authorized by the head honchos and so why did Bush not at least give those poor slobs they tried and convicted a pardon before he left.
Seems to me those service people were tried on false charges to cover up the non release of this info now coming out.
I think it's a disgrace a true injustice done to those US citizens and service members.
:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :mad: :confused:
Call them the "sacrificial lambs"... all politics... very sad...I agree.
PaceAdvantage
04-22-2009, 11:44 PM
no PA, you MUST reduce the world to a binary choice it seems or you become befuddled.
Both can be true and it takes no great insight to see that logic.
I hate to come off like a know it all , but really now.I know it's obvious, but allow me to indulge...I was speaking about specific words typed in specific posts on this board.
Why must you and Hank turn it into somethint it's not? Just to get a few digs in along the way?
Maybe you two should know better?
PaceAdvantage
04-22-2009, 11:49 PM
Exhibit A: Tom Goober gobbles the red meat.I was actually beginning to think we might get a decent, flame-free discussion going here...but it's apparent who's interested in that kind of thing and who's just here to stir the pot.
NJ Stinks
04-23-2009, 12:38 AM
I'm reading this thread and I can't help but wonder if we have already dismissed the idea that the U.S. does not torture. That it's a given that the results are the only thing that matters here - no matter how we got them.
The German SS may be proud of us but I'm not. Democrat, Republican, Independent didn't used to matter. In my lifetime one thing had been constant for all of us. The USA condemned other countries for violating the Geneva Conventions.
Now we find ourselves trying to find legal opinions that allow us to skirt the Geneva Conventions. All because we need to keep ourselves safe no matter what. It sure seems like we sold out on our principles out of fear.
Anyway, whether or not we got what we wanted from these prisoners is not the point IMO. It's what we did to get whatever we got that we can never get back.
PaceAdvantage
04-23-2009, 03:33 AM
You act as if there is some concrete law in existence which specifically states waterboarding is torture. What are the specifics in the Geneva Convention that lead you to believe waterboarding falls under the classification of torture?
This is all subjective bullshit designed to once again embarrass the U.S. and the prior administration.
Some would argue solitary confinement in prison is also torture...and in fact, I can believe many would find such treatment torturous.
Where exactly should we draw the line?
JustRalph
04-23-2009, 05:41 AM
The German SS may be proud of us but I'm not. Democrat, Republican, Independent didn't used to matter. In my lifetime one thing had been constant for all of us. The USA condemned other countries for violating the Geneva Conventions.
Then your indignation is misplaced. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to Terrorists. End of story. They also do not get any rights............along the line of U.S. citizens. Yet people have been complaining about that too.
Here's some facts - someone define that word for Hank.
1. Everyone who water boarded had been water boarded themselves as part of their training.
2. NO so called "torture" techniques were used that were not present to a bi-partisan congressional committee that included McCain and Pelosi. They all knew ahead what was going on. Not one of them objected. Not one.
3. By releasing theses memos, President Traitor has seriously damaged national security. This info will be used against us for years to come. Now then know how our people work and can train for it. All of our interrogators are subjected to the same techniques they use so that they can withstand it if needed i the field. Now, many secret are out and our nation is far more are risk for another 9-11 when you combine with the other moronic moves by Obama. Obama and his supporters are fools. Total fools.
So until you are prepared, and I have asked this repeatedly and gotten no answers, to define exactly what torture techniques are being usd and why they are considered wrong, you only make yourselves look more foolish than you did during the campaign. And in some cases here, that is amazing.
Congrats Hank, you are a terror enabler. Next one is on you. I will be here to remind you.
Here's some facts
- I will be here to remind you.
nawwww ? Really!! You'll be here? Where the hell else would you be Crazy Uncle Tom? Pace Advantage is your life. If want to call it a life.
From today's NY Times...
My Tortured Decision (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion)
FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding . I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified.
The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, AbuZubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working.
It is inaccurate, however, to say thatAbu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002,
There wasno actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques onAbuZubaydah that wasn’t, orcouldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. modus operandiThe short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and of the terrorists, and due process.
The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake.Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is UN-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.
Here is President Obama at CIA headquarters this past Tuesday. You tell me how they feel about releasing Memo's and Prosecution.
prospector
04-23-2009, 08:49 AM
wow, the n.y. times and obama...what a duo of truth...:lol:
wow, the n.y. times and obama...what a duo of truth...:lol:
Jesus Christ is this place completely full of Jug-heads or what!!
Its an Op-ed you idiot. An opinion piece that will appear on 1000's of sites today. Plus, look at the first post of this thread!~ OK shithead, Take a good look at the first post of this thread. Who started it and what sources he used?. mama mia no wonder you Republicans can't win a one man election these days.
Only your keyboard stands between you and personal accountability.
cj's dad
04-23-2009, 08:59 AM
you were way more tolerable previously
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgbEE95A198
I know it's obvious, but allow me to indulge...I was speaking about specific words typed in specific posts on this board.
Why must you and Hank turn it into somethint it's not? Just to get a few digs in along the way?
Maybe you two should know better?
Pa
Yes, you were speaking about a specific word or words and that's the whole point of my posting back, it was not a dig.
You asked the question "Where should we draw the line?".
That's what this whole deal is about.
To look at the "torture" memo and the words written as a 0 or 1 type of choice , which it seemed you were , makes it impossible to find the line.
The "line" is not ad never will be a bright line, a 0=good 1=bad.
Just as Jr clearly doesn't know what he is saying when he states in a binary fashion that precludes any debate tht the conventions don't cover terrorists.
There are whole sections that cover terrorists in the conventions.
I would like to see discussion free of the trite "waterboarding is good and that's all we are talking about and we did it to our own so it's fine to use in the real world" b.s.
You must know that is just blowing smoke. That's not the tip of what was done. The results of actions taken by our people on our people is more what worries me.
I doubt you are interested in more than the digs at the end of the day but am willing to string along.
I don't have any hard and fast position on the recent goings-on, but I tend to side with previous conventions(a conservative view if you will) until shown they are outmoded.
I am not taking any pols or crazy uncle's word on the issue either.
This gvt has forfeited any right to a presumption of truth imo, so they are going to have to disclose and prove to me and others what they are doing in our name and why.
If that helps a couple of terrorists to see that we are doing torture then so be it.
You act as if there is some concrete law in existence which specifically states waterboarding is torture. What are the specifics in the Geneva Convention that lead you to believe waterboarding falls under the classification of torture?
This is all subjective bullshit designed to once again embarrass the U.S. and the prior administration.
Some would argue solitary confinement in prison is also torture...and in fact, I can believe many would find such treatment torturous.
Where exactly should we draw the line?
You think all the people in the admin and various agencies that disagreed are/were all out to embarrass the U.S.?
You don't trust in the strengths of this country really.
The ability to actually look hard and debate this type of stuff has always been our strength here and around the world.
if you were really interested in the line then how would you expect to resolve that issue without informed debate?
trust me i am the gvt. not good enough for me.
Every director of the CIA, including the current one has argued against release of the documents, its more a matter of national security than politics.
so cheney is ???
what exactly??
The cia director(s) seem to be looking to block trouble for them as they are running the agency that stands to take the most heat it seems to me.
politics yes.
Someone is going to have to show me how releasing torture docs is a security issue.
You really think AQ types are not expecting torture at least?
You need to stop and look at the countries these people come from and what is used there if you have not already.
We are a picnic from what i have seen so far as compared to the "methods" used on them in other countries!
a "culture of death" adherent --- worried about a caterpillar in a box-- i doubt that will be a preventive if that's the position we are looking to support.
:bang:
Holyl Moly!
Stop the world!
The Great and powerful SUFF posts and Op-ed piece.
Guess that sets the record straight!
Joe Cool from Beantown has spoken!
Or did he fart?
Can never tell the diff with Suff.
Crawl back under your rock, troll....you're as useful a a used condom.
...and by one of Obama's top guys no less...View the rest here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592)[/font][/color][/color][/color]
[/left]
I see he has restated his opinion, did you repost that since we are looking for a discussion and not just digs, oops wait , you started the whole thread based on a global one??
Holyl Moly!
Stop the world!
The Great and powerful SUFF posts and Op-ed piece.
Guess that sets the record straight!
Joe Cool from Beantown has spoken!
Or did he fart?
Can never tell the diff with Suff.
Crawl back under your rock, troll....you're as useful a a used condom.
dig free for sure.
Holyl Moly!
Stop the world!
The Great and powerful SUFF posts and Op-ed piece.
Guess that sets the record straight!
Joe Cool from Beantown has spoken!
Or did he fart?
Can never tell the diff with Suff.
Crawl back under your rock, troll....you're as useful a a used condom.
Crazy Uncle Tom what a hoot you are! :lol: Oh boy, how crazy are you ?huh?:D wow Soooooo much fun to have Crazy Uncle Tom around!
Do you mind if I call you Crunt for short? CRazyUNcleTom
Its so much fun having a crunt here everyday.
What ever your pink elephants like, Slushy.
boxcar
04-23-2009, 12:10 PM
you were way more tolerable previously
He must be off his meds. Someone give him the number for 911, will ya? (Better write it down for him, though.) :rolleyes:
Boxcar
You know, if the union-slaggards in Boston had done their jobs on 9-11, this whole thing would be a moot point. But seeing how Boston basically sponsored 9-11, maybe those there should shut up and get of the way while we clean up their mess. Everything was in place to stop the hijacking, but a Boston boy chose not to do is job.
delayjf
04-23-2009, 01:05 PM
The CIA director(s) seem to be looking to block trouble for them as they are running the agency that stands to take the most heat it seems to me.Even Podesta who has nothing to fear thinks the release of these documents is bad.
Someone is going to have to show me how releasing torture docs is a security issue.
You really think AQ types are not expecting torture at least?
Well they won’t now, at least by the US. I’m sure this are other reasons, but the enemy now knows just to what extent the US will go to extract information and will be better prepared. Not only that, but now intelligence officials will be more concerned about covering their ass than doing their job.
You need to stop and look at the countries these people come from and what is used there if you have not already.
I’m well aware of what the other countries do and as far as I’m concerned, if any group of combatants will not abide by the Geneva Convention then neither should we.
so cheney is ??? what exactly??
He’s someone with first hand knowledge about the effectiveness of the interrogation techniques. I don’t blame him one bit. Obama opened Pandora ’s Box, not Cheney.
-It was Obama who shot J.R.
-It was Obama who killed Kenny.
-It was Obama who moved the cheese
I weak response to the debating smack down inflicted by Jim.
delayjf
04-23-2009, 01:54 PM
what kinda perturbs me is that obviously the actions or most all the actions of the "bad apples" at AbuGrab were authorized by the head honchos and so why did Bush not at least give those poor slobs they tried and convicted a pardon before he left.
I'm sceptical of anything she has to say, she was reduced in rank for what happened at AbuGrab. If her orders came from the top, as she claims then she certainly could have used that to forstall any real punitive actions. If she was instructed, as she claims, I want to see the memo that authorizes a pyramid of ass as an method of interrogation. :lol:
1. Do you support torturing someone who may, or may not, be guilty of a crime?
That's it. There is no other question.
Of course Terrorist's can be tortured, legal or otherwise it has and will be done.
People ask me if I support the Death penalty for Terrorists? I answer,,, I support the death penalty for the asshole that broke into my house last year.
Question 2. Do you support the death penalty for someone who may or may not be guilty of a crime?
Repeat question #1 Do you support torturing people who have not been convicted of a crime?
Repeat question #1 again: Do you support torturing people who have not had the opportunity to defend themselves of any charges?
Repeat question #1 one more time.
Do you support torturing people who might be innocent of any crime?
Those are the questions jack offs.
The question is not do you support torturing someone who has information that will save American lives. The answer to that question is A RESOUNDING YES.
But the question America has to answer is
1. Do you support torturing innocent people?
Because you can bet your bottom dollar we have or will if we don't change this madness.
Floyd
04-23-2009, 03:47 PM
You act as if there is some concrete law in existence which specifically states waterboarding is torture. What are the specifics in the Geneva Convention that lead you to believe waterboarding falls under the classification of torture?
This is all subjective bullshit designed to once again embarrass the U.S. and the prior administration.
Some would argue solitary confinement in prison is also torture...and in fact, I can believe many would find such treatment torturous.
Where exactly should we draw the line?
We can quibble all you want about what, exactly, constitutes torture. We can argue all day whether The Geneva Convention applies to "unlawful combatants." We can argue from utility and say that since it might have worked in one instance, torture is a valid tactic. These points, with the recent revelations, have been rendered moot. Besides, all this sidesteps the issue.
The question is: Are we, as a nation, going to condone torture? The Bush Administration said yes. The Obama administration has said no.
I would submit that some things are never acceptable. They not only violate United States law and international agreements which we have ratified, they are morally reprehensible. They are classified as war crimes because they are so shocking to the conscience that the world has almost unanimously rejected their use under any circumstance. Use of these "techniques" has destroyed any claim we could have made to moral superiority. We have descended to the level of those we have vilified in the past. Any government that would engage in these crimes against humanity, these war crimes, is not worthy of support by anyone with a conscience.
Define torture and specifically why it is bad.
Until then, your premise is senseless.
You throw the word around loosely. You leave the word undefined and you make the assumption that we "torture" anyone we can get our hands on.
Your simplistic view of it is assinine. You assume you know the descisions made on who to question and how. You have no clue. You have a typical lib template supplied to you by KOS.
One of the "torture" acts was putting a caterpillar in a guy's cell. Papillon was happy to get one and ate it for dinner.
Another was keep a guy naked. Some people pay extra for that.
Another was keeping him awake all night. You calling my bartender a torturer?
We do know that if it were not for WB, the Library tower in La might well be gone today.
When we have a guy taken off the battlefield, or a high up Al Qeda guy, of the stinking pirate - yes - there is no limit and what we do to him - no limit period.
The only quesiton is:
Is there reasonable change that we can extract usefull information from this person?
After that, anyting goes.
We can quibble all you want about what, exactly, constitutes torture.
The question is: Are we, as a nation, going to condone torture?
Can't do 2 until we do 1.
I can't understand how anyone can seriously call WB torture when all of our people undergo it as part of training?
Floyd
04-23-2009, 04:16 PM
I can't understand how anyone can seriously call WB torture when all of our people undergo it as part of training?
First of all, the Navy is the only branch of service that may use waterboarding on some of its trainees.
Secondly, I don't know how anybody can seriously defend waterboarding when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WW 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html) for the practice.
And C). the definition is pretty clear:
Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#Domestic_Legislation ) The definition of torture used is as follows:
"torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
boxcar
04-23-2009, 04:24 PM
First of all, the Navy is the only branch of service that may use waterboarding on some of its trainees.
Secondly, I don't know how anybody can seriously defend waterboarding when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WW 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html) for the practice.
And C). the definition is pretty clear:
Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#Domestic_Legislation ) The definition of torture used is as follows:
"torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
Geesh, Floyd, I thought you were a Progressive. Times change but you're still stuck in the past. You mean to tell me that, unlike the U.S. Constitution, that statute isn't a "living, breathing, evolving law? :lol:
Boxcar
Quagmire
04-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Define torture and specifically why it is bad.
Until then, your premise is senseless.
You throw the word around loosely. You leave the word undefined and you make the assumption that we "torture" anyone we can get our hands on.
Your simplistic view of it is assinine. You assume you know the descisions made on who to question and how. You have no clue. You have a typical lib template supplied to you by KOS.
One of the "torture" acts was putting a caterpillar in a guy's cell. Papillon was happy to get one and ate it for dinner.
Another was keep a guy naked. Some people pay extra for that.
Another was keeping him awake all night. You calling my bartender a torturer?
We do know that if it were not for WB, the Library tower in La might well be gone today.
When we have a guy taken off the battlefield, or a high up Al Qeda guy, of the stinking pirate - yes - there is no limit and what we do to him - no limit period.
The only quesiton is:
Is there reasonable change that we can extract usefull information from this person?
After that, anyting goes.
The Library Tower plot was foiled in 2002. That Al Qaeda dude was captured in 2003.
As far as the caterpillar I can remember seeing much worse than that on the old show Fear Factor.
Floyd
04-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Geesh, Floyd, I thought you were a Progressive. Times change but you're still stuck in the past. You mean to tell me that, unlike the U.S. Constitution, that statute isn't a "living, breathing, evolving law?
Boxcar
So, tell me, Boxcar. Who would Jesus torture?
Bubba X
04-23-2009, 04:43 PM
Boxcar will need to reflect on that question a while.
delayjf
04-23-2009, 05:25 PM
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain
Here's the problem what is the definition of "severe physical or mental pain"?
Heck a bad marriage could qualify.
So, tell me, Boxcar. Who would Jesus torture?
God has his own way of dealing with evil. Anyway, due to the "separation of church and state" doctrine that liberal are so fond of, Gods desires are irrelevant.
delayjf
04-23-2009, 05:32 PM
Floyd, read your article, see quote below.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,"
Seems like the Japanese did more than just water board.
Dahoss9698
04-23-2009, 06:28 PM
Apparently Boxcar is still reflecting on that question. I guess ignoring it is easier than making something up.
Floyd
04-23-2009, 06:29 PM
Here's the problem what is the definition of "severe physical or mental pain"?
Heck a bad marriage could qualify.
Hell, my marriage DID qualify! But your opinion and my opinion don't matter. It's already been established that what our government did in our name was torture.
You, apparently, are O.K. with that. I'm not.
God has his own way of dealing with evil. Anyway, due to the "separation of church and state" doctrine that liberal are so fond of, Gods desires are irrelevant.
Perhaps Gods' desires should not be so irrelevant to so-called "believers" who eagerly advocate crimes against humanity.
Floyd
04-23-2009, 06:36 PM
Floyd, read your article, see quote below.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,"
Seems like the Japanese did more than just water board.
What? This is what you're reduced to? He testified to "several types of torture" including waterboarding!
C'mon. You're not even trying.
boxcar
04-23-2009, 07:33 PM
Boxcar will need to reflect on that question a while.
You must be kdding -- both of you -- Frick and Frack? Abbot and Costello? Laurel and Hardy? What a tag team! Now it's BubBub and Floyd, outdoing all the above! :rolleyes: Let me see if I have this straight: Both of you suddenly want to inject relgion into government policy!? You must have found a couple of tarnished halos at give-away prices at Big Lots, Salvation Army or Goodwill, perhaps? All of a sudden you two have found religion? :lol: Well, let me ask you...What do you think Jesus would say about the porno industry? Or homosexual practices? Think he'd approve or disapprove or have no opinion? Oh...but wait let make a wild guess here: With these kinds of issues both you would plead "separation of church and state", wouldn't you? :rolleyes: You hypocrites!
And why do you ask what Jesus would say or think when neither of you believe the bible is the infallible and inspired word of God from cover to cover? How could you believe anything Jesus or the writers claimed he said? All of sudden you're both great men of faith and have laid down your Skepticism? Hypocrites twice over!
And then you forget that since the bible claims that Jesus is divine -- teaches the incarnation of Christ -- that as the very immutable God of God, he ordered the Israelites under the Old Covenant to slaughter every man, woman, child and even the beasts of the Amalekites. (Ask 'cap about this because he thought this was a real thorny issue for Evangelicals -- or was it "fundamentalists? :rolleyes: ) And you forget that King David shed more blood in wars than any other king during the period when the Israelites went in to occupy the Land God had given them, yet, even so... he was still the "apple of God's eye". How can these things be? Simple. Just as gambling is essentially a non-issue from a biblical perspective so, too, is war to a very large extent! The only thing we can be certain about with wars is that there will be plenty of them! But Jesus never set down his own version of the Geneva Convention, that's for certain! You're both barking up the wrong tree.
Therefore, in this "war on terrorism", there are no rules, except those laid down by human chain of command. And biblically, subordinates are expected to obey that chain of command with the lone exception of when a civil or military order infringes on divine law. God's law always takes precedence; and Christians are enjoined to obey it before all else. Therefore, if some order came through to outright murder some unarmed, captured terrorist suspect in the field, for example, that command should not be obeyed due to the 6th commandment. Of course, in the case of the OT Amalekites, it was God himself who gave Israel its military orders; therefore, since Israel knew that God was using them as his own divine instrument to execute divine justice, they were expected to obey him.
Hope this helps to clear up all your resident fog, gents. But whatever you guys do: Don't leave your day jobs because you'll never make it as a comedy team.
Boxcar
Bubba X
04-23-2009, 07:37 PM
Oh my God
Floyd
04-23-2009, 07:41 PM
Push one button, get the whole show!
And it's nice to see the return of Boxcars' "Rambo Jesus."
Dahoss9698
04-23-2009, 07:41 PM
It was WELL worth the wait at least.
boxcar
04-23-2009, 07:47 PM
Good to hear from the 3 stooges, and I'm so glad y'all liked my biblically-based explanation. ;)
Boxcar
delayjf
04-23-2009, 08:03 PM
It's already been established that what our government did in our name was torture. You, apparently, are O.K. with that. I'm not.
Depends on who you are talking to, it seems that issue is settled only in the minds of some. As I've stated on other posts, the Geneva Convention does not effectively deal with terrorism.
What? This is what you're reduced to? He testified to "several types of torture" including waterboarding! C'mon. You're not even trying.
It's a legitimate point, a slap in the face could be considered torture, but if in addition to slapping they also pulled out finger nails or teeth do you really think the conviction was really about the slap. the difference between you and I is you drawn the moral equivalence between the water boarding of three terrorist with the systematic torture and killing of innocent civilians by our enemies. I can respect anyone who stands on principle, but what if those principles lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent lives – is that not in some way a “crime against humanity”?
Perhaps Gods' desires should not be so irrelevant to so-called "believers" who eagerly advocate crimes against humanity.
So what should the relevance be to a "non-believer"? If you want to use the example of Jesus, what do you think he would have us do with regards to somebody like Hitler? He probably would have freed Timothy McVeigh as well, are you advocating that kind of response to terrorism? Cedrtainly God's response was not always to turn the other cheek. Look at God's response to the Egyptians who had enslaved the Israelites.
You and I have had similar discussions about torture previously and one point you kept making is that torture was ineffective. Recall I said that without the classified reports nobody was in a position to make that assessment. Well now we know that the harsh interrogation techniques did work, and that innocent live were saved.
Marshall Bennett
04-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Good to hear from the 3 stooges, and I'm so glad y'all liked my biblically-based explanation. ;)
Boxcar
Please give the stooges more credit than that . They were entertaining .:lol:
PaceAdvantage
04-23-2009, 08:15 PM
Jesus Christ is this place completely full of Jug-heads or what!!
Its an Op-ed you idiot. An opinion piece that will appear on 1000's of sites today. Plus, look at the first post of this thread!~ OK shithead, Take a good look at the first post of this thread. Who started it and what sources he used?. mama mia no wonder you Republicans can't win a one man election these days.
Only your keyboard stands between you and personal accountability.I've been oh so tolerant with you, but that has now run out. Since you hate off-topic here, and you no longer play the horses, there really is no reason for you to remain. You have no redeeming qualities here anymore. Sad to say, but true.
You live to insult and to intimidate here on off-topic. I will tolerate none of this from you any longer.
PaceAdvantage
04-23-2009, 08:18 PM
The question is: Are we, as a nation, going to condone torture? The Bush Administration said yes.No they didn't.
PaceAdvantage
04-23-2009, 08:21 PM
So, tell me, Boxcar. Who would Jesus torture?What the hell does this have to do with the topic except to deflect and inflame?
PaceAdvantage
04-23-2009, 08:22 PM
This place needs an enema...
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.