Cheney Calls Out Obama, Memos Show Enhanced Interrogation Worked

[RobMoney$]

Former vice president Dick Cheney, who has become an outspoken critic of the Obama Administration's policies in the war on terrorism, says that President Obama is deliberately manipulating the debate over CIA interrogation methods by selectively releasing memorandums telling only one side of the story. Cheney is challenging Obama to declassify all memos relating to the Bush Administration's enhanced interrogation program (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts/), particluarly those that detail the information gathered as a result of using the techniques.

Cheney says that Obama should release the documents so that the public can engage in an "honest debate" over the effectiveness of the program.
"One of the things I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is [the Administration] put out the legal memos, the memos they got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort.

I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country. I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."
Cheney's challenge could put the Administration in a difficult position politically. President Obama has said that his aim is to make government more transparent. He has also said that the released memos describe a "dark and painful chapter" in U.S. history (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aqorMntPvMqg). But without information about the effects of the terrorist interrogation program, and the plans that may have been foiled as a result, it remains unknown just how dark and painful that chapter could have been.

Upon releasing the memos, President Obama said that he was not jeopardizing national security by making them public, a matter disputed by his Republican critics (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/21/cheney-to-obama-release-all-cia-interrogation-memos/blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/04/bond-released-t.html). If that is the case, then there can be no dispute that releasing information about the results of the interrogations would also not harm national security. Cheney's call for the release of the full compliment of CIA memos on the interrogations seems designed to pressure Obama on these two points. If the Administration answers, which it almost certainly will, the president will either have to admit that releasing the memos was harmful to national security, or that the interrogation program yielded valuable results that helped prevent attacks against America.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/21/cheney-to-obama-release-all-cia-interrogation-memos/

I'm starting to like Cheney a lot more than I did when he was in office. Which may not be saying much, but still.
I like the way the guy is standing up here. It would have been awfully easy to just stick to hunting with his friends.

Currently, I beleive the following:

1. Waterboarding is torture.
2. When dealing with an enemy whose purpose in life is to destroy our way of life, it's possible that sometimes harsh interrogation methods become necessary.
3. Perhaps when interrogating a suspect, other tactics didn't work, and perhaps after water boarding we gained valuable intelligence that helped avert an attack as Cheyney is contending.
4. If nearly drowning some terrorist scumbag saved innocent lives, it was worth it.

[b i o n i c]

whats enhanced interrogation

[RobMoney$]

in⋅ter⋅ro⋅ga⋅tion
1.the act of interrogating; questioning.
2.an instance of being interrogated: He seemed shaken after his interrogation.
3.a question; inquiry.
4.a written list of questions.
5.an interrogation point; question mark



en⋅hance
1.to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify: The candelight enhanced her beauty.
2.to raise the value or price of: Rarity enhances the worth of old coins.

[Bob]

en⋅hance
1.to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify: The candelight enhanced her beauty.

or, "the electrodes enhanced his confession"

[kaiser soze]

cheney can start here

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_1.html

I thought telling the public what has been successfully retrieved would endanger national defense?! This is the bullshit they have been spewing for 5 years and now they don't see it that way anymore?

I bet their base would be sorely let down to see their leaders flip on their secretive nation saving tactics and make a dare that could threaten national defense! :rolleyes:

talk about political theater, cheney should crawl back to the crypt he came from

I love how people assume that everyone who has been tortured is a terrorist

[RobMoney$]

So I suppose you wouldn't want someone to have a pitcher of water poured over their head to save your loved ones, if they were in peril and that person had info which could save them?

If declassified memos show that through the use of water boarding the United States avoided a serious terror attack and saved the lives of innocent people, we need to see them. The American people can then decide if water boarding high value terrorists was worth it.

How anyone can disagree with an unveiling of the evidence?

[RobMoney$]

I thought telling the public what has been successfully retrieved would endanger national defense?! This is the bullshit they have been spewing for 5 years and now they don't see it that way anymore?

I bet their base would be sorely let down to see their leaders flip on their secretive nation saving tactics and make a dare that could threaten national defense! :rolleyes:


Cheney's not the one making the decision to declassify any memos that may endanger national defense, Obama is.
Cheney's just advocating that if Obama's going to release info, then tell the whole story, not just the left's side of the story.

[kaiser soze]

You honestly believe that the people being tortured are the ones with the info on what or how some terrorist or group will attack?

For one - OUR soldiers and allies are still being killed, so the torture is failing there. Two - more than likely those planning attacks (greater than what we are seeing in the form of car bombs and suicide bombers) are highly protected and probably limit who has access to their plans.

Thirdly - we have seen how intelligence (among many other things) has failed or was neglected with the results of 9/11. So you honestly believe that waterboarding and other forms of torture improves our chances of thwarting another attack?

I believe torture is a way for people to play out their sick and twisted masochistic wishes they so otherwise couldn't express in society. I believe it is human experimentation, I believe it is intimidation, I believe it is extremely faulty, I believe it is executed more so on people with little information and innocent people rather than high profile suspects.

I think it would be great if complete information is released, but Obama is smarter than you think and knows damn well that this is just another way for the cons to cry foul. Rather than just bitching about the initial memos they will bitch about these as well and use it to their advantage.

This is another reason why I think many conservative talking heads are stirring up the "waterboarding" pot now that Obama is in office. They know people forget quickly and know their constituents will tag Obama as the mastermind behind the torture.

[RobMoney$]

The usual position from the left is that it doesn't work, which is your contention, at least that's how I'm seeing this discussion.

As I stated in my initial post, I do believe water boarding is torture, but it's not on the level of say pulling someone's fingernails out with a pair of pliers, or electrodes. It's more psychological it seems. A way of getting someone to break without really physically harming them.

But the same, tired, excuse from the left that "Waterboarding is torture. And besides, it doesn't work" is not quite the same as "Waterboarding is torture. And yeah, it saved the lives of 5,000 when they stopped the plot to blow up the building in Los Angeles".

[RobMoney$]

I have ZERO idea if what this guy is saying is true, but it's certainly an interesting take on it from a column I read recently by Deroy Murdock.
His bio says he is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_murdoch2_05-02-09_C1E6DN2_v12.3e66c02.html

Deroy Murdoch: We should be proud we waterboarded

Library Tower looms 73 stories above Los Angeles. But the Pacific Coast’s highest skyscraper could have become a smoldering pile of steel beams had CIA interrogators not waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003, as declassified memoranda reveal. Americans should be proud that our public servants had the patience and persistence to pressure al-Qaida’s self-described military chief until he cracked.

The hard-core hand-wringing among soft-headed liberals over these so-called “torture memos” ignores the fact that these tactics squeezed priceless intelligence from KSM and al-Qaida’s Abu Zubaydah (waterboarded 83 times in August 2002).

As former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen explained in the Washington Post, a May 2005 Justice Department memo states: “Before the CIA used enhanced (interrogation) techniques … KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks." Waterboarding finally loosened KSM’s lips.

This uncovered “a KSM plot, the Second Wave, ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.” KSM later told Guantanamo authorities that al-Qaida targeted the 1,018-foot-tall Library Tower. KSM’s confessions, the memo says, prompted “the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’”

“(I)nformation obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali,” the memo continues. Hambali supervised October 2002’s Bali nightclub bombings that shredded 202 vacationers and wounded 209 others.

Rough questioning inspired KSM to identify Iyman Faris. He was convicted of plotting to sever the Brooklyn Bridge’s cables with torches. KSM also fingered Sept. 11 collaborator Yazid Sufaat. The 9-11 Commission Report states that Sufaat “cultivate(d) anthrax for al-Qaida in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.”

Zubaydah initially clammed up, but waterboarding made him sing. He squealed on USS Cole bomber Rahim al-Nashiri, (17 Americans dead; 40 wounded), Sept. 11 conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh and KSM.

Justice’s memo concludes, “The CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qaida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since Sept. 11, 2001.’¦” Zubaydah explains why enhanced interrogation works: “Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.”

Meanwhile, the ceaseless whimpering over KSM’s waterboarding almost universally neglects his victims’ agony. KSM masterminded the 9/11 massacre (2,976 dead, 7,356 wounded). He also said: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl.” KSM financed February 1993’s Twin Towers explosion (six dead; 1,040 injured).

Thus, my eyes stayed dry upon learning that American counterterrorists dampened KSM’s nostrils 183 times. I cry for the 2,976 individuals who KSM, Zubaydah, and their colleagues slaughtered on 9/11. Of the 2,752 they butchered at the World Trade Center, 1,125 were literally vaporized.

Their loved ones still do not have so much as bone fragments to bury, nor place flowers upon, nor shed tears.

Now that is torture.

[Documad]

The usual position from the left is that it doesn't work, . . .

I just want to note that this isn't a left/right issue. There have been plenty of left-wing leaders who committed human rights violations and plenty of right-wingers who believe that the government should provide due process before depriving someone of liberty. I'm not sure whether left and right have much meaning with regard to national security, torture, or war--whether you look at our country's history in getting involved in military actions overseas or whether you look at the things we did and didn't do in our hemisphere in the 20th century.

[YoungRemy]

Cheney is being a bit silly saying they should have released all the info that led to actual intelligence, that led to a foiled attack. he knows better than that.

but yes, I do believe the American Government thwarted real attacks, however in my opinion most of them have been homecooked domestic terrorism plots- the guys in Miami, Fort Dix plot, the recent incident in Newburgh/Riverdale (those guys literally had fake bombs taped to their car, and they were headed straight for the Jewish Center in the Bronx)

I'm pretty sure we got some info out of the guys at Gitmo, or the higher ups whom we have captured in the meantime, but those dudes (the jihadist freedom fighter whatever you call them) are so hard-nosed, they are already trained to counter torture with fake info, leading the US on a wild goose chase of intelligence gathering which leads to more torture.

Gitmo was a disaster.

[RobMoney$]

I just want to note that this isn't a left/right issue. There have been plenty of left-wing leaders who committed human rights violations and plenty of right-wingers who believe that the government should provide due process before depriving someone of liberty. I'm not sure whether left and right have much meaning with regard to national security, torture, or war--whether you look at our country's history in getting involved in military actions overseas or whether you look at the things we did and didn't do in our hemisphere in the 20th century.


I was generalizing. People on both sides repeat the same tired cliches:

The Left: It's torture and we should never do it, and those that did do it should be prosecuted!


The Right: It's not torture, and even if it was torture, we had to do it to save lives!



I'd also like to point out the fact that water boarding was used on exactly 3 certified and known high level ranking members of Al-Queida. All 3 were the masterminds behind various terrorist attacks for Al-Queida.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Abu Zubaydah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah

Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahim_al-Nashiri


It's not as if we were cavalier, water boarding every muslim we could get our hands on in Gitmo.

[Documad]

I was generalizing. People on both sides repeat the same tired cliches:

The Left: It's torture and we should never do it, and those that did do it should be prosecuted!


The Right: It's not torture, and even if it was torture, we had to do it to save lives!



Those are two different positions, but they're not left/right positions. Plus many people fall in between, like me.

[roosta]

the "enhanced interrogation" line is the most cowardly fucking thing i've ever heard.

If you are going to torture people, at least have the fucking balls to admit it. Not hide behind semantics.

Cowards.

[RobMoney$]

I don't know. I watched the Mancow video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0&feature=related) of him being waterboarded and came away less inclined to view it as torture than before I watched it. I found it to be less serious looking than I imagined.
That video makes me err more on the "not torture" side. I don't doubt that it's extremely unpleasant, but he seems fine.


I'm just wondering, for those that have the opinion that "Waterboarding is torture and those responsible should be prosecuted", are you saying you'd rather die in a terrorist explosion than have our country do what they did in that video, waterboarding the radio host?
I'm not arguing a point, I'm just trying to understand what those people's stance is.

[roosta]

Christopher Hitchens on Waterboarding "Believe me, its torture" (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808)

[roosta]

I don't know. I watched the Mancow video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0&feature=related) of him being waterboarded and came away less inclined to view it as torture than before I watched it. I found it to be less serious looking than I imagined.
That video makes me err more on the "not torture" side. I don't doubt that it's extremely unpleasant, but he seems fine.


they admittedly toned it down, and allowed him to stop....but he himself said it was torture.

[yeahwho]

Seems like an awful lot of speculation is aimed at saving lives through torture, what if, and I mean this sincerely, what if torture resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, a war, 100's of billions of dollars spent and a false sense of security?

I don't have any fear of Cheney talking, give him enough rope.

[RobMoney$]

they admittedly toned it down, and allowed him to stop....but he himself said it was torture.


Yeah, but he was coherent enough to be interviewed immediately upon sitting up. He also refused medical attention and said he was fine.
That's what leads me to the conclusion that although it may be unpleasant, I don't think it reached the level of torture.
Also, consider that he was doing this for a radio show and seemed to be overly dramatic about it.

But I acknowledge your point about it being a soft version of what was probably done in Gitmo to those 3 detainees.
They were put on a table with an incline, hands and head were secured, and I'm sure the SERE officers who administered the waterboarding in Gitmo weren't nearly as nice to the detainees as that officer treated the radio host in that video. I'm sure they were pretty intimidating towards the prisioners, and therefore the prisoners weren't sure what these guys were capable of doing to them.
I'm also pretty sure they prisoners weren't afforded the luxury of tapping out as soon as they'd had enough either.

[Bob]

I'm just wondering, for those that have the opinion that "Waterboarding is torture and those responsible should be prosecuted", are you saying you'd rather die in a terrorist explosion than have our country do what they did in that video, waterboarding the radio host?
I'm not arguing a point, I'm just trying to understand what those people's stance is.

lol are these my only two options?

also, rob, have you ever heard anyone who's been waterboarded say "it wasn't so bad, i wouldn't call that torture"? i'll admit, my only sources of information on the subject are jesse ventura, christopher hitchens, and that mancow guy, but they've all actually been waterboarded and they all seem to be in agreement that it's torture (even the guy who said it wasn't torture at first). do you know something they don't? i guess it just seems kind of odd to me for a person to watch a video of a guy being tortured who then promptly sits up and says "that was definitely torture, i take back whatever i said to the contrary" and to say "i disagree with his assessment"

[Laver1969]

I'm not sure if this one's been posted.

Another example of a journalist being waterboarded. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od0Zo9h4mVo)

[RobMoney$]

What's your opinion on killing in wartime?
Do you consider that torture, because I certainly wouldn't think that's a very pleasant experience for either person involved, but I wouldn't call it torture either.
I sure as hell would rather be captured and waterboarded by the enemy for information than just shot and killed.

[Bob]

....ok

[RobMoney$]

Also, I'd like Bob, Roosta, Documad, kaiser, or Remy or anyone else who thinks waterboarding is just flat-out wrong to answer my question,

Would you rather die in a terrorist explosion than have a known leader of Al-Quieda waterboarded until he confessed the details of an upcoming terrorist action?

[Bob]

Also, I'd like Bob, Roosta, Documad, kaiser, or Remy or anyone else who thinks waterboarding is just flat-out wrong to answer my question,

Would you rather die in a terrorist explosion than have a known leader of Al-Quieda waterboarded until he confessed the details of an upcoming terrorist action?

i'll answer it, but only if you answer my hypothetical first. terrorists have broken into your home and kidnapped your family. they're going to torture your children every hour on the hour in perpetuity unless you cut off your penis and eat it (they've given you an anesthetic and the knife is sharp and clean so it's not so bad). do you do it?

[RobMoney$]

...ok

[Bob]

...ok

if i have to live in the world where the only way to prevent a fiery death-by-terrorist is to torture people, then you have to live in the world where the only way to save your children is to cut off your dick, those are my conditions

[RobMoney$]

The only problem is that Cheney says there is documentation that proves that my hypothetical situation actually existed, and if that's true I think it's relevant to this debate and that info should be released if were going to release any classified info.


Also, Do you honestly believe there's ever been a War fought at anytime in history where "torture" or "enhanced interrogation" wasn't used, by us or against us?
Vietnam, WWII on back. It's an ugly reality of war.

It's very easy for us to sit in our ivory towers and criticize, neither of us ever having served in a war.

[Dorothy Wood]

this thread made me puke a little in my mouth.

rob, you are really scary sometimes.

cheney profits from this war, so nothing he says should be trusted or taken seriously.




I decided to read up a bit on torture, and found this on wiki:



While in Egypt in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Bonaparte) wrote to Major-General Berthier that the
barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#cite_note-43)




I really don't think that torture is an effective method of interrogation. there are smarter ways to go about it. besides, I'm willing to bet that by now, the guys with the real info know what waterboarding is and train to withstand it anyway.

[RobMoney$]

All Cheney is saying is that he believes all the memos (i.e. info) should be released so there can be an honest debate about the issue.

If he had something to hide, I'd think he'd be for concealing something, not for disclosure, No?

I mean the memos will speak to whether Cheney should be trusted or not, right?

[Dorothy Wood]

I just...I don't feel like discussing this. cheney is a horrible person. he's just stirring the pot. he doesn't want an honest discussion. he only stands to gain from chaos and war, and dividing this nation further.

I guess my point is, he's already proven that he can't be trusted.

[yeahwho]

I just...I don't feel like discussing this. cheney is a horrible person. he's just stirring the pot. he doesn't want an honest discussion. he only stands to gain from chaos and war, and dividing this nation further.

I guess my point is, he's already proven that he can't be trusted.

I agree wholeheartedly, to me there is no middle ground, Cheney is a sick individual. The research and links you've provided are not only shallow, they have 0 analysis or proof that torture is anything besides torture. Torture has proven to be not an in accurate way to get information. Also it is illegal by United States law and multiple treaties we have sponsored and signed.

Cheney is despicable. He has no redeeming value. To engage him as an authority on anything outside being a chickenhawk with lawyers stacked 12 deep is to waste your time. Cheney is not Bush and he is not Obama. He is Dick fucking Cheney, the Vietnam deferment poster boy. Why didn't he read the security briefing in August 2001 that said there was a real threat that an attack was being planned on US soil?

[Documad]

I'm disappointed at some of the things Obama is doing and frankly Cheney is helping Obama avoid responsibility. Everytime Cheney is on TV, it makes Obama look good in comparison. Although some people are approving of Cheney's message I guess. His approval rating went up a tad.

[yeahwho]

That's because millions of people want to think torture worked to avoid imminent attacks, it's amazingly fucked up, but that is the case.

The law was twisted by the Bush administration and on Memorial Day it just seems appropriate to be outraged by what our Country became under the Bush administration.

Imagine that the leader of some other country (Myanmar, perhaps) were to seize an American citizen, waterboard her, hold her incommunicado, and then conduct a "trial" before a military officer they had appointed? Would we be asking any questions as to whether this conduct was appropriate?

Apologists for this behavior are weak. It's not over.

[RobMoney$]

Imagine that the leader of some other country (Myanmar, perhaps) were to seize an American citizen, waterboard her, hold her incommunicado, and then conduct a "trial" before a military officer they had appointed? Would we be asking any questions as to whether this conduct was appropriate?

Apologists for this behavior are weak. It's not over.


But for your hypothetical situation to be accurate, you'd have to assume that this American girl you speak of was a well-known, high ranking mastermind of a group of terrorists that operated from within American boarders that carried out terrorists attacks that had already killed thousands of Myanmarians in various places around the world, thus making all myanmarians around the globe at risk.

[RobMoney$]

I agree wholeheartedly, to me there is no middle ground, Cheney is a sick individual. The research and links you've provided are not only shallow, they have 0 analysis or proof that torture is anything besides torture. Torture has proven to be not an in accurate way to get information. Also it is illegal by United States law and multiple treaties we have sponsored and signed.

Cheney is despicable. He has no redeeming value. To engage him as an authority on anything outside being a chickenhawk with lawyers stacked 12 deep is to waste your time. Cheney is not Bush and he is not Obama. He is Dick fucking Cheney, the Vietnam deferment poster boy. Why didn't he read the security briefing in August 2001 that said there was a real threat that an attack was being planned on US soil?

The research and links I've provided aren't supposed to contain any factual information because that factual information is CLASSIFIED.

How can you say that "torture" has proven to not produce accurate info when Cheney is contending the memos prove the waterboarding did provide vital info that prevented an attack?

I think you're letting your feelings for Cheney cloud the issue a bit.

[D_Raay]

Bottom line is that torture is not an adequate method of obtaining information, it is way too unreliable. That being said would you want vital information entrusted in the hopes you'll obtain said information?

[yeahwho]

The research and links I've provided aren't supposed to contain any factual information because that factual information is CLASSIFIED.

How can you say that "torture" has proven to not produce accurate info when Cheney is contending the memos prove the waterboarding did provide vital info that prevented an attack?

I think you're letting your feelings for Cheney cloud the issue a bit.

Contending and speculating is what Dick Cheney is doing, he is an asshole. He has broken the law, I want him to keep talking, I hope he can get his day in court to keep talking. The information isn't half as classified as you think, it's been floating around the news for years.

And an Army psychiatrist assigned to support questioning of suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba told the service's inspector-general that interrogators there were trying to connect al Qaeda and Iraq.

"This is my opinion," Maj. Paul Burney told the inspector-general's office. "Even though they were giving information and some of it was useful, while we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between aI Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between aI Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

The above and below from CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/), but the story is everywhere,

At that point, "The VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods," Wilkerson wrote.

"The detainee had not revealed any al Qaeda-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, 'revealed' such contacts."

Al-Libi's claim that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government had trained al Qaeda operatives in producing chemical and biological weapons appeared in the October 2002 speech then-President Bush gave when pushing Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. It also was part of Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations on the case for war, a speech Powell has called a "blot" on his record.

Al-Libi later recanted the claim, saying it was made under torture by Egyptian intelligence agents, a claim Egypt denies. He died last week in a Libyan prison, reportedly a suicide, Human Rights Watch reported.

Stacy Sullivan, a counterterrorism adviser for the U.S.-based group, called al-Libi's allegation "pivotal" to the Bush administration's case for war, as it connected Baghdad to the terrorist organization behind the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

[saz]

first off, i can't see there being anything "likeable" about dick cheney, a six medical deferment, chicken hawk war criminal, who has profited immensly from the illegal invasion and occupation of iraq. i simply do not see what is admirable about someone like cheney, championing torture (amongst other things which equate stomping all over the constitution and bill of rights, such as illegal wiretapping) and spitting all over american ideals, such as the rule of law, high ethics and values.

second, it is not possible that sometimes harsh interrogation methods become necessary. harsh interrogation methods, or better yet, let's call it for what it really is (and spare using the bullshit sugar coated terms) torture, does not work and produces unreliable, unsubstantiated and very shaky information. in other words, under torture the victim will say or do anything to make it stop.

and no, this isn't a "left" versus "right" issue, this is a right versus wrong issue, despite the fact that the majority of the dumbass and morally bankrupt republican party wants to make it so.

but you don't have to take my word for it. bob baer was a case officer and operative for the cia for over twenty years, who worked throughout asia and the middle east, including iraq and lebanon. here he is on hardball with chris matthews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr8AVpSMH9Q):


matthews: under duress, will people tell the truth if tortured?

baer: under duress, under the threat of duress, people will tell what they think you want to hear. it is an unreliable tool. and the reason i say this, i spent twenty-one years in the cia, in and out of prisons watching these techniques, one way or another, reading reports, and the countries that tortured uniformly produced inaccurate intelligence. torture does not work

matthews: you're sitting with the president of the united states, our new president, barack obama. he faces what looks to be a ticking time bomb situation. he's got an intell that something's coming our way that's big. he has ksm in custody, he's got zubaydah in custody, he may have someone else in custody. is it useful to take a crack at one of these people, to use torture if it might yield success in preventing catastrophe? is it worth trying? that's the cutting edge question it seems.

baer: no, no, that's a loaded question. those situations almost never, never arise and what happened with abu ghraib and the waterboarding is that it was a fishing expedition, which is something entirely different. it's sort of like the local police, you know running everybody in when a crime's been committed and waterboarding them. it just doesn't work. there are some rare, rare exceptions, but almost never do terrorists send two people at two different times that know each other's plans. they're just smarter than that. so what we're doing is giving up our values, our rule of law, for the chances of actually producing are zero.


third, other tactics do work, and waterboarding doesn't work nor produce valuable intelligence.


Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 19, 2009
The New York Times

C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported.

The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.

The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning. But the precise number and the exact nature of the interrogation method was not previously known.

The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding.

He revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been “unnecessary” in his case.

[saz]

matthew alexander spent fourteen years in the u.s. air force and air force reserves. an “investigator turned interrogator”, he deployed to iraq in 2006, where he led the interrogations team that located abu musab al zarqawi, the former leader of al qaida in iraq, who was killed by coalition forces. alexander was awarded the bronze star for his achievements. he is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.



Former Senior Interrogator in Iraq Dissects Cheney's Lies and Distortions

Matthew Alexander
Posted: May 24, 2009 10:48 AM


As a senior interrogator in Iraq (and a former criminal investigator), there was a lesson I learned that served me well: there's more to be learned from what someone doesn't say than from what they do say. Let me dissect former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech on National Security using this model and my interrogation skills.

First, VP Cheney said, "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately... it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do." He further stated, "It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so." That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.

Secondly, the former vice president, in saying that waterboarding is not torture, never mentions the fact that it was the United States and its Allies, during the Tokyo Trials, that helped convict a Japanese soldier for war crimes for waterboarding one of Jimmie Doolittle's Raiders. Have our morals and values changed in fifty years? He also did not mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both prohibited their troops from torturing prisoners of war. Washington specifically used the term "injure" -- no mention of severe mental or physical pain.

Thirdly, the former vice president never mentioned the Senate testimony of Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah and learned the identity of Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber, and the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was the mastermind behind 9/11. We'll never know what more we could have discovered from Abu Zubaydah had not CIA contractors taken over the interrogations and used waterboarding and other harsh techniques. Also, glaringly absent from the former vice president's speech was any mention of the fact that the former administration never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and that our best chance to locate him would have been through KSM or Abu Zubaydah had they not been waterboarded.

In addition, in his continued defense of harsh interrogation techniques (aka torture and abuse), VP Cheney forgets that harsh techniques have ensured that future detainees will be less likely to cooperate because they see us as hypocrites. They are less willing to trust us when we fail to live up to our principles. I experienced this firsthand in Iraq when interrogating high-ranking members of Al Qaida, some of whom decided to cooperate simply because I treated them with respect and civility.

The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness. An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.

Finally, the point that is most absent is that our greatest success in this conflict was achieved without torture or abuse. My interrogation team found Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq and murderer of tens of thousands. We did this using relationship-building approaches and non-coercive law enforcement techniques. These worked to great effect on the most hardened members of Al Qaida -- spiritual leaders who had been behind the waves of suicide bombers and, hence, the sectarian violence that swept across Iraq. We convinced them to cooperate by applying our intellect. In essence, we worked smarter, not harsher.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/whats-not-said-is-more-im_b_207151.html)

[saz]

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture'

A former FBI agent has claimed that he gleaned valuable information, including the identity of the chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, from a prime al-Qaeda suspect without resorting to controversial interrogation methods later used by the CIA.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 8:27PM BST 27 Apr 2009
Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/)



The claim by Ali Soufan will be well received by President Barack Obama whose decision to release confidential memos on "enhanced" interrogation techniques threatens to overshadow his agenda.

Mr Soufan gave a detailed account of a fierce row with CIA agents who took over the interrogation at an undisclosed location in Thailand in early 2002 using techniques that he regarded as "borderline torture".

One day he arrived to find Zubaydah, a Palestinian suspected of commanding al-Qaeda's Afghanistan training camps, stripped naked. A "confinement box" that looked like a coffin, was prepared for use.

"We're the United States of America, and we don't do that kind of thing," he claimed he have said to one of the CIA agents.

Before the arrival of the CIA, Mr Soufan asserted that he and an FBI colleague, Steve Gaudin, nurtured Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al-Qaeda suspect taken into US custody after September 11, 2001, into better health.

"We kept him alive. It wasn't easy, he couldn't drink, he had a fever. I was holding ice to his lips," he told Newsweek.

The two then asked a series of questions that became "a mental poker game", Mr Soufan said.

An experienced agent of Lebanese descent who is fluent in Arabic and knowledgeable of the Koran, Mr Soufan poured over Zubaydah's files and "stunned" the suspect by using his mother's nickname for him, Hani.

They debated religion and politics. After one lengthy rant against US cultural imperialism, the prisoner asked for a Coca-Cola, prompting both men to laugh at the irony of his request.

Within two days of interrogation, Zubaydah, a Palestinian accused of running the terror network's training camps in Afghanistan, had identified Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the 9/11 mastermind, said Mr Soufan.

He also revealed the identity of Jose Padilla, the Puerto Rican planning to set off a "dirty bomb" inside the US, who is now serving a 17-year prison sentence.

Mr Soufan, who now runs a security company, flatly contradicted claims by Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, and various CIA officials that it was only when CIA agents arrived and began using coercive techniques that Zubaydah began to give information of any consequence.

"I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he told Newsweek. "We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."

After reporting the CIA's conduct to his superiors, Mr Soufan and Mr Gaudin were withdrawn and the FBI distanced itself from future terror interrogations.

Mr Soufan could be a key witness if a truth commission or independent inquiry into methods used by the Bush administration during its "war on terror" were ever held.

Powerful members of Congress are still pursuing the idea, while many members of Mr Obama's own Democratic Party are demanding prosecutions.

Patrick Leahy, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, said: "I know some people say "let's turn the page'. Frankly I'd like to read the page before we turn it."

link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5231507/FBI-agent-got-valuable-information-without-torture.html)

[Bob]

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles.... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I do not think so."

[yeahwho]

I'm disappointed at some of the things Obama is doing and frankly Cheney is helping Obama avoid responsibility. Everytime Cheney is on TV, it makes Obama look good in comparison. Although some people are approving of Cheney's message I guess. His approval rating went up a tad.

You are astute in your observations on both fronts, Obama (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/22/734342/-We-Must-Support-Obamas-Indefinite-Preventive-Detention-Without-Trial-Plan.)gets a free pass on decision making policy while Cheney is on a PR media blitz to garner public opinion before his inevitable day in court, shit he even has his daughter Liz (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/media/140193/liz_cheney%27s_pro-daddy_media_blitz/) out stumping for him.

Must be nice to have unlimited funds and a substantial power base.

[Echewta]

If it doesn't work the first time, hopefully you'll get what you want to hear the 266th time.

[kaiser soze]

maybe 266 times to hear what they want to hear

but it only took 6 seconds to shut them all up

the end

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, you guys are probably right.
I guess we're better off only declassifying stuff that makes waterboarding look bad, but keeping the stuff that might prove waterboarding worked, classified because nobody likes Cheney and we don't want to do anything that may prove him to be credible.

Let's all go put our heads back in the hole in the sand now.

[D_Raay]

You're missing the point. It's a bluff and a straw man. It's raised to divert attention and lend credence to something that has no credence.

[Burnout18]

Would you rather die in a terrorist explosion than have a known leader of Al-Quieda waterboarded until he confessed the details of an upcoming terrorist action?

no one answered this?!?!?!?!

I will; fuck yea i'd want him waterboarded.... I know mancow held on for like ten seconds, but in the back of his mind, he knew he could end it and he knew when it would be over.... different mentality when you are being WB'd in a cell in gitmo sooooooooooooo i'd imagine its more effective there than in some radio studio.

[RobMoney$]

If it doesn't work the first time, hopefully you'll get what you want to hear the 266th time.


You're a resident of LA, right Chewy?
Anywhere near that Library Tower by chance?

[saz]

no one answered this?!?!?!?!



bob baer was a case officer and operative for the cia for over twenty years, who worked throughout asia and the middle east, including iraq and lebanon. here he is on hardball with chris matthews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr8AVpSMH9Q):


matthews: under duress, will people tell the truth if tortured?

baer: under duress, under the threat of duress, people will tell what they think you want to hear. it is an unreliable tool. and the reason i say this, i spent twenty-one years in the cia, in and out of prisons watching these techniques, one way or another, reading reports, and the countries that tortured uniformly produced inaccurate intelligence. torture does not work

matthews: you're sitting with the president of the united states, our new president, barack obama. he faces what looks to be a ticking time bomb situation. he's got an intell that something's coming our way that's big. he has ksm in custody, he's got zubaydah in custody, he may have someone else in custody. is it useful to take a crack at one of these people, to use torture if it might yield success in preventing catastrophe? is it worth trying? that's the cutting edge question it seems.

baer: no, no, that's a loaded question. those situations almost never, never arise and what happened with abu ghraib and the waterboarding is that it was a fishing expedition, which is something entirely different. it's sort of like the local police, you know running everybody in when a crime's been committed and waterboarding them. it just doesn't work. there are some rare, rare exceptions, but almost never do terrorists send two people at two different times that know each other's plans. they're just smarter than that. so what we're doing is giving up our values, our rule of law, for the chances of actually producing are zero..

[Burnout18]

oh bob baer answered it, did the forum.....

If we had someone who was confirmed al-quada in custody and we knew an attack was imminent like rob suggested, that would kind of throw out mr. baer is said. The first thing he says is situations like this never never arise... well here is a hypothetical where the situation arrived.

Again, if someone was going to blow up a bridge or tunnel into major city, but they didnt know which bridge/tunnel in which city, ehhhh ehhhhhhhhh i mean how would you not want that vital information?

OK and i get it with the "people will tell what they think you want to hear," when being tortured BUT who's to say a motherfucker wouldn't panic and tell the truth,,, Plus you don't think that the torturers prolly realize the first thing out of a captured terrorists mouth is prolly bullshit when shit first hits the fan? so still whats the alternative? feed them desserts?

[RobMoney$]

It's funny. People kept reponding with
"Torture never works"

and I kept responding with
"but Cheney says the memos proved it worked"

and round and round it goes.



Some men, you just can't reach.

[Bob]

It's funny. People kept reponding with
"Torture never works"

and I kept responding with
"but Cheney says the memos proved it worked"

and round and round it goes.



Some men, you just can't reach.

cheney's said a lot of things, though...

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, but this claim is supported by documentation.


I'm as skeptical of Cheney as the next guy, which is why everyone should want these memos declassified.
Once and for all, he'll either be a proven liar, or the most misunderstood hero of the century.

[yeahwho]

Documentation has been released on torture, I don't understand your insistence that torture should be the American way. Are you seriously trying to be pro-torture? I have (along with a half a dozen others here) posted instances of torture within the Bush 43 era that did not work.

So whatever point you think many of us do not understand or are too ignorant to understand is irrelevant. We already get it, Cheney says torture works. He thinks it's legitimate. I get it, I understand he thinks memo's will verify it works.

The guy is consumed with fear.

[RobMoney$]

Round & Round (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWD7VrHquU&feature=related)

Rock On dude!

[Documad]

Yeah, but this claim is supported by documentation.
Not according to the intelligence guys who saw the two memos. They will be public at some point, when the current litigation over them is over perhaps.


I'm as skeptical of Cheney as the next guy, which is why everyone should want these memos declassified.
Once and for all, he'll either be a proven liar, or the most misunderstood hero of the century.
I guess I'm more skeptical than you. I'll wait and see, but honestly, Cheney leaked Plame identity, if the alleged two memos in question made him and Bush look good, he would have leaked them ages ago. Torture didn't tell us where bin laden is. Torture didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Torture didn't make us win in Afghanistan or give us any basis to be in Iraq. I'm pretty sure that torture created a bunch of new terrorists though.


I think the whole discussion is a red herring. I don't care much what's in the memos. We either live up to a code of conduct or we don't. Every kind of illegal police activity will lead to more arrests and more convictions. But in the USA that's never really been the point.

[Dorothy Wood]

Once and for all, he'll either be a proven liar, or the most misunderstood hero of the century.

*spit take*


hero?! HERO?! you've gotta be fucking kidding me. even if he's right that waterboarding got some information, that doesn't make him a hero. god damn.

whatever, release the information. I'm sure dudes are all practicing withstanding waterboarding now anyway, so it won't make a difference. on to the next "enhanced interrogation" technique.

I suggest pulling nose hairs.

[Bob]

they should just do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN7pkFNEg5c)

the copy machine trick is actually a thing that cops have actually successfully done in real life, believe it or not

[yeahwho]

Round & Round (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWD7VrHquU&feature=related)

Rock On dude!

Stuff Happens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq3a6NQZyJM&feature=player_embedded)

Rock On dude!

[RobMoney$]

on to the next "enhanced interrogation" technique.

I suggest pulling nose hairs.


Would you guys consider titty twisters "torture"?

[Drederick Tatum]

2. When dealing with an enemy whose purpose in life is to destroy our way of life, it's possible that sometimes harsh interrogation methods become necessary.


that's not their purpose.

[RobMoney$]

they should just do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN7pkFNEg5c)

the copy machine trick is actually a thing that cops have actually successfully done in real life, believe it or not


Wait.
Are you suggesting we pull the old "Your buddy's in the other room selling you out" trick with high ranking Al-Queida detainees?

This isn't a TV show Bob. I didn't even fall for that trick when I was 10 and my buddies and I graffitti'd up the Boys' Club and got caught. Have to doubt that's a viable option for Gitmo prisoners.

[Bob]

Wait.
Are you suggesting we pull the old "Your buddy's in the other room selling you out" trick with high ranking Al-Queida detainees?

This isn't a TV show Bob. I didn't even fall for that trick when I was 10 and my buddies and I graffitti'd up the Boys' Club and got caught. Have to doubt that's a viable option for Gitmo prisoners.

of course that's what i'm suggesting, TV wouldn't lie to me

[DroppinScience]

Big shocker here. The very memos in question that Cheney claims that torture gave credible information... don't back up Cheney's story. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/levin.cheney/index.html

[yeahwho]

I'm starting to like Cheney a lot more than I did when he was in office. Which may not be saying much, but still.
I like the way the guy is standing up here. It would have been awfully easy to just stick to hunting with his friends.



Are you an apologist for Dick Cheney's actions?

[RobMoney$]

Big shocker here. The very memos in question that Cheney claims that torture gave credible information... don't back up Cheney's story. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/levin.cheney/index.html


Why would you be so quick to think this guy's claims are credible, and Cheney's claims not credible?

Enough of this "whisper down the lane" crap.
Release the memos and let's see who the liar is once and for all.

[Schmeltz]

Why would you be so quick to think this guy's claims are credible, and Cheney's claims not credible?

Dick Cheney told bald-faced lies in order to lead your country into a pointless and horrifically destructive war. His credibility has been dead in the water for over half a decade. Anyone who would take anything he says at face value needs their head examined.

[Dorothy Wood]

Dick Cheney told bald-faced lies in order to lead your country into a pointless and horrifically destructive war. His credibility has been dead in the water for over half a decade. Anyone who would take anything he says at face value needs their head examined.


thank you

[roosta]

Also, I'd like Bob, Roosta, Documad, kaiser, or Remy or anyone else who thinks waterboarding is just flat-out wrong to answer my question,

Would you rather die in a terrorist explosion than have a known leader of Al-Quieda waterboarded until he confessed the details of an upcoming terrorist action?

This question is unanswerable because it must assume I believe the cause-and-effect of torture getting the life saving information.

I mean, if that was the case, then sure. But in reality, how do we know that this torture got definitely life-saving info? From memo's BY THE TORTURERS?

I'm not saying everything they say is a lie...but it's like putting someone on trial for murder, them saying "I didn't do it" then you saying "oh, ok. cheerio".

Of course they are going to claim it saved the day. The question is, do we believe it?

End of the day, its simple (non-mystical) karma. If you go around treating people like shit, don't be surprised when people want to throw some if it back at you. You could just as easily pose the question "what if torturing people made terrorist scumbags go and blow up your family?" etc. etc.

[RobMoney$]

End of the day, its simple (non-mystical) karma. If you go around treating people like shit, don't be surprised when people want to throw some if it back at you. You could just as easily pose the question "what if torturing people made terrorist scumbags go and blow up your family?" etc. etc.


It's karma?...What's karma exactly?

I know you didn't just suggest al-queida was exacting some sort of karma for the treatment of their members who were detained in Gitmo?

PLEASE, expand on this because I don't want to misunderstand what you're trying to say.

[roosta]

It's karma?...What's karma exactly?

I know you didn't just suggest al-queida was exacting some sort of karma for the treatment of their members who were detained in Gitmo?

PLEASE, expand on this because I don't want to misunderstand what you're trying to say.

What I meant was that if you act in a certain way, you can expect a certain reaction.

I'm not for one second suggesting that a terrorist act is "deserved" due to prior events. Not at all. What I suggested was that a person may decide to go and join a terrorist organization due to the actions of a Government. It happened here in Ireland.

I guess what I was trying to say is, you can throw around hypothetical scenarios to try and excuse torture, but you can just as easily throw around a hypothetical scenario in which said torture, instead of saving lives, causes more death.

[Documad]

What I meant was that if you act in a certain way, you can expect a certain reaction.

I'm not for one second suggesting that a terrorist act is "deserved" due to prior events. Not at all. What I suggested was that a person may decide to go and join a terrorist organization due to the actions of a Government. It happened here in Ireland.

I guess what I was trying to say is, you can throw around hypothetical scenarios to try and excuse torture, but you can just as easily throw around a hypothetical scenario in which said torture, instead of saving lives, causes more death.

Yes, in addition to the IRA example, we have the issue regarding the safety of our soldiers. Do we really want to argue that it's okay for others to torture/kill our POWs?

The question about 24 -- the ticking time bomb is exposed because you torture the guy who knows -- that's never happened as far as I know. So I hate to base our justice system on that hypothetical. For years we've taken the opposite position -- that we allow the guilty to have a limited amount of rights because they protect the innocent as well as the guilty. The 24-like-argument could be used to justify anything. We could let our local police beat confessions out of suspect too. I'm frankly more likely to be killed by a local criminal than by an international terrorist.

[RobMoney$]

I follow you.

Forgive me though for not really having any sympathy whatsoever for known high-ranking terrorists (i.e. mass murderers) having a bucket of water dumped over their heads.

And let's remember who was attacked first. The reason they were being detained in Gitmo in the first place was because they decided to devise a plan to hijack several planes full of completely innocent people and crash them into several high profile buildings in America filled with even more completely innocent people at a strategically chosen time of day (9:10 am) that maximized the amount of people who would be inhabiting those buildings, on their way to work.

Perhaps if they didn't carry out that unthinkable act, they wouldn't have been the victim of a military force hellbent to prevent it from happening again.

[Bob]

Forgive me though for not really having any sympathy whatsoever for known high-ranking terrorists (i.e. mass murderers) having a bucket of water dumped over their heads.


i don't think this debate has ever been about sympathy :confused: it isn't about the people being tortured, it's about the people doing the torturing, and whether we should be the type of people who do that type of thing

[Documad]

If we could prove that those guys committed a crime I have no problem with us executing them, so long as we can give them process, etc. It's not about sympathy.

[RobMoney$]

i don't think this debate has ever been about sympathy :confused: it isn't about the people being tortured, it's about the people doing the torturing, and whether we should be the type of people who do that type of thing


Well, maybe it's just KARMA coming back at them.

"if you act in a certain way, you can expect a certain reaction." - Roosta

[RobMoney$]

If we could prove that those guys committed a crime I have no problem with us executing them, so long as we can give them process, etc. It's not about sympathy.

When did we start talking about executing them, I thought this was about water boarding?

Their guilt was never in question.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri never denied the fact that they themselves were the idea men behind the terrorist attacks they were accused of.
In fact, from what I have read, they were defiant and proud of the roles they played.

I don't think it would have been realistic to wait for them to go through a legal process to determine their guilt. Info about an imminent attack is kind of time sensitive.


If you want to discuss executing them, then of course we should allow them the charade of a trial.

[roosta]

Well, maybe it's just KARMA coming back at them.

"if you act in a certain way, you can expect a certain reaction." - Roosta


what's your point?

[Dorothy Wood]

Their guilt was never in question.



I doubt that. very much. with something that big, you think they just instantly figured out who was responsible?

we have laws in this country, not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent as documad mentioned. You can't just go around calling trials "charades" and torturing people to get information just because they aren't american. stop and think about that.

and think about the thousands of people that americans have killed and ask yourself how our presidents in charge during those times aren't considered mass murderers themselves. I mean, they approved it, they planned it. the H bomb, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, so on and so on.

people all over this world are dying all the time from terrorism. it isn't random. the victims are random, but the terrorists' plans are specific. they are reacting and expecting to get a reaction back.

in my opinion, this war is more senseless and destructive than what happened on 9/11.

[Documad]

So if our soldiers who are currently serving overseas are detained by an opposing faction, our soldiers can be tortured to obtain information regarding the US's plans? That's okay now?

It's going to be tough for us to criticize anyone else.

[RobMoney$]

I doubt that. very much. with something that big, you think they just instantly figured out who was responsible?

we have laws in this country, not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent as documad mentioned. You can't just go around calling trials "charades" and torturing people to get information just because they aren't american. stop and think about that.

and think about the thousands of people that americans have killed and ask yourself how our presidents in charge during those times aren't considered mass murderers themselves. I mean, they approved it, they planned it. the H bomb, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, so on and so on.

people all over this world are dying all the time from terrorism. it isn't random. the victims are random, but the terrorists' plans are specific. they are reacting and expecting to get a reaction back.

in my opinion, this war is more senseless and destructive than what happened on 9/11.


Dorothy, You're an idiot.
I seriously think you're just trying so hard to disagree with any point that I make for water boarding that you're not even aware of what you're saying anymore.

The 3 men I mentioned that were water boarded are directly responsible for implementing and planning terrorist attacks for Al-Qaeda, from the drawing board to completion. They were the masterminds.
Doubting that fact is like doubting Hitler was the leader of the third reich.


And calling presidents of the US "mass murderers" for declarations of war...WOW.
You do understand that when you kill the enemy in war, it's not a crime, right?
The H-Bomb was dropped in WWII (a war which we did not begin FYI) because the Japanese launched an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Preventing someone else's agression and fighting Hitler's tyranny.
We were in Vietnam to prevent the communist North from taking over the south. We were supposed to be there to help a nation unable to help itself.
Again, preventing someone else's agression. Fighting tyranny
We went to war with Iraq ultimately because Sadaam Hussein was a mass murder (a proven fact, he killed thousands of his own people) and needed to be removed from power.
Ok. we started this war. But again we were fighting tyranny.
Afghanistan? They're harboring Al-Qaeda. In fact it's Al-Qaeda's HQ.
And I've got news for you. We were making plans to go into Afghanistan to remove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban even before 9-11.
They're extremist radicals even in their own country.
And we all know Al-Qaeda attacked us first.
So again, were fighting tyranny.


Comparing war with an act of terrorism or mass murder is among one of the most stupid things I've ever read in this forum.


As for your statement that the war in Iraq is more senseless than 9-11,
...well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think that's a really sad thing to say. Also pretty uninformed.
When you consider that we, as a nation made the decision to go to Iraq. That means the President, Congress, and Senate all Ok'd it. Not to mention other nations such as UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, and everyone else in NATO also have supported us in the decision. It's not anywhere close to being an act of terrorism.

[kaiser soze]

Oh no!

That's not advanced interrogation methods, That's Terrorism!

It is not the soldiers fault that 100,000's of innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians have died because of a terrorist attack committed by some Saudi Arabians. The soldiers are there for peace! To fight Al Qaeda who were next to non-existent in Iraq prior to the war.

The enemy cannot torture the soldiers, but the soldiers can torture children. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm)

don't you know what is illegal in war and what isn't?! :rolleyes:

This is one of the reasons why I have been very against torture from the begining. It is opening a huge can of worms and those who pay will be the soldiers and citizens (not the military brass, politicians, or talking heads who support this shit)

[RobMoney$]

When you consider the fact that Afghanistan offered to bring in bin Laden to stand trial the day before we were to launch our attack against them, and we said sorry Charlie, not good enough. I'd say that evidence enough that they as a nation are harboring him.

Perhaps if the Taliban weren't the biggest cowards in the history of the planet and actually inhabited military bases and wore uniforms instead of trying to blend in with innocent civilians, then less innocents would be harmed. Clearly they don't care about their own civilians being harmed.


Also kaiser, just move to Afghanistan if you hate America so much.

[kaiser soze]

Also kaiser, just move to Afghanistan if you hate America so much.

funny thing is.....you're the one who supports the behavior and tactics that the enemy in Afghanistan also use

I have never condoned unchecked violence towards anyone...but you have

[RobMoney$]

Karma dude. Water boarding was simply karma. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

Karma dude. Water boarding was simply karma.

That is one way to look at it, but the direction the karma is flowing is still costing Americans lives, psychological trauma, physical harm and hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

[Dorothy Wood]

Dorothy, You're an idiot.
I seriously think you're just trying so hard to disagree with any point that I make for water boarding that you're not even aware of what you're saying anymore.

The 3 men I mentioned that were water boarded are directly responsible for implementing and planning terrorist attacks for Al-Qaeda, from the drawing board to completion. They were the masterminds.
Doubting that fact is like doubting Hitler was the leader of the third reich.


And calling presidents of the US "mass murderers" for declarations of war...WOW.
You do understand that when you kill the enemy in war, it's not a crime, right?
The H-Bomb was dropped in WWII (a war which we did not begin FYI) because the Japanese launched an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Preventing someone else's agression and fighting Hitler's tyranny.
We were in Vietnam to prevent the communist North from taking over the south. We were supposed to be there to help a nation unable to help itself.
Again, preventing someone else's agression. Fighting tyranny
We went to war with Iraq ultimately because Sadaam Hussein was a mass murder (a proven fact, he killed thousands of his own people) and needed to be removed from power.
Ok. we started this war. But again we were fighting tyranny.
Afghanistan? They're harboring Al-Qaeda. In fact it's Al-Qaeda's HQ.
And I've got news for you. We were making plans to go into Afghanistan to remove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban even before 9-11.
They're extremist radicals even in their own country.
And we all know Al-Qaeda attacked us first.
So again, were fighting tyranny.


Comparing war with an act of terrorism or mass murder is among one of the most stupid things I've ever read in this forum.


As for your statement that the war in Iraq is more senseless than 9-11,
...well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think that's a really sad thing to say. Also pretty uninformed.
When you consider that we, as a nation made the decision to go to Iraq. That means the President, Congress, and Senate all Ok'd it. Not to mention other nations such as UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, and everyone else in NATO also have supported us in the decision. It's not anywhere close to being an act of terrorism.



my point is that 9/11 wasn't random. it was a reaction to actions of the united states.

hundreds of thousands of iraqi people have died in this war. and I don't find that to be okay. I think it's fucking digusting and pointless. you can't claim to be fighting tyranny when our country is acting tyrannical.

and even if you don't give a shit about iraqis, the young men and women fighting for "freedom" are getting killed every day. and even more are being physically and emotionally damaged in ways that will affect them the rest of their lives. for what? nothing.

this all relates to my argument against waterboarding because it is about having certain standards that we as a country should adhere to. if we won't allow torture and terrorism against our own people, then we shouldn't be the perpetrators of torture and terrorism.

as to this:
You do understand that when you kill the enemy in war, it's not a crime, right?

I understand, but I don't know that I agree that it's not a crime. especially when the "enemy" includes innocent civilians.




you can pose all the scenerios you want, but the bottom line is that torture is wrong and we shouldn't do it.

[roosta]

Karma dude. Water boarding was simply karma. :rolleyes:

you keep bringing up that word that I used...what's the deal?

I never said it was "simply" karma, i said it was simple karma. cause and effect. your actions have consequences, that was my point. Karma (in Buddhism) means "action" and can be simplified as "if you do evil deeds, you can expect evil things to happen to you" (Similarly, if you do good deeds..). It is not so much about a moral weighing scale, rather common sense. If you go around dealing drugs, don't be surprised when someone puts a bullet in your head...

My point was that if you want to claim that torture saved lives, you can counter claim that torture endangers lives.

I'm not excusing terrorism because its a reaction to a State's actions, but I am saying that that is where terrorism comes from. They don't "hate freedom", they feel oppressed and decide to react.

We say this first hand in our own community in Ireland. It doesn't excuse terrorism, it explains it.

[RobMoney$]

you can pose all the scenerios you want, but the bottom line is that torture is wrong and we shouldn't do it.

Yeah, but I don't think I consider water boarding to be torture anymore.

[RobMoney$]

my point is that 9/11 wasn't random. it was a reaction to actions of the united states.


expand on this, grasshopper.

on second thought, don't.
I'm really not interested in hearing how everything is the US's fault, and how we somehow deserved 9-11.
Fuck You. Leave America and go join the fucking Taliban then.

[Dorothy Wood]

:rolleyes:

you've lost your damn mind, old man.

go back and read what roosta said, that's all I mean, cause and effect. if you think the united states' actions had nothing to with why we were attacked, you're living in a fantasy world.

scratch that "if", I'm actually quite certain that you live in a fantasy world.

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, and the problem I have with roosta & your opinion is that you're somehow accepting of a terrorist action that kills thousands as being a rational response to some misgiving by the US?

They are religious extremists who execute people for such things as trying to marry someone from a different religion or sect.
They're murderous animals.
Stop trying to make them rational people.

[Bob]

Yeah, but I don't think I consider water boarding to be torture anymore.

have you ever heard of anyone who's actually been waterboarded and come out of it saying "that sucked but i wouldn't call it torture"? it seems like everyone who tries it unanimously agrees that it's torture, even the people who didn't think so beforehand. i guess i'm wondering what you know that they don't

[roosta]

Yeah, and the problem I have with roosta & your opinion is that you're somehow accepting of a terrorist action that kills thousands as being a rational response to some misgiving by the US?

They are religious extremists who execute people for such things as trying to marry someone from a different religion or sect.
They're murderous animals.
Stop trying to make them rational people.

that's not what i was saying at all.

[Dorothy Wood]

Yeah, and the problem I have with roosta & your opinion is that you're somehow accepting of a terrorist action that kills thousands as being a rational response to some misgiving by the US?

They are religious extremists who execute people for such things as trying to marry someone from a different religion or sect.
They're murderous animals.
Stop trying to make them rational people.


neither of us used the word "rational". their actions are most definitely irrational, but they are still in reaction to things america has done. they didn't just get together one day because they were bored, and say, "oh, hmm, I want to murder a bunch of people, let's hatch a plan".


why are you getting so emotional about this? and why are you painting an entire race as extremists and animals? if they murder each other, what do you care? you can't claim to be upset about that, but then not be upset that this war has killed about a hundred thousand iraqi civilians.

what I mean by 9/11 making more sense than this war is that we retaliated against an entire country for the attack when that country had nothing to do with the attack. and that's fucking stupid.


also, way to flip flop on waterboarding.

[RobMoney$]

neither of us used the word "rational". their actions are most definitely irrational, but they are still in reaction to things america has done. they didn't just get together one day because they were bored, and say, "oh, hmm, I want to murder a bunch of people, let's hatch a plan".


They hate us because we're free. We represent a threat to their controlling ways. They hate us because we support jewish Israel, a race of people that they twist their holy book, the Qur'an, into telling them to hate.
That's our greatest crime against the Taliban before 9-11.

why are you getting so emotional about this?

How can you be so dismissive and uncaring about the terrorist attacks on 9-11?
If that isn't something to be emotional about than I don't know what is.

and why are you painting an entire race as extremists and animals?

When did we start talking about an entire race? I was talking about the 3 high ranking members of Al-Qaeda who were detained and waterboarded at Gitmo.
The Taliban or Al-Qaeda are not an entire race of people.
That's like calling White supremecists in america an entire race of people.
They're white, but they are far from representing all whites, right?

if they murder each other, what do you care? you can't claim to be upset about that, but then not be upset that this war has killed about a hundred thousand iraqi civilians.

Murdering a group of people based on race or religion is called genocide.
I care if genocide is being committed somewhere in the world, maybe you don't.
It's about the worst crime a nation can commit and it's what the Taliban have done in Afghanistan.
Civilians being accidently killed during a war is called unfortunate.
To compare the two is laughable.

what I mean by 9/11 making more sense than this war is that we retaliated against an entire country for the attack when that country had nothing to do with the attack. and that's fucking stupid.

Ok, it's clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm tired of educating you on the facts of basic historical events such as WWII and Vietnam. That's not why I'm here.
Go google "War in Afghanistan" or something and learn why we're there since you think Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11. Read what the relationship is between Bin Laden and Afghanistan for yourself.


also, way to flip flop on waterboarding.

Yeah, I figure it works well for Obama, why not get in on it.

[Dorothy Wood]

3,000 innocent people died on 9/11. approximately 100,000 innocent people have died in the iraq war.

I'd say that's a little bit more than unfortunate, wouldn't you?


I'm done with this conversation, when you start dropping "fighting tyranny" and "they hate our freedom", my face goes numb.

[Schmeltz]

They hate us because we're free.

I support the war in Afghanistan and I've said as much here before, many times, but silly crap like this just makes you look foolish, mang. So does replying to people with "YEAH WELL GO LIVE IN AFGHANISTAN TRAITOR."

Try a little harder.

[RobMoney$]

What do you want me to say when debating with someone who thinks we started WWII and that we're mass murderers because of casualties our enemies have suffered in wars?
I have to explain things like I'm talking to a child.

[kaiser soze]

Well you are a bit old

Anyways, it's funny how you use the childish GI.Joe-esque cowboys vs. indians, good guys vs. bad guys rhetoric

Life is not black and white - it is not just good guys on our side and bad guys on their side. The lack of empathy you have for any human life other than your own, your family, and I guess our citizens (minus the people who are beaten or killed by your beloved bad cops) proves how much you embrace absolutism which is for the most part a cognitive trait of a child.

go figure :rolleyes:

[Dorothy Wood]

What do you want me to say when debating with someone who thinks we started WWII and that we're mass murderers because of casualties our enemies have suffered in wars?
I have to explain things like I'm talking to a child.


I didn't say a god damn word about the U.S. starting WWII.

and civilians aren't enemies. I'm starting to think that deep down, you think war is about wiping out the enemy, whatever the cost. and that's not what our government claims to be our motivation. they tell us we're the police of the world and exert our force for supposed good.

but in my opinion the price is too high. and killing thousands of people in the name of "freedom" does more harm than good.


I honestly think you've spent so long thinking you know everything about everything, that you forgot to stop and take a look around and actually learn anything.

I'd rather be a child than a monster.

[Drederick Tatum]

They hate us because we're free.


thinking in slogans is completely counter-productive.

[roosta]

To quote David Cross:
I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer: yes.

[Schmeltz]

What do you want me to say when debating with someone who thinks we started WWII and that we're mass murderers because of casualties our enemies have suffered in wars?
I have to explain things like I'm talking to a child.

Aw, come on now. I think you're putting words in other people's mouths. For that matter I think the terms of this debate have begun to run away from everyone concerned, with very detrimental effects on the level of conversation. Perhaps we could at least try to return them to a more rational level?

I'll say it again: I support the war in Afghanistan. This is a war that needed to be fought twenty years ago, before the Afghan/Pakistani mujahidin (or however it's spelled these days) even had a chance to become the Taliban. But the reason for that has everything to do with what Dorothy and roosta are saying - it's called blowback, and even the CIA will admit that it's a lot more complicated than you're letting on.

When the USSR went into Afghanistan the American CIA and their stooges the Pakistani SIS threw unimaginable amounts of money and weaponry at these men with nothing more in mind than the defeat of the Soviet army - go and read anything Zbigniew Brzezinski has ever written or said about the 1980s in Afghanistan. The American governments who held power at the time - the Carter and Reagan administrations - were trying to create a Vietnam for the Soviet empire, to drain Soviet military power into an unwinnable political and cultural whirlwind. And they did it: the Russians lost. They poured men, money and materiel into a war that turned out to be more than they could handle, and the USSR collapsed half a decade later.

But what these American governments emphatically failed to do was to ensure that these events could proceed without consequences for the various actors involved. They created a monster that they could not control - the Taliban, the Students, the fanatic warriors who came out of the Pakistani madrassas to lay their lives down before the Soviet military monster and who turned their vicious, hollow ideology against the Americans when the Russians backed down. Do you really think that the Taliban simply came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the massive involvement of American governments in central Asia? As soon as the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan your countrymen followed suit, leaving Afghanistan to take care of itself, and concurrently left these fanatic militiamen to assert themselves atop an enormous swath of territory, at a horrible humanitarian cost for the regular people who live there, and ultimately at an equally destructive cost to your own country.

You can check all this out for yourself, and I know you're smart enough to figure it out. The fact is that the source of all this violence and hatred is a lot more complicated than some towelhead cavemen hating you for letting your wife wear a bikini. Like they give a shit. It has to do with entire ethno-cultural swaths of humanity coming to grips with each other, taking into account all of their respective ideologies and past interactions. I think this is what Dorothy and rooster are trying to say, although I don't think they make the point very well. It's all blowback - it's a consequential reaction to the foreign policies undertaken by successive generations of your country's government. And even if you didn't vote for them - even if you were just a kid when this was all going down, as I was - well, now you have to deal with the consequences. That's how history works.

[Dorothy Wood]

thanks schmeltz, you're better at explaining stuff than I am. (y)

[RobMoney$]

To quote David Cross:
I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer: yes.



Go back and read what I said. I said Israel.

[RobMoney$]

Aw, come on now. I think you're putting words in other people's mouths. For that matter I think the terms of this debate have begun to run away from everyone concerned, with very detrimental effects on the level of conversation. Perhaps we could at least try to return them to a more rational level?

I'll say it again: I support the war in Afghanistan. This is a war that needed to be fought twenty years ago, before the Afghan/Pakistani mujahidin (or however it's spelled these days) even had a chance to become the Taliban. But the reason for that has everything to do with what Dorothy and roosta are saying - it's called blowback, and even the CIA will admit that it's a lot more complicated than you're letting on.

When the USSR went into Afghanistan the American CIA and their stooges the Pakistani SIS threw unimaginable amounts of money and weaponry at these men with nothing more in mind than the defeat of the Soviet army - go and read anything Zbigniew Brzezinski has ever written or said about the 1980s in Afghanistan. The American governments who held power at the time - the Carter and Reagan administrations - were trying to create a Vietnam for the Soviet empire, to drain Soviet military power into an unwinnable political and cultural whirlwind. And they did it: the Russians lost. They poured men, money and materiel into a war that turned out to be more than they could handle, and the USSR collapsed half a decade later.

But what these American governments emphatically failed to do was to ensure that these events could proceed without consequences for the various actors involved. They created a monster that they could not control - the Taliban, the Students, the fanatic warriors who came out of the Pakistani madrassas to lay their lives down before the Soviet military monster and who turned their vicious, hollow ideology against the Americans when the Russians backed down. Do you really think that the Taliban simply came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the massive involvement of American governments in central Asia? As soon as the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan your countrymen followed suit, leaving Afghanistan to take care of itself, and concurrently left these fanatic militiamen to assert themselves atop an enormous swath of territory, at a horrible humanitarian cost for the regular people who live there, and ultimately at an equally destructive cost to your own country.

You can check all this out for yourself, and I know you're smart enough to figure it out. The fact is that the source of all this violence and hatred is a lot more complicated than some towelhead cavemen hating you for letting your wife wear a bikini. Like they give a shit. It has to do with entire ethno-cultural swaths of humanity coming to grips with each other, taking into account all of their respective ideologies and past interactions. I think this is what Dorothy and rooster are trying to say, although I don't think they make the point very well. It's all blowback - it's a consequential reaction to the foreign policies undertaken by successive generations of your country's government. And even if you didn't vote for them - even if you were just a kid when this was all going down, as I was - well, now you have to deal with the consequences. That's how history works.


Yes, I'm sure this is exactly what Dorothy was trying to say. :rolleyes:

While I appreciate the effort you put into this post and that I'm finally dealing with someone who's fluent in the basic facts and events of what's going on in Afghanistan, I don't need a history lesson.
I'm fully aware of our involvement in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I mean, I have seen Rambo III (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQjDvnPpCk&feature=related). :rolleyes:

[Dorothy Wood]

you're a first class asshole, rob. seriously. get a life.

[RobMoney$]

First class?

Thanks yo, I try to be the best at everything I do.

[DroppinScience]

Whoops! Turns out Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that he lied to his interrogators when he was waterboarded.

You sure Cheney was right about torture working?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia-detainee16-2009jun16,0,316330.story?track=rss

[RobMoney$]

You sure Cheney was right about torture working?


I assume you're talking to me.
Brett, show me where I said I believed anything Cheney said.

I'm not sure what the truth is,
I merely advocated for the release of all the memos so we can end this charade once and for all.

[DroppinScience]

Brett, show me where I said I believed anything Cheney said.


Well, here's what you said in your first post to the thread:

I'm starting to like Cheney a lot more than I did when he was in office. Which may not be saying much, but still.
I like the way the guy is standing up here. It would have been awfully easy to just stick to hunting with his friends.

I'm not sure how else to take this statement other than you essentially believing Cheney's assertion that torture/waterboarding works and the memos would prove this assertion. If you actually meant "I don't believe Cheney on this" well then you did a really poor job conveying your feelings. I take you at your word. It's not my fault if you don't know what words to use.

[DroppinScience]

Oh, and I missed something you also said in your very first post.


Currently, I beleive the following:
[...]
3. Perhaps when interrogating a suspect, other tactics didn't work, and perhaps after water boarding we gained valuable intelligence that helped avert an attack as Cheyney is contending.


Sounds to me like you're giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying you've now retracted this statement?

[RobMoney$]

I'm not sure how else to take this statement other than you essentially believing Cheney's assertion that torture/waterboarding works and the memos would prove this assertion. If you actually meant "I don't believe Cheney on this" well then you did a really poor job conveying your feelings. I take you at your word. It's not my fault if you don't know what words to use.

Sounds to me like you're giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt.

It's shit like this Brett, that made me suspect that you had special needs at one point in time.

Perhaps I am guilty of doing a poor job of conveying my opinions into text, or perhaps it's your reading comprehension that's the thing that is poor.


I said I admired the way he stood up and defended his administrations decisions.
Explain to me how you take that to mean that I'm 100% sold on what he says is in the memos, is actually in the memos?

Cheney says the memos will prove waterboarding worked and that info should be released to the public if Obama is going to start releasing classified info.
I agreed.
If what he's saying is true, he could be considered a hero by some, if it in fact saved innocent lives..
That's a big "If" tho.
I in no way said I believed everything Cheney said, only that if what he was contending was true then it should be made public.

[DroppinScience]

Perhaps I am guilty of doing a poor job of conveying my opinions into text, or perhaps it's your reading comprehension that's the thing that is poor.

If my reading comprehension is so poor, please do me one small favor: write sentences that actually make sense and adhere to the basic foundations of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. It hurts to read (and re-read) your posts. Help a special needs brotha out!

Anyways, let's take a look at what you've done. You post a thread titled "Cheney Calls Out Obama, Memos Show Enhanced Interrogation Worked" and go on to generally praise Cheney and his actions. When you get reply after reply with news items that basically show Cheney's claims are false, you back pedal and go: "Well, I guess we need to see the memos. Never said I agree with Cheney!"

More importantly, you sidestep the actual issues (always a classic tactic) and get bogged down with the small stuff. I just posted an L.A. Times story that says the 9/11 mastermind made stuff up while he was waterboarded. Thus showing that Cheney's assertions (and memos) do not back up reality in any way. This is a pretty explosive charge. The only thing you can do is go: "I... I never said I believed in Cheney! Waaaaaaahhh!" You can do better than that.

[RobMoney$]

Yes, I read the story you linked.
Hilarious.

NOW we're supposed to believe what he says!

[RobMoney$]

Anyways, let's take a look at what you've done. You post a thread titled "Cheney Calls Out Obama, Memos Show Enhanced Interrogation Worked" and go on to generally praise Cheney and his actions. When you get reply after reply with news items that basically show Cheney's claims are false, you back pedal and go: "Well, I guess we need to see the memos. Never said I agree with Cheney!"


You keep implying I've somehow changed my stance on Cheney.
I haven't. There's no back peddling at all actually.
I'll still praise him for standing up for his administration and answering his critics.
And if the memos are made public and prove him to be a liar, I'll call him a liar.
And if they prove him to be truthful then so be it.
The fact that you put any credibility into anything Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says just reinforces my contention that you're naive.

Personally I'm not sure what to believe at this point, which is why I agree with Cheney on releasing all the info, not just the things that support his critics.

[DroppinScience]

The fact that you put any credibility into anything Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says just reinforces my contention that you're naive.

Ditto for Dick Cheney then. Your favorite VP has been trying to tell us that his waterboarding techniques got the right information.

[RobMoney$]

Ditto for Dick Cheney then. Your favorite VP has been trying to tell us that his waterboarding techniques got the right information.


I thought groundhog's day was in February?

I give up Brett.
How about I just give you my password to my account here and you can enter my replies on your own since you like putting words in my mouth soo much?