Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WP: 2,688 Days


Ax

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html?sub=AR

As the new president receives his intelligence briefings, certain facts must now be apparent: Al-Qaeda is actively working to attack our country again. And the policies and institutions that George W. Bush put in place to stop this are succeeding. During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Consider, for example, the CIA program that Bush created to detain and question senior leaders captured in the war on terror. Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk -- until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks -- including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

For all the talk about how smart President Obama is, I hope he will use every tool available to gain information needed to protect the country. Call it "enhanced interrogation", or "torture", or whatever the hell you wish. I don't care if we ever know he uses it, that's up to him. Whether he'll step up and take responsiblity for it's use, critics be damned, or not, would tell us more about the guy. But, in the end, I just hope he'll do what is necessary to get the information needed, by any means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like he's naive enough to weaken the nation by handcuffing the CIA and the NSA. This is such a pity after all the work that has been done in the past 6 years. Ask yourself a simple question: WHAT IS THE MOST VALUABLE COMMODITY IN THE WORLD? ANSWER - INFORMATION. History has shown that there is only 1 way to deal with MUSLIM TERRORISTS. I still remember the Munich Summer Olympic Games in 1972 and the murdered athletes from Israel. Yeah, I guess that was Bush and Cheney's fault too, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my feeling about torture. If you use it the need for info ought to be dire and immediate, you better be damn sure that the guy you're torturing is guilty and is a terrorist/in league with them, and that I (the public) don't find out that you are engaging in torture.

Torture is probably useful in very rare cases. Its general efficasy is said to be not very good, but no tool should be thrown out. Still, torture should allowed when no other method is available and the time is limited, but I do think for the sake of our self image and world perception that if it is used no one knows about it except our intel folks and leaders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. But do you agree with his premise, or not?

(As in, using the tools available)

Not at all.

Bush didn't keep us safe, he single handedly got 4000 Americans killed. His reaction to 9/11 was worse than 9/11 itself in terms of human life.

Torture doesn't prevent terrorist attacks or get reliable/actionable intelligence.

waterboarding is torture

Terrorist attacks are not the fault of the President. There is absolutely nothing that can stop terrorists from coming to the USA legally, buying a bunch of guns and shooting up a bunch of shopping malls. If they did this, the fault lies solely with the people who perpetrated the crime, the people who assisted them, and the people who knew about it and said nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torture doesn't prevent terrorist attacks or get reliable/actionable intelligence.

So do you believe the part in the article where he stated it did exactly that, which I believe has been confirmed, was a lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Torture doesn't prevent terrorist attacks or get reliable/actionable intelligence.

waterboarding is torture

Terrorist attacks are not the fault of the President. There is absolutely nothing that can stop terrorists from coming to the USA legally, buying a bunch of guns and shooting up a bunch of shopping malls. If they did this, the fault lies solely with the people who perpetrated the crime, the people who assisted them, and the people who knew about it and said nothing.

So, if a terrorist was captured and "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used that resulted in the apprehension of the "legal" terrorists before they went to the shopping malls, you still wouldn't see any jusification for it?
Link to post
Share on other sites

These people hate America. I just don't understand how "torture" can be seen as something not beneficial.

I mean, they are just going to tell us any information we need, right? Why the hell would they do that without some coercion? They hate us...is that not being understood??

Link to post
Share on other sites
So do you believe the part in the article where he stated it did exactly that, which I believe has been confirmed, was a lie?

I'll believe it when it is proven to me. I'm not going to just take the word of a Bush appointee whose argument otherwise has no integrity.

The bar is very high. Not only do they have to prove beyond a doubt that torture single-handedly prevented another 9/11, they have to prove that the attack was viable and likely and that the information could not have been discovered through other methods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll believe it when it is proven to me. I'm not going to just take the word of a Bush appointee whose argument otherwise has no integrity.

Well, I forget the guy's name who testified before some committee saying that they did, in fact, gain information that helped prevent attacks. Both hear, and abroad.

I also understand you have a big, "Bush Is The Devil" feel to your posts.

So then, if President Obama ever feels it necessary to use "torture" to gain information, would you support that decision?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes, the "rule of law" conservatives show their true colors. Like the Joker said, once you apply a little bit of pressure to them, they crack like weenies and throw their principles right out the window.

Nice partisan jab.:notworthy

Now, I'll ask you the same question.

If President Obama ever feels it necessary to use "torture" to gain information, would you support that decision?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all.

Bush didn't keep us safe, he single handedly got 4000 Americans killed. His reaction to 9/11 was worse than 9/11 itself in terms of human life.

Torture doesn't prevent terrorist attacks or get reliable/actionable intelligence.

waterboarding is torture

Terrorist attacks are not the fault of the President. There is absolutely nothing that can stop terrorists from coming to the USA legally, buying a bunch of guns and shooting up a bunch of shopping malls. If they did this, the fault lies solely with the people who perpetrated the crime, the people who assisted them, and the people who knew about it and said nothing.

If this gets me banned so be it! You are an absolute Idiot. Why is it OK for Americans to be tortured for simply getting caught, but when we point at the dongs and laugh all of our peace, love and dumbasses get upset. Their human rights are being violated. **** their humanj rights. You need to learn and learn fast. Love doesn't rule the world. Animals rule the world and the hardest, coldest, most determined will win the world. You need to get your head out of your ***. There are no gum drop rivers and candy smiles. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I can not believe what I just read. :doh: God I wish you could be deported for treason. In some countries you'd hung for your words like that. **** ***!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I forget the guy's name who testified before some committee saying that they did, in fact, gain information that helped prevent attacks. Both hear, and abroad.

I don't doubt that sombody testified to that. But for me the bar is a little higher than some guy said so. I want to see all the facts of the case.

I also understand you have a big, "Bush Is The Devil" feel to your posts.

So then, if President Obama ever feels it necessary to use "torture" to gain information, would you support that decision

Hell no. That would be very discouraging. I agree with Obama a lot but not on everything. IMO, he should have voted against the bill that gave the telecom companies immunity for the crimes they may have committed at the behest of the Whitehouse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If this gets me banned so be it! You are an absolute Idiot. Why is it OK for Americans to be tortured for simply getting caught, but when we point at the dongs and laugh all of our peace, love and dumbasses get upset. Their human rights are being violated. **** their humanj rights. You need to learn and learn fast. Love doesn't rule the world. Animals rule the world and the hardest, coldest, most determined will win the world. You need to get your head out of your ***. There are no gum drop rivers and candy smiles. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I can not believe what I just read. :doh: God I wish you could be deported for treason. In some countries you'd hung for your words like that. **** ***!

lol Why does this not bother me one bit? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
These people hate America. I just don't understand how "torture" can be seen as something not beneficial.

I mean, they are just going to tell us any information we need, right? Why the hell would they do that without some coercion? They hate us...is that not being understood??

No, they don't. Most of the low-level henchmen we captured - and, yes, we were torturing a lot of those - are coerced into doing something for a terrorist group via Mafia-esque threats. The terrorist group threatens to kill their family, for example, unless they make several suicide vests a week. So they do it, of course. When we capture them, if we convince them that we can actually help them, they open up big time.

This isn't me making up some theory. This is the direct explanation from an Air Force interrogator who spent several years in Iraq. Check the Amazon link in my post above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my feeling about torture. If you use it the need for info ought to be dire and immediate, you better be damn sure that the guy you're torturing is guilty and is a terrorist/in league with them, and that I (the public) don't find out that you are engaging in torture.

Torture is probably useful in very rare cases. Its general efficasy is said to be not very good, but no tool should be thrown out. Still, torture should allowed when no other method is available and the time is limited, but I do think for the sake of our self image and world perception that if it is used no one knows about it except our intel folks and leaders.

1) The word "torture" was only used by people on the left. Now that Obama is President, I'm pretty sure he will be smart enough not to change the techniques used. HOWEVER, the word "torture" will suddenly disappear from everyone's vocabulary.

2) I think the moves by Obama on Guantanamo/Rendition and the CIA are mostly for show... In a few weeks, this will be forgotten and nobody will bring up Guantanamo or the CIA again and Obama will wisely let the issue go. The Democrats don't want to be blamed if an attack happens, and I have a feeling that the Democrats will feign left-wing policies while privately keeping traditional Republican policies and even strengthening them. The Democrats have the advantage now of not having left-wingers criticizing their every hawkish move. When your a Republican, you have to fight terrorism and the political squeaky wheel in this country... When you are a Democrat, you only have to fight terrorism, and if they don't do that and fall on their ass (or surrender to their own special interests) it will doom them for at least another decade. Nobody wants this to happen... Not even Republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they don't. Most of the low-level henchmen we captured - and, yes, we were torturing a lot of those - are coerced into doing something for a terrorist group via Mafia-esque threats. The terrorist group threatens to kill their family, for example, unless they make several suicide vests a week. So they do it, of course. When we capture them, if we convince them that we can actually help them, they open up big time.

This isn't me making up some theory. This is the direct explanation from an Air Force interrogator who spent several years in Iraq. Check the Amazon link in my post above.

I understand what you are saying, but when they won't open up? Also, most were forced to serve, not all. There are still many that hate us and would kill any innocent American given the opportunity.

Capt Rich stated it perfectly and when it comes to the safety of the American public, I don't care what we have to do to get the information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you are saying, but when they won't open up? Also, most were forced to serve, not all. There are still many that hate us and would kill any innocent American given the opportunity.

Capt Rich stated it perfectly and when it comes to the safety of the American public, I don't care what we have to do to get the information.

Most of the reports are that waterboarding and torture did NOT get good intelligence, and that it was only after we stopped torturing and started "buddying up" to them that started to open to us.

The idea that torture works is a false premise. The use of torture can actually cause you to LOSE good intelligence. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2008/alert/313/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoot,

I don't totally disagree, but I do think the threshold issue is important. If you interrogate/torture/used enhanced techniques on someone innocent it is appalling. More, to what level do we need to climb to warrant torture.

Should kidnappers be tortured (if the kid's still out there... maybe)

Should gang members be tortured (gets more gray)

Should prisoners of war be tortured (to me, it depends what they are doing)

Should rapists and child molesters be tortured (maybe, but it has nothing to do with getting info... just revenge)

Should spies be tortured (again, it's a maybe)

Should innocents who happen to be in the wrong place be tortured.

I think the degree of danger and the degree of certainty we have of their guilt AND their having intel we need has to factor in. By the time you do all the factoring very, very few would qualify in my book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So do you believe the part in the article where he stated it did exactly that, which I believe has been confirmed, was a lie?
I'll believe it when it is proven to me. I'm not going to just take the word of a Bush appointee whose argument otherwise has no integrity.

The bar is very high. Not only do they have to prove beyond a doubt that torture single-handedly prevented another 9/11, they have to prove that the attack was viable and likely and that the information could not have been discovered through other methods.

Being that the documents are classified, and some videotape footage was actually destroyed under Hayden of the CIA, you will not get that answer, so Midnight Judges is very well insulated. His argument is one that cannot fail, because we will never know if other interrogation techniques would have worked. He's arguing events that never happened.

Here's what we do know about waterboarding, anyway.

1) The CIA has admitted to using it on three individuals. (Keep in mind that the US military has classified waterboarding as torture since the Spanish-American War, so everyone knew what it was)

a) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;

B) Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qaeda member and Osama bin Laden associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002 and

c) a third detainee who has not been publicly identified.

2) We have no information about the interrogation techniques used on Abu Zubaida in the Spring of 2002, only that he was uncooperative. We do have information outlining the interrogation techniques starting in Sept 2002. Now they started using "harsh" interrogation techniques in the spring, we just don't know the details. We know for certain that waterboarding was used starting in Sept. of 2002. Did the harsh techniques work? Well, yes. Would other methods have worked as well? We will never know. They moved pretty quickly to the harsh techniques.

This wasn't that far removed from 9/11/2001, so you can understand why the administration would be inclined to take the advice of the CIA. The thing is, there was no moral compass with this. They knew torture was wrong, but they decided the ends justified the means. That is the real failure of leadership, in my mind, by President Bush. He was convinced to do something he knew was wrong by his advisers.

Hubbs, you are talking about different events. Alexander arrived in Iraq in 2006. Waterboarding had long since been abandoned by the CIA. The original article states that we got information directly from waterboarding techniques, which we did. Could it have been oobtained other ways? Possibly. Alexanders accounts outline some of those ways, but it doesn't change the fact that we did get actionable information from torture techniques.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...