Newsmax: Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source

[Predicto]

Parse every statement people. Spin spin spin. Parse some more. Rationalize away the potentially awkward stuff, highlight the potentially good stuff. Spin, and attack the other side for spinning.

You still don't know the answer, but you may be scoring points.

(and yes, this applies to my side as well).

[mardi gras skin]

Parse every statement people. Spin spin spin. Parse some more. Rationalize away the potentially awkward stuff, highlight the potentially good stuff. Spin, and attack the other side for spinning.

You still don't know the answer, but you may be scoring points.

(and yes, this applies to my side as well).

In this case, the spin is coming from your side.

[NavyDave]

The Genova convention does not apply to terrorists / enemy combatants since they are not uniformed or representing a nation.

The cat in the tub video was to imply that if this puddy (change the DD to SS) survived getting a little wet why are there so many other Meow types sniveling that a bad guy, who gleefully posted a video of him beheading a guy (cough PEARL) with a not so sharp blade, experienced momentary discomfort before going back to him dorm room with the 40 inch flat screen tv and better healthcare than some these socalled champions for social justice receive.

I still get the impression that liberal apologists for the Islamic terrorists and left wing extremists will continue to go out of their way to use moral relativism when it comes to saying boiling people in acid, gutting them, setting them on fire, slicing off peoples noses equates to the same thing as THREE high interest individuals, with a treasure trove of information that prevented more atrocities,* temporarily experiencing discomfort.

*--- if you do not count instances like the Ft Hood Massacre by the muslim officer who shouted allah ack-bar during the murder spree.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The Genova convention does not apply to terrorists / enemy combatants since they are not uniformed or representing a nation.

The cat in the tub video was to imply that if this puddy (change the DD to SS) survived getting a little wet why are there so many other Meow types sniveling that a bad guy, who gleefully posted a video of him beheading a guy (cough PEARL) with a not so sharp blade, experienced momentary discomfort before going back to him dorm room with the 40 inch flat screen tv and better healthcare than some these socalled champions for social justice receive.

I still get the impression that liberal apologists for the Islamic terrorists and left wing extremists will continue to go out of their way to use moral relativism when it comes to saying boiling people in acid, gutting them, setting them on fire, slicing off peoples noses equates to the same thing as THREE high interest individuals, with a treasure trove of information that prevented more atrocities,* temporarily experiencing discomfort.

*--- if you do not count instances like the Ft Hood Massacre by the muslim officer who shouted allah ack-bar during the murder spree.

Gawd that's some of the most awful rationalizations that I've ever heard, seriously it's almost comical, I seriously can't tell whether you're trying to imitate a cartoon or if your whole thing was cut and pasted from a Colbert Report opening monologue.

[Madison Redskin]

.I still get the impression that liberal apologists for the Islamic terrorists and left wing extremists will continue to go out of their way to use moral relativism when it comes to saying boiling people in acid, gutting them, setting them on fire, slicing off peoples noses equates to the same thing as THREE high interest individuals, with a treasure trove of information that prevented more atrocities,* temporarily experiencing discomfort.

Actually, ND, I think the moral relativists would argue that we shouldn't judge people who torture, including U.S. officials or agents. The moral absolutists would argue that torture is wrong under any circumstances. So, actually, you are closer to a moral relativist than a moral absolutist. Ya closet liberal.

[NavyDave]

WWJWB? Who would Jesus waterboard?

Why would he need to do that when I would do it in a heartbeat so Jesus could shoulder liberal shortcomings and inconveniences that most people would call SINS?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why would he need to do that when I would do it in a heartbeat so Jesus could shoulder liberal shortcomings and inconveniences that most people would call SINS?

So you'll sin so Jesus won't have to...gotcha.

[Rocky21]

The Genova convention does not apply to terrorists / enemy combatants since they are not uniformed or representing a nation.

And the streak of 100+ consecutive posts with the word liberal in it continues for Navy Dave. You sound like a real expert on "The Genova convention". You know who disagrees with you about it applying to enemy combatants? The Supreme Court for one.

[Predicto]

In this case, the spin is coming from your side.

It is coming from both sides. We are talking about top secret stuff and we just don't know yet. Both sides are grasping at straws to make their side look better.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 09:46 AM ----------

And the streak of 100+ consecutive posts with the word liberal in it continues for Navy Dave. You sound like a real expert on "The Genova convention". You know who disagrees with you about it applying to enemy combatants? The Supreme Court for one.

But he only includes the word "sniveling" in every other post now, so the therapy is showing some progress.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You know who disagrees with you about it applying to enemy combatants? The Supreme Court for one.

Bunch of liberal wussies! They hate America! They want to side with terrorists. :doh:

[mardi gras skin]

It is coming from both sides. We are talking about top secret stuff and we just don't know yet. Both sides are grasping at straws to make their side look better.

But we do know what Rumsfield said. Whether or not he's lying about the source of the information, we know that the article Destino posted is wrong. Rumsfeld never said "There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source." He never even implied. But based on that factual error, others on the left are now saying that Rumsfeld is contradicting himself when he claims that the information did come from waterboarded detainees. In fact, he never said the otherwise.

Whether or not Rumsfeld knows the source of the information is a different issue. We do know that Rumsfeld did not say what the article claims.

[Predicto]

But we do know what Rumsfield said. Whether or not he's lying about the source of the information, we know that the article Destino posted is wrong. Rumsfeld never said "There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source." He never even implied. But based on that factual error, others on the left are now saying that Rumsfeld is contradicting himself when he claims that the information did come from waterboarded detainees. In fact, he never said the otherwise.

Whether or not Rumsfeld knows the source of the information is a different issue. We do know that Rumsfeld did not say what the article claims.

I'll buy that. That's my point. The same is true for what Panetta said, or didn't say. It can be parsed and massaged and understood to mean a lot of different things, and everyone on both sides is parsing and massaging and spinning like crazy --- while blaming the other guys for parsing, massaging and spinning.

This is classic fog of war stuff. No one really knows the truth, and we won't know for years.

[IHOPSkins]

......The Left wingers are going to be mad if they watch the first ten minutes of O'Reilly....

Or read Wikileaks

WikiLeaks bolsters argument for ‘enhanced’ interrogation tactics

Cables show U.S. collected details of plots, terrorists

“Without this program, we would not have gone nearly 10 years without another catastrophic attack on the homeland. This is quite possibly the most important, and most successful, intelligence program in modern times. But instead of medals, the people behind this program have been given subpoenas.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/19/wikileaks-bolsters-argument-for-enhanced-interroga/

[Jumbo]

Man up liberals, throw away your wuss pills, demand that Obamacare pays for your cajones and backbone implants as well as embrace your inner Jack Bauer.

Or, man up conservatives, throw away your "Thinking for Dummies" guide, demand they change your demographic from being close minded, bigoted, homophobic, hypocritical, brain-dead, religiosity-whacked sheeple herded by the "full retard" cadre of conservative media, and having a predilection for being secretly gay even whole railing against gaydom.

After all, Bauer was none of those things. He was a character who personified intelligence, awareness, gathering accurate data, applying high-level critical thinking and analytical skills, competent judging of character, and holding firmly onto personal integrity while abiding by principle over any other authority at all costs...which means he obviously wasn't a member of today's conservatives.

:

[PeterMP]

Or read Wikileaks

WikiLeaks bolsters argument for ‘enhanced’ interrogation tactics

Cables show U.S. collected details of plots, terrorists

“Without this program, we would not have gone nearly 10 years without another catastrophic attack on the homeland. This is quite possibly the most important, and most successful, intelligence program in modern times. But instead of medals, the people behind this program have been given subpoenas.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/19/wikileaks-bolsters-argument-for-enhanced-interroga/

"“The WikiLeaks documents provide still additional evidence that intelligence gained from CIA detainees not only helped lead us to Osama bin Laden, it helped us disrupt a number of follow-on attacks that had been set in motion after 9/11,” said Marc Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter."

No claim that enhanced interrogation techniques were required.

"In the hunt for bin Laden, the files show al-Libi provided critical information. The CIA used so-called enhanced-interrogation techniques on al-Libi but did not subject him to waterboarding — the most controversial of techniques, which also included stress positions, slapping, shaking and dousing captives with cold water."

This appears to be the most relevant piece of information. I'd be curious as to what they did to him. They didn't water board him. Does this mean that people will stop defending water boarding?

[IHOPSkins]

........No claim that enhanced interrogation techniques were required......

Asked whether he would deny that waterboarding produced critical information on bin Laden, Mr. Panetta answered said he would not.

“No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees,” he said.

“But I’m also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going be an open question.”

Mr. Panetta opposed Mr. Holder’s decision to open a criminal investigation into the CIA interrogators.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/19/wikileaks-bolsters-argument-for-enhanced-interroga/?page=3

In a climate where a flip flopping administration is actively investigating the interrogators....you think we should see the specific "waterboarding = specific information"?....gift to the Terrorists?

Theres many good reasons why Panetta did not suppoprt the investigation

[Califan007 The Constipated]

What if he says,

"Hi, I'm Donald Rumsfeld."

Would that be believable?

Oooh, good one lol :applause:...

If he says this and you don't believe him, that means you don't believe he's really Rumsfeld, which means you should NOT have a reason to doubt him automatically.

If you DO believe him when he says he's Rumsfeld, that means the comment of "I wouldn't believe a ****ing thing Rumsfeld says" is false.

[mardi gras skin]

This appears to be the most relevant piece of information. I'd be curious as to what they did to him. They didn't water board him. Does this mean that people will stop defending water boarding?

Does this mean you do support the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used on al-Libi?

[PeterMP]

Does this mean you do support the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used on al-Libi?

I'm not sure because I don't know what "enhanced interrogation" techniques were used.

Let's face it, even our police against US citizens use certain stress and psychological tools against people when questioning them about crimes, but we don't consider those torture.

Where is the line? What did they do?

Does this mean you support not water boarding people?

[mardi gras skin]

Does this mean you support not water boarding people?

Correct. As I stated earlier in this thread, I do not support waterboarding or any other type of "enhanced interrogation"...a euphemism for torture. The broad negative consequences outweigh the benefits an interrogator gains with a specific subject.

Even if it means we wouldn't have gotten bin Laden, I would rather we didn't torture. However, I acknowledge that without the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques, bin Laden would almost certainly be alive and well today.

[Jumbo]

I support water boarding, specifically, if there is solid and reasonable (to any normal standard) to do so when lives on our side,or our allies, or any non-combatants, may be saved. The obvious problem with supporting such harsh techniques is trusting in the principles, integrity, and competency of the judgements of the people making the decisions. That level of trust of such "deciders" is understandably questionable for many and that's what's makes it so tricky as a policy. I say "yes" but I have concerns. I'm just willing to live with them for the sake of what may be gained.

[PeterMP]

Correct. As I stated earlier in this thread, I do not support waterboarding or any other type of "enhanced interrogation"...a euphemism for torture. The broad negative consequences outweigh the benefits an interrogator gains with a specific subject.

Even if it means we wouldn't have gotten bin Laden, I would rather we didn't torture. However, I acknowledge that without the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques, bin Laden would almost certainly be alive and well today.

I'm actually suspiscious of the use of the term here. I wonder if this isn't a "reclassification" of the term to be able to say something that somebody gave us required the use of "enhanced interrogation".

KSM, who we did waterboard, was asked about the person that lead us to bin Laden and appearantly told investigators that he had retired, which was clearly a lie.

I'm wondering if "enhanced interrogation" in this case hasn't been redefined as questioning him for several hours under bright/hot lights.

[mardi gras skin]

I support water boarding, specifically, if there is solid and reasonable (to any normal standard) to do so when lives on our side,or our allies, or any non-combatants, may be saved.

I'm not sure how that would work. Can you give an example?

For instance, after bin Laden blew up a chunk of New York, I think it was reasonable to assume everyone in America was at risk and every high level terrorist captured could give up information that could keep us safe. But I don't think you supported Bush era waterboarding did you? I can't remember.

---------- Post added May-21st-2011 at 03:27 PM ----------

I'm actually suspiscious of the use of the term here. I wonder if this isn't a "reclassification" of the term to be able to say something that somebody gave us required the use of "enhanced interrogation".

But we do know that waterboarding was only the most famous of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used that are now considered torture and no longer used. Just because we didn't waterboard him doesn't mean we didn't torture him.

Just to clarify, though, does your position change based on the efficacy of techniques used? If it were proven to you that waterboarding, temperature extremes or other harsh tactics that are now banned lead to the capture of bin Laden, would you accept their use?

To me, their efficacy isn't the issue. I'm fairly confident that the more tools you give an interrogator, the more effective he'll be. But there are restraints we place on ourselves, not to make us safer, but to make us more human.

[Jumbo]

I'm not sure how that would work. Can you give an example?

For instance, after bin Laden blew up a chunk of New York, I think it was reasonable to assume everyone in America was at risk and every high level terrorist captured could give up information that could keep us safe. But I don't think you supported Bush era waterboarding did you? I can't remember.

I have long (going back to Viet Nam era) held a troubled but consistent position that some things we do are sad, ugly, and quite open to challenge on more than one level, and yet I can accept them (up to a point) in service of the proverbial "greater good." And yes I know what that is saying, in broader fashion.

The obvious short-falls of any moral/ethical position that isn't lived as a black or white absolute (humanly impossible) is that "where do you draw the line" deal or to what degree do you compromise yourself and under what circumstance for what motives.

That's what makes all this so hairy for thinking people of conscience and principle in this world. As to "how it works", the ideal hope I inferred in my first post is that those in the positions of making the call are professional and skilled enough to be sure that the gains and the subject are important enough to validly justify compromising the standards we all would be more comfortable keeping "pure."

[mardi gras skin]

Jumbo, you are the most nuanced 11 year old I've ever interacted with.

As to "how it works", the ideal hope I inferred in my first post is that those in the positions of making the call are professional and skilled enough to be sure that the gains and the subject are important enough to validly justify compromising the standards we all would be more comfortable keeping "pure."

Whichever party he comes from, nearly half of our population will prejudge that our president and his administration are not qualified to make those calls. If the enhanced techniques prove ineffective, the majority will turn against him. In the end, it all comes back to efficacy.