Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[chucky2]

I would say anyone wishing to harm others volunteers to be at the mercy of those others if apprehended...whatever that mercy is.

If you want to play with the big boys (hijack civilian airliners and fly them into buildings full of civilians), then you get to get slapped around like the big boys (medically supervised waterboarding...not the same as chopping off peoples heads, but, stressful none-the-less).

Don't want to get potentially waterboarded?

Fine.

Don't do bad sh1t.

Chuck

P.S. This demanding of proof that waterboarding doesn't work is realistically absurd. What Leadership official in their right mind is going to produce the information to the public that will reveal to those against us a.) how much we know and by virtue of a, b.) how effective waterboarding truly is? That would be f*cktard type smart. Cheney knows this...he's calling the Dem's bluff on this, knowing that if the waterboarding memo's truly blow up, having the information obtained by said practice "leak" is likely to happen also....and since he knows what the true extent of that information is, he knows he's holding the trump card. Delusional 'Hague', 'stinking thinking', 'Dem's are so awesome I want to suck them forever', and ' :lips: my @ss' comments aside, at the end of the day, Obama isn't going to let himself be made to look for a F'ing retard when it comes to light that yes indeedy, waterboarding makes hardened true believer terrorists who think your p*ssy interrogators are joke drop their c*cksure attitude quickly....especially when said terrorists murdered 3000 of the civilians he's now sworn to protect. Step back into the Real World now people....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Claiming that waterboarding is always torture is no different than claiming killing is always murder. It's not. The law makes distinctions, just like the law is used to make distinctions about murder, it can also be used to make distinctions about waterboarding.

No, killing isn't always murder, because killing is a verb that can be accomplished innumerable ways. Slicing someone with a scalpel can either be assault with a deadly weapon, or it can be a doctor performing an operation. In other words, context matters.

No, waterboarding isn't always torture. A journalist volunteering to get waterboarded to see what it's like is not being tortured because it's not against his will, is being done at his behest, and the purpose is not to scare him into giving up information. Thus, in this context it is not torture.

But please tell me how you waterboard someone in the context of extracting information out of them and have it not be torture?

To understand how it isn't torture you actually have to refer to the legal definition of torture for US Code, which I have done a number of times in here. It's the same way the killing isn't always murder. The specifics of HOW IT IS DONE determines the legality or illegality.

Your contention that using it to extract information from someone automatically makes it torture is specious reasoning, at best. There's nothing that substantiates the pov.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, it can be argued against. I just didn't feel like wading through the number of specious and speculatory statements that were made in that post as many of them had already been presented in one form or another in here.

If you want an example:

So if we torture 100 people and 5 of them give us good information that does saves lives does that justify it? Does that justify the innocents that are tortured? The very same principles and liberties that we claim our troops are defending with their lives must be lived up to if they mean anything at all. We can't commit the same acts and justify them with rhetoric about being the good guys.

Where does the bolded part come from? Who is claiming innocents should be tortured?

If the CIA were just using waterboarding willy-nilly, that might be a valid point. They didn't. Its use was limited to a very few high-profile terrorists that everyone in here knows weren't innocent. So why introduce such a glaring red herring into the argument? There's plenty more, but let's not pretend that BMW540I6speed's little dissertation is bulletproof. It's not by any means.

And you know that only detainee's that may have been tortured were guilty and actually had useable intelligence how?. Because Dick Cheney told you so. If you accept it is only 14 instances, you 1) accept that we have admitted to every act we committed and 2) accept only the narrowest definition of torture and 3) limit it to only Guatanamo. Given the number of prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib and other locations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a less (arbitrarily) restricted definition of torture, combined with the fact that there are probably incidents that contain information we still do not want released.

And if you torture you will inevitably torture an innocent person. A person that doesn't even have the answers you want, nothing they can say or do to make you stop drowning them, beating them, letting dogs bite them. "I don't know anything!" Yeah right, they all say that, wrap the plastic around his mouth again and refill the bucket. How many people can you do this to for the vague possibility of 'information' somewhere along the way?

Speaking of specious and speculatory statements that had already been presented in one form or another in here. All you seem to bring to the table is "waterboarding isnt torture",
"Your defending KSM and other terrorists give em hugs & kisses", "The left this, the left that". Whats your reaction to Cheney wanting these techniques to go public?. Do you agree with him?. You responded to me in the other thread and I quote:

Releasing these memos has effectively neutered our use of interrogation techniques now. Congrats. Those who pushed to have these memos placed in the public eye better pray this doesn't come back to bite them in the ass further down the road. There'll be an entirely new shitstorm if that happens.

So now Cheney wants more info. released?, WTF. And for the record. If you read my post in the other thread I said I could care less of the well being of mass murdering criminals like KSM or the techniques themselves. I am more concerened about the LEGALITY aspects of how the that administration ran around ignoring rule of law. And the effect on future generations when they learn in history books the the USA & Stalin (who basically invented waterboarding for use in his gulags) are on the same page.

Also, Just showing that there was some success is not enough. You also need to show all the failures of information that we went chasing after because the torture victim lied to stop the torture. Then we must presume that the intelligence could not have been gleaned, in a timely manner or at all, via some other method. Experts in the field feel that torture is a terrible means of gaining valuable intelligence. Then we have to weigh how many people it is ok to torture against what information was obtained. Very slippery slope there. In short I think it is a false dilemma fallacy.

Even if we release what Cheney wants released, we do not know that we would have failed to accomplish the same ends without torture. The only things that have been released have been legal opinions. I think that we can evaluate those on their own without knowing unsupportable claims for the results of those opinions.

Dick Cheney is tying to cover his ass. This seems like political ploy on Cheney's part. Obama probably can't declassify that information. If he did there could be very real security implications. So, Obama does not release them Cheney can pretend there was all sorts of juicy stuff gleaned from torture that saved thousands of American lies. If Obama does declassify it then Cheney and his ilk can claim Obama is unconcerned with American security by letting such things be known. Looks like a win/win for Cheney (as long as no one thinks about it too hard). To Cheney the ends justify the means as always.

And speaking of "ends justifying the means" I would find it refreshing if the people who defend torture would admit that "ends justify the means" is the real argument in favor of torture instead of pretending that what happened wasn't torture. That would at least be an honest debate. And I agree that one piece of that debate involves asking how effective torture was.

I disagree that this means we ought to declassify memos on that subject...

First, given the political circumstances and the actors involved, I see no reason to believe any such memos would be accurate. How do you trust evidence from the people who deliberately destroyed other evidence they had on the topic?

Second, if the memos are true, then this is precisely the kind of information that should remain secret. There's no point in keeping secret the legal justification for techniques that we don't use anymore and which were public anyway. But there absolutely is an interest in not revealing what we learned about terrorist operations and when we learned it.

Third, the information on effectiveness is largely irrelevant to the political debate over torture. Our elected officials have made the decision that we aren't going to torture even if it prevents us from getting valuable information. If people disagree with that decision, which assumes arguendo that we're foregoing important intelligence, they are free to vote for different leaders.

Fourth, to the extent the information is relevant to torture policy, so is a lot of other information we don't have. It isn't actually leveling the playing field - it is a prejudicial stacking of the deck. We don't know exactly how many people died under coercive interrogation. We don't know the effectiveness of other interrogation techniques against which to compare torture. We don't know the exact costs of torture in terms of terrorist recruitment, etc. I could go on. It is fantasy to think that the one missing piece in the "ends-means" debate is the efficancy of torture. It isn't. And we cannot release the rest of the information either because we don't have it or because it would be too damaging.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's also fundamental to be fucking honest, and people have not been honest in this debate by slinging "TORTURE" to and fro. So don't lecture me about about balance and clarity when one particular side of this debate has shown very little of either. Read some of Harvey's crap if you don't comprehend specifically which side I'm speaking about.

How about we let John McCain lecture you then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imIMJjhHqQQ

"Waterboarding is torture, period."

No, you're right TLC, you know more than a tortured pow.

McCain also stated that these memos should not have been released. I'm sure you agree with him on that statement as well?

Nor is this about what I know. Personally, I'm far more concerned about preventing future attacks on the citizens of this country. When faced with the dilemma of deciding what is worse - tens, hundreds, or possily thousands of our fellow countrymen being killed in an attack, or some radical nutjob possibly getting water up his fucking nose, it's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously my opposition in here has already demonstrated what they are more concerned about.

Nice false choice there.

You were saying?

Originally posted by: misle

After he was subjected to the ?waterboard? technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

Link to story

Oh yeah, I forgot about this post. That article is hilariously wrong.

So you think that our interrogation of KSM helped foil the plot to crash a jet into the Library Tower? That's pretty impressive, considering the plot to do that was foiled in mid-2002, and we didn't capture KSM until 2003. Guess the interrogators had access to a time machine.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I own this shit.

Holy fvckin' crap, nice post!

 

[her209]

Saddam Hussein's lawyers said he didn't torture either!

 

[eits]

i'm against torture...

if there was one person out of 1000 or who gave up some actual info that ended up stopping another 9/11 from happening, i'd probably still be against torture. why? because we make more enemies torturing, which will lead to more 9/11s than we would by not torturing. plus, there are probably better methods of interrogation for extracting info. plus, for the 999 others who gave bullshit info just to quit being tortured, it would waste manpower and time chasing after dead-end leads.

moral of the story: it just isn't worth it going around being dicks around the world, making enemies all over the place. the best way to stop another 9/11 is to quit being assholes.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

I nominate you as the official AT P&N crash test dummy to prove waterboarding isn't torture. :light:

All those in favor say "Aye". Motion passed

thanks for not saying "i"... that shit irks me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
And you know that only detainee's that may have been tortured were guilty and actually had useable intelligence how?. Because Dick Cheney told you so. If you accept it is only 14 instances, you 1) accept that we have admitted to every act we committed and 2) accept only the narrowest definition of torture and 3) limit it to only Guatanamo. Given the number of prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib and other locations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a less (arbitrarily) restricted definition of torture, combined with the fact that there are probably incidents that contain information we still do not want released.

I don't know that and never made that claim in the first place. It was you making claims about innocents being tortured, wondering how we justify such a tragedy.

And if you torture you will inevitably torture an innocent person. A person that doesn't even have the answers you want, nothing they can say or do to make you stop drowning them, beating them, letting dogs bite them. "I don't know anything!" Yeah right, they all say that, wrap the plastic around his mouth again and refill the bucket. How many people can you do this to for the vague possibility of 'information' somewhere along the way?

Of course. It's very possible we could interrogate an innocent person with our comparitively namby-pamby "torture" methods that doesn't actually involve actually drowning people, or beating them, or letting dogs bite them. Is that justification for never using interrogation methods though? Our laws can cause innocent people to mistakenly get arrested and jailed too, on occassion. Does that justify getting rid of our laws?

Speaking of specious and speculatory statements that had already been presented in one form or another in here. All you seem to bring to the table is "waterboarding isnt torture",
"Your defending KSM and other terrorists give em hugs & kisses", "The left this, the left that". Whats your reaction to Cheney wanting these techniques to go public?. Do you agree with him?. You responded to me in the other thread and I quote:

Releasing these memos has effectively neutered our use of interrogation techniques now. Congrats. Those who pushed to have these memos placed in the public eye better pray this doesn't come back to bite them in the ass further down the road. There'll be an entirely new shitstorm if that happens.

So now Cheney wants more info. released?, WTF. And for the record. If you read my post in the other thread I said I could care less of the well being of mass murdering criminals like KSM or the techniques themselves. I am more concerened about the LEGALITY aspects of how the that administration ran around ignoring rule of law. And the effect on future generations when they learn in history books the the USA & Stalin (who basically invented waterboarding for use in his gulags) are on the same page.

Cheney wants the other side of the story told. If what he says is true I think we have a right to know that. Pandoras box has already been opened on one side of the issue, so let's hear more of the story.

I've been saying all along that this is about the legality aspects. I ask to be shown exactly where waterboarding, as specifically defined in the memo, runs afoul of our laws and should be considered torture. All I get is a lot of handwaving and pontifications in return and NO answers to my question.

Also, Just showing that there was some success is not enough. You also need to show all the failures of information that we went chasing after because the torture victim lied to stop the torture. Then we must presume that the intelligence could not have been gleaned, in a timely manner or at all, via some other method. Experts in the field feel that torture is a terrible means of gaining valuable intelligence. Then we have to weigh how many people it is ok to torture against what information was obtained. Very slippery slope there. In short I think it is a false dilemma fallacy.

What the acceptable failure to success ratio to you? And, no, it's not acceptable to torture. Torture is against the law. First you have to actually prove our laws (and not some bullshit International law) define the interrogation methods to be torture in the first place.

Even if we release what Cheney wants released, we do not know that we would have failed to accomplish the same ends without torture. The only things that have been released have been legal opinions. I think that we can evaluate those on their own without knowing unsupportable claims for the results of those opinions.

Dick Cheney is tying to cover his ass. This seems like political ploy on Cheney's part. Obama probably can't declassify that information. If he did there could be very real security implications. So, Obama does not release them Cheney can pretend there was all sorts of juicy stuff gleaned from torture that saved thousands of American lies. If Obama does declassify it then Cheney and his ilk can claim Obama is unconcerned with American security by letting such things be known. Looks like a win/win for Cheney (as long as no one thinks about it too hard). To Cheney the ends justify the means as always.

And speaking of "ends justifying the means" I would find it refreshing if the people who defend torture would admit that "ends justify the means" is the real argument in favor of torture instead of pretending that what happened wasn't torture. That would at least be an honest debate. And I agree that one piece of that debate involves asking how effective torture was.

I disagree that this means we ought to declassify memos on that subject...

Suddenly transparency is no longer an issue? After all the classified information that has been leaked over the last years, suddenly now we should stop? Why the sudden eagerness to be secretive?

First, given the political circumstances and the actors involved, I see no reason to believe any such memos would be accurate. How do you trust evidence from the people who deliberately destroyed other evidence they had on the topic?

More pure speculation.

Second, if the memos are true, then this is precisely the kind of information that should remain secret. There's no point in keeping secret the legal justification for techniques that we don't use anymore and which were public anyway. But there absolutely is an interest in not revealing what we learned about terrorist operations and when we learned it.

Sensitive information can be redacted, not to mention that I find it more than dubious that you suddenly want this information to be the cut-off point. Since you feel free to speculate, I will as well. If these memos are true that sort of information terrifies the left because it flies directly in the phase of their old chestnuts they've been spewing for years. It would considerably weaken their little attack dog pose on the subject and force them into a defensive posture and I have little doubt they are loathe to be in that position.

Third, the information on effectiveness is largely irrelevant to the political debate over torture. Our elected officials have made the decision that we aren't going to torture even if it prevents us from getting valuable information. If people disagree with that decision, which assumes arguendo that we're foregoing important intelligence, they are free to vote for different leaders.

The issue of effectiveness has been used as an argument over and over again by the opponents. They made it a relevant issue, a rather important one.

Fourth, to the extent the information is relevant to torture policy, so is a lot of other information we don't have. It isn't actually leveling the playing field - it is a prejudicial stacking of the deck. We don't know exactly how many people died under coercive interrogation. We don't know the effectiveness of other interrogation techniques against which to compare torture. We don't know the exact costs of torture in terms of terrorist recruitment, etc. I could go on. It is fantasy to think that the one missing piece in the "ends-means" debate is the efficancy of torture. It isn't. And we cannot release the rest of the information either because we don't have it or because it would be too damaging.

I see it as an evening of the playing field. The deck has been heavily stacked already to one side. So let's see at least some of the other. Maybe you prefer one-sided presentations? I don't.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: misle

After he was subjected to the ?waterboard? technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

Link to story

Puts a damper on the "Torture doesn't work" crowd.

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

Hahaha you are fcking gullible dude. Even though I respect our intel community, this CIA story reeks of desperate fiction. Why would they have to release this information publicly and not just inform Obama privately? I'm glad he isn't buying in to their horsesht and I hope the superiors who authorized the banned technique of waterboarding are brought to justice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I guess your denial stomps the crap out of my gullible. Congrats on your stupendous victory.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: misle

After he was subjected to the ?waterboard? technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

Link to story

Puts a damper on the "Torture doesn't work" crowd.

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

Hahaha you are fcking gullible dude. Even though I respect our intel community, this CIA story reeks of desperate fiction. Why would they have to release this information publicly and not just inform Obama privately? I'm glad he isn't buying in to their horsesht and I hope the superiors who authorized the banned technique of waterboarding are brought to justice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I guess your denial stomps the crap out of my gullible. Congrats on your stupendous victory.

Way continually pwn yourself. I nominate this as thread of the year award to TLC.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Class dismissed.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I guess your denial stomps the crap out of my gullible. Congrats on your stupendous victory.

Way continually pwn yourself. I nominate this as thread of the year award to TLC.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Class dismissed.

/thread

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: misle

After he was subjected to the ?waterboard? technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

Link to story

Puts a damper on the "Torture doesn't work" crowd.

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

Hahaha you are fcking gullible dude. Even though I respect our intel community, this CIA story reeks of desperate fiction. Why would they have to release this information publicly and not just inform Obama privately? I'm glad he isn't buying in to their horsesht and I hope the superiors who authorized the banned technique of waterboarding are brought to justice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I guess your denial stomps the crap out of my gullible. Congrats on your stupendous victory.

Way continually pwn yourself. I nominate this as thread of the year award to TLC.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Class dismissed.

:roll:

The schooling was your claim of this being "desperate fiction." Not surprised you completely overlooked that part.

Do your homework next time.

Now class is dismissed.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Way continually pwn yourself. I nominate this as thread of the year award to TLC.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Class dismissed.

:roll:

The schooling was your claim of this being "desperate fiction." Not surprised you completely overlooked that part.

Do your homework next time.

Now class is dismissed.

There's no need to address a little battle when the war was ended. Thanks for giving us the Atomic Bomb and allowing us to use it to blow your argument to bits.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." - provided by TastesLikeChicken to pwn himself.

That is sig material.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Way continually pwn yourself. I nominate this as thread of the year award to TLC.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Class dismissed.

:roll:

The schooling was your claim of this being "desperate fiction." Not surprised you completely overlooked that part.

Do your homework next time.

Now class is dismissed.

There's no need to address a little battle when the war was ended. Thanks for giving us the Atomic Bomb and allowing us to use it to blow your argument to bits.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." - provided by TastesLikeChicken to pwn himself.

That is sig material.

Blair also said this:

?I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,? he wrote, ?but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.?

But way to be selective about what you quote.

btw, you already owned yourself when you claimed this was all "desperate fiction" in the first place. It's a little late to come back with a weak attempt at faliling around after that complete and utter failure on your part. Yes, you were blowing something alright.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Way continually pwn yourself. I nominate this as thread of the year award to TLC.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Class dismissed.

:roll:

The schooling was your claim of this being "desperate fiction." Not surprised you completely overlooked that part.

Do your homework next time.

Now class is dismissed.

There's no need to address a little battle when the war was ended. Thanks for giving us the Atomic Bomb and allowing us to use it to blow your argument to bits.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." - provided by TastesLikeChicken to pwn himself.

That is sig material.

Blair also said this:

?I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,? he wrote, ?but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.?

But way to be selective about what you quote.

btw, you already owned yourself when you claimed this was all "desperate fiction" in the first place. It's a little late to come back with a weak attempt at faliling around after that complete and utter failure on your part. Yes, you were blowing something alright.

Whoopdedoo, he's going to defend his subordinates. Who's going to defend him from prosecution if they decide to go after him? Nobody.

?The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." - provided by TastesLikeChicken to pwn himself.

You have to admit that's a sweet macro! I couldn't have done it without you TLC. Thanks man.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

At least they will retain their integrity while they sing

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Ah, yes, now comes the villification phase of the argument where the opposition is labeled as having no compassion, being morally bankrupt, inhuman, yada, yada, yada.

That's what happens when you spew pathetic, irrational defenses of villains who have committed indefensible, horrific crimes. If that's who you are, you own it, and you get to live with it.

Will your next stunts be to post defenses of Hitler and Pol Pot? :shocked:

You defending KSM and other scumbag terrorists puts you in the very same category. Welcome to hell with the rest of us, Harvey. Have a seat.

I Have never seen anyone defending the Actions of "Scumbag Terrorists", Only that our actions towards them, damaged if not destroyed American exceptionalism. People of your ilk are disgusting and pathetic little worms that will do and say anything to protect your diabolic puppet masters.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Refreshing to see a reporter cut through the partisan crap. I think we deserve to have FULL transparency on this issue.

Hillary Clinton Mocks Cheney
(CNN) ?In the latest sign that the war of words between the Obama administration and Dick Cheney isn't letting up, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday mocked the former vice president's call to release additional classified CIA documents.

As Clinton made her first appearance before Congress as the nation's top diplomat, California Republican Dana Rohrbacher asked if the administration planned to heed Cheney's call to release documents showing information gained as a result of the Bush administration's aggressive interrogation techniques.

"Well, it won't surprise you that I don't consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton said, to laughter from many in the committee room.

Rohrbacher quickly hit back, saying, "Dick Cheney has asked for specific documents to be unclassified. We are not asking for your opinion of Dick Cheney. ? If you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?"

Clinton ultimately did not answer the question, saying, "I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it's in the best interest of our country, and that is what the president believes, and that is why he has taken the actions he has."

Cheney told FOX News on Monday that the Obama administration should release classified documents revealing the results of aggressive interrogation techniques, so a more "honest debate" can take place about the efficacy of the practices.

"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," Cheney told FOX. "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."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Ah, yes, now comes the villification phase of the argument where the opposition is labeled as having no compassion, being morally bankrupt, inhuman, yada, yada, yada.

That's what happens when you spew pathetic, irrational defenses of villains who have committed indefensible, horrific crimes. If that's who you are, you own it, and you get to live with it.

Will your next stunts be to post defenses of Hitler and Pol Pot? :shocked:

You defending KSM and other scumbag terrorists puts you in the very same category. Welcome to hell with the rest of us, Harvey. Have a seat.

I Have never seen anyone defending the Actions of "Scumbag Terrorists", Only that our actions towards them, damaged if not destroyed American exceptionalism. People of your ilk are disgusting and pathetic little worms that will do and say anything to protect your diabolic puppet masters.

Scum like you make apologies for the terrorist just like I " will do and say anything to protect [my] diabolic puppet masters."

Start shitting out rhetorical accusations, expect to receive them returned in kind. Two can play the game. I'd rather not, personally, but there are asshats in this forum that just can't help themselves so there comes a point where they get back what they give. They aren't worth anything more than that. That means you too. Got it?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Sensitive information can be redacted, not to mention that I find it more than dubious that you suddenly want this information to be the cut-off point. Since you feel free to speculate, I will as well. If these memos are true that sort of information terrifies the left because it flies directly in the phase of their old chestnuts they've been spewing for years. It would considerably weaken their little attack dog pose on the subject and force them into a defensive posture and I have little doubt they are loathe to be in that position.

What I find "dubious" is you responding about the grave danger of releaseing this information to the public in another thread, and now it seems, in this one you are now only interested in the "other" side being told. Like its a game of left vs right with our national security. It seems to you,"the left" are all people who disagree with your worldview. The people who may believe waterboarding and the like are forms of torture, in your view are the "left".

You never asked, just assumed that I favored Obama releaseing these legal opinion memo's in the first place, again it shows how knee-jerk, narrow and partisan your view seems to be and comes across. I did not agree with Obama's decision, but since its done, I have pragmatic reasons due to national security for this to not go any farther than possibly disbaring lawyers if it is found they manipulated rule of law. Make it public record so no future administrations can repeat manipulation of rule of law.

What else I find "dubious" is Dick Cheney himself. If that makes me the "left", so be it. The entire U. S. government has a long record of dishonesty on the question of torture. When sources in 2003 first reported that torture was happening, the government denied it completely and categorically. When photos from Abu Ghraib surfaced in 2004, we were told that only "a few bad eggs" were involved. As further discoveries of widespread torture were discovered, the government continued to insist that it had never been sanctioned. When memos were released proving that Bush and Cheney had ordered the use of torture, then we got this argument about torture being useful. Since they've been lying to us at every step of the way, why would any sane person suddenly trust them at this particular stage of denial?.

Regarding my view on torture in general. The question is not whether torture is effective, or has been in a particular case. I'm perfectly willing to grant that torture may indeed be effective.

Again, the question is whether the ends justify the means...

If they do, well then, torture away! With no holds barred! Bring back the Iron Maiden. Employ the methods of the Gestapo, the South African apartheid state, the Inquisition! Because if the ends justify the means, then what the hell. Let's use their families against them - certainly threatening a six-month infant with hot irons or gang-rape of a thirteen-year-old will make almost anybody talk. And if the ends justify the means, then who cares?

But if the ends don't justify the means - if the means used define and distort the ends -then we really should consider what the the hell we're doing. Because torture makes people the bad guys - if the ends don't justify the means. Because torture in and of itself is considered morally wrong; it can only be justified in some larger context.

So those of you who think torture is just fine, let me ask you: where do you stop, and why? Would you torture a child in order to get the parent to talk? Would you kill innocents in order to provoke a confession? If you would have a stopping point - why? There are some things in this world that are absolutely binary. The use of torture is one of those things. If the ends justify the means, then this discussion is entirely moot. If, however, the ends can be compromised by the means, then one must look carefully at the correlation between the two.

Regarding Cheney...I tell ya what. If its your position that this information be released and implications on national security be damned, Lets release ALL of the pertinent memos, transcripts and tapes. The positives and the failure's. ALL OF IT!.

Cheney should not be allowed to cherry pick memos HE wants released or just the ones that they might have directed to be written to justify their actions. If we are going to release documents on the use of Inquisition like techniques then all of the pertinent information should be declassified. Any one that has worked in a corporate office with a management that does not listen nor takes responsibility when policy goes bad, knows that these execs always have toadies that produce memos claiming the exact results the execs wanted. These cover memos allow the management to claim that to their knowledge everything was working smashingly. Dick Cheney wants to call on those specific memos now to bolster his claims. We should release all of the memos, tapes, and transcripts surrounding the torture practices. That way we can see the OLC memos and the Cheney CYA memos in full context.

Sound fair?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's very possible we could interrogate an innocent person with our comparitively namby-pamby "torture" methods that doesn't actually involve actually drowning people, or beating them, or letting dogs bite them

Techniques so namby pamby the nazis used them.

And communist China.

Wonderful company you'd have us keep. Great role models for detainee treatment.

And you call us anti-American and Obama a fascist socialist communist for raising taxes 3% :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Sensitive information can be redacted, not to mention that I find it more than dubious that you suddenly want this information to be the cut-off point. Since you feel free to speculate, I will as well. If these memos are true that sort of information terrifies the left because it flies directly in the phase of their old chestnuts they've been spewing for years. It would considerably weaken their little attack dog pose on the subject and force them into a defensive posture and I have little doubt they are loathe to be in that position.

What I find "dubios" is you responding about the grave danger of releaseing this information to the public in another thread, and now it seems, in this one you are now only interested in the "other" side being told. Like its a game of left vs right with our national security. It seems to you,"the left" are all people who disagree with your worldview. The people who may believe waterboarding and the like are forms of torture, in your view are the "left".

You never asked, just assumed that I favored Obama releaseing these legal opinion memo's in the first place, again it shows how knee-jerk, narrow and partisan your view seems to be and comes across. I did not agree with Obama's desision, but since its done, I have pragmatic reasons due to national security for this to not go any farther than possibly disbaring lawyers if it is found they manipulated rule of law. Make it public record so no future administrations can repeat manipulation of rule of law.

What else I find "dubious" is Dick Cheney himself. If that makes me the "left", so be it. The entire U. S. government has a long record of dishonesty on the question of torture. When sources in 2003 first reported that torture was happening, the government denied it completely and categorically. When photos from Abu Ghraib surfaced in 2004, we were told that only "a few bad eggs" were involved. As further discoveries of widespread torture were discovered, the government continued to insist that it had never been sanctioned. When memos were released proving that Bush and Cheney had ordered the use of torture, then we got this argument about torture being useful. Since they've been lying to us at every step of the way, why would any sane person suddenly trust them at this particular stage of denial?.

Regarding my view on torture in general. The question is not whether torture is effective, or has been in a particular case. I'm perfectly willing to grant that torture may indeed be effective.

Again, the question is whether the ends justify the means...

If they do, well then, torture away! With no holds barred! Bring back the Iron Maiden. Employ the methods of the Gestapo, the South African apartheid state, the Inquisition! Because if the ends justify the means, then what the hell. Let's use their families against them - certainly threatening a six-month infant with hot irons or gang-rape of a thirteen-year-old will make almost anybody talk. And if the ends justify the means, then who cares?

But if the ends don't justify the means - if the means used define and distort the ends -then we really should consider what the the hell we're doing. Because torture makes people the bad guys - if the ends don't justify the means. Because torture in and of itself is considered morally wrong; it can only be justified in some larger context.

So those of you who think torture is just fine, let me ask you: where do you stop, and why? Would you torture a child in order to get the parent to talk? Would you kill innocents in order to provoke a confession? If you would have a stopping point - why? There are some things in this world that are absolutely binary. The use of torture is one of those things. If the ends justify the means, then this discussion is entirely moot. If, however, the ends can be compromised by the means, then one must look carefully at the correlation between the two.

Regarding Cheney...I tell ya what. If its your position that this information be released and implications on national security be damned, Lets release ALL of the pertinent memos, transcripts and tapes. The positives and the failure's. ALL OF IT!.

Cheney should not be allowed to cherry pick memos HE wants released or just the ones that they might have directed to be written to justify their actions. If we are going to release documents on the use of Inquisition like techniques then all of the pertinent information should be declassified. Any one that has worked in a corporate office with a management that does not listen nor takes responsibility when policy goes bad, knows that these execs always have toadies that produce memos claiming the exact results the execs wanted. These cover memos allow the management to claim that to their knowledge everything was working smashingly. Dick Cheney wants to call on those specific memos now to bolster his claims. We should release all of the memos, tapes, and transcripts surrounding the torture practices. That way we can see the OLC memos and the Cheney CYA memos in full context.

Sound fair?

The grave danger I spoke about previously is making our interrogation methods known to the world. The memo discusses exactly how they have to performed and that removes any fear and all bite from them, effectively eradicating any potential coersion. That's what's going to come back and bite us in the ass. Our enemies know exactly what we do now. Cheney releasing the memos at this point on the suceses of those methods doesn't change a thing, so trying to paint me as some hypocrite for bitching about the original memos being released just doesn't fly because you haven't comprehended why I was complaining in the first place.

In addition, this has already been cherry-picked to favor one political side of the aisle. It's alittle too late to claim it's not fair if we even out the story and tell both sides. That doesn't fly either.

In regard to your claim that torture may be effective, that could be so. That's not my claim though. My claim is that our interrogation methods, which nobody has actually shown to qualify legally as torture under our laws, were effective. All the hullabaloo with conflating how the Chinese, Russians, Nazis or anyone else applied their techniques (just like Jonks did in his post above) is a lame attempt at equivocation and is ultimately pure FUD.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's very possible we could interrogate an innocent person with our comparitively namby-pamby "torture" methods that doesn't actually involve actually drowning people, or beating them, or letting dogs bite them

Techniques so namby pamby the nazis used them.

And communist China.

Wonderful company you'd have us keep. Great role models for detainee treatment.

You know the old saw about what TastesLikeChicken. :shocked:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My claim is that our interrogation methods, which nobody has actually shown to qualify legally as torture under our laws, were effective.

The decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was the head of the CIA Directorate of Operations (purportedly - think he was on Cheney's speed dial?).

1) Republicans have opposed the direct codification of interrogation techniques as outlined in the Army Field Manual because intelligence officials would lose ""valuable tools"" and "specialized interrogation procedures" (Bush words);

2) Republicans have opposed ouitlawing such ""valuable tools"" as waterboarding, hypothermia or mock executions, withholding food, water and medical treatment, hooding prisoners, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, or beating, electrocuting, burning or otherwise physically hurting them, and the use of dogs;

3) The Republicans heretofore have said that "specialized interrogation procedures" are necessary up to the "pain equivalent to organ failure and death"; and

4) The former Republican administration implied they only ""waterboarded"" (tortured) 3 suspects.



They said they destroyed 2 videotapes (obstruction of justice) in 2005. The current tally is the destruction (obstruction of justice) of 92 videotapes.



I don't give a shit what you claim.