Cheney starts to hedge on what the CIA documents say about torture's effectiveness

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Faux Outrage!!!!!

blah blah blah

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Phokus
Attention conservatives who bought this shit (pretty much all of you): THIS IS THE FUCKING GUY WHOSE WORD YOU TOOK AT FACE VALUE

Busted. LIAR. The shameless liar is busted.

Busted Liar AGAIN! OMG WTF!?!

newsflash politicians lie. To be sanctimonious to think your libbies don't do it is silly.

thanks John Kerry

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: SecPro
...Did you read it? There was no "highly qualified maybe". Did torture produce high quality intelligence that saved lives? Yes, it did. Could have other methods been used, should we use torture, was what we did torture, was the possible harm done worth the info. we got, etc. etc. are all seperate but related, and highly relevant, topics of discussion.

Originally posted by: SecPro
"...High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Where does it say that the "high value information" saved any lives? It "provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization". Period.
Did it save lives? Maybe.

...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...

Here, he leaves no ambiguity; more damage than benefit.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: SecPro

No we don't know whether it could've been obtained otherwise, do we? The point, as you and the other ignorant fucks on here continue to ignore, is that when asked if we obtained good intelligence from torture, were lives saved, the answer is yes. O-blah blah's own DNI has said so. In writing.

CONSUMATE BULLSHIT!!! :thumbsdown: :|

First, I refuse to use euphamisms like "harsher" or "enhanced" interrogation methods. I will call the evil by its name, and that name is TORTURE. :shocked:

The point to be taken Admiral Blair's memo, as ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you and others who support and condone TORTURE continue to ignore, is NOT whether "high value information" happened to be obtained from one or more particular instances of TORTURE. A TORTURE victim will say anything to stop the TORTURER from inflicting further TORTURE. It may be true, it may be false, or it may be any combination of truth and fantasy. It WILL be whatever the victim believes the TORTURER wants to hear.

• If the "information" is true, and the TORTURER acts on it, attack could be averted, and lives could be saved.
  
• If the "information" is false, and the TORTURER acts on it, time and resourses will be wasted, a possible attack will NOT be averted, and lives could be lost that otherwise may have been saved.
  
• If the "information" is intentionally misleading, and the TORTURER acts on it, not only can time and resourses be wasted, but those acting on it could be led into a trap, setting up a possible attack that otherwise could not have occurred, and lives could be lost.

There is NO way of knowing whether any such "information" happens to be true or false before time and resourses are spent to check it.

The second paragraph of Admiral Blair's memo states the logical conclusions to be drawn from the first:

• We do not need these techniques to keep America safe.
  
  [*]... there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.
  
  [*] 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.

The point to be taken Admiral Blair's memo, as ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you and others who support and condone TORTURE continue to ignore, is that any "information" to be gained from committing the heinous crime of TORTURE is questionable, at best and that the same, or better, more reliable information could as more easily be obtained through competent, skilled ETHICAL means of interrogation.

The greater point to be taken Admiral Blair's memo, as ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you and others who support and condone TORTURE continue to ignore, is that there is NO excuse for sacrificing the human values we claim to represent. We cannot defeat the evil we claim we want to defeat by becoming that evil. If we do, we have lost.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: SecPro

No we don't know whether it could've been obtained otherwise, do we? The point, as you and the other ignorant fucks on here continue to ignore, is that when asked if we obtained good intelligence from torture, were lives saved, the answer is yes. O-blah blah's own DNI has said so. In writing.

CONSUMATE BULLSHIT!!! :thumbsdown: :|

First, I refuse to use euphamisms like "harsher" or "enhanced" interrogation methods. I will call the evil by its name, and that name is TORTURE. :shocked:

The point to be taken Admiral Blair's memo, as ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you and others who support and condone TORTURE continue to ignore, is NOT whether "high value information" happened to be obtained from one or more particular instances of TORTURE. A TORTURE victim will say anything to stop the TORTURER from inflicting further TORTURE. It may be true, it may be false, or it may be any combination of truth and fantasy. It WILL be whatever the victim believes the TORTURER wants to hear.

• If the "information" is true, and the TORTURER acts on it, attack could be averted, and lives could be saved.
  
• If the "information" is false, and the TORTURER acts on it, time and resourses will be wasted, a possible attack will NOT be averted, and lives could be lost that otherwise may have been saved.
  
• If the "information" is intentionally misleading, and the TORTURER acts on it, not only can time and resourses be wasted, but those acting on it could be led into a trap, setting up a possible attack that otherwise could not have occurred, and lives could be lost.

There is NO way of knowing whether any such "information" happens to be true or false before time and resourses are spent to check it.

The second paragraph of Admiral Blair's memo states the logical conclusions to be drawn from the first:

• We do not need these techniques to keep America safe.
  
  [*]... there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.
  
  [*] 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.

The point to be taken Admiral Blair's memo, as ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you and others who support and condone TORTURE continue to ignore, is that any "information" to be gained from committing the heinous crime of TORTURE is questionable, at best and that the same, or better, more reliable information could as more easily be obtained through competent, skilled ETHICAL means of interrogation.

The greater point to be taken Admiral Blair's memo, as ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you and others who support and condone TORTURE continue to ignore, is that there is NO excuse for sacrificing the human values we claim to represent. We cannot defeat the evil we claim we want to defeat by becoming that evil. If we do, we have lost.

Please point to where I said I condone or support torture. You can't so you can take your "ethically challenged, immoral, sub-human, ignorant fucks like you" and stick it up your oft visited ass, you lying, cocksucking, retarded, piece of shit. There were several "points" to Blairs memo. One of them was that high quality intelligence was obtained through the use of torture. Pointing that out to stupid fuckers like you doesn't automatically mean that someone supports or condones anything. I understand torture is illegal. I understand that it sometimes produces questionable results. I also understand that it sometimes it produces good intelligence as Blair said in his memo. I also agree that the Army manual should be the "bible" for interrogations. Pointing out that torture has produced quality intelligence doesn't negate any argument against it nor does it automatically make you a torture supporter.

Do you understand now you stupid old fuck or did I use too many big words?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Harvey
CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.

When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda?s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, ?That?s not my recollection, but I haven?t read his book.?

MORE unambiguous and absolutely DOCUMENTED LIES from Cheney.

How long until even an dedicated Dick sucker like Fear No Evil is shamed into admitting the truth.

I guess he'd have to have the ability to feel and admit shame first . . . :|

Is the highlighted portion the only reason you decided to post in here? Seems like a pretty blatant troll.... but meh... par for the course I guess.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Please point to where I said I condone or support torture.

If you didn't intend posting the quotes from Blair's report as somehow justifying or supporting TORTURE, why did you wait so long to enlighten everyone with your true meaning and intent? It was nice of you to finally get to the point where you posted the obvious:

I understand torture is illegal. I understand that it sometimes produces questionable results. I also understand that it sometimes it produces good intelligence as Blair said in his memo. I also agree that the Army manual should be the "bible" for interrogations. Pointing out that torture has produced quality intelligence doesn't negate any argument against it nor does it automatically make you a torture supporter.

Thanks. Had you said that as commentary to your original post quoting Blair's report, you could have saved a lot of angry replies from those of us who couldn't read what you didn't say.

Peace. Out. :thumbsup:

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: SecPro
...Did you read it? There was no "highly qualified maybe". Did torture produce high quality intelligence that saved lives? Yes, it did. Could have other methods been used, should we use torture, was what we did torture, was the possible harm done worth the info. we got, etc. etc. are all seperate but related, and highly relevant, topics of discussion.

Originally posted by: SecPro
"...High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Where does it say that the "high value information" saved any lives? It "provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization". Period.
Did it save lives? Maybe.

...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...

Here, he leaves no ambiguity; more damage than benefit.




Still waiting...

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: SecPro
...Did you read it? There was no "highly qualified maybe". Did torture produce high quality intelligence that saved lives? Yes, it did. Could have other methods been used, should we use torture, was what we did torture, was the possible harm done worth the info. we got, etc. etc. are all seperate but related, and highly relevant, topics of discussion.

Originally posted by: SecPro
"...High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Where does it say that the "high value information" saved any lives? It "provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization". Period.
Did it save lives? Maybe.

...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...

Here, he leaves no ambiguity; more damage than benefit.




Still waiting...

Honestly Torturing KSM any other high ranking member of al-Qaeda is fine with me. Yea I Said It!

They knowing killed Americans and if there is a shot at saving any more lives just like the vast majority post 9/11 Americans we wanted our government to be activily obtaining intel. Hell The Dems demanded that we did more to stop this sort of 9/11 from ever occuring again. Beating Bush up for not being proactive. Hell they were right. So they did and regardless of anything else there were no more attacks. I think Bush made so many bad choices and stood behind some loser legislation but he did prevent any more attacks.
Were there attacks on pussy Nations Like Spain? Yes those terrorist attacks swung a national vote and then Spain recalled all their troops back. Shameful.

If anyone wants to take me to task do it. I don't care I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion is worth just as much as yours. To say other wise is well silly again.

Peace!

EX

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: EXman

Honestly Torturing KSM any other high ranking member of al-Qaeda is fine with me. Yea I Said It!

Before you go all apeshit over approving TORTURE on anyone, remember that the Bushwhackos also claimed the right to define anyone as an "enemy combatant," including American citizens on American soil.

And before you think you haven't done anything remember, that didn't matter. They didn't require evidence. They didn't even have to tell anyone where they stashed you. And most importantly, they actually did grab innocent people, stashed them in Guantanamo and dark ops sites and subjected them to TORTURE.

All of that "they" you talk about didn't kill Americans. Some of them didn't kill anyone. Some of them have families who care about them as much as you and your family care about each other... if you're lucky.

And some of them may once have been very nice people before we turned them, and their families, and their friends, and their friends and families friends into a lot of people who hate the United States of America...

And all because YOU approve of the use of TORTURE. :shocked:

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: EXman

Honestly Torturing KSM any other high ranking member of al-Qaeda is fine with me. Yea I Said It!

Before you go all apeshit over approving TORTURE on anyone, remember that the Bushwhackos also claimed the right to define anyone as an "enemy combatant," including American citizens on American soil.

And before you think you haven't done anything remember, that didn't matter. They didn't require evidence. They didn't even have to tell anyone where they stashed you. And most importantly, they actually did grab innocent people, stashed them in Guantanamo and dark ops sites and subjected them to TORTURE.

All of that "they" you talk about didn't kill Americans. Some of them didn't kill anyone. Some of them have families who care about them as much as you and your family care about each other... if you're lucky.

And some of them may once have been very nice people before we turned them, and their families, and their friends, and their friends and families friends into a lot of people who hate the United States of America...

And all because YOU approve of the use of TORTURE. :shocked:

take two Xanax and call me in the morning!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: SecPro
...Did you read it? There was no "highly qualified maybe". Did torture produce high quality intelligence that saved lives? Yes, it did. Could have other methods been used, should we use torture, was what we did torture, was the possible harm done worth the info. we got, etc. etc. are all seperate but related, and highly relevant, topics of discussion.

Originally posted by: SecPro
"...High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Where does it say that the "high value information" saved any lives? It "provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization". Period.
Did it save lives? Maybe.

...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...

Here, he leaves no ambiguity; more damage than benefit.




Still waiting...

Honestly Torturing KSM any other high ranking member of al-Qaeda is fine with me. Yea I Said It!

They knowing killed Americans and if there is a shot at saving any more lives just like the vast majority post 9/11 Americans we wanted our government to be activily obtaining intel. Hell The Dems demanded that we did more to stop this sort of 9/11 from ever occuring again. Beating Bush up for not being proactive. Hell they were right. So they did and regardless of anything else there were no more attacks. I think Bush made so many bad choices and stood behind some loser legislation but he did prevent any more attacks.
Were there attacks on pussy Nations Like Spain? Yes those terrorist attacks swung a national vote and then Spain recalled all their troops back. Shameful.

If anyone wants to take me to task do it. I don't care I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion is worth just as much as yours. To say other wise is well silly again.

Peace!

EX

Except this isn't an "opinion" issue. The MORAL questions certainly are, but you made a lot of definitive, falsifiable statements with no proof whatsoever. You're entitled to say what you like, of course, but that doesn't mean you're not wrong.

Torture is effective at gathering intelligence? Prove it.

Bush prevented more terrorist attacks? Prove it.

Spain was attacked because it was a "pussy nation"? Prove it.

 

[OrByte]

*cough*

...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...

*cough*

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: SecPro
...Did you read it? There was no "highly qualified maybe". Did torture produce high quality intelligence that saved lives? Yes, it did. Could have other methods been used, should we use torture, was what we did torture, was the possible harm done worth the info. we got, etc. etc. are all seperate but related, and highly relevant, topics of discussion.

Originally posted by: SecPro
"...High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Where does it say that the "high value information" saved any lives? It "provided deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization". Period.
Did it save lives? Maybe.

...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...

Here, he leaves no ambiguity; more damage than benefit.




Still waiting...

You're still waiting for what? A phone call? A bowel movement? The other one to drop?

When "high quality inteligence" is obtained from someone who is your sworn enemy, who has vowed to destroy you at any cost, it is not even a littlebit of a stretch to say that info. saved lives. What do you think they got from him? The Colonels secret recipe? The formula for original Coke?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Harvey
CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.

When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda?s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, ?That?s not my recollection, but I haven?t read his book.?

MORE unambiguous and absolutely DOCUMENTED LIES from Cheney.

How long until even an <dedicated Dick sucker like Fear No Evil is shamed into admitting the truth.

I guess he'd have to have the ability to feel and admit shame first . . . :|

Is the highlighted portion the only reason you decided to post in here? Seems like a pretty blatant troll.... but meh... par for the course I guess.

Faux outrage.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Harvey
CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.

When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda?s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, ?That?s not my recollection, but I haven?t read his book.?

MORE unambiguous and absolutely DOCUMENTED LIES from Cheney.

How long until even an <<dedicated Dick sucker like Fear No Evil is shamed into admitting the truth.

I guess he'd have to have the ability to feel and admit shame first . . . :|

Is the highlighted portion the only reason you decided to post in here? Seems like a pretty blatant troll.... but meh... par for the course I guess.

Faux outrage.

Or rather properly calling him out on it. oh wait... shouldn't do that.... :roll:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Harvey
CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.

When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda?s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, ?That?s not my recollection, but I haven?t read his book.?

MORE unambiguous and absolutely DOCUMENTED LIES from Cheney.

How long until even an <<<dedicated Dick sucker like Fear No Evil is shamed into admitting the truth.

I guess he'd have to have the ability to feel and admit shame first . . . :|

Is the highlighted portion the only reason you decided to post in here? Seems like a pretty blatant troll.... but meh... par for the course I guess.

Faux outrage.

Or rather properly calling him out on it. oh wait... shouldn't do that.... :roll:

Properly calling out arguably the biggest troll on this board? Um, yeah... :roll:

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...Still waiting...

You're still waiting for what? A phone call? A bowel movement? The other one to drop?
When "high quality inteligence" is obtained from someone who is your sworn enemy, who has vowed to destroy you at any cost, it is not even a littlebit of a stretch to say that info. saved lives. What do you think they got from him? The Colonels secret recipe? The formula for original Coke?

Still waiting for you to show some sign of reading comprehension and critical thinking. Your statements that "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually saved any lives is pure speculation, unsupported by the materials you quoted. "High Value Intelligence" is a very imprecise term, and your interpretation of it is more than a little bit of a stretch. If the Obama administration talked about "gaining deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization" you'd be accusing them of wanting to sit around a campfire with bin Laden singing Kumbaya.
Then we have the part of the original quote that you never addressed:

...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...

A ringing endorsement of "enhanced interrogation techniques"?
Perhaps a good bowel movement would help clear your head...