Obama releasing torture memos. Change we can believe in.

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
tlc you have been debating this nonsense for something like 12 hours. It's time to take a break from the computer. Go outside it must be getting nice where ever you live.

Been outside already. Went to pick up my car from the shop and walked the dog 3 miles.

I've been working all day and will probably be working for another couple of hours. P&N is my smoke break.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, being stupid is speculatively claiming they somehow cooked the books on this when you have zero proof of that other than your own idiotic partisan suspicions fueling that speculation. The memos don't see things eskimospy's way so clearly there were shenanigans involved.

:roll:

Fucking pathetic. Don't even talk about flailing because it's clear the flailing one is you, coming up with such vapid reasoning.

I never claimed they cooked the books. Christ, you're dumb. It's not about nefarious intent on the part of the CIA you moron, it's about the basic due diligence necessary to construct an effective legal opinion that can be supported. So far you're doing fabulously well battling against the argument's you've invented for me. Any other pretend ideas you want to attribute to me that you can fight?

You know people in that other thread were trying to help you get out while you still had some dignity left. Maybe you should listen to their advice.

I see. So you know that the CIA didn't do their due diligence on the issue. Withholding evidence, cooking the books, not doing their job properly, whatever. It's still pure speculation on your part.

btw, when I want your advice concerning my actions or statements, I'll ask you for it. Until then, keep it to yourself. K? Thanks.

No, my comments on due diligence had absolutely nothing to do with the CIA. Jesus.

You made this comment previously:

"For about the 5th time, I said that the evidence the memos used to determine that the techniques were lawful came from the people being regulated by the memo. It's like asking the burgler who is lifting your TV out of the front door if what he's doing counts as burglary or not."

Seems as if you were blaming the CIA. If not, then you're just all over the place and your statements aren't making any fucking sense whatsover.

No you moron, learn how to read. That paragraph was about the OLC's bad drafting policies, I was blaming the OLC for not being diligent.

Your analogy was muddy and unclear in reference to the previous sentence and still doesn't actually make any sense in regard to the subject because it was so poorly written. The OLC were equivalent to burglers? Or the CIA were equivalent to burglers? Huh?

Learn how to write, moron.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No you moron, learn how to read. That paragraph was about the OLC's bad drafting policies, I was blaming the OLC for not being diligent.

Your analogy was muddy and unclear in reference to the previous sentence and still doesn't actually make any sense in regard to the subject because it was so poorly written. The OLC were equivalent to burglers? Or the CIA were equivalent to burglers? Huh?

Learn how to write, moron.

If you can't figure out who would be the burgler in that case and who would be asking him for his opinion on the matter in light of my multiple previous postings on the subject, you are functionally illiterate. It's extremely simple.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Trying to embarrass a party, or an individual, good job obama. Waterboarding? Old news. And justly deserved. Guess we shoulda lopped his head off like his kind do to us.

Wow I guess Since you have a uniform on no one will touch this statement. Telling and also fitting in the wussy MO of the left.

Btw I love the pics of you in your sig.

 

[jackschmittusa]

EXman

Many of us have worn the country's uniform. Have you? It confers no magical power. I for one, do not respond to every stupid post.

I might add that your constant references to anyone left of you as a wussy marks you as at least ignorant, if not stupid.

Perhaps if you relied on a brain instead of a faulty wussy meter, you could make a rational post.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023382.php

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Link

A couple of people are saying that Bush/Cheney's reason to torture KSM and others for so long was to try to get evidence of a AQ link with Saddam.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

Gee, so torture wasn't about protecting us, it was about protecting their own asses. They were caught with their lies about linking AQ with Iraq, so they ordered them to be tortured to try and get the proof they wanted to make them look good.

former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.

So yet again, Bush and company believed what they wanted without evidence, then tortured people to try and get the evidence. When they couldn't get it, they demanded that torture continue to try and get what they wanted.

Nice....torture for political profit. Sure glad all you torture defenders like this sort of thing.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The CIA may well be withholding evidence - we don't know - but it is safe to assume they've got all types of creepy stuff up their sleeves.

What we do know is that they destroyed evidence. Not simply 'a few' tapes as originally represented in 2005 but as many as 92 tapes to date ...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No you moron, learn how to read. That paragraph was about the OLC's bad drafting policies, I was blaming the OLC for not being diligent.

Your analogy was muddy and unclear in reference to the previous sentence and still doesn't actually make any sense in regard to the subject because it was so poorly written. The OLC were equivalent to burglers? Or the CIA were equivalent to burglers? Huh?

Learn how to write, moron.

If you can't figure out who would be the burgler in that case and who would be asking him for his opinion on the matter in light of my multiple previous postings on the subject, you are functionally illiterate. It's extremely simple.

Oh, it's extremely simple and makes perfect sense...to any partisan douchebag. For the rest of us it's just claptrap. I guess my problem was thinking you weren't actually trying to be a partisan douche in that statement. My bad. Shoulda known better.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023382.php

Yep, and Blair also said:

?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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So did the torture actions actually work? Or is this writer just crazy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009042002818.html

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So did the torture actions actually work? Or is this writer just crazy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009042002818.html

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Dennis Blair says they did

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So did the torture actions actually work? Or is this writer just crazy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009042002818.html

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Dennis Blair says they did

You really might want to read the rest of the thread, specifically a post that occurred only 2 above yours. It would help keep your feet out of your mouth.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So did the torture actions actually work? Or is this writer just crazy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2009042002818.html

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Dennis Blair says they did

You really might want to read the rest of the thread, specifically a post that occurred only 2 above yours. It would help keep your feet out of your mouth.

If that statement was included with the rest of the internal memo, yes then I have my foot in my mouth. But it now it looks more like a damage control move.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You really might want to read the rest of the thread, specifically a post that occurred only 2 above yours. It would help keep your feet out of your mouth.

If that statement was included with the rest of the internal memo, yes then I have my foot in my mouth. But it now it looks more like a damage control move.

You're welcome to think that, but by not noting other comments by the guy on the exact same subject you are dishonestly describing his position.

 

[sciwizam]

What seems more honest to you? The statement he made when he thought they were not going to be public or the one he issued to "clarify" his previous statement now that they are in the open?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
What seems more honest to you? The statement he made when he thought they were not going to be public or the one he issued to "clarify" his previous statement now that they are in the open?

I'm just saying you should give the whole story.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023382.php

Yep, and Blair also said:

?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.

The only person owning himself is you, moron. You claimed initially, in typical partisan asshat fashion that:

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.

Fiction. Right. You completely owned yourself and now you're trying to pull a fast one by making up a pretense that somehow I was the one being owned. Get a fucking clue, idiot.

Blair admitted we received valuable intel. If his personal opinion is that the techniques hurt our image and the benefits were outweighed, he is more than welcome to that opinion.

But I'll reiterate. It's his fucking opinion. We all have them. Unfortunately the leftist asshats in this place seem to believe that their opinion is the only one that matters and everyone else is wrong. Thanks for demonstrating that sort of toolishness so astonishingly clearly.

 

[jonks]

Douglas Kmiec, head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush on the torture memos:

http://www.economist.com/blogs...ns_for_douglas_kmi.cfm

DIA: Lastly, you were once head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). What is your opinion of the OLC memos that declared the Bush administration's interrogation policies to be legal?

Mr Kmiec: What most depresses me about the current matter is how it tarnishes that once-great office. It is an office very much needed for the well-functioning of the presidency, and it has been badly wounded. OLC's best practices seem to have been discarded or forgotten in the torture matter, and it did not serve the president, the CIA or, ultimately, the nation well.

The recent release of the unredacted OLC memos has opened many eyes, mine included. The legal ?analysis? in the redacted memoranda earlier released did not give graphic detail of the techniques. As a then-law school dean in Washington, DC, I became privy to Bush White House briefings encouraging all those in attendance to defend the president in public commentary. Trustingly, I did, but now greatly resent that the most pertinent details were withheld. Reading my own commentary leaves me grievously embarrassed in light of the recent disclosures. I find what I was told and then repeated absurdly indefensible. Mea culpa.

 

[Jiggz]

As usual, there is always that back pedaling to correct one's mistakes! As Joe Biden said, this job is not an OJT (On the Job Training)!