FBI agent say torture doesn't work

:rolleyes: You made the claim, back it up.

I think i did, very effectively. You can pretend Obama had no knowledge about his NSAs statement, but you and i both know you arent being honest about it.
Obama's NSA is James Jones. You said Obama, his NSA and the current head of the CIA would tell us that torture worked. I asked you to provide links. You didn't. You are the one that isn't being honest.

Take it straight from Obamas mouth...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gj5dw9dQWI[/ame]
 
The shame of the Repubs, defending the Torture President, Bush.

Theres no shame in that. Its pretty cool if you ask me. Of course lets be honest, there have been many previous presidents that probably tortured in the past, they just kept it secret.

So 'Godboy' you think it is cool to torture?

Says more about you than I could in a thousand words.
 
I think i did, very effectively. You can pretend Obama had no knowledge about his NSAs statement, but you and i both know you arent being honest about it.
Obama's NSA is James Jones. You said Obama, his NSA and the current head of the CIA would tell us that torture worked. I asked you to provide links. You didn't. You are the one that isn't being honest.

Take it straight from Obamas mouth...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gj5dw9dQWI[/ame]
He's basically saying that it might yield information...he is not stating that it does work. I think anyone can agree with that...it might yield information.

Pretty sloppy journalism on the part of the Wall Street Journal...or pure partisan hackery.
 
The shame of the Repubs, defending the Torture President, Bush.

Theres no shame in that. Its pretty cool if you ask me. Of course lets be honest, there have been many previous presidents that probably tortured in the past, they just kept it secret.

So 'Godboy' you think it is cool to torture?

Says more about you than I could in a thousand words.

Its VERY cool to torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It should be part of his daily routine until the end of his life.
 
Theres no shame in that. Its pretty cool if you ask me. Of course lets be honest, there have been many previous presidents that probably tortured in the past, they just kept it secret.

So 'Godboy' you think it is cool to torture?

Says more about you than I could in a thousand words.

Its VERY cool to torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It should be part of his daily routine until the end of his life.

and the soccer team next, Uday! Gettem, buddy! don't let those fucking athletes let you down!
 
Theres no shame in that. Its pretty cool if you ask me. Of course lets be honest, there have been many previous presidents that probably tortured in the past, they just kept it secret.

So 'Godboy' you think it is cool to torture?

Says more about you than I could in a thousand words.

Its VERY cool to torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It should be part of his daily routine until the end of his life.

What do you like to torture? Kittys? Puppys?

Or just some one in a cell, wearing shackles and blindfolded who is being held on suspicions of committing crimes. What other methods would you like to use? Hot pokers? Bamboo shoots under the fingernails?
 
Obama's NSA is James Jones. You said Obama, his NSA and the current head of the CIA would tell us that torture worked. I asked you to provide links. You didn't. You are the one that isn't being honest.

Take it straight from Obamas mouth...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gj5dw9dQWI[/ame]
He's basically saying that it might yield information...he is not stating that it does work. I think anyone can agree with that...it might yield information.

Pretty sloppy journalism on the part of the Wall Street Journal...or pure partisan hackery.

Honestly, the english language shouldnt be that hard to understand after speaking it your entire life. You arent being honest about what he says because it proves my point and it disproves yours. You simply arent being honest.
 
So 'Godboy' you think it is cool to torture?

Says more about you than I could in a thousand words.

Its VERY cool to torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It should be part of his daily routine until the end of his life.

What do you like to torture? Kittys? Puppys?

Or just some one in a cell, wearing shackles and blindfolded who is being held on suspicions of committing crimes. What other methods would you like to use? Hot pokers? Bamboo shoots under the fingernails?

I like the idea of torturing high ranking terrorists, but i think you guys take it too far when you want to torture soccer teams and puppies. As for the methods, there shouldnt be any permanent damage done and no bleeding involved, otherwise im not down with it.

Waterboarding will suffice.
 
Last edited:
Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators' bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules -- and often break them. I don't have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse.

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.

Perhaps he should have. It turns out that my team was right to think that many disgruntled Sunnis could be peeled away from Zarqawi. A year later, Gen. David Petraeus helped boost the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces, cutting violence in the country dramatically.

Our new interrogation methods led to one of the war's biggest breakthroughs: We convinced one of Zarqawi's associates to give up the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader's location. On June 8, 2006, U.S. warplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a house where Zarqawi was meeting with other insurgent leaders.

But Zarqawi's death wasn't enough to convince the joint Special Operations task force for which I worked to change its attitude toward interrogations. The old methods continued. I came home from Iraq feeling as if my mission was far from accomplished. Soon after my return, the public learned that another part of our government, the CIA, had repeatedly used waterboarding to try to get information out of detainees.

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq - washingtonpost.com
 
Honestly, the english language shouldnt be that hard to understand after speaking it your entire life. You arent being honest about what he says because it proves my point and it disproves yours. You simply arent being honest.

Perhaps the english language has complexities beyond your understanding. For example: the hypothetical. A hypothetical is something that, for the sake of argument, we accept to make another point. When Obama says "not because there might not have been information" he does so to strengthen his point about principles. he's saying that regardless of any information we may have gotten, torture would still be both wrong and unacceptable conduct for America.

by interpreting a hypothetical into a concrete statement, you are the one being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. Unless of course the rhetorical device escaped you.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, the english language shouldnt be that hard to understand after speaking it your entire life. You arent being honest about what he says because it proves my point and it disproves yours. You simply arent being honest.

Perhaps the english language has complexities beyond your understanding. For example: the hypothetical. A hypothetical is something that, for the sake of argument, we accept to make another point. When Obama says "not because there might not have been information" he does so to strengthen his point about principles. he's saying that regardless of any information we may have gotten, torture would still be both wrong and unacceptable conduct for America.

by interpreting a hypothetical into a concrete statement, you are the one being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. Unless of course the rhetorical device escaped you.

He not only said "not because there might not have been information that was yielded", he also said now that we arent using waterboarding "in some cases it may be harder now". All this on the heels of his administration releasing a statement saying that the torture worked.

The rhetorical device certainly escaped YOU. Peddle your lies elsewhere. This is a truth only zone.
 
Last edited:
Ali Soufan is against torturing Arabs?

In other news, Jose Gomez is against deportation, Howard Goldstein is against the Nuremburg Laws and John Bull is against cold beer.
 
He not only said "not because there might not have been information that was yielded", he also said now that we arent using waterboarding "in some cases it may be harder now". All this on the heels of his administration releasing a statement saying that the torture worked.

The rhetorical device certainly escaped YOU. Peddle your lies elsewhere. This is a truth only zone.

Wow, melodramatic much?

No matter how much you want to twist his words into "Torture worked", it won't magically become true.
 
He not only said "not because there might not have been information that was yielded", he also said now that we arent using waterboarding "in some cases it may be harder now". All this on the heels of his administration releasing a statement saying that the torture worked.

The rhetorical device certainly escaped YOU. Peddle your lies elsewhere. This is a truth only zone.

Wow, melodramatic much?

No matter how much you want to twist his words into "Torture worked", it won't magically become true.

Im undecided about whether you are being disingenuous, or if you are simply a fool. Its one or the other. Denying what Obama was saying is absurd, especially when you recognize that this press meeting was right after the announcement by his administration that the torture did work.

Are you a liar or a fool then? There can be no third option in this situation.
 
Last edited:
He not only said "not because there might not have been information that was yielded", he also said now that we arent using waterboarding "in some cases it may be harder now". All this on the heels of his administration releasing a statement saying that the torture worked.

The rhetorical device certainly escaped YOU. Peddle your lies elsewhere. This is a truth only zone.

Wow, melodramatic much?

No matter how much you want to twist his words into "Torture worked", it won't magically become true.

Don't have to twist anyone's words. Torture DOES work. Any fool with half a brain can figure that out. And nothing you can twist or apply backwards-assed logic to is going to change that one damned bit.

Pain is a great motivator. Even a dumb grunt jarhead drill instructor knows that. From experience. From being on both ends of it.

The question is, does the left want to keep up this faux outrage act its got going, trying to sell it that only the right believes in torture -- an unsubstantiated by any fact, bold-faced lie -- or just admit that it's just a convenient issue to attack the GOP on?

We, as a Nation, have used coercion since day one, at Federal, State and local levels to extract information. Acting like it's something new means you're either intellectually dishonest or just flat-out dumb.
 
Im undecided about whether you are being disingenuous, or if you are simply a fool. Its one or the other. Denying what Obama was saying is absurd, especially when you recognize that this press meeting was right after the announcement by his administration that the torture did work.

Are you a liar or a fool then? There can be no third option in this situation.

I'm just recognizing what the president is actually saying, rather than what you would like him to be saying. Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?
 
Don't have to twist anyone's words. Torture DOES work. Any fool with half a brain can figure that out. And nothing you can twist or apply backwards-assed logic to is going to change that one damned bit.

Pain is a great motivator. Even a dumb grunt jarhead drill instructor knows that. From experience. From being on both ends of it.

The question is, does the left want to keep up this faux outrage act its got going, trying to sell it that only the right believes in torture -- an unsubstantiated by any fact, bold-faced lie -- or just admit that it's just a convenient issue to attack the GOP on?

We, as a Nation, have used coercion since day one, at Federal, State and local levels to extract information. Acting like it's something new means you're either intellectually dishonest or just flat-out dumb.

I don't see why it's necessary to insult the honor and dignity of this country by making such accusations. And saying torture works, even saying it a lot of times, doesn't make it true.
 
Last edited:
Im undecided about whether you are being disingenuous, or if you are simply a fool. Its one or the other. Denying what Obama was saying is absurd, especially when you recognize that this press meeting was right after the announcement by his administration that the torture did work.

Are you a liar or a fool then? There can be no third option in this situation.

I'm just recognizing what the president is actually saying, rather than what you would like him to be saying. Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?

Im not.
 
Don't have to twist anyone's words. Torture DOES work. Any fool with half a brain can figure that out. And nothing you can twist or apply backwards-assed logic to is going to change that one damned bit.

Pain is a great motivator. Even a dumb grunt jarhead drill instructor knows that. From experience. From being on both ends of it.

The question is, does the left want to keep up this faux outrage act its got going, trying to sell it that only the right believes in torture -- an unsubstantiated by any fact, bold-faced lie -- or just admit that it's just a convenient issue to attack the GOP on?

We, as a Nation, have used coercion since day one, at Federal, State and local levels to extract information. Acting like it's something new means you're either intellectually dishonest or just flat-out dumb.

I don't see why it's necessary to insult the honor and dignity of this country by making such accusations. And saying torture works, even saying it a lot of times, doesn't make it true.

...but it is true, and the fact that you think it isnt only proves that no one should take any of your veiws seriously.
 
...but it is true, and the fact that you think it isnt only proves that no one should take any of your veiws seriously.

Whether you choose to take me seriously is your prerogative. I don't really care.

You can shout "TORTURE WORKS!" from the rooftops all you like, but until you start providing evidence and arguing in a reasonable way, reasonable people shouldn't take you seriously.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if torture works. Torture is wrong. Period. End of conversation. If you believe that torture is permissible, than that is only evidence of your own moral failures.

I believe that principle means something. Many on the right apparently believe that principle is simply what you tell people you believe in, while doing whatever you feel like behind their backs. This country is a greater country than that, and will not suffer such a travesty for long.

America is better than this.
 

Forum List

Back
Top