Obama brushes top Senior Intell. Officials pleas to the side

[jreeves]

Which experts?

You will probably find experts on both sides of this argument. Obama has better intel on this than you or I, so I will go along with him until proven wrong.

We lived this long with formally making torture part of our culture why do we need to start now. Please don't come back with "everything changed after 9-11." It didn't.

Only the head of the intelligence agency that provides 90% of the information that our country uses to protect itself. Things did change after 9/11, our country was never attacked to that magnitude on our soil. AQ was a threat before 9/11 but we didn't have a clue. Much like we won't have a clue when they will strike again, due to a few strokes of a pen.

Hopefully, the "war on terror" will end, because it was an atrocious and inaccurate phrase to describe the current state of anti-terrorism efforts. However, if you think that we have been set back 8 years and lose all of our intelligence capability because Obama has rejected harsh interrogation techniques (read "torture"), then... well... there is no then, that is just silly.

Yes because I think obtaining pertinent information through various tools is essential. Waterboarding vs. loss of lives on 9/11 or beheading.....I'll take waterboarding

 

[manu1959]

so we are back where we were when rendition and 6 terrorists hits occured pre bush.......

 

[jreeves]

so we are back where we were when rendition and 6 terrorists hits occured pre bush.......

Yep pre bush, before 9/11

 

[ReillyT]

Yes because I think obtaining pertinent information through various tools is essential. Waterboarding vs. loss of lives on 9/11 or beheading.....I'll take waterboarding

"Pertinent information"... "various tools"... these are vague and ambiguous statements.

It seems simple when you break it down to waterboarding vs. 9/11, but of course that isn't an accurate analysis at all.

Another way to think of it would be: (immorality of torture * increase in animosity towards US because of torture * unreliability of information obtained * availability of other means to obtain information * frequency of torture) vs. (reliability of information obtained * pertinence of information obtained * unavailability of information through other means *frequency of torture).

Seen this way (and this is just one way to think of it), it is not nearly so simple. Obama made a judgement call on the basis of values and expected outcomes. Only time may tell if it is the right call, and it probably won't even do that.

On a separate point, intelligence gathering targeting potential terrorist threats is surely much advanced since 2001 and most of this probably has nothing to do with torture. It is plainly wrong and silly to say we are back to where we started before 9/11. Wrong. Silly.

 

[jreeves]

Which experts?

You will probably find experts on both sides of this argument. Obama has better intel on this than you or I, so I will go along with him until proven wrong.

We lived this long with formally making torture part of our culture why do we need to start now. Please don't come back with "everything changed after 9-11." It didn't.

Only the head of the intelligence agency that provides 90% of the information that our country uses to protect itself. Things did change after 9/11, our country was never attacked to that magnitude on our soil. AQ was a threat before 9/11 but we didn't have a clue. Much like we won't have a clue when they will strike again, due to a few strokes of a pen.

Hopefully, the "war on terror" will end, because it was an atrocious and inaccurate phrase to describe the current state of anti-terrorism efforts. However, if you think that we have been set back 8 years and lose all of our intelligence capability because Obama has rejected harsh interrogation techniques (read "torture"), then... well... there is no then, that is just silly.

These people are happy you feel that way....
DC Republican Examiner: Great news: Two released Gitmo terrorists show up on al Qaeda video
To all the folks who stay up nights worrying about all the torture and human rights abuses inflicted on the poor innocent souls held captive at Gitmo, take a good look at these two guys. They were at Gitmo and were let go. And they are now spending every waking moment trying to figure out a way to kill you and your family.

 

[ReillyT]

Only the head of the intelligence agency that provides 90% of the information that our country uses to protect itself. Things did change after 9/11, our country was never attacked to that magnitude on our soil. AQ was a threat before 9/11 but we didn't have a clue. Much like we won't have a clue when they will strike again, due to a few strokes of a pen.

Hopefully, the "war on terror" will end, because it was an atrocious and inaccurate phrase to describe the current state of anti-terrorism efforts. However, if you think that we have been set back 8 years and lose all of our intelligence capability because Obama has rejected harsh interrogation techniques (read "torture"), then... well... there is no then, that is just silly.

These people are happy you feel that way....
DC Republican Examiner: Great news: Two released Gitmo terrorists show up on al Qaeda video
To all the folks who stay up nights worrying about all the torture and human rights abuses inflicted on the poor innocent souls held captive at Gitmo, take a good look at these two guys. They were at Gitmo and were let go. And they are now spending every waking moment trying to figure out a way to kill you and your family.

I worry about torture when my country does it because I believe it is wrong. I also suspect it is rarely useful.

These are merely two of thousands who would take violent action against the US. It is the nature of things.

Were they this anti-US before Gitmo, or did they only become so after? Probably we have no fucking idea.

Bush couldn't even properly figure out which of the hundreds of people he kept locked away without trial to let go? We were using harsh interrogation techniques back then. Why don't we know everything about them and what they think?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Much like we won't have a clue when they will strike again, due to a few strokes of a pen.

No, this in no way stops the intelligence and police agencies from continuing the real work against terrorists. As they identify the risks and start infiltrating and capturing them, they can still get all the information they need without torture.

You apparently didn't read what the experts said on torture. We can get the information we need. Torture is just some extra goodies for the sadists and cowards.

The real successes we have had did not come from the battlefields in uncovering attacks. And I just don't accept what Cheney and others say without any kind of proof. If they had it, they would of used it for their purposes and screw classified information bans.

 

[jreeves]

Much like we won't have a clue when they will strike again, due to a few strokes of a pen.

No, this in no way stops the intelligence and police agencies from continuing the real work against terrorists. As they identify the risks and start infiltrating and capturing them, they can still get all the information they need without torture.

You apparently didn't read what the experts said on torture. We can get the information we need. Torture is just some extra goodies for the sadists and cowards.

The real successes we have had did not come from the battlefields in uncovering attacks. And I just don't accept what Cheney and others say without any kind of proof. If they had it, they would of used it for their purposes and screw classified information bans.

It limits what the CIA can do to obtain information that protects us. If not, then the director wouldn't have asked him to reconsider.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It limits what the CIA can do to obtain information that protects us. If not, then the director wouldn't have asked him to reconsider.

Real interogators have said this is bullshit. They can get what they want with the approved methods. Sorry, but I don't take his word over the words of the others.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good for Obama, torture should not be tolerated.

 

[jreeves]

It limits what the CIA can do to obtain information that protects us. If not, then the director wouldn't have asked him to reconsider.

Real interogators have said this is bullshit. They can get what they want with the approved methods. Sorry, but I don't take his word over the words of the others.

Yes the director is only responsible for obtaining the information. While others can criticize without fully knowing if what they are saying is true.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In recent days, senior U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden and outgoing Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, told Obama's advisers and journalists that they still needed the flexibility to use some interrogation methods not permitted by the military. If nothing else, intel officials argued, inducing fear among detainees that they might be subjected to harsh practices was useful in persuading them to talk.

"They were permitted to state their case," said one senior Obama adviser, who asked not be identified talking about internal deliberations.

But in the end, Obama's review team, headed by new White House Counsel Gregory Craig, rejected their arguments and questioned the premise that such methods were necessary. Obama is satisfied that the use of the military field manual "will not compromise national security," said another senior administration official, who also asked not to be identified talking about the administration's review process.

Obama's Order Ends Bush-Era Interrogation Tactics | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

I think this is a huge mistake. The intelligence community's ability to obtain terror threats will be hampered.

From the 1960's on, trust in the CIA has gotten worse at certain times. This is one of them. If I remember correctly, Kennedy was about this [] close to shutting down the CIA program completely after Bay of Pigs. But then of course, he got shot.

But hey, guess I got to be in the CIA before I go encouraging and involving myself in the drug trade.

Fabulous non sequitur... typical, but fabulous nonetheless...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama's Order Ends Bush-Era Interrogation Tactics | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

I think this is a huge mistake. The intelligence community's ability to obtain terror threats will be hampered.

and some intelligence officials disagree with you and agree with Obama.

hello?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The experts in intelligence have said that the tools afforded to them before the executive order were useful.

Which experts?

You will probably find experts on both sides of this argument. Obama has better intel on this than you or I, so I will go along with him until proven wrong.

We lived this long with formally making torture part of our culture why do we need to start now. Please don't come back with "everything changed after 9-11." It didn't.

I am assuming you meant to write 'without'

 

[Annie]

In recent days, senior U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden and outgoing Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, told Obama's advisers and journalists that they still needed the flexibility to use some interrogation methods not permitted by the military. If nothing else, intel officials argued, inducing fear among detainees that they might be subjected to harsh practices was useful in persuading them to talk.

"They were permitted to state their case," said one senior Obama adviser, who asked not be identified talking about internal deliberations.

But in the end, Obama's review team, headed by new White House Counsel Gregory Craig, rejected their arguments and questioned the premise that such methods were necessary. Obama is satisfied that the use of the military field manual "will not compromise national security," said another senior administration official, who also asked not to be identified talking about the administration's review process.

Obama's Order Ends Bush-Era Interrogation Tactics | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

I think this is a huge mistake. The intelligence community's ability to obtain terror threats will be hampered.

From the 1960's on, trust in the CIA has gotten worse at certain times. This is one of them. If I remember correctly, Kennedy was about this [] close to shutting down the CIA program completely after Bay of Pigs. But then of course, he got shot.

But hey, guess I got to be in the CIA before I go encouraging and involving myself in the drug trade.

I agree about the questioning of the CIA, they seem to be out of control and like it that way. I disagree about Kennedy though, he had over 2 years between the Bay of Pigs and his assassination. Closing it down? I don't think so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/weekinreview/01word.html

 

[jreeves]

Obama's Order Ends Bush-Era Interrogation Tactics | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

I think this is a huge mistake. The intelligence community's ability to obtain terror threats will be hampered.

and some intelligence officials disagree with you and agree with Obama.

hello?

The CIA whose job it is to obtain information to protect this country disagrees with Obama. Hello?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama's Order Ends Bush-Era Interrogation Tactics | Newsweek Voices - Terror Watch | Newsweek.com

I think this is a huge mistake. The intelligence community's ability to obtain terror threats will be hampered.

and some intelligence officials disagree with you and agree with Obama.

hello?

The CIA whose job it is to obtain information to protect this country disagrees with Obama. Hello?

People within the CIA disagree with each other over this and their new head agrees with Obama too. Hello?

 

[jreeves]

and some intelligence officials disagree with you and agree with Obama.

hello?

The CIA whose job it is to obtain information to protect this country disagrees with Obama. Hello?

People within the CIA disagree with each other over this and their new head agrees with Obama too. Hello?

This from the article I posted....
In recent days, senior U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden and outgoing Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, told Obama's advisers and journalists that they still needed the flexibility to use some interrogation methods not permitted by the military.
Here is the director of the CIA in case you doubted....
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The CIA director reports to the DNI...
Dennis Blair is the new DNI...
Hello?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Look... the fact that the left needs to revise the definition of torture to include 'physical discomfort and 'inducing the fear for one's life'... is all one needs to reasonably conclude that such people are cognitive deficients and ideological malcontents who simply need to use the issue as some means to prop up the illusion of moral superiority... They want to be seen or at least they want to 'feel' that they're sparing human dignity; defending innocent life... whcih I suppose makes sense... as what person doesn't want to beleive that they're compassionate? And surely, that would be no doubt be particularly acute where one's life is spent advocating for carelessness in nearly every other facet of life.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

I will fight agenda by saying that I am in favor of what works. If torture, or waterboarding, or enhanced interrogation, or harsh questioning works, then I support them. If they do not, or if there is another way that works equally well, I support that and do not support torture (or the other forms of the term). Emotionally, I want the terrorists destroyed, so part of me that is quite strong wants us to continue to torture regardless of what else it does. I just want them tortured. Another part of me that must fight understands that there is a fine line between harming them for our reasons and them harming us for theirs, at least psychologically, and I don't want something to happen that starts off with good intentions, and even a moral high ground, that ends up destroying our moral compases and sowing the ground such that the only difference between us is our histories.