President Obama DERELICT at his number 1 responsibilty

[Zoom-boing]

Leon Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff and is our current CIA director under Obama and he advised Obama not to release those memo's

George Tennet-- Director of CIA from July 1997- July of 2004 was another Clinton appointee that also warned Obama against the release of these memos.

This is not a partisan issue, it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue and Obama blew it right out the window.

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

By tipping our hand to the terrorists so that they now know what we won't do to gain intel, making their job easier. This piss poor decision by Obama will come back to haunt us.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's not surprising that 4 former CIA directors were against it. Most CIA directors have been appointed by or worked with Republicans, and their natural inclination would be to protect their buddies in the club.

What NS citizens have been sold down the river, other than for torturing people?

I don't think the president swears to protect citizens at all costs. I hope not. Some costs aren't worth the marginal protection you might get.

So if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

How do we 'know' that a detainee has valuable intel about an impending attack against the US ?
Maybe we should torture all detainees, just to be sure. Women and children, and old folks too.
The entire muslim world.

You are living in and commenting from a comic book fantasy world. It is not real.
Either go join up and go to war,become a psy ops or CIA agent, or shut up about what you know NOTHING about.
Let the adults take care of things.
Go back to masturbating as you watch Jack Bauer toture and save the world in syndicated re-runs.

Why would you want to do this?

Terrorists that are known to have intel and can provide further intel are who I am talking about. Do you think I - or anyone - favors just randomly water boarding people? Pay attention.

I gave up on 24 several years ago. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Iriemon]

So if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain the intel that would save innocent American lives. Got it.

Discussions of this argument was addressed previously in these threads, if you're interested in my responses.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

I've read through a majority of those posts IM -- couldn't find an answer to what I posted above or to questions I asked last week in a similar thread. I've asked this several different times and you merely avoid an answer and post these links. I won't ask again because I already know your answer. You favor sacrificing innocent American lives rather than water board a terrorist who has intel that could save those same innocent American lives.

I explained it clearly in those threads. I don't know how you missed them. Check out 75 82 88 90 92 101 106 116 125 134 176 157 239 246 254 259 261 265 271 273 275 in the
"CIA confirms" thread. The other thread has answers too, but I didn't feel like go thru both again at the moment.

 

[Iriemon]

Leon Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff and is our current CIA director under Obama and he advised Obama not to release those memo's

George Tennet-- Director of CIA from July 1997- July of 2004 was another Clinton appointee that also warned Obama against the release of these memos.

This is not a partisan issue, it's a NATIONAL SECURITY issue and Obama blew it right out the window.

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

By tipping our hand to the terrorists so that they now know what we won't do to gain intel, making their job easier. This piss poor decision by Obama will come back to haunt us.

Until the Bush administration, we always had a policy that waterboarding was torture. It's not tipping hands.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Discussions of this argument was addressed previously in these threads, if you're interested in my responses.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

I've read through a majority of those posts IM -- couldn't find an answer to what I posted above or to questions I asked last week in a similar thread. I've asked this several different times and you merely avoid an answer and post these links. I won't ask again because I already know your answer. You favor sacrificing innocent American lives rather than water board a terrorist who has intel that could save those same innocent American lives.

I explained it clearly in those threads. I don't know how you missed them. Check out 75 82 88 90 92 101 106 116 125 134 176 157 239 246 254 259 261 265 271 273 275 in the
"CIA confirms" thread. The other thread has answers too, but I didn't feel like go thru both again at the moment.

Nope none of that answered my question. Sorry. One last time (yes, I know I said I wouldn't ask again -- oh well). It will take you less time to just answer me here rather than continually post links to the other threads.

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

By tipping our hand to the terrorists so that they now know what we won't do to gain intel, making their job easier. This piss poor decision by Obama will come back to haunt us.

Until the Bush administration, we always had a policy that waterboarding was torture. It's not tipping hands.

It's tipping our hand by letting them know what we won't do to gain intel.

 

[Iriemon]

I've read through a majority of those posts IM -- couldn't find an answer to what I posted above or to questions I asked last week in a similar thread. I've asked this several different times and you merely avoid an answer and post these links. I won't ask again because I already know your answer. You favor sacrificing innocent American lives rather than water board a terrorist who has intel that could save those same innocent American lives.

I explained it clearly in those threads. I don't know how you missed them. Check out 75 82 88 90 92 101 106 116 125 134 176 157 239 246 254 259 261 265 271 273 275 in the
"CIA confirms" thread. The other thread has answers too, but I didn't feel like go thru both again at the moment.

Nope none of that answered my question. Sorry. One last time (yes, I know I said I wouldn't ask again -- oh well). It will take you less time to just answer me here rather than continually post links to the other threads.

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

Gee, you read it and you didn't see any posts discussing this same "if we capture terrrorists and we know they have intel. blah blah BS hypothetical.

How did you miss this one:

Good for you, thought funny thing to say because I could have sworn you were one of those who talked about abiding by the US constitution.

I don't support torturing people.

Part jest



I would personally do a lot of things against the law in that situation, perhaps including torture. I would rob, steal, assault and do any number of illegal activities. That doesn't mean I'd support them being legal to do.

But even you admit, in certain situations, those things would be necessary to do.

Pelosi approved them along with many other members of the House and Senate.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

In fact, BO's own director of national intelligence approved and said. “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al- Qaeda organisation that was attacking this country.”

US official insists he disapproves of torture - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 23, 2009

Someone had asked earlier in this thread why not torture?

Another thread is discussing a recent article were there is evidence that the WH pressured interrogators to use "harsh mearsures" to get evidence Hussein was in bed with AQ. Waterboard a guy a few dozen times and what do you think the chances are he'll say that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-prove-aq-sadam-ties-us-intell-officer.html

That's another reason why you don't do it. It can be used too easily as a tool to fabricate "evidence" and facts.

or this one:

Someone had asked earlier in this thread why not torture?

Another thread is discussing a recent article were there is evidence that the WH pressured interrogators to use "harsh mearsures" to get evidence Hussein was in bed with AQ. Waterboard a guy a few dozen times and what do you think the chances are he'll say that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-prove-aq-sadam-ties-us-intell-officer.html

That's another reason why you don't do it. It can be used too easily as a tool to fabricate "evidence" and facts.

Anyone can use anything to fabricate evidence. Just because someone can use something for an "unjust" end, doesn't mean that it is bad.

You can say that about guns, about fists, about anything.

Torture is particularly susceptible to this.

Torture a guys till he says Iraq had WMDs and Hussein was in bed with Iraq. The interrogator passes the word. Then the VP can go on TV and say "We now have evidence of Iraq's nuke program and ties with AQ" or whatever.

It's how the nazis got "confessions."

And it is why in our courts we have a rule against self incrimination. It's not because we don't want the defendant to have to talk. Its because if you allow evidence of self-incrimination, its too tempting for the cops to torture the guy till he fesses up or says what they want to make their case.

or this one:

They are evil. So we can be evil too.

Let's all calm down, and drop terms like "evil," "liar," etc.

To me, I consider a)that the NYTimes article clearly indicated an attempt to be sure no actual injury occurs, and b) that 'high value information' was obtained.

But I must share with you the most recent report from Stratfor.com which mitigates my feelings on the subject:

After 9/11 "Collecting intelligence rapidly became the highest national priority. Given the genuine and reasonable fears, no action in pursuit of intelligence was out of the question, so long as it promised quick answers. "

" The Constitution does not speak to the question of torture of non-citizens, but it implies an abhorrence of rights violations (at least for citizens). But the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase, “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” This indicates that world opinion matters. "

"Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt.Critics of torture, on the other hand, seem to assume the torture was brutality for the sake of brutality instead of a desperate attempt to get some clarity on what might well have been a catastrophic outcome. The critics also cannot know the extent to which the use of torture actually prevented follow-on attacks."

"But neither they, nor anyone else, had the right to assume in late 2001 that there was a long run. One of the things that wasn’t known was how much time there was."

" The United States turned to torture because it has experienced a massive intelligence failure reaching back a decade... There was the Torricelli amendment that made recruiting people with ties to terrorist groups illegal without special approval." (Google Church and Pike Committees.)

"But the routinization of the extraordinary is the built-in danger of bureaucracy, and what began as a response to unprecedented dangers became part of the process. Bush had an opportunity to move beyond the emergency. He didn’t. "

"U.S. President Barack Obama has handled this issue in the style to which we have become accustomed, and which is as practical a solution as possible."

I hope this was helpful.

I agree that torturing people possibly could lead to some intel that might save lives. And if we employed more violent torture techniques, it arguably would be more effecitve.

No doubt we could torture Americans accused of crims too and get useful information, like gang intellegence, info about drug smuggling, organized crime, and location of assets of the guy who didn't pay his taxes.

But I'm also motivated by another factor. Someone earlier in the thread (Sealybobo I think) said something to the effect that Americans don't torture people. IMO he was hitting on something there, which I'll expound upon, copying a post I made in another thread.

Torture has been banned by international treaty for decades. We prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for doing the same conduct the Bush DOJ sought to justify. IMO, for the US to sanction this kind of behavior stains the reputation and credibility of the US, and ultimately harms it.

Reagan called the US the shining city on the hill and the best hope for mankind. Kind of corny, and certainly we as a nation have not always lived up to that goal, but I believe that it benefits our nation to strive to the goals as Reagan spelled out.

I think that Obama saying we aren't going to do to people what we called others "war criminals" for doing to us isn't treason, but it is reaffirming the America that Reagan spoke of.

Yes, sometimes striving for those goals means there are costs. It may be that by not wholesale embracing torture as a policy, we exposure ourselves to the greater risk of an attack. By giving someone a trial, there is a chance a jury would find him not guilty and let him free.

But freedom isn't free. Living in a free society -- in the shining city on the hill -- means you have to take some reasonable risks to protect that freedom and objective.

Ultimately, I believe America wins the war on terrorism not by winnnig a battle on the ground but by winning the battle of ideas and ideals. We face a tough opponent on that score because they have religious belief they can stoke, a very powerful tool. But I think ultimately, the ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, rule of law, human rights, due process, and the other things that make America the shining city on the hill win out over the ideals of radical Islam.

I really believe that.

And so every step we take towards that ideal I think we forward our cause. If people see America acting consistent with the ideals it represents, they and America look more admirable in the battle of ideas. I think deep down, most people are attracted to the ideals of the shining city on they hill.

And conversely, every step away from ideal we take, we look more hypocritical and less noble, allowing those who oppose us to use that to debase what we are and stand for.

I believe ultimately we win by standing by what America stands for.

And so that is why I applaud Obama's action on this and on Guantanamo and his willingness to reach out and talk to other nations, even tho' there might be some short term harm, because it tells the world that we as Americans have made the decision to stand by what makes America that shining city on the hill and the best hope for mankind that Reagan spoke of.

All these posts discuss why torture is IMO bad policy, even though you could imagine hypotheticals might save lives.

Let's start yet another thread and repost all this crap again because people are too damn lazy to read.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I explained it clearly in those threads. I don't know how you missed them. Check out 75 82 88 90 92 101 106 116 125 134 176 157 239 246 254 259 261 265 271 273 275 in the
"CIA confirms" thread. The other thread has answers too, but I didn't feel like go thru both again at the moment.

Nope none of that answered my question. Sorry. One last time (yes, I know I said I wouldn't ask again -- oh well). It will take you less time to just answer me here rather than continually post links to the other threads.

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

Gee, you read it and you didn't see any posts discussing this same "if we capture terrrorists and we know they have intel. blah blah BS hypothetical.

How did you miss this one:



or this one:



or this one:

Let's all calm down, and drop terms like "evil," "liar," etc.

To me, I consider a)that the NYTimes article clearly indicated an attempt to be sure no actual injury occurs, and b) that 'high value information' was obtained.

But I must share with you the most recent report from Stratfor.com which mitigates my feelings on the subject:

After 9/11 "Collecting intelligence rapidly became the highest national priority. Given the genuine and reasonable fears, no action in pursuit of intelligence was out of the question, so long as it promised quick answers. "

" The Constitution does not speak to the question of torture of non-citizens, but it implies an abhorrence of rights violations (at least for citizens). But the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase, “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” This indicates that world opinion matters. "

"Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt.Critics of torture, on the other hand, seem to assume the torture was brutality for the sake of brutality instead of a desperate attempt to get some clarity on what might well have been a catastrophic outcome. The critics also cannot know the extent to which the use of torture actually prevented follow-on attacks."

"But neither they, nor anyone else, had the right to assume in late 2001 that there was a long run. One of the things that wasn’t known was how much time there was."

" The United States turned to torture because it has experienced a massive intelligence failure reaching back a decade... There was the Torricelli amendment that made recruiting people with ties to terrorist groups illegal without special approval." (Google Church and Pike Committees.)

"But the routinization of the extraordinary is the built-in danger of bureaucracy, and what began as a response to unprecedented dangers became part of the process. Bush had an opportunity to move beyond the emergency. He didn’t. "

"U.S. President Barack Obama has handled this issue in the style to which we have become accustomed, and which is as practical a solution as possible."

I hope this was helpful.

I agree that torturing people possibly could lead to some intel that might save lives. And if we employed more violent torture techniques, it arguably would be more effecitve.

No doubt we could torture Americans accused of crims too and get useful information, like gang intellegence, info about drug smuggling, organized crime, and location of assets of the guy who didn't pay his taxes.

But I'm also motivated by another factor. Someone earlier in the thread (Sealybobo I think) said something to the effect that Americans don't torture people. IMO he was hitting on something there, which I'll expound upon, copying a post I made in another thread.

Torture has been banned by international treaty for decades. We prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for doing the same conduct the Bush DOJ sought to justify. IMO, for the US to sanction this kind of behavior stains the reputation and credibility of the US, and ultimately harms it.

Reagan called the US the shining city on the hill and the best hope for mankind. Kind of corny, and certainly we as a nation have not always lived up to that goal, but I believe that it benefits our nation to strive to the goals as Reagan spelled out.

I think that Obama saying we aren't going to do to people what we called others "war criminals" for doing to us isn't treason, but it is reaffirming the America that Reagan spoke of.

Yes, sometimes striving for those goals means there are costs. It may be that by not wholesale embracing torture as a policy, we exposure ourselves to the greater risk of an attack. By giving someone a trial, there is a chance a jury would find him not guilty and let him free.

But freedom isn't free. Living in a free society -- in the shining city on the hill -- means you have to take some reasonable risks to protect that freedom and objective.

Ultimately, I believe America wins the war on terrorism not by winnnig a battle on the ground but by winning the battle of ideas and ideals. We face a tough opponent on that score because they have religious belief they can stoke, a very powerful tool. But I think ultimately, the ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, rule of law, human rights, due process, and the other things that make America the shining city on the hill win out over the ideals of radical Islam.

I really believe that.

And so every step we take towards that ideal I think we forward our cause. If people see America acting consistent with the ideals it represents, they and America look more admirable in the battle of ideas. I think deep down, most people are attracted to the ideals of the shining city on they hill.

And conversely, every step away from ideal we take, we look more hypocritical and less noble, allowing those who oppose us to use that to debase what we are and stand for.

I believe ultimately we win by standing by what America stands for.

And so that is why I applaud Obama's action on this and on Guantanamo and his willingness to reach out and talk to other nations, even tho' there might be some short term harm, because it tells the world that we as Americans have made the decision to stand by what makes America that shining city on the hill and the best hope for mankind that Reagan spoke of.

All these posts discuss why torture is IMO bad policy, even though you could imagine hypotheticals might save lives.

Let's start yet another thread and repost all this crap again because people are too damn lazy to read.

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

 

[WillowTree]

Muple,

Other than announcing to the world that the US will no longer condone torture, how has our national security been put at risk?

Jackass ...

Ignored

yer still a JackAzz and Maple knows it too!

 

[Iriemon]

Nope none of that answered my question. Sorry. One last time (yes, I know I said I wouldn't ask again -- oh well). It will take you less time to just answer me here rather than continually post links to the other threads.

You believe that if we capture terrorists we know have intel on an impending attack on the U.S. you would be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives rather than water board the terrorists in order to obtain that intel that would save innocent American lives. Yes or no?

Gee, you read it and you didn't see any posts discussing this same "if we capture terrrorists and we know they have intel. blah blah BS hypothetical.

How did you miss this one:



or this one:



or this one:

I agree that torturing people possibly could lead to some intel that might save lives. And if we employed more violent torture techniques, it arguably would be more effecitve.

No doubt we could torture Americans accused of crims too and get useful information, like gang intellegence, info about drug smuggling, organized crime, and location of assets of the guy who didn't pay his taxes.

But I'm also motivated by another factor. Someone earlier in the thread (Sealybobo I think) said something to the effect that Americans don't torture people. IMO he was hitting on something there, which I'll expound upon, copying a post I made in another thread.

Torture has been banned by international treaty for decades. We prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for doing the same conduct the Bush DOJ sought to justify. IMO, for the US to sanction this kind of behavior stains the reputation and credibility of the US, and ultimately harms it.

Reagan called the US the shining city on the hill and the best hope for mankind. Kind of corny, and certainly we as a nation have not always lived up to that goal, but I believe that it benefits our nation to strive to the goals as Reagan spelled out.

I think that Obama saying we aren't going to do to people what we called others "war criminals" for doing to us isn't treason, but it is reaffirming the America that Reagan spoke of.

Yes, sometimes striving for those goals means there are costs. It may be that by not wholesale embracing torture as a policy, we exposure ourselves to the greater risk of an attack. By giving someone a trial, there is a chance a jury would find him not guilty and let him free.

But freedom isn't free. Living in a free society -- in the shining city on the hill -- means you have to take some reasonable risks to protect that freedom and objective.

Ultimately, I believe America wins the war on terrorism not by winnnig a battle on the ground but by winning the battle of ideas and ideals. We face a tough opponent on that score because they have religious belief they can stoke, a very powerful tool. But I think ultimately, the ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, rule of law, human rights, due process, and the other things that make America the shining city on the hill win out over the ideals of radical Islam.

I really believe that.

And so every step we take towards that ideal I think we forward our cause. If people see America acting consistent with the ideals it represents, they and America look more admirable in the battle of ideas. I think deep down, most people are attracted to the ideals of the shining city on they hill.

And conversely, every step away from ideal we take, we look more hypocritical and less noble, allowing those who oppose us to use that to debase what we are and stand for.

I believe ultimately we win by standing by what America stands for.

And so that is why I applaud Obama's action on this and on Guantanamo and his willingness to reach out and talk to other nations, even tho' there might be some short term harm, because it tells the world that we as Americans have made the decision to stand by what makes America that shining city on the hill and the best hope for mankind that Reagan spoke of.

All these posts discuss why torture is IMO bad policy, even though you could imagine hypotheticals might save lives.

Let's start yet another thread and repost all this crap again because people are too damn lazy to read.

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

So your answer is, yes, you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life. I hope you enjoy living in your fascist state.

 

[Iriemon]

Jackass ...

Ignored

... JackAzz ...

Ignored

 

[Zoom-boing]

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

So your answer is, yes, you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life. I hope you enjoy living in your fascist state.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

 

[sealybobo]

Ignored

... JackAzz ...

Ignored

Are you clicking the thumbs up and thumbs down button to rep someone?

 

[WillowTree]

Ignored

... JackAzz ...

Ignored

You know donchya you are making a fool of yourself, you cannot read a thread digest it and then respond to it with "ignored" it's just plain dishonest fuckery! no one believes you ignored anything! DUmmie!

 

[sealybobo]

Jackass ...

Ignored

yer still a JackAzz and Maple knows it too!

See Willow. This proves you are a partisan hack. Because Iriemon in not one sided. I've argued with him and I've agreed with him. He has a lot of conservative beliefs.

But if he isn't 100% on your side, you can't handle it. I love it!!!

 

[Iriemon]

... JackAzz ...

Ignored

... dishonest fuckery...

Ignored

 

[WillowTree]

Ignored

yer still a JackAzz and Maple knows it too!

See Willow. This proves you are a partisan hack. Because Iriemon in not one sided. I've argued with him and I've agreed with him. He has a lot of conservative beliefs.

But if he isn't 100% on your side, you can't handle it. I love it!!!

glad you are thrilled bobo

 

[Iriemon]

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

So your answer is, yes, you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life. I hope you enjoy living in your fascist state.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

Those were questions in the threads you said you read. But feel free to clarify.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

So your answer is, yes, you'd sacrifice American principles like due process, innocent til proven guilty, right to counsel, trials to prove guilt to save someone's life. I hope you enjoy living in your fascist state.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

Those were questions in the threads you said you read. But feel free to clarify.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Better?

 

[Iriemon]

Please provide the post where I've said this. Thanks.

Those were questions in the threads you said you read. But feel free to clarify.

Please provide the post where I've said this. Better?

Sorry, been down this road already, all this is repetitive and been covered in the threads I cited. I don't feel like spending hours of retyping the same blather, particularly for someone who's shown they were too lazy to read it.

If you have something new to add I'll consider it, but otherwise I don't feel like rehashing.

Maybe someone else will play.