Bob Barr At CPAC: 'How Would You Like To Be Waterboarded?'

[L.K.Eder]

The results were that two major terrorist attacks were thwarted.

If you can prove that it was made up go for it.

shifting of the burden of proof.

predictable, but not sufficient.

use some common sense:

how do you separate bad information from good information when you use "enhanced interrogation"?

You leave that up to the experts who seemed to have done just fine.

lol, do you even realize what you are saying?

can you at least acknowledge the problem of bad intelligence reached by torture?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The twits have been steadily ignoring that fact. If you don't know the right question, you could end up getting thousands killed. That doesn't bother some of the reactionaries at all.

 

[bodecea]

shit, i should not have given you that option so easily.

COMSEC = Communications Security. I was an Alternate COMSEC Custodian at the second largest COMSEC account in the USA, 5BE001, Second only to NSA themselves. We handled all Communications Security accounts in Europe the middle east and northern Africa. It was an interesting 4 years.

that is good for you.

but how is this giving you more insight to what the CIA does and what happens during interrogation, esp. in a post 9-11 world, hahahahha.

Nothing.

 

[bodecea]

He didn't say it did.

He was responding to a post that asked if anyone dealt with this guys.

and why was he asked?

i mean, this thread seems to be about waterboarding, which is actually just a place holder for all types of enhanced interrogation to gain intelligence.

and where is the concern for the reliability of the "intelligence" gained by enhanced interrogation.

i know i don't need to argue about human rights or ethics or morals.

but what about the results.

do you care if those results are correct.

or do you just care that those "results" retro-actively "justify" enhanced interrogation?

sorry, all those PC terms muddle the water

The results were that two major terrorist attacks were thwarted.
If you can prove that it was made up go for it.

Prove that, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

cmike made the allegation. I am curious to see what solid proof he can give for it.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm waiting for SFC Ollie to apologize for saying that liberals (all of them) want America to be the bad guy. Them's fightin' words. I'm a left-leaning Centrist and that even offends me.

People should be able to question their government and hold their feet to the fire without being insulted and told they want their country to burn to the ground in ruins.

It's yer boy Limbaugh who said he wanted Obama to fail. Live with that, sucker.

 

[CMike]

Ollie is spot on.

The libs responses to documentation :

The CIA lied.

The government was torturing was mad up.

It's all a cover up.

Blah blah blah

To the libs the USA is the bad guy and the poor al Qaida terrorists are victims.

 

[CMike]

cmike made the allegation. I am curious to see what solid proof he can give for it.

I never made an allegation. I posted the facts.

It's you lefties who refuse to acknowledge the documentation.



http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf

The formatting is messed up a bit. To see it more clearly go to pages 8-11 in the link.

With these caveats, we tum to specific examples that you have provided to us. You have
informed us that the interrogation ofKSM.....-,Ql1ce enhanced techniques were employed-led to
the discovery ofaKSM piot, the "Second Wave," "to use East Asian operatives fo crash Ii
hijacked airliner into" a building in Los Angeles. Fjfectiveness Memo at 3, You have informed
us that infoffiJation obtained from KSM als-o led to the capture ofRidl.ltil1 bin Isomudditl, better
known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member lemaah Islatniyah ceil
tasked with executing the "Second Wave," See/d. at 3-4; CIA Directorate ofJIltellige.l1ce, AlQa
'ida's Ties to Other Key Terror Grotlps: Terrorists Links in a Chain 2 (Aug. 28, 2003), More
specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he bad . " a
of money to an a1 Qaeda associate. See Fax fro
C1 Counterterrorist Center, Briefing Notes on the e Reporting at 1
15,2005) ("Briefing Notes'). Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who
was thcncaptured. Zubair, in turn, provided jnformation that led to the arrest ofHambali. See
id The infor.n1ation acquired from these captures allm'lcd CIA interrogi.1Jors to pose more
specific questions to KSlvf, which led the CIA Hambali's brother, al-HadL Using information
obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi "vas captured, and he subsequently identified the Guraba
cd!. See id at 1 With the aid oftbis additional information, interrogations ofHambali
confirmed much of what was learned from KSM6


...Interrogations of Zubaydah-again, once enhanced techniques were empfoyedfurnished
detailed information regarding a( Qaeda's "organizational structure, key operatives,
and modus operandi" and identified KSM as the mastermind of tile September 11 attacks. See
Briefing Notes at 4. You have informed us that Zubaydah also "provided significant infonnation
on two operatives, [including] Jose Padilla-[,] who p.Iaruied to build and detonate a 'dirty bombl
in Wasbington DC area." Effectiveness Memo at 4.

 

[bodecea]

Ollie is spot on.

The libs responses to documentation :

The CIA lied.

The government was torturing was mad up.

It's all a cover up.

Blah blah blah

To the libs the USA is the bad guy and the poor al Qaida terrorists are victims.

Really? Is that what you get out of our conversations? No wonder you say the things you do...you are too stupid to understand what the grownups are saying.

The U.S. is not bad...torturing is bad...if the U.S. chooses to torture, it is doing a bad thing.

And I defy you, liar, to show anyone calling al Qaida terrorists "victims". (of course, you will ignore this challenge like Hannity is ignoring the challenge to be waterboarded)

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm waiting for SFC Ollie to apologize for saying that liberals (all of them) want America to be the bad guy. Them's fightin' words. I'm a left-leaning Centrist and that even offends me.

People should be able to question their government and hold their feet to the fire without being insulted and told they want their country to burn to the ground in ruins.

It's yer boy Limbaugh who said he wanted Obama to fail. Live with that, sucker.

I don't believe i said all liberals.... please quote me...

I am obviously not against questioning our government.

And as i have said many times I do not listen to or watch talking heads. I hear everything they have to say from liberals on the boards or in chat rooms.

 

[Claudette]

Oh I never expected you to change you view based on my post. I'm happy for you to reminded everyone that you dont mind lying and cheating and killing if, in your subjective view, it's ok.

That makes every argument you ever make on these boards worthless. You're willing to break from the implied understanding of forums like this not to misrepresent facts or not to misquote people...because as long as you achieve your goals, it doesnt matter how you do it.

Great work making yourself irrelevant.

Oh and with your comment about the terrorist attacks...how can you know who the evil people are and who the innocent people are when you're gathering information to save those 10,000. You're willing to hurt innocents to save people.

People like you make me and our Founding Fathers sick to our stomach.

Glad to see your in the good graces of the Founding Fathers although I think their views might differ from yours once that got a load of terrorists and how they operate.

Your post is kinda all over the place but I think your basically telling me I suck?? Hows that for shortening the deal up a bit?

Well let me tell you that I honestly could care less what you think of me

I repect you and your opinon, though it isn't mine. You on the other hand, respect no ones opinion but your own.

What I gather from your post is that you would let the 10,000 die even if you had a way to save them. Even if some of those 10,000 were your friends and family. Correct???

Well as I said. You travel that moral highground my friend. I'm sure your family and friends will understand. Happy trails.

bodecea and mightypeon have handled you quite nicely, but I'll reply.

I dont care that you dont care about my opinion (see how worthless it is to type such drivel?)

As far as the bare assertion with no support that I only respect my own opinion...a) back that up with some sort of proof and b) tell that to the many many forum posters on the other side of my centrism that I've given rep to.

What's really funny is I'm the one that says we should follow the rules, yet you make me out to be someone that doesn't follow the rule of respecting your opponent's right to have their own opinion!

You've proven that you'll authorize torture to "save lives"...but you don't realize that someone you love - innocent of wrong doing - will be the person getting tortured someday. I'm sure your family and friends will understand. Happy trails.

I don't care about your opinion of me personally. I do, however, respect your opinon on the issues. You have your right to that opinon, as I have my right to mine. As does everyone on this board.

You don't seem to take into account that someone you love may be on the receiving end of a terrorist attact. You also have said you wouldn't waterboard any terrorist to get the info to save said person or persons who would be killed or injured during that attacK. Even if its a family member or close friend.

Do I have that right??

As I said. I wonder who the fool is here. Happy trails.

 

[Claudette]

Well, would it be OK for the British to Waterboard Washington?
I think we could reasonably assume that the British King would have seen him as a terrorist rebell.

Its not really the waterboarding, actually there are a number of nastier things that could happen to you in captivity (such as dieing to hunger or a preventable disease, which, historically is a far more frequent death cause than murder or side effects of torture), it is that you give the gouverment the right to decide that A) People are terrorists, and B) People can be tortured. Since people will C) Say anything under torture, you effectivly give them the right to really abuse whoever they conceivably want.

Another sideffect is the following one: Lets assume someone is innocent. I mean, there seem to be a couple of ways that an innocent person may end up at Gitmo, given that Gitmo released quite a couple.

So, you get tortured. Badly. Are you sure that, once the torturer gets the idea that you may be innocent, he will stop? Perhaps he will not, since his "professional reputation" may be at stake, torture you a bit more to get that "confession".

What do you propose should be the recompensation for a tortured innocent?

Your post is full of generalities. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Lets stick with the here and now. The present day dirtbag terrorists who would kill you just because they could.

What do you propose for recompensation for the families of someone killed or maimed by a terrorist suicide bomber??? Folks who may well have been saved if the info to save them was there and we did what we needed to do to get that info. Heaven knows there are plenty of those around as opposed to 3 waterboarded terrorists.

I'll be interested in your reply and unlike Ol'Vanquished. I will respect your opinion.

 

[Vanquish]

Glad to see your in the good graces of the Founding Fathers although I think their views might differ from yours once that got a load of terrorists and how they operate.

Your post is kinda all over the place but I think your basically telling me I suck?? Hows that for shortening the deal up a bit?

Well let me tell you that I honestly could care less what you think of me

I repect you and your opinon, though it isn't mine. You on the other hand, respect no ones opinion but your own.

What I gather from your post is that you would let the 10,000 die even if you had a way to save them. Even if some of those 10,000 were your friends and family. Correct???

Well as I said. You travel that moral highground my friend. I'm sure your family and friends will understand. Happy trails.

bodecea and mightypeon have handled you quite nicely, but I'll reply.

I dont care that you dont care about my opinion (see how worthless it is to type such drivel?)

As far as the bare assertion with no support that I only respect my own opinion...a) back that up with some sort of proof and b) tell that to the many many forum posters on the other side of my centrism that I've given rep to.

What's really funny is I'm the one that says we should follow the rules, yet you make me out to be someone that doesn't follow the rule of respecting your opponent's right to have their own opinion!

You've proven that you'll authorize torture to "save lives"...but you don't realize that someone you love - innocent of wrong doing - will be the person getting tortured someday. I'm sure your family and friends will understand. Happy trails.

I don't care about your opinion of me personally. I do, however, respect your opinon on the issues. You have your right to that opinon, as I have my right to mine. As does everyone on this board.

You don't seem to take into account that someone you love may be on the receiving end of a terrorist attact. You also have said you wouldn't waterboard any terrorist to get the info to save said person or persons who would be killed or injured during that attacK. Even if its a family member or close friend.

Do I have that right??

As I said. I wonder who the fool is here. Happy trails.

Of course you have that right. And that's the problem with your emotion-based opinion on this subject. You keep putting yourself in the shoes of a family member or friend who might get attacked...and you think that justifies skewering people (and let's not go back to the doctor comment, pa-leeese).

Your hypothetical assumes you know 100% that the "terrorist" is guilty and/or has viable information. Real life doesnt work like that. Hell, even if we take those assumptions as true, it still doesn't justify a policy of putting people under extreme pain

The Founding Fathers said the protection from cruel and unusual punishment was inalienable. As in, every man across the planet. And that's why its so disingenuous for Republicans to keep trying the technicality of "they're not american citizens" or "they're illegal combatants". (We can discuss the law in such cases if you want. It's something I know about) The Founders thought even their lowliest scum-bag, debtor citizen deserved that protection.

I acknowledge the fact that everyone has the ability to voice their opinion, but your logic and appeal to emotion is just flawed.

 

[CMike]

Ollie is spot on.

The libs responses to documentation :

The CIA lied.

The government was torturing was mad up.

It's all a cover up.

Blah blah blah

To the libs the USA is the bad guy and the poor al Qaida terrorists are victims.

Really? Is that what you get out of our conversations? No wonder you say the things you do...you are too stupid to understand what the grownups are saying.

The U.S. is not bad...torturing is bad...if the U.S. chooses to torture, it is doing a bad thing.

And I defy you, liar, to show anyone calling al Qaida terrorists "victims". (of course, you will ignore this challenge like Hannity is ignoring the challenge to be waterboarded)

What have we heard from liberals

1) Terrorists should have rights

2) Terrorists were being tortured by the CIA

3) Terrorists should be in civilian courts rather than military courts

4) The CIA lied

5) The CIA always lie

6) How can you believe the CIA?

Blah blah blah

I challenge you to find one post during this entire discussion in this thread where the lefties said that America was right, and that the Al Qaida terrorists that were waterboarded were not victims?

 

[CMike]

Because you are wrong, I am a lefty? Not at all. You are a reactionary, not a conservative. Simplicity itself is merely what one wants to see in the other instead of really trying to figure out the reasons and politics for the positioning.

Bob Barr, a real conservative, says your position is wrong, so he is a lefty, too, by your reasoning. You are being a silly man.

Bobb Barr is a libertarian

 

[CMike]

and why was he asked?

i mean, this thread seems to be about waterboarding, which is actually just a place holder for all types of enhanced interrogation to gain intelligence.

and where is the concern for the reliability of the "intelligence" gained by enhanced interrogation.

i know i don't need to argue about human rights or ethics or morals.

but what about the results.

do you care if those results are correct.

or do you just care that those "results" retro-actively "justify" enhanced interrogation?

sorry, all those PC terms muddle the water

The results were that two major terrorist attacks were thwarted.

If you can prove that it was made up go for it.

shifting of the burden of proof.

predictable, but not sufficient.

use some common sense:

how do you separate bad information from good information when you use "enhanced interrogation"?

I have no clue. I am not a trained interrogator.

Apparently, they managed to do so, since they thwarted two major terrorist attacks.

 

[CMike]

shifting of the burden of proof.

predictable, but not sufficient.

use some common sense:

how do you separate bad information from good information when you use "enhanced interrogation"?

You leave that up to the experts who seemed to have done just fine.

lol, do you even realize what you are saying?

can you at least acknowledge the problem of bad intelligence reached by torture?

I don't acknowledge that it is torture.

And as I said that's why we have trained interrogators doing this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because you are wrong, I am a lefty? Not at all. You are a reactionary, not a conservative. Simplicity itself is merely what one wants to see in the other instead of really trying to figure out the reasons and politics for the positioning.

Bob Barr, a real conservative, says your position is wrong, so he is a lefty, too, by your reasoning. You are being a silly man.

Bobb Barr is a libertarian

Libertarians come in various stripes, and those who are such treated Barr very shabbily. He has always been a Republican. Get over it.

Barr's right and you are wrong. Move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You leave that up to the experts who seemed to have done just fine.

lol, do you even realize what you are saying?

can you at least acknowledge the problem of bad intelligence reached by torture?

I don't acknowledge that it is torture.

And as I said that's why we have trained interrogators doing this.

What you think is torture is immaterial as to what is torture. Bob Barr, for one, disagrees. Tens of millions upon tens of millions of Americans of all political stripes despise your position. Rightfully so, too.

 

[SFC Ollie]

lol, do you even realize what you are saying?

can you at least acknowledge the problem of bad intelligence reached by torture?

I don't acknowledge that it is torture.

And as I said that's why we have trained interrogators doing this.

What you think is torture is immaterial as to what is torture. Bob Barr, for one, disagrees. Tens of millions upon tens of millions of Americans of all political stripes despise your position. Rightfully so, too.

And just as many agree with waterboarding those three individuals. And just as many believe that we are safer today because of it. And just as many believe the CIA did indeed prevent another 9-11 type attack.

Simply thank God that there are stronger men than yourselves out there who can and will do what is necessary to keep you free and alive.