CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attac

[Iriemon]

I didn't dodge anything. Beheading and torture as PC described vs. water boarding? If they are going to torture our guys, water boarding wins.

Thanks for answering. So you think others should be able to torture US citizens or soldiers this way.

Not me.

you are too fucking stupid
as if they WOULDNT torture because we didnt
you are sorely lacking in historical perspective

Repetitive

Don't feel like playing with children today.

I'll respond to posts that don't contain infantile insults.

 

[Iriemon]

They are evil. So we can be evil too.

They want to kill as many Americans as possible.
We want, or should want, to prevent that by any means possible.

Of course.

They are evil. Are we?

 

[Iriemon]

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp

Conveniently left out of the press release?

He also defends those who carried out the interrogations?

Looks like someone in BO government has sense.

It may be true that some useful information can be obtained from torture.

So I assume you'd support torture of American citizens where they may have useful information? An accused gang member perhaps? An accused organized crime member? How about someon who didn't pay his taxes because he says he has no money?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well IMHO, if the terrorist doesn't worry about the profound psychological scars that wantonly killing as many innocent people as possible may produce, why the fuck should i worry about any such scars he may receive as a result of preventing him from killing said innocent people?

Look, Skull Merkin...The facts are that torture doesn't produce reliable intel. Second, any prosecution whether in civil or military courts of people who have been tortured will fail as any evidence obtained through torture will be tainted and thus, inadmissible. And, if you've paid ANY attention at all, which seems unlikely. most of the detainees at GITMO, and elsewhere are low level functionaries who were little more than cooks and drivers for Al Qaeda or completely innocent. Is it right or just to hold and/or torture the innocent? Or are you of that noxious school of thought that the ends justify the means even if the innocent get caught up in the meat grinder?

And your opinion, is just that...an opinion, and an ill-informed one at that.

So the intel that stopped the L.A. attack was useless?

These so called torture techniques are NOT physical in nature but rather psychological. Combined with sleep deprivation, hunger, and other methods, they are designed to weaken psychological barriers and elicit unintentional responses from prisoners.

There was no ripping out of fingernails, no breaking of bones, no Iron Maidens, no stretching on the rack etc. So the "They said anything to stop the pain" defense does not work.

The physical safety of these terrorists was taken into account every step of the way

And if one, just one, American's life was saved because of it, I have no problem with a terrorists or anyone with knowledge of a terrorist plot being subjected to them.

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

Now, as for just being "psychological", perhaps you and I should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a cloth over your face and start pouring water. We'll see how long it takes you to change your tune.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We are having this discussion precisely because our politicians are unwilling to do what should be done to protect this country. And the reason for it is nothing more than the sentiment of ,"What will the world think of us?"

Well, people, we are not doing what we should be doing.

I am as big a civil liberties advocate as there is. i have no problem with anyone doing anything that does not infringe on my own personal liberties. That said, I do not believe that we have to extend all of our constitutional rights to every person on the planet. American citizens are protected by our Constitution and no one else.

If we want to secure our country, we need not be shedding blood in faraway lands. We need not be propping up puppet governments as we have done in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter and which is one of the major reasons we are so hated and so involved in the M.E. and other parts of the world today.

We need to make this country safe for Americans. Not to make the world safe for everyone while neglecting our own security.

Every non-citizen of the United States upon attempting to enter this country should be subjected to intense scrutiny. If there is any reason to question a person's motives or affiliations, then access is denied. Period.

People on temporary visas should have to agree to an ankle bracelet, or at least an RF chip in their passport so that at the expiration of their permission to be in this country, if they overstay, they can be found and sent home.

Our borders, including our airports should be impenetrable to anyone not an American citizen. our air space should be patrolled by our air force, likewise our waterways with our navy and our military should be recalled from posts in foreign countries to do just that.

If we had the political will to do these things at home, we would have no need to interrogate foreign combatants. But we don't have the will to do that do we? We have the belief that it is our responsibility to teach Afghan women to read and we will have our soldiers die to achieve that end. We believe that our soldiers should die for someone else's right to vote when those same people aren't willing to die for that same right. And when American lives are at risk, we should be willing to prevent the possibility but we are not. This is the flaw in our thinking.

The simple truth is that if we worried more about our country and started acting here, at home, and stop meddling the in political affairs of other countries, we would not have had people interred at Gitmo.

 

[Bullypulpit]

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp

Conveniently left out of the press release?

He also defends those who carried out the interrogations?

Looks like someone in BO government has sense.

amazing
he wont last long

That was my first thought too. It should be interesting to see how this unfolds now. Kudo's to Blair for having some nads. (I hope Cheney has a job waiting for him if he sticks to his guns!).

YOU had a THOUGHT!?! Now that's a cause for celebration.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Look, Skull Merkin...The facts are that torture doesn't produce reliable intel. Second, any prosecution whether in civil or military courts of people who have been tortured will fail as any evidence obtained through torture will be tainted and thus, inadmissible. And, if you've paid ANY attention at all, which seems unlikely. most of the detainees at GITMO, and elsewhere are low level functionaries who were little more than cooks and drivers for Al Qaeda or completely innocent. Is it right or just to hold and/or torture the innocent? Or are you of that noxious school of thought that the ends justify the means even if the innocent get caught up in the meat grinder?

And your opinion, is just that...an opinion, and an ill-informed one at that.

So the intel that stopped the L.A. attack was useless?

These so called torture techniques are NOT physical in nature but rather psychological. Combined with sleep deprivation, hunger, and other methods, they are designed to weaken psychological barriers and elicit unintentional responses from prisoners.

There was no ripping out of fingernails, no breaking of bones, no Iron Maidens, no stretching on the rack etc. So the "They said anything to stop the pain" defense does not work.

The physical safety of these terrorists was taken into account every step of the way

And if one, just one, American's life was saved because of it, I have no problem with a terrorists or anyone with knowledge of a terrorist plot being subjected to them.

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

Now, as for just being "psychological", perhaps you and I should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a cloth over your face and start pouring water. We'll see how long it takes you to change your tune.

But you see, that shows your enjoyment of inflicting pain, as there is absolutely no reasonable cause for you to do that. I have no affiliation with any foreign or domestic terrorist organizations. i have prefaced my entire argument on the reasonable belief that these techniques only be used when there is some degree of certainty that one was involved in or had knowledge of a terrorist action.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Look, Skull Merkin...The facts are that torture doesn't produce reliable intel. Second, any prosecution whether in civil or military courts of people who have been tortured will fail as any evidence obtained through torture will be tainted and thus, inadmissible. And, if you've paid ANY attention at all, which seems unlikely. most of the detainees at GITMO, and elsewhere are low level functionaries who were little more than cooks and drivers for Al Qaeda or completely innocent. Is it right or just to hold and/or torture the innocent? Or are you of that noxious school of thought that the ends justify the means even if the innocent get caught up in the meat grinder?

And your opinion, is just that...an opinion, and an ill-informed one at that.

So the intel that stopped the L.A. attack was useless?

These so called torture techniques are NOT physical in nature but rather psychological. Combined with sleep deprivation, hunger, and other methods, they are designed to weaken psychological barriers and elicit unintentional responses from prisoners.

There was no ripping out of fingernails, no breaking of bones, no Iron Maidens, no stretching on the rack etc. So the "They said anything to stop the pain" defense does not work.

The physical safety of these terrorists was taken into account every step of the way

And if one, just one, American's life was saved because of it, I have no problem with a terrorists or anyone with knowledge of a terrorist plot being subjected to them.

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

Now, as for just being "psychological", perhaps you and I should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a cloth over your face and start pouring water. We'll see how long it takes you to change your tune.

i am sure you have a link to prove your point on the intel. The Washington post piece does not seem to corroborate that.

 

[sealybobo]

we are not talking about Abu Ghraib. We are talking about sanctioned interrogation techniques. the guards at Abu Ghraib were not interrogating prisoners, they were degrading them. there is a difference.

I am sure we tortured thousands of Sunni's in Iraq and at that prison. Not the guards, but the CIA.

Just admit that Bush handled Iraq/Afganistan all wrong.

You all seemed to summons up the courage to distance yourselves from him on the economy, now just take it the rest of the way. Say it. He sucked!

And you went along with him every step of the way. You even went along with him on the economy, until about a month before the election.

Then you and McCain tried to distance yourselves from him.

I got to go home. Good night.

oh you're sure.....well i guess that proves it. Might as well call it a wrap folks because booBoo is sure.

And why do you still delude yourself that i ever said that Bush did anything right in Iraq?

remember, I said we should never have been there in the first place?

My oh my! Now I know why all this talk yesterday about this. I didn't realize Obama turned this issue over to the Attorney General. Its about fucking time. Cheney shouldn't have run his mouth. Obama was trying to move on but Cheney just wouldn't go away.

But now I know why all this talk about, "if you knew it would save a life, would you torture". Well if you knew there was chocolate in my seamen, would you blow me?

Anyways, I doubt anything will come of it, except embarrassing Cheney and maybe allowing people to sue him and get some of that Haloburton money from him.

What an evil man Cheney is. And you worship him I'm sure. You may not like his results, but you sure defended his techniques.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am sure we tortured thousands of Sunni's in Iraq and at that prison. Not the guards, but the CIA.

Just admit that Bush handled Iraq/Afganistan all wrong.

You all seemed to summons up the courage to distance yourselves from him on the economy, now just take it the rest of the way. Say it. He sucked!

And you went along with him every step of the way. You even went along with him on the economy, until about a month before the election.

Then you and McCain tried to distance yourselves from him.

I got to go home. Good night.

oh you're sure.....well i guess that proves it. Might as well call it a wrap folks because booBoo is sure.

And why do you still delude yourself that i ever said that Bush did anything right in Iraq?

remember, I said we should never have been there in the first place?

My oh my! Now I know why all this talk yesterday about this. I didn't realize Obama turned this issue over to the Attorney General. Its about fucking time. Cheney shouldn't have run his mouth. Obama was trying to move on but Cheney just wouldn't go away.

But now I know why all this talk about, "if you knew it would save a life, would you torture". Well if you knew there was chocolate in my seamen, would you blow me?

Anyways, I doubt anything will come of it, except embarrassing Cheney and maybe allowing people to sue him and get some of that Haloburton money from him.

What an evil man Cheney is. And you worship him I'm sure. You may not like his results, but you sure defended his techniques.

I don't like chocolate and I, unlike you, am not a flaming homo.

 

[sealybobo]

So the intel that stopped the L.A. attack was useless?

These so called torture techniques are NOT physical in nature but rather psychological. Combined with sleep deprivation, hunger, and other methods, they are designed to weaken psychological barriers and elicit unintentional responses from prisoners.

There was no ripping out of fingernails, no breaking of bones, no Iron Maidens, no stretching on the rack etc. So the "They said anything to stop the pain" defense does not work.

The physical safety of these terrorists was taken into account every step of the way

And if one, just one, American's life was saved because of it, I have no problem with a terrorists or anyone with knowledge of a terrorist plot being subjected to them.

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

Now, as for just being "psychological", perhaps you and I should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a cloth over your face and start pouring water. We'll see how long it takes you to change your tune.

i am sure you have a link to prove your point on the intel. The Washington post piece does not seem to corroborate that.

Most CIA interrigators I've heard talk say that they got all their information befriending the prisoners. Overtime they built up trust and would talk.

I don't want to be proven wrong, so I'll just say I bet you that they got ZILCH from torture. ZERO credible intel from waterboarding.

They did it because Republicans get off on this stuff.

Imagine a bunch of Bill O'Reilly's, Rush Limpballs and Slananties torturing muslims and then wacking off later in their rooms. I bet they even raped their prisoners.

 

[sealybobo]

oh you're sure.....well i guess that proves it. Might as well call it a wrap folks because booBoo is sure.

And why do you still delude yourself that i ever said that Bush did anything right in Iraq?

remember, I said we should never have been there in the first place?

My oh my! Now I know why all this talk yesterday about this. I didn't realize Obama turned this issue over to the Attorney General. Its about fucking time. Cheney shouldn't have run his mouth. Obama was trying to move on but Cheney just wouldn't go away.

But now I know why all this talk about, "if you knew it would save a life, would you torture". Well if you knew there was chocolate in my seamen, would you blow me?

Anyways, I doubt anything will come of it, except embarrassing Cheney and maybe allowing people to sue him and get some of that Haloburton money from him.

What an evil man Cheney is. And you worship him I'm sure. You may not like his results, but you sure defended his techniques.

I don't like chocolate and I, unlike you, am not a flaming homo.

I'm not gay.

But the one thing I notice about you people who are right wing but say you don't defend Bush/Cheney, is that you sure do seem to approve of everything they did as they were doing it.

In hindsite you might not want to admit you were a Bush cheerleader, but you were. Still are. Just now its Jindal, Boehner, etc.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My oh my! Now I know why all this talk yesterday about this. I didn't realize Obama turned this issue over to the Attorney General. Its about fucking time. Cheney shouldn't have run his mouth. Obama was trying to move on but Cheney just wouldn't go away.

But now I know why all this talk about, "if you knew it would save a life, would you torture". Well if you knew there was chocolate in my seamen, would you blow me?

Anyways, I doubt anything will come of it, except embarrassing Cheney and maybe allowing people to sue him and get some of that Haloburton money from him.

What an evil man Cheney is. And you worship him I'm sure. You may not like his results, but you sure defended his techniques.

I don't like chocolate and I, unlike you, am not a flaming homo.

I'm not gay.

But the one thing I notice about you people who are right wing but say you don't defend Bush/Cheney, is that you sure do seem to approve of everything they did as they were doing it.

In hindsite you might not want to admit you were a Bush cheerleader, but you were. Still are. Just now its Jindal, Boehner, etc.

Not really, the only republican i actually like is judd gregg.

And for a guy that's not gay, you certainly seem to like to use anal and oral sex examples with other men an awful lot.

You say you're not gay but you are. (and you can't disagree because I am using your logic here)

 

[Bullypulpit]

So the intel that stopped the L.A. attack was useless?

These so called torture techniques are NOT physical in nature but rather psychological. Combined with sleep deprivation, hunger, and other methods, they are designed to weaken psychological barriers and elicit unintentional responses from prisoners.

There was no ripping out of fingernails, no breaking of bones, no Iron Maidens, no stretching on the rack etc. So the "They said anything to stop the pain" defense does not work.

The physical safety of these terrorists was taken into account every step of the way

And if one, just one, American's life was saved because of it, I have no problem with a terrorists or anyone with knowledge of a terrorist plot being subjected to them.

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

Now, as for just being "psychological", perhaps you and I should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a cloth over your face and start pouring water. We'll see how long it takes you to change your tune.

i am sure you have a link to prove your point on the intel. The Washington post piece does not seem to corroborate that.

It was called "Bojinka" google it yourself .

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

Now, as for just being "psychological", perhaps you and I should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a cloth over your face and start pouring water. We'll see how long it takes you to change your tune.

i am sure you have a link to prove your point on the intel. The Washington post piece does not seem to corroborate that.

It was called "Bojinka" google it yourself .

do your own research asshole. you brought up the point you prove it.

 

[Iriemon]

Look, Skull Merkin...The facts are that torture doesn't produce reliable intel. Second, any prosecution whether in civil or military courts of people who have been tortured will fail as any evidence obtained through torture will be tainted and thus, inadmissible. And, if you've paid ANY attention at all, which seems unlikely. most of the detainees at GITMO, and elsewhere are low level functionaries who were little more than cooks and drivers for Al Qaeda or completely innocent. Is it right or just to hold and/or torture the innocent? Or are you of that noxious school of thought that the ends justify the means even if the innocent get caught up in the meat grinder?

And your opinion, is just that...an opinion, and an ill-informed one at that.

So the intel that stopped the L.A. attack was useless?

These so called torture techniques are NOT physical in nature but rather psychological. Combined with sleep deprivation, hunger, and other methods, they are designed to weaken psychological barriers and elicit unintentional responses from prisoners.

There was no ripping out of fingernails, no breaking of bones, no Iron Maidens, no stretching on the rack etc. So the "They said anything to stop the pain" defense does not work.

The physical safety of these terrorists was taken into account every step of the way

And if one, just one, American's life was saved because of it, I have no problem with a terrorists or anyone with knowledge of a terrorist plot being subjected to them.

Well given that the intel on the possible attack on LA was obtained in a 1995 raid on Ramsey Bin Yussef's apartment in the Philippines, no torture was involved, and since the intel indicated said plan was only in it's conceptual stages, there was no attack to prevent. Bush's claim to have done so was just another fabrication on his part.

That's interesting, and blows the who DOJ memo out of the water. Do you have a source?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks for answering. So you think others should be able to torture US citizens or soldiers this way.

Not me.

you are too fucking stupid
as if they WOULDNT torture because we didnt
you are sorely lacking in historical perspective

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.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't like chocolate and I, unlike you, am not a flaming homo.

I'm not gay.

But the one thing I notice about you people who are right wing but say you don't defend Bush/Cheney, is that you sure do seem to approve of everything they did as they were doing it.

In hindsite you might not want to admit you were a Bush cheerleader, but you were. Still are. Just now its Jindal, Boehner, etc.

Not really, the only republican i actually like is judd gregg.

And for a guy that's not gay, you certainly seem to like to use anal and oral sex examples with other men an awful lot.

You say you're not gay but you are. (and you can't disagree because I am using your logic here)

Is it more gay to give or receive? Some think it is more gay if you are the catcher, but I'm not sure, because the guy giving is definately erect.

And you know I'm not gay because you never see me at the meetings.

Sure I experimented with homosexuality in college, but then again, who didn't, right? Right?

What does it mean when 2 lesbians make love? It doesn't mean dick.

Did you hear about the gay chior boy who choked on his first hym?

How about the jewish gay guy, Heblew.

 

[Iriemon]

you are too fucking stupid
as if they WOULDNT torture because we didnt
you are sorely lacking in historical perspective

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 have a hard time personally reconciling a practice that we condemned Japanese as war criminals and sent to jail for doing as being OK just because we are the ones doing it.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks for answering. So you think others should be able to torture US citizens or soldiers this way.

Not me.

you are too fucking stupid
as if they WOULDNT torture because we didnt
you are sorely lacking in historical perspective

Repetitive

Don't feel like playing with children today.

I'll respond to posts that don't contain infantile insults.

you moron, you already DID respond to it
right here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1173039-post212.html