John Yoo responds to democrat smears of the CIA....

[Billo_Really]

Why is taxing the rich and starting the draft always where you lib's go?

Because that way we force the rich to fight the wars they start.

To have another Vietnam?

No, to prevent one.

And protests in the street?

Are American as apple pie.

Our volunteer military just pisses you pansy ass liberals off to no end doesn't it?

No, you being so cavalier as to putting our troops in harms way for corporate profit and gain, pisses us off.

 

[JoeB131]

Why is taxing the rich and starting the draft always where you lib's go? To have another Vietnam? And protests in the street? Our volunteer military just pisses you pansy ass liberals off to no end doesn't it?

The reason why you had protests against the draft in Vietnam and not WWII was because in WWII, the rich couldn't buy their way out of the draft or get student deferments or get a doctor to say they had a cyst on their ass like Limbaugh did.

Also, the War on Terror shows the flaw in the all-volunteer military. When there's a pretty fucking good chance you might get killed like Pat Tillman, people stop signing up once fevers have cooled down. So eventually, the Army is rotating the same broken down National Guard unit through it's fourth tour, or they are signing up guys like Bowe Bergdahl or Bradley...er Chelsea Manning who they never would have taken in peacetime when people were signing up for that free tuition.

Whenever you read some obituary of some WWII vet, his friend remember he "signed up the day after Pearl Harbor". You never hear the guy who "signed up the day after the Kasarine Pass" or "Signed up the day after the Battle of Anzio". Because by the time those battles dragged on, people waited to be drafted.

 

[Disir]

I know...there are several threads about the democrats smearing the CIA and redefining harsh interrogation techniques as torture.....but this is a response from the man who looked at the legalities and helped make policy. It didn't seem right to let his response get buried in another thread....

John Yoo A torture report for the dustbin - NY Daily News

As a Justice Department lawyer who worked on the legality of the interrogation methods in 2002, I believed that the federal law prohibiting torture allowed the CIA to use interrogation methods that did not cause injury — including, in extraordinary cases, waterboarding — because of the grave threat to the nation’s security in the months after the 9/11 attacks.

I was swayed by the fact that our military used waterboarding in training thousands of its own soldiers without harm, and that the CIA would use the technique only on top Al Qaeda leaders thought to have actionable information on pending plots.

CIA officers have said that they used waterboarding on only three terrorist leaders, and that the interrogations yielded valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda.

I would want to know if they lied to me and other Bush administration officials, as the Feinstein report asserts. If it turned out that the facts on which I based my advice were wrong, I would be willing to change my opinion of the interrogation methods. As economist John Maynard Keynes reportedly said to a critic, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

But given its profoundly partisan tenor and fiercely disputed details, I have significant reason to doubt this report’s veracity.

Take, for example, an absolutely critical fact related to the utility of enhanced interrogation tactics — about how the U.S. tracked down and ultimately killed Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

According to several former CIA directors, harsh interrogations and waterboarding of Al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allowed U.S. analysts to identify Bin Laden’s courier (he would not use electronic communications). Tracking the courier then led us to Bin Laden’s hideout.

The Feinstein report alleges that other sources had already provided the name of the courier independently.
But the CIA’s rebuttal — signed by Obama’s appointee Director John Brennan — makes clear this information “was insufficient to distinguish him from many other Bin Laden associates until additional information from detainees put it into context and allowed CIA to better understand his true role and potential in the hunt for Bin Laden.”

It's torture. Not enhanced interrogation techniques. It doesn't work. If it was 100% foolproof then we wouldn't be calling it torture. But, it's not. If I torture you then you will tell me anything and everything that I want to hear whether it is true or not. You are not going to give a flying fuck.

I guarantee that every single cotton picking one of those clowns knew this in advance. Torture 9 out of 10 times will not elicit truth. Knowing this in advance, like they do, it can be said that it was designed to elicit false confessions.

I don't give a damn how many times they repeat the shit: it gave us very critical information. It doesn't show a damn thing besides an advert as good as Shannon Miller on a box of Wheaties. So and so said that it gave us critical information, therefore, it must be true.

Now, the CIA has received all kinds of money to create all kinds of mayhem for a very long time. There is no moral line in the sand and hasn't been for some 40 + years. So, maybe we can drop the bullshit.

If we focus on this and spend hours arguing a bunch of petty bullshit then we can pretend that the US wasn't behind or wasn't instigating much of the revolts in other countries in our current and recent past for another twenty years. How bloody convenient is that.

 

[Meathead]

Who cares what it's called. It worked. I remember when they were saying it's not a question of if, but when. Bush succeeded in securing the US. Bottom line.

 

[Disir]

You have stats? Data?

 

[Meathead]

You have stats?

Not stats, fact. No attacks on the US coordinated by al Qaeda. That's a lot more than you've got (self-righteous whining does not suffice).

 

[Disir]

You have stats?

Not stats, fact. No attacks on the US coordinated by al Qaeda. That's a lot more than you've got (self-righteous whining does not suffice).

You don't have shit.

 

[JoeB131]

You have stats?

Not stats, fact. No attacks on the US coordinated by al Qaeda. That's a lot more than you've got (self-righteous whining does not suffice).

Correlation does not equal causality.

The fact that the US took out AQ's Afghan bases, seized their accounts, dried up the economic resources, and put better security on soft targets had a lot more to do with stopping terrorist attacks than torturing some guy who probably had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

 

[Meathead]

Correlation does not equal causality.

The fact that the US took out AQ's Afghan bases, seized their accounts, dried up the economic resources, and put better security on soft targets had a lot more to do with stopping terrorist attacks than torturing some guy who probably had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The inherent contradiction in your post is probably lost on you. Bush saw to it that no subsequent terrorist attacks of much scale happened in the US. Whether the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives helped is unknown, but it is far greater stretch to say that it didn't than it did.

Bush succeeded.

 

[JoeB131]

The inherent contradiction in your post is probably lost on you. Bush saw to it that no subsequent terrorist attacks of much scale happened in the US. Whether the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives helped is unknown, but it is far greater stretch to say that it didn't than it did.

Bush succeeded.

Did he? He didn't kill Bin Laden. He invaded two countries and didn't eliminate radical Islam. 4500 dead in IRaq and 3000 dead in Afghanistan, doesn't sound like he succeeded to me.

 

[Dot Com]

John Yoo, Cheney and the rest of them should be shipped off to the Hague for international war crimes trials.

^ that.

He helped draft the "Bybee memo" (pretzel logic used to subvert this great nation's heritage)

 

[Dot Com]

The inherent contradiction in your post is probably lost on you. Bush saw to it that no subsequent terrorist attacks of much scale happened in the US. Whether the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives helped is unknown, but it is far greater stretch to say that it didn't than it did.

Bush succeeded.

Did he? He didn't kill Bin Laden. He invaded two countries and didn't eliminate radical Islam. 4500 dead in IRaq and 3000 dead in Afghanistan, doesn't sound like he succeeded to me.

Don't forget the 3,000+ killed in the REAL 9-11 while the Repub Admin was too busy plotting who was going to get contracts in vietraq JoeB131 .

 

[Disir]

Correlation does not equal causality.

The fact that the US took out AQ's Afghan bases, seized their accounts, dried up the economic resources, and put better security on soft targets had a lot more to do with stopping terrorist attacks than torturing some guy who probably had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The inherent contradiction in your post is probably lost on you. Bush saw to it that no subsequent terrorist attacks of much scale happened in the US. Whether the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives helped is unknown, but it is far greater stretch to say that it didn't than it did.

Bush succeeded.

That's not an answer. You know it. I know it. Someday Limbaugh will pull his head out long enough to know it.

Keep focusing on this issue and then pretend that this shit:
USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion World news The Guardian

never happened. Or you can wait until somebody tells you how to react.
That information will be located on the back of a Wheaties box.

 

[Meathead]

Correlation does not equal causality.

The fact that the US took out AQ's Afghan bases, seized their accounts, dried up the economic resources, and put better security on soft targets had a lot more to do with stopping terrorist attacks than torturing some guy who probably had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The inherent contradiction in your post is probably lost on you. Bush saw to it that no subsequent terrorist attacks of much scale happened in the US. Whether the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives helped is unknown, but it is far greater stretch to say that it didn't than it did.

Bush succeeded.

That's not an answer. You know it. I know it. Someday Limbaugh will pull his head out long enough to know it.

Keep focusing on this issue and then pretend that this shit:
USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion World news The Guardian

never happened. Or you can wait until somebody tells you how to react.
That information will be located on the back of a Wheaties box.

You've taken leave of whatever senses you had.

Bush's full-court press neutralized al Qaeda and led to bin Laden's death. Grasping at theoretical straws is not an argument.

 

[Disir]

Correlation does not equal causality.

The fact that the US took out AQ's Afghan bases, seized their accounts, dried up the economic resources, and put better security on soft targets had a lot more to do with stopping terrorist attacks than torturing some guy who probably had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The inherent contradiction in your post is probably lost on you. Bush saw to it that no subsequent terrorist attacks of much scale happened in the US. Whether the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives helped is unknown, but it is far greater stretch to say that it didn't than it did.

Bush succeeded.

That's not an answer. You know it. I know it. Someday Limbaugh will pull his head out long enough to know it.

Keep focusing on this issue and then pretend that this shit:
USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion World news The Guardian

never happened. Or you can wait until somebody tells you how to react.
That information will be located on the back of a Wheaties box.

You've taken leave of whatever senses you had.

Bush's full-court press neutralized al Qaeda and led to bin Laden's death. Grasping at theoretical straws is not an argument.

You admittedly do not have anything to back up your claims. Period. Nothing. Between your stance and the claim that the CIA misled the Americans it is a FARCE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the choice is between protecting American lives or wetting your pants thinking that a bad guy might be kept awake and asked questions, I'll side with Dick Cheney everytime.

Obama's idea of just killing all of them, rather than subjecting them to loud music, has it's advantages, but I'm surprised you think his way is better.

Except torturing doesn't make us any safer. What is pretty clear now is that the guys we tortured just said whatever they thought their interrogators wanted to hear, like when KSM said one of his operatives was going to Montana to recruit African-American Muslims.

Except torturing doesn't make us any safer.

Except it did.

What is pretty clear now is that the guys we tortured just said whatever they thought their interrogators wanted to hear,

Right, because they only asked open ended questions.
They never asked questions that ended up confirming info we already knew from other sources.
I guess I'm willing to just kill the bad guys, and all the innocent civilians nearby,
because Obama thinks that's better than being mean.

 

[thanatos144]

First the only reason liberals are calling it torture is because they lost in November. Secound enhanced interrogation got the info that killed Osama

tapatalk

 

[Disir]

It was torture before.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Who cares what it's called. It worked. I remember when they were saying it's not a question of if, but when. Bush succeeded in securing the US. Bottom line.

Horsefeathers - not everyone calling torture what it is, are democrats; I voted republican - so that dog don't hunt.

 

[thanatos144]

Who cares what it's called. It worked. I remember when they were saying it's not a question of if, but when. Bush succeeded in securing the US. Bottom line.

The bottom li

First the only reason liberals are calling it torture is because they lost in November. Secound enhanced interrogation got the info that killed Osama

tapatalk

Horsefeathers - not everyone calling torture what it is, are democrats; I voted republican - so that dog don't hunt.

Just like fakie is a republican

tapatalk