Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shall we get out the montage of dem's selling the WMD, AQ connection?Karl Rove Proud U.S. Tortured Detainees | The Moderate Voice
Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Politics, War.
Mar 12th, 2010 | View Comments
Karl Rove says he is proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists Yes, Im proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. Theyre appropriate, theyre in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.
Of course, the U.S. did a lot of nasty things to its detainees, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and a lot of what it did amounted to torture as defined by any decent human being.
What Rove was specifically focusing on, though, was waterboarding, which he does not consider torture. This is how they get around it. Bush repeatedly said the U.S. doesnt torture, but it only doesnt torture if you dont consider waterboarding torture. Its just a form of enhanced interrogation, a horrible euphemism.
But it is simply incorrect to assert that what the U.S. did conforms with international requirements (under the Geneva Conventions) and American law. Unless, of course, in this case, you define waterboarding down that is, unless you lie about what waterboarding is.
Well, a lot has been written about waterboarding, including by some who have experienced it, but Mark Benjamins recent Waterboarding for dummies piece at Salon graphically exposed the brutal truth about waterboarding and the use thereof by U.S. interrogators. Its a must-read, though a deeply disturbing one.
Its hardly the harmless dunk in the water Cheney said it was:
Why wouldn't he be?
After all, torturing Abu Zubaydah, a schizophrenic AQ travel agent falsely represented as "the number three man in Al Qaeda,"gave us all those great terror warnings in 2002 that were all complete bunk.
And torturing Sheikh al Libi gave us the "evidence" that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together on chem weapons, evidence used in Powell's UN presentation and the 2003 State of the Union. Of course, al Libi was passionately anti-Ba'athist and most likely did it on purpose, but hey.
And don't forget that waterboarding KSM helped stop a terrorist attack that was foiled a year before he was captured.
Pol Pot was a dictator that liked to get people to confess for various crimes, not because they were guilty, but because they were threats to his rule, and he wanted them executed or in jail.
He then researched the best way to get a false confession out of someone, and found out that waterboarding would consistently yield results.
Figures that Bush Jr. and Cheney would use the same technique........after all, they DID have to sell WMD's and Saddam's connection with AQ before the nation would get involved.
Karl Rove Proud U.S. Tortured Detainees | The Moderate Voice
Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Politics, War.
Mar 12th, 2010 | View Comments
Karl Rove says he is proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists Yes, Im proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. Theyre appropriate, theyre in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.
Of course, the U.S. did a lot of nasty things to its detainees, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and a lot of what it did amounted to torture as defined by any decent human being.
What Rove was specifically focusing on, though, was waterboarding, which he does not consider torture. This is how they get around it. Bush repeatedly said the U.S. doesnt torture, but it only doesnt torture if you dont consider waterboarding torture. Its just a form of enhanced interrogation, a horrible euphemism.
But it is simply incorrect to assert that what the U.S. did conforms with international requirements (under the Geneva Conventions) and American law. Unless, of course, in this case, you define waterboarding down that is, unless you lie about what waterboarding is.
Well, a lot has been written about waterboarding, including by some who have experienced it, but Mark Benjamins recent Waterboarding for dummies piece at Salon graphically exposed the brutal truth about waterboarding and the use thereof by U.S. interrogators. Its a must-read, though a deeply disturbing one.
Its hardly the harmless dunk in the water Cheney said it was:
Don't you ever back any of your statements up with anything other than name calling and personal rage. It's a shame the world is so different than the myopic way you see it. Must be awfully frightening.
What would you like me to back up?
What have you backed up?
Why don't you answer the question?
"Search your soul and tell me that you would rather we had another 9-11 type attack instead"
Come on rdean, tell us that your image of us is more important than saving lives.
Once again you make the assertion that torture stops attacks without any evidence.
Funny, everyone water-boarded calls it torture. Only behind the desk chicken hawks say it's not. I prefer to believe those who have actually been waterboarded. And don't lie and say you have been.
So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.
All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.
So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?
We haven't tortured so, your argument is completely moot.So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.
All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.
So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?
We haven't tortured so, your argument is completely moot.So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.
All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.
So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?
Let's just hope that it's all you bleeding heart lil' sympathizers who are running down the streets with your asses on fire the next time they pull off an attack. And they will pull off another attack. It's inevitable.
So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.
All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.
So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?
That's not true. The information acquired via waterboarding was used to thwart planned attacks. We have not had the equivalent of another 9/11.
So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?
The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit, according to the memos.
So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?
What a bogus question.
Understanding what? What his favorite color is?
Calling enhanced interrogation torture demeans the real victims of torture.
No, it did not thwart any planned attacks.
No, it did not thwart any planned attacks.
You have provided no evidence to support that claim. Former Bush administration officials have claimed they did. You can claim they are liars, but they do have access to a great deal of classified info. And the fact that we had no major attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 and during the rest of their watch supports their claims.
I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls enhanced techniques?
Im really reluctant to answer that, Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: I dont believe that has been the case.
Hmmmm...they chop the heads off of civilians.
We waterboard them to find out who they are planning to kill next.
The two are not morally equalivent.
No, we torture them as revenge...
