Whoops! CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding

[PatekPhilippe]

It is a fact that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture

Wrong. It's your OPINION that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture.

This is why no one will be charged with any alleged torture allegations with respect to the war on terrorism.

 

[Coyote]

Torture is torture whether it is illegal or not.

and what your definition of torture is differs from what the law states.

Again - the law opens the way for anything to be done, and not be called torture.

 

[rightwinger]

What disgusts me is how liberals care more about the comfort of 3 arch terrorists who were taunting interrogators than stopping a terrorist attack of terrorists flying a plane filled with people into a Los Angeles building.

America is defined by its values. Once we give those up, we are no better than the terrorists we so openly despise

Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

 

[Coyote]

What it boils down to is that the CIA says that they used waterboarding on three people under very controlled circumstances. They say that they gained information that stopped a 9-11 type attack on the west coast.

But there is no independent verification of what they claim. Tapes that would have supported the written record were destroyed.

And the only thing some of you can say is that we shouldn't have done it and screw the thousands who would have died if we hadn't.

That's a hypothetical. It assumes that the information could have been gotten without torture. It assumes that the thread was indeed a credible one (beyond a memo and the word of the CIA - what evidence supports this?).

If you are going to argue hypotheticals, then here is one.

Torture works. It works because eventually you'll hit on that one person who knows something of value assuming you can recognize it, and recognize it as truth and not something said to get out of the torture. In the process you will end up going through a number of people who don't have what you are looking for. So are you justifying the torture of an unknown number of "innocents" in order to get that one person and prevent the death of thousands? The ends justify the means?

Well I would rather the world believed us to water board every damned one of the extremists before I would allow another 9-11 type attack against our citizens.


Now you guys tell me which is more important, the worlds view of the USA or protecting thousands of innocent lives?

I don't give a shit if you can prove it is torture. It worked and saved innocent lives.

Nuff said.

It's not the world's view of the USA. It's the citizen's view, and what we feel the country stands for. Torture is a bit like selling your soul to the devil.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

America is defined by its values. Once we give those up, we are no better than the terrorists we so openly despise

Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.

Your very choice of the derogatory "pacifists" tells me a lot. Does that make you then, a "warmonger"?

It's a fine line between security and freedom.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It's not the world's view of the USA. It's the citizen's view, and what we feel the country stands for.

I could care less what another country thinks of us...as long as they know that they never want to be on our bad side. That being said...I could care less what the citizenry thinks of justified legal actions that were used to obtain information from known terrorists. If they choose to exploit the tactics for political reasons, which is exactly what they did, then that's fine. The pendulum swings both ways.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.

Your very choice of the derogatory "pacifists" tells me a lot. Does that make you then, a "warmonger"?

It's a fine line between security and freedom.

Why do you consider the term "pacifist" as derogatory? I don't.

and you are just chock full of assumptions aren't you.

 

[Coyote]

It's not the world's view of the USA. It's the citizen's view, and what we feel the country stands for.

I could care less what another country thinks of us...as long as they know that they never want to be on our bad side. That being said...I could care less what the citizenry thinks of justified legal actions that were used to obtain information from known terrorists. If they choose to exploit the tactics for political reasons, which is exactly what they did, then that's fine. The pendulum swings both ways.

The citizenry are what makes up the country. People should care what they think. Especially politiicians.

A lot can seem to be "justified" - like the internment of the Japanese, and they can be "legal". But not right.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Innocent lives. Think about it. If you are able.

Ollie

We have no expectation for our soldiers to be treated any better than we treat our prisoners. If we openly and proudly torture prisoners because by you own justification "We only did it three times" and "it saved lives" we are in fact, giving permission for our own soldiers to be tortured under those conditions.

Only in your eyes and those who for some strange reason want the USA to be the bad guy. Besides I still contend that it wasn't torture. Certainly doesn't compare with what our troops have endured through the years.

You mean like the JAPANESE WATER BOARDING our troops!!!???

 

[Coyote]

It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.

Your very choice of the derogatory "pacifists" tells me a lot. Does that make you then, a "warmonger"?

It's a fine line between security and freedom.

Why do you consider the term "pacifist" as derogatory? I don't.

and you are just chock full of assumptions aren't you.

Perhaps. But in these kinds of arguments the term "pacifist" is often thrown out with a derogatory intent by those on the right so I tend to take it as such. If I'm wrong I apologize.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The citizenry are what makes up the country. People should care what they think. Especially politiicians

.
Very true Coyote...but one must also consider that not all citizens think exactly the same....especially on this issue.

 

[Coyote]

It is a fact that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture

Wrong. It's your OPINION that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture.

This is why no one will be charged with any alleged torture allegations with respect to the war on terrorism.

No - it's not that waterboarding does not meet the legal definition of torture - if it's used under "lawful sanctions" - it is allowable. The sheriff of your home county can't waterboard his prisoners. He will be arrested and prosecuted for torture. In fact there was a case of exactly that.

 

[Coyote]

The citizenry are what makes up the country. People should care what they think. Especially politiicians

.
Very true Coyote...but one must also consider that not all citizens think exactly the same....especially on this issue.

I agree - that is why we are having this discussion

At any rate, I have to leave and do some errants before it snows

 

[CMike]

Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.

That is incorrect.

The enemy commandeered planes to fly into buildings that murdered thousands of lives.

Waterboarding was used on 3 terrorists under strict criteria, who were uncooperative, and even taunted their interrogators.

The wateboarding worked and saved thousands of american lives.

It would have been immoral not to have used it and let the terrorist attack happen.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Your very choice of the derogatory "pacifists" tells me a lot. Does that make you then, a "warmonger"?

It's a fine line between security and freedom.

Why do you consider the term "pacifist" as derogatory? I don't.

and you are just chock full of assumptions aren't you.

Perhaps. But in these kinds of arguments the term "pacifist" is often thrown out with a derogatory intent by those on the right so I tend to take it as such. If I'm wrong I apologize.

No worries Coyote...I used it in the context of that people have differing levels of violence that they can tolerate to achieve the solutions desired when diplomacy fails. Some can tolerate none whatsoever...whereas others are willing to go to any means.

 

[CMike]

America is defined by its values. Once we give those up, we are no better than the terrorists we so openly despise

Yes, and the value shown is that america cares more about stopping a terrorist attack than making 3 arch terrorists uncomfortable.

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

They are not criminals, they are unlawful combatants. That's another liberal flaw.

 

[CMike]

What it boils down to is that the CIA says that they used waterboarding on three people under very controlled circumstances. They say that they gained information that stopped a 9-11 type attack on the west coast.

But there is no independent verification of what they claim. Tapes that would have supported the written record were destroyed.

Of course there is no independent verification. The objective is to stop terrorist attacks, not public debate.

This is an intelligence war. Any information that the enemy has about sources and methods, only makes the US more vulnerable to further terrorist attacks.

The tapes no longer had value to the CIA, and they were destroyed, as should have happened. The tapes are now a security threat. If the information one the tapes were leaked it could get to the enemy and lead to further terrorist attacks.

And the only thing some of you can say is that we shouldn't have done it and screw the thousands who would have died if we hadn't.

That's a hypothetical. It assumes that the information could have been gotten without torture. It assumes that the thread was indeed a credible one (beyond a memo and the word of the CIA - what evidence supports this?).

That's not a hypothetical. That is the reality that the CIA operatives had to deal with.

All other methods to extract that information failed. When asked about terrorist attacks, they taunted the operatives simply saying "soon you will know".

This was the last resort and it worked. It stopped terrorists from flying a plane into a LA building.

And yeah the sources for this is the CIA memo, and the CIA director. Those are the sources that count.

The anonymours sources, and the ones, who were not involved in these cases directly, are utterly irrelevant.

If you are going to argue hypotheticals, then here is one.

Torture works. It works because eventually you'll hit on that one person who knows something of value assuming you can recognize it, and recognize it as truth and not something said to get out of the torture. In the process you will end up going through a number of people who don't have what you are looking for. So are you justifying the torture of an unknown number of "innocents" in order to get that one person and prevent the death of thousands? The ends justify the means?

Well I would rather the world believed us to water board every damned one of the extremists before I would allow another 9-11 type attack against our citizens.


Now you guys tell me which is more important, the worlds view of the USA or protecting thousands of innocent lives?

I don't give a shit if you can prove it is torture. It worked and saved innocent lives.

Nuff said.

It's not the world's view of the USA. It's the citizen's view, and what we feel the country stands for. Torture is a bit like selling your soul to the devil.

I would feel a lot better about my country knowing that it will do anything it can to stop terrorist atttacks, rather than giving unlawful combatants who are trying to kill as many americans as possible a bunch of rights, that will lead to more terrorist attacks.

I am sure that the Al Qaida leaders are laughing their butts off about how Obama has schakeled the CIA from doing their jobs.

 

[CMike]

America was built on the rights of the individual. It has protections for criminals regardless of what despicable act that criminal may commit. The concept of the "end justifies the means" was reprehensible to our founding fathers.
The idea that Americans are so willing to surrender the values and protections that we fought so hard to obtain is sad.

It may be sad...but to protect our way of life sometimes one must stoop to the level of your enemy however distasteful it may be to the pacifists.

Your very choice of the derogatory "pacifists" tells me a lot. Does that make you then, a "warmonger"?

It's a fine line between security and freedom.

Being pacifist is derogatory when your enemy isn't.

Being a warmonger when your enemy is at war with you is actually a good thing.

 

[CMike]

Schumer was actually right about something.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4CWk5LfoH0]YouTube - Chuck Schumer On "Torture" - "Do What You Have To Do"[/ame]