Of course there is no independent verification. The objective is to stop terrorist attacks, not public debate.
An independent verification does not mean "public debate". If you don't have that possibility, then the system can be readily abused. Destroying the tapes effectively ended any possibility of determining the truth beyond - "trust me". And no manipulative fear of terrorist attacks would make me want to give up those checks and balances.
Actually the justice department knew as well. The CIA memo was to the justice department.
"The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Manipulative fear of terrorist attacks? Days of Terror: A Photo Gallery
Yes. Right there is the manipulation. Rather than work at the issue rationally - people use images of 9/11 to keep people frightened and willing to accept anything, even the situation is no longer the same.
Since the Bush Justice Department has been under investigation for "politicization" and some of it's decisions legally suspect, I'm not sure that I would take their word for anything anymore than the CIA. The DoJ also only goes by the CIA's word doesn't it? Having those tapes available would have lent legitimacy to the claims, but they were deliberately destroyed after they were told not to.
We know the truth. You would rather believe the conspiracy theorists rather than the people in the front lines actually dealing with it.
No, I don't buy into conspiracy theories. What I see is the following:
CIA makes a claim - a claim not uniformly upheld by other (competing) agencies like the FBI (which is also directly dealing with it) and other individuals (such as some in the military).
The DoJ under Bush, was hardly impartial in the way the DoJ should be and Gonzales was known to "rubber stamp" what ever the Bush administration wanted. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff - this is what has come out in various inquiries. This sort of thing isn't good because it makes any determininations from the DoJ legally suspect. If they had been on firm ground - it would be resolved.
And then tapes, which documented what was in memos (supposedly) were deliberately destroyed contrary to Congress' express order.
What we have is a situation that boils down to this: trust us.
My question is why, when you destroyed the very means available to produce that trust?
Uniform agreement between whom? The conspiracy theorists and the CIA operatives who were actually there? That's rather silly. The left wingers have simply manufactured a political issues for themselves.
Then why destroy the tapes which would have confirmed the CIA operatives story? Not wanting the tapes leaked is very weak given that there is a lot of material is successfully kept secret. Destroying those tapes also prevents Congress from conducting any sort of oversight. In otherwords, trust us.
And yes all other methods failed.
According to who? The CIA. All we have is their word for it.
From the CIA memo to the justice department.
Before they were subjected to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation that included waterboarding, KSM and Zubaydah were not only uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves.
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques,” says the Justice Department memo. “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’ Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”
After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles
And again, the only source is the CIA telling the DoJ and the DoJ reiterating what the CIA said. Trust us.
Yet why was he waterboarded so many times if it was so successful?
That's two departments. The CIA and justice departments. And yes I trust them. This is an intelligence war. Information is what stops terrorist attacks.
That's one Department - with the DoJ going by what the CIA told it. A DoJ that was has subsequently been compromised. And you have the FBI contradicting what the CIA said and
any independent verification of their claims has been destroyed. You can't get around that. It would settle this thing once and for all.
What man behind the curtain? The only thing you have that contradicts them are anonymous sources.
Yanno...there is something that bothers me. Pres. Bush took a lot of heat from the lefties over this. Why was the memo disclassfied under Obama, when Bush didn't declassify it even though it vindicates him?
It seems to indicate that this memo should not have been declassified at all, and that Obama was reckless in doing so.
That would be a different topic.
Also, the arch leftwing speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi was told that waterboarding was used as well, and she didn't have an objection.
Source: Aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used - CNN.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah.
Source says Nancy Pelosi didn't object about waterboard usage because she wasn't personally briefed about it.
This appears to contradict Pelosi's account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.
Sheehy attended a briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in February 2003, with Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who took over Pelosi's spot as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Just because she did not object does not make it right. You're throwing out a red herring and "bandwagon" fallacy here.
This issue has really very little to do with waterboarding, it's about the democrat method of throwing enough shit on the wall and seeing what sticks.
I don't give a fig what the democrats are doing or saying. My argument is about waterboarding. I'm not the one trying to change it.
