Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

How can you break your principals like that?

---

Hello El:

The problem is, you don't understand the principle. It's a CORE American principle. I don't know how it could have escaped you - but it has..

Let me see if I can explain it this way: Given that I wouldn't break my principles unless I KNEW something, that I couldn't possibly ever know, I'd NEVER have to even consider breaking my principles. It's a built in safety net. In THAT world, we don't know things, until we know them..

I agree with you, in that people on your side don't often times HAVE those principles. Like prosecutors who "know" the guy is guilty, so they don't mind lying.. Like the cops who "know" a guy is guilty, so they don't mind planting evidence...

Oh, don't you worry. I'm hip to your kind.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

The problem is, you don't understand the principle. It's a CORE American principle. I don't know how it could have escaped you - but it has..

Lemme see if I can explain it this way: Given that I wouldn't break my principles unless I KNEW something, that I couldn't possibly ever know, I'd NEVER have to even consider breaking my principles. It's a built in safety net. In THAT world, we don't know things, until we know them..

I agree with you, in that people on your side don't often times HAVE those principles. Like prosecutors who "know" the guy is guilty, so they don't mind lying.. Like the cops who "know" a guy is guilty, so they don't mind planting evidence...

Oh, don't you worry. I'm hip to your kind.

excon

---

I guess in your world soldiers plant evidence" on POWs just so they can torture them for $h!ts and giggles. I guess all the intelligence information gathered on KSM in the decades before he was captured was all planted on him because they knew that they would eventually be able to have the fun of waterboarding him for no reason whatsoever.

That's a strange world you live in. What color is the sky where you live?

I live on a planet called Earth, where people DO know things about other people and the information those people have based on intelligence gathered through other means. On Earth, KSM was a terrorist PLANNER... a guy who plans terrorist attacks and terrorist operations, and therefore would have direct knowledge of terrorist attacks and terrorist operations. Only on ExWorld do people think that a guy who plans terrorist attacks doesn't have any information about terrorist attacks.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I live on a planet called Earth, where people DO know things about other people and the information those people have based on intelligence gathered through other means.

---

So just on these 'other means' you have used before to gather this intelligence? Tell me how come these other means (presumably not torture) can't be used to get the information that this bad guy supposedly knows? If your so called intelligence tells you this guy knows something , how come your intelligence can't tell you what it is he knows? You see where I'm coming from? Hence, if your intelligence can tell you what it is he knows, then there would be no need to ask him, right? No need torture him? You already know what he knows via intelligence using these other means. No?

Or is it just that you really hate these guys and want to torture them? Or is just that I am missing something? I know you'll say I am. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

So just on these 'other means' you have used before to gather this intelligence?? Tell me how come these other means (presumably not torture) can't be used to get the information that this bad guy supposedly knows? If your so called intelligence tells you this guy knows something , how come your intelligence can't tell you what it is he knows?? You see where im coming from? Hence, if your intelligence can tell you what it is he knows, then there would be no need to ask him, right? No need torture him? You already know what he knows via intelligence using these other means. No??

Or is it just that you really hate these guys and want to torture them? Or is just that I am missing something? I know you'll say i am. :confused:

---

Oftentimes, intelligence, especially HUMINT, can get you general information, but not the specifics you need. For instance, if the CIA planted a limo driver on KSM, the driver might be able to tell you who KSM met with (a bunch of terrorists) and what the general topic of the conversation was (how to attack the USA again), but he wouldn't be able to tell you the details (who the operatives would be, where the attacks would take place, when they would take place). Good, actionable intel, but not enough to stop the attack.

Or the NSA might pick up a snippet of a conversation by KSM on a cell phone or satellite phone, referring to "the plan" that will soon take place and how it will be "a great blow against the Great Satan". But they don't know what the plan is. Again, good intel, but not enough to stop an attack.

These are just hypothetical examples, of course, but that is how things work. Intelligence analysis, like financial analysis, is more art than science sometimes.

So we KNEW he had information from various sources. We needed that information. He wasn't about to give us that information.

So what do you do about it?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I guess in your world soldiers plant evidence" on POWs just so they can torture them for $h!ts and giggles.

---

Hello again, El:

In my world, when HUGE rewards for Al Quaida are offered to very POOR people, certainly people were turned in for fun and profit.

Besides, our CIA doesn't need evidence. They are equal opportunity torturers.

excon

PS> You keep on saying you KNEW stuff, when you clearly didn't. You BELIEVED stuff, and based on that alone, you torture. But, speculation is NEVER enough reason to degrade yourself and your country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

In my world, when HUGE rewards for Al Quaida are offered to very POOR people, certainly people were turned in for fun and profit.

Besides, our CIA doesn't need evidence. They are equal opportunity torturers.

excon

PS> You keep on saying you KNEW stuff, when you clearly didn't. You BELIEVE stuff, and based on that alone, you torture.

---

If I am told that a certain terrorist planner met with other terrorist planners and a bunch of terrorist operatives to discuss how to attack America, I think we can say that I KNOW that this terrorist planner has information that we need. It isn't supposition. It is a fact based on factual information.

Plus, there's the little inconvenient fact (for you) that KSM did turn out to have information that we needed and used to stop terrorist attacks. Not only did the intelligence guys know that KSM have information, they were also correct AND effective at getting that information.

I seem to remember you saying (on gay marriage, I believe) that you didn't care what the means were by which a particular conclusion came to be, it was the result that mattered. It didn't matter if the conclusion was Unconstitutional, based on incorrect interpretations of the law, or set precedents that were dangerous. It was the ends that mattered.

Not in this case, though... I wonder why. (Not really. I already know why.)

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

If I am told that a certain terrorist planner met with other terrorist planners and a bunch of terrorist operatives to discuss how to attack America, I think we can say that I KNOW

---

Hello again, El:

See this is the point you miss. The credibility of the person who TOLD you IS important. The fact that you were told isn't.

excon

Correct. The CIA has to determine what sources are credible and which are not. They can do that through multiple-source corroborations. That's actually the best way to do it. They can do it through historical evidence... how many times has that source been correct in the past? How many times has it been wrong? They can do it through electronic intelligence, a conversation by the subject of the interrogation in question to his mom in which he mentions to her to keep an eye on the TV for "big happeneings" around a specific date. There are lots of ways to corroborate intelligence information. The CIA uses all of them.

You will notice that they didn't waterboard EVERYONE held at Gitmo. Seems to me that they only did so with guys that they KNEW had information they needed, based on intelligence gained through other means and properly corroborated.

They KNEW that KSM had the info. You just don't want to admit that, because then you would have to admit you were wr-r-r-... wr-r-r-r... not right.

Elliot

Now that more and more is coming out about what Pelosi and other Democrats knew, the Dems in are whining that the CIA is out to get them. Waaa!

http://standupforamerica.files.wordp...ybaby_seal.jpg

Last I heard :Leon Panetta ran the agency .


That is hilarious in light of the way Dem. Shadow warriors in the agency undermined Bush foreign policy ,and through timed leaks, tried to influence the 2004 election.

I think that Pelosi is 100% correct. THe CIA IS out to get the Dems.

But what the hell did she think was going to happen when she and her cronies decided to throw the CIA under the bus in order to show the world their "shock" at the Republican party?

In order to paint the GOP as a bunch of torturers and evil maniacs, she needed to paint the CIA with the same feather for following Bush's orders. And while many in the CIA don't like Bush, they'll be damned if they're going to go down in order to make Pelosi look good. So they're fighting back.

So, yeah, it's a witch-hunt. But the hunt was started by Pelosi and her cronies. Pelosi lied, and the CIA guys are going to use that to defend themselves, and if Pelosi goes down, so be it.

She SHOULD'A kept her big mouth shut. But she is constitutionally incapable of doing so.

Elliot

Hey if she knew and now is trying to save her @$$ then she is no better then the people doing the torture. I always get an uneasy feeling when I see her.

Hello again,

The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it. That's patently ridiculous.

There are a LOT of apologists out there. Let 'em ALL swing in the wind. Torture is illegal. It's a war crime. Everybody who was complicit in it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it. That's patently ridiculous.

There are a LOT of apologists out there. Let 'em ALL swing in the wind. Torture is illegal. It's a war crime. Everybody who was complicit in it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

excon

---

I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it. That's patently ridiculous.

There are a LOT of apologists out there. Let 'em ALL swing in the wind. Torture is illegal. It's a war crime. Everybody who was complicit in it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

excon

---

Not to me. To me it's about making the unbelievable hypocrisy of Democrats like Pelosi stick. They start a witch hunt, lie about their own involvement and cry foul when it comes back to haunt them while the MSM plays CYA on their behalf. The truth is more than Republicans are ruthless torturers.

Schumer has said he wants prosecutions also .

But ,when the memory of 9-11 was fresh in his mind he said this :

And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.
Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do.
So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.

Going After Gonzales by Byron York on National Review Online=

Now none of the approved techniques reaches the level of torture ,let alone fairly severe torture. But this illustrates the mind set of both parties in Congress when the attacks were still fresh in everyone's mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it.
excon

---

How many girls is "madam" scar face running these days EC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

How many girls is "madam" scar face running these days EC?

---

I don't know. But excon used the term "Madame", not "madam".

The first is a term of polite address for a French woman. (Not that Pelosi is French, but it is still a term of polite address.)

The second has two meanings. The first is a formal address of a woman, especially a married woman. The second one is a term for a woman who owns or runs a brothel.

The question, 450donn, is why you automatially assumed that excon meant that Pelosi is a brothel manager? Granted she leads the House of Representatives, and a bigger house of whores I've never seen (unless it's the Senate). But still, that was not excon's intent, nor was it the specific term he used. So why did you assume it?

Seems I remember that the Clinton adm. Effectively emasculated the intelligence apparatus, and then we got hit by the 9/11 attack.

Now we are going to go back and do it all over again, I guess.

And oh yeah, Clinton also weakened our military. And Obama wants to cut the defence budjet.

We never learn, do we?

I agree, Gal. It seems that in this era of increased spending, massive budget shortfalls, and overwhelming national debt, the ONLY place that the government is cutting spending is in the military.

Elliot