 |
Hello torturers:
When asked where Osama Bin Laden was, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he didn't know. "Then he torture me", Mohammed said. "Then I said, 'yes he is in this area'". "I make up stories".
The above from transcripts released yesterday. This is THE guy that Cheney says gave them "actionable" intelligence. Bwa, ha ha ha. Are you guys ashamed of yourselves yet?? Nahhh, that AIN'T going to happen.
excon
Once again the Obama Administration selectively leaks information. Previous accounts of the military tribunal hearings had been made public, but Obama went back and reviewed the classified sections and after some more cherry picking determined that more information supporting his view could be released.What is he hiding? Why won't he release all of the memos as Cheney requested ?
What do you expect KSM to say ? If he lied then why do you believe him now ?
At the same military tribunal hearing, he bragged about 29 terror plots in which he took part. Was he also lying when he took credit for planning terrorist acts we know he planned and ones he planned that were successfully broken up ?
Well after he was waterboarded... March 2007... during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay ,he confessed to masterminding the September 11th attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.
On December 8, 2008, he and four co-defendants sent a note to the military judge overseeing the tribunals expressing their desire to confess and plead guilty. Was that the result of enhanced interrogation also?. or is he lying about his guilt now even though he wants to freely confess to the charges ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't believe anything that comes out of his terrorist mouth... It's actually vice and YOU who believe him - not me.
Or do you want me to recount how much ACTIONABLE intelligence YOU and vice say he delivered?? You guys are silly.
excon
I'll do it for you . He identified Iyman Faris who was plotting to take down the Brooklyn Bridge.
KSM also identified 9/11 collaborator Yazid Sufaat. The 9-11 Report on page 151 says : “Sufaat would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.”
Information from KSM helped capture Hambali .Hambali supervised the October 2002 Bali nightclub bombings.
It is probable that information from KSM thwarted the 2nd wave attack on LA.'s Library Tower.
... and that is just what is public information .Cheney claims there is more in the unreleased documents .
I'm sure he also gave the intel agencies a better idea of the AQ organizational structure .
Just probable? Not factual?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If I had definitive proof of it I would say so. The other 3 things I mentioned are fact.
Coercive interrogation techniques are minimally effective and generally provide counterintelligence. Under enough distress a subject will admit to anything. Statistically subjects are more likely to become dissociative and exhibits various stages of psychopathy after the event. This increases the likelihood of the subject becoming an extremest, sociopath and/or exhibiting other types of socially predatory behavior. The only way to prevent subjects of coercive interrogation techniques from becoming a threat (national or to their own environment) is to permanently retain or neutralize them.
The best way to successfully extract information from a subject is medical interrogation. It has proven to be extremely successful. However the survival rate of the subjects is about 73%. The compounds have a tendency to cause automatic renal failure and/or coronary complications resulting in death.
If "torture" is for debate I do not see the problem in calculating acceptable looses. It may seem "insensitive" however if the subject dies so be it as long as the information is obtained before death.
Death (unnatural and natural) is prevalent in all countries, most people just don't have the stomach to come to terms with mortality.
The "Left" need to get a grip, and the "right" need to be cognoscente of their effect. They are both useless and counterproductive.
Hello mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
The only people debating it are rightwingers who want to justify torture. They want to do that, probably to stay out of jail. May I remind you that torture is illegal, not because it works or NOT, but because it's offensive to civilized society.
I don't know what "getting a grip" has to do with the Constitution and the laws of this great country.
excon
The sucker broke like a rotten egg under a sledge hammer, and now he's embarrassed that the whole world knows it. OF COURSE he's going to tell the public he lied to us. But the kicker is that what he gave to the CIA regarding terrorist operations turned out to be true... which means that for all his posturing, KSM was the CIA's b!tch after 40 seconds of water being poured over his face.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If I was that much of a b!tch, I'd lie about it too to protect my cred with the terrorists.
Elliot
It doesn't. It only has to do with left-wingers who are trying to reinterpret the Constitution and laws of this great country. THEY need to get a grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
And, you know this how? Because Cheney, of WMD fame, said so? You guys are silly.
excon
Offensive to civilized society. That is funny. What determines a society to be civilized. The term civilized is actually a comparative adjective. Ego & ethnocentric people and societies believe that their actions and belief systems deem them "civilized"Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I believe you are referring to the bill of rights as opposed to the constitution. I have no legal knowledge of any kind, but I do believe that there is a distinction, although commonly mistaken for the same thing.
Liberals tend to claim "reason", "law and constitution", "ideals and humanity" whereas right-wingers claim "moral right", "strength", "security" but they both lack the pragmatism to formulate functional solutions.
Real life is not the "American way" it is:
- children starving
- children being killed if they are unsustainable
- the objectification of women
- The need to sustain one self by any means
- WAR
- Child labor
- domination
- Birth
- DEATH
These are all realities of life. Simple and consistent facts that are anthropologically proven and continue to this day. To act as if these things are not facts of life is naïve at best and STUPID at worst. The concept of a "civilized society" is kind of skewed.
All things need balance. Even the kindest leaders need "bad-guys" on their teem to get stuff done. Ideology is great but when it hampers the ability in objectively evaluate things it cripples the ability to... simply... GET STUFF DONE.
Bill Maher and Bill Oreilly are two side of the same coin. Both polarizing figures that skew facts to promote dogmatic, one-sided idiocy.
If torture is offensive to civilized society, what about child abuse, child labor, rape, racism, substandard education, socioeconomic segregation?
If you believe that any of these things are an affront to a civilized society, I would just like to point out all of those things are very prevalent in the United States of America.
So what makes us so "Civilized"?
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
No, I'm not referring to the Bill of Rights, and I DO know the difference.
You want to talk about sociology, and I want to talk about the law. I don't know nothing about that highfalooten crap. I know about the LAW.
excon
So you trust the word of KSM, a terrorist out to kill YOU and ME just for existing over Bush, Cheney and the CIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And you think I'm silly?
I know it's true because the newspapers were all over the LA attacks that never happened, the UK hijackings that never happened, and the capture of Hambali and Sufaat and Faris. The newspapers, never ones to be Bush and Cheney supporters, were all over the stories. So I know that they really happened.
So... you don't believe Bush, Cheney, the CIA, OR the Newspapers, but you believe the terrorist KSM.
Ok. Just so long as we know where you stand. You only take terrorists at their word, and only when they say they are innocent victims.
Elliot
Hello again, El?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Why not? You seem to believe him when YOU want to. Why can't I believe him when I want to?
Yes, I still think you're silly.
Exco
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't think the term "highfalooten crap" would define any science. I am assuming from your responses that you have not traveled out side the sates much aside from as a tourist.
Since you have legal knowledge, for my edification what constitutional laws are being broken?
And exactly "to the letter of the law" has it been broken?
I believe him when there is other information to back it up. You believe him when he's b!tching to the media for sympathy. That's the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Elliot
"An abstract word is like a box with a false bottom; you may put in it what ideas you please and take them out again unobserved."
Tocqueville
I for one an more concerned with the preservation of the American civil society ,and that means defending it against those who's goals are it's dismantling.
If that is the case there are more actual threats from domestic entities.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why destroy a country when it does it on its own. Ask Zimbabwe.
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
This has been gone into ad infinitum right here on these pages. Those discussions are available for your perusal. However, for the short term, I'll engage you.
Article ll, section 2.2 grants the authority to the president to enter into treaty's. President Reagan did so when he entered into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Consequently, we as a nation, accepted the premise that torture is against the laws... Waterboarding, all by itself, was illegal since we convicted the Japanese of doing it to our POW's.
Clearly, even Bush thought torture was illegal, otherwise he wouldn't have employed the Justice Department lawyers to write the now famous torture memos, authorizing the specific harsh interrogation techniques that were employed.
You, and your righty counterparts, say those memos interpreted torture in such a way so as to make what they did legal. I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.
As a citizen of this great land, I'm not willing to convict anyone of a crime. I'm happy to let a jury decide. If your side is legally OK, you shouldn't object to an investigation. But, your side does. That makes me think there IS something to hide.
Isn't your side the one who says of the Fourth Amendment, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about being searched." Yes, I think it IS your side.
Same thing here. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about an investigation.
excon
Yes that case can indeed be made. However ;in the fall of 2001 the external threats were quite real and needed immediate attention.Quote:
If that is the case there are more actual threats from domestic entities.
I have seen no evidence of this claim.Quote:
I say, that the memos were written after the fact, with the intent to cover up the crime that was already committed. That makes the writers AND the doers guilty.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is the part that you righty's don't, and apparently NEVER will understand... American civil society is based on equal rights, humane treatment for all, and YES, defending those who's goals are its dismantling. It's actually our CORNERSTONE. If you don't believe me, read the Bill of Rights. It's FULL of rights for very bad people. Oh, yeah. You don't like them either.
When you deny who we are as a society, and start acting like THEM, there's no American civil society left to protect.
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm sure you don't. That's why you absolutely should NOT object to an investigation.. That way we can find out who is telling the truth. You DO believe in the truth, don't you?
excon
I have to laugh, I find these threads interesting, However for the record I don't really follow the right at all. I believe most of the right are fascists that pry on peoples fear and intellectual laziness.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
However it is my belief that the opposite extreme, most of the left, lack the realism to and objectiveness to effectively solve problems.
as far as this debate goes, as I stated in my original post, I believe that information extraction should not be done by torture. But just "talking" and "persuading" won't work either. I am a proponent of medical coercion. Medical coercion has proven to be the best form of information extraction.
If you would take the time to read the initial posting you will see that I know torture to be counterproductive.
My general point is the left and right are the same. The right claims "rightiousnes" and do not value oposing opinions, and the left claims "inclusion" but also does not value oposing opinions.
Right=you live a different life style your evil and anti American
Left=you don't agree with my different life style your ignorant.
my over all point is that both extremes are the same.
If you were into fact then you would not have ran and assumed the right was "my people" and would have considered the initial factual argument.
and so is the separation of people based on dogmatic beliefs. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I said earlier that we need an investigation, and we do. However, I think the evidence you're looking for is contained in the CIA document that was supposed to be released yesterday, but wasn't. It's said to contain scurrilous stuff - the kind of stuff that I've been alluding to all along - you know, criminal stuff.
excon
There probably is. But at what point does national security take priority. Which is more important, being punitive or proactive?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
One of the many things I love about Obama (which liberals seem to complain about) is his proactive, pragmatic way of dealing with things.
I hope pragmatism wins this debate. Unlike the threads we see here.
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
National security NEVER takes priority over the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the oath of office says that Obama WILL ".... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...". The founders wrote it that way. If they meant to say something else, they certainly could have. They didn't. I think the intent is clear.
But, that doesn't stop people like you from making up stuff, like the presidents' FIRST responsibility is to keep America safe. Where does it say that??
excon
Hello:
Yes, I have more to say on the matter...
There's this wrongheaded notion that's harbored in some quarters that's personified by the phrase, "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". Those who harbor that notion don't believe that the law will serve us well in times of peril. Usually these people are the "law and order" folks, but if they believe that notion, then they really don't believe in law and order. They're just biding their time until something better comes along...
O'Reilly said it best, "I believe in our principles, until I don't". To me, principles aren't malleable or they're not principles. They're goals.
Well, after we've been attacked, these people think that's the something better, so we can get rid of all that we've stood for in the past, and start acting exactly like our enemy.
Contrarily, I believe the rule of law has served us well in the past Within our legal framework, we even defeated the Nazi's, who I daresay, were a much bigger threat than the one we fact today.
So, I say again, national security NEVER takes priority over the LAW. The law, all by itself, provides PLENTY of protection...
Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution.
excon
And exactly who are "people like me". LolQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Neither right nor left. Pragmatic and anti dogmatic. It is shame "people like me" can't just get on board. We need to make up our mind and conform to one polarized extreme or the other.
Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. It is just "people like me" that thought the American way allowed and stood for reasonable debate and distention.
How awful of us narrow minded people. (chuckle)
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
I thought people like you had thicker skin. Guess not. You want to play a victim, and I want to have a discussion. If you can't handle the heat, later dude.
excon
PS> It's cool with me if you want to call me "people like you".
OK this gets more and more entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
"........Lest you think that the Constitution somehow weakens us, may I remind you that we became the world's LARGEST jailer, in SPITE of the Constitution."
The constant referral to "you people", "your people" is the same type of generalizing that rightswingers do. So based on the extreme tones I must assume you are a "leftist". I was trying to refrain from making assumptions , however it seems unreasonable people have a need to generalize and objectify people that don't conform to their beliefs
I myself find the two sides are simply foolish the right and the left will tear this country apart.
Both sides are to stupid, inflexible, dogmatic. They use different "reasons" to villainize anyone who doesn't agree with there point of view.
We finally have a president that is pragmatic and not extreme. You know he is a good president that may make real changes when both sides "Like yours". (lol. j/k cause the term is so childish and ignorant) complain about him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You referred to me as "people like you" and I was being sarcastic.
I would argue reason however,
You interpreted me calling you "you people".
You claim I got sensitive even though through out the threads you have: "you people", "your people." people like you"
I think reason is not as important to extremists as dedication to dogma.
Hello again, mr:
Still waiting for you to counter my argument instead of talking about ME. I promise, I'll try to leave you people out of it too.
excon
:D (chuckle) The law is the highest of priority, and I believe that it should be respected. However, opening classified files can be detrimental to national security. I do agree that most of the time that "national security" is used as a cover for various forms of lies. However, to open prosicution of previous administration's officers begins to tear down the system. I do agree with Obama that we as a country should refrain from "coerhsive interogation techniques" I also agree that we should not prosecute the previous administration. There are some slopes you just don't start down.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
as I asked in the thread B4 which is your priority being proactive or punitive.
and I believe proactive is always better.
Our country is wonderful and standing by our laws is important but when we become obsessed with being punitive we walk down the paths of "thmils"
I know the value of what our country stands for better than most. This country is great but it is not the real world. People that have not left this country and live sheltered lives don't know about the rest of the world.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So as you see ;the oath is more than a declaration to protect and defend the Constitution.
I know that the issue of inherent powers is debatable ;but if it is ,then every President including Washington has violated the oath according to your narrow definition .
Inherent in the role of the President is the most important area of national security or "in the national interest" .
Generally recognized by both Congress and SCOTUS is that the president has "special prerogatives" in foreign affairs.
Right or wrong ;SCOTUS decided in 1936 that the Presidential powers was "special and pronounced" in foreign affairs .(US v Curtiss-Wright). Even before that John Marshall wrote that the Presidency was the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations" .
Before that Jefferson said in 1790: ''The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.''
The justice dept. memos cite the sole organ doctrine in their rationale and since there is 2 centuries of prescident behind them it is hard to make the claim that the President was not faithfully executing his office.
Congress can make law and SCOTUS can make decisions but unless you can prove your contention that the memos were written after the fact ,then any prosecution will be in itself ex post facto.
mrsinclaire
Maybe this is not the right thred for it ,but I'd be interested to hear the philosophical basis for political pragamatism.Are questions of ethics based on the implied relativity ? Is truth mutable when making political decisions? What are the principles that guide a political pragmatist ?
If I were to vote for a self proclaimed pramatist how could I expect him to vote on issues I think are important ?
From my perspective it was realism (based on Cold War calculations )that justified us overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting tyrants against their own populace . You are right that Obama is beginning to show signs of Bismarck realism in foreign policy as he embraces the delusional homicidal mullahs in Iran over the popular will in support of some grand bargain that is in his mind .The Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy. But to Obama, the Mullahs are people to charm.
Yeah I know... Obama will claim his Cairo speech stoked the flames of popular revolt if it serves his interests ,but I can equally make the case that seeing democracy in Iraq did the stoking .If the revolt is crushed the President will be just as happy to bed the winners.
(btw domestically he exhibits authoritarian statism .)
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
We fundamentally disagree! The laws of this nation should be respected, PERIOD - end of story.
It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about. I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.
I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.
excon
Well to begin with the truth is always mutable, only facts are consistent. And yes questions of ethics are based on implied relativity. It is that understanding that supports "Freedom of religion". Facts are never mutable, but fact and truth are mutually exclusive. Political decisions should benefit the whole population, NOT cater to the "values" of one group of people or another. In this country we have media of fear panderers (on both sides) that polarize the populous. Which in turn makes people bias and intolerant of other people with different values.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A political pragmatist will objectively evaluate the situation: weigh the likely outcomes and provide a moderate decision that will benefit the broadest range of demographics.
this will benefit all people but make a lot of people pissed of because they can't get their way.
As for as voting for someone who will vote on isses that you think are important. Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.
That is pragmatic politics.
If we are doing to "free the world" of tyrannical dictators we need to do it across the board. And we do not. To be honest if we tried to right all of the human atrocities in the world every person in this country would be over sees, in the many wholes in the world, with shovel and an automatic weapon.
And once we do choose a country to "free" we do not have the right to undermine or dictate their cultural system. The Arab Muslim world is just that "muslin" (which BTW contrary to American propaganda is a gentile and submissive religion) and their culture is Islamic and should remain that. The human atrocities should be stopped but there culture is based on their religion and that is there RIGHT. There are many that believe the problem with that country is that there laws are religion based, well that is their right. And Many Americans would like our laws to be based on religion, but Christianity.
As far as Arab Muslims Hating Americans that is not the case. I am guessing like Excon you have not resided in another country or been to many native places around the world.
Many Muslims are indifferent to Americans but find their judgment and intrusive nature to be disrespectful and obtrusive.
What you quoted is an excerpt of my direct answer. The law is paramount. However harping on the punitive, e.g. prosecuting previous administration's officers is counter productive. There are reasons for statute of limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
To be direct we should not prosecute the previous administration's officers, moreover we must not engage in torture in the future.
To clarify if it is still unclear. My point in that is to say if we focus on being punitive we are counter productive. Having complete disregard for the law and focusing on being punitive are both destructive.
To assist in clarity:
–adjective
serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment: punitive laws; punitive action.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM. |