 |
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:37 AM. |