[excon]

did you libs make that word up?

Hello again, zip:

Yup. We also invented the word dictionary.

excon

[Alty]

Hello:

I asked some of the righty's on this board, whether an interrogator would be a hero if he waterboarded somebody 2 seconds longer than the law allowed, but got good information because of those 2 seconds...

Nobody answered me. It looks like, even if he got a confession, that he's a crook. Whaddya think? Finally, a special prosecutor will be looking into it.

excon

I'm not going to read the other responses, because I don't feel like it. ;)

Let me ask you something Exy dear, even though I already know the answer.

If a husband beats his wife because she won't put out, and breaking her nose is what finally seals the deal, is he a hero?

To me what you asked is pretty much the same thing I asked. Of course, other people won't see it that way, but I have a right to my opinion.

Waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment. No one should have to suffer through it.

Abuse is also cruel and unusual punishment. Both of these methods get results, so, calling one man a hero means that you have to call the other one a hero as well.

You decide.

Clunk, off my soap box. ;)

[zippit]

Good word you can use it when it applies best

[zippit]

I'm not going to read the other responses, because I don't feel like it. ;)

Let me ask you something Exy dear, even though I already know the answer.

If a husband beats his wife because she won't put out, and breaking her nose is what finally seals the deal, is he a hero?

To me what you asked is pretty much the same thing I asked. Of course, other people won't see it that way, but I have a right to my opinion.

Waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment. No one should have to suffer through it.

Abuse is also cruel and unusual punishment. Both of these methods get results, so, calling one man a hero means that you have to call the other one a hero as well.

You decide.

Clunk, off my soap box. ;)

The answer?
Did the broken nose prevent attacks on innocent civilians

[Alty]

the answer?
did the broken nose SAVE a country from terrorist

Question;

How many people that are put through waterboarding actually have information that can save a country from terrorism?

Torture is torture. You're either for it, or against it.

[zippit]

I will just let the record stand WE have not had another attack since...
Now obama is for the same pratices just for now on lets lie about it..
And I'm game I love it when my leaders lie to me

[excon]

i will just let the record stand WE have not had another attack since...

Hello z:

You say we tortured, and had no attacks. Ergo, torture prevents attacks...

However, your logic is flawed. I could say that the sun went down every night since 9/11. Ergo, sunsets prevent attacks.

excon

[zippit]

Proubably right,
However there are a lot with me on that
Nancy polosi included

[Alty]

proubably right,
however there are alot with me on that
nancy polosi included

There are a lot of people with me too. Excon included. ;)

Just because someone agrees with you doesn't mean you're right.

Have you ever seen someone being waterboarded?

Do you know what damage is done to a person that is subjected to
This type of torture?

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tomder55]

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

washingtonpost.com

[excon]

Hello tom:

This is what Salon says about the Post article.

-----------------

If anyone ever tells you that they don't understand what is meant by "stenography journalism" -- or ever insists that America is plagued by a Liberal Media -- you can show them this article from today's Washington Post and, by itself, it should clear up everything. The article's headline is "How a Detainee Became An Asset -- Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding" -- though an equally appropriate headline would be: "The Joys and Virtues of Torture -- how Cheney Kept Us Safe." I defy anyone to identify a single way the article would be different if The Post had let Cheney write it himself. The next time someone laments the economic collapse of the modern American newspaper, one might point out that an industry which pays three separate reporters (Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate) and numerous editors to churn out mindless, inane tripe like this has brought about its own.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Look, I'm not going to argue that torture doesn't work, and THAT'S why we shouldn't use it. If somebody tortured me, I'd tell 'em everything they wanted to know...

But, torture is a felony and a war crime, and we don't actually have a country (at least we're not suppoesd to) where political leaders are free to commit serious crimes and then claim afterwards that it produced good outcomes. If we want to be a country that uses torture, then we should repeal our laws which criminalize it, withdraw from treaties which ban it, and announce to the world (not that they don't already know) that, as a country, we believe torture is justifiable and just. Let's at least be honest about what we are.

Let's explicitly repudiate Ronald Reagan's affirmation that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture" and that "each State Party is required to prosecute torturers."

excon

[tomder55]

If the interogations were conducted within Justice Dept guidelines then it was done within the law.

[ETWolverine]

Question;

How many people that are put through waterboarding actually have information that can save a country from terrorism?

Only the three people that waterboarding was actually used on. That's why it was only used on them and not ALL POWs.

You did know that all this stuff about "torture" at Gitmo is only about three cases where EITs were used, and in all three cases there was strong evidence that the POWs had actionable intelligence and weren't going to give up that intelligence except under harsh interrogation. Turns out that in all three cases, the interrogators were RIGHT because in all three cases we got intelligence that stopped actual attacks and allowed the capture of other high-level terrorists.

Were you aware of the fact that such "torture" was not random OR pervasive? That it was only used in 3 cases?

Torture is torture. You're either for it, or against it.

Then consider me to be FOR it. And PROUDLY so.

Furthermore, the metaphore you set up about an innocent wife being beaten by her husband is a false one. We're not talking about a husband who beat his innocent wife. We're talking about interrogations of TERRORISTS who are anything but innocent bystanders... who deliberately attacked and murdered civillians and knew of MORE attacks to take place.

The beating of an innocent housewife is a crime.

The interrogation through harsh techniques of KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERERS who are guilty of planning and executing attacks on innocents and who know of other such attacks does not fall into the same category as the beating of an innocent housewife.

If you would like a comparison, try this one:

Your child has been kidnapped and has only a short time to live. The guy who kidnapped your child has been captured, but isn't telling you or the cops where your child is. If you don't get to your child before time runs out, your child will DIE. Nothing short of waterboarding or similar harsh techniques is going to get the kidnapper to tell you where your kid is.

What do you do?

Do you use torture? Or do you follow the "rules" of societal norms in an abnormal situation? Do you follow the rules of civility with a person who lacks all civility?

What are you willing to do to save your own child?

Keep in mind that your primary goal is NOT to convict the criminal. Your primary goal is to save your child. You don't need to worry about whether you are going to get a conviction in court or not. That's something to worry about later. Right now, your only goal is to save your child.

It's called the "ticking time-bomb" scenario, and it is the REALITY that the intelligence community deals with every day. It is MUCH closer to the reality of what the CIA does and did in these three cases than your silly comparison to beating a housewife.

I can't believe that you really tried to draw that comparison, Altenweg.

Elliot

[excon]

The interrogation through harsh techniques of KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERERS who are guilty of planning and executing attacks on innocents and who know of other such attacks does not fall into the same category as the beating of an innocent housewife.

Then consider me to be FOR it. And PROUDLY so.

Hello again, El:

You keep using the above FALSE scenario, but I'm not going to let you get away with it...

You use the term "KNOWN", but you don't know anything... We were TOLD they were terrorists, by people we PAID to deliver them to us. MOST of the people we tortured never did a damn thing... We tortured them, and then released them... If we KNEW they were MURDERERS, why do you think we let MOST of 'em go?? We DID let them go, no??

What about the 12 year old kid Mohammed Jawad, who we picked up, tortured, held for 7 years, and let him go?? He's a KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERER?? What he IS, is an innocent boy who we screwed up for his entire life.

You're a sick puppy!

Only the three people that waterboarding was actually used on. That's why it was only used on them and not ALL POWs.

You did know that all this stuff about "torture" at Gitmo is only about three cases where EITs were used, and in all three cases there was strong evidence that the POWs had actionable intelligence

PS> (edited) If you're saying that we used the EIT's on only three people, not only are you sick, you lie too.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

You keep using the above FALSE scenario, but I'm not gonna let you get away with it...

You use the term "KNOWN", but you don't know anything.... We were TOLD they were terrorists, by people we PAID to deliver them to us. MOST of the people we tortured never did a damn thing... We tortured them, and then released them.... If we KNEW they were MURDERERS, why do you think we let MOST of 'em go????? We DID let them go, no???

What about the 12 year old kid Mohammed Jawad, who we picked up, tortured, held for 7 years, and let him go???? He's a KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERER???????? What he IS, is an innocent boy who we screwed up for his entire life.

You're a sick puppy!

excon

Sorry, excon, but you are wrong.

They were KNOWN terrorists. You can try to spin it however you want. These guys made their living blowing people up for Allah and planning how others would do it. They were captured with other terrorists, in the company of terrorists, with the materials of terrorists in their possession, with cell phones and computers that had contact information for OTHER terrorists, and were hiding in terrorist safe-houses. OTHER terrorists had turned on them as well, giving them up as terrorists. The intelligence community had been keeping their eyes on these folks for a long time because they were active terrorists.

You can try to justify your hatred of the Bush admin all you want. But you can't fool anybody by trying to convince them that they don't know something that they do.

It's done, excon. It's over. There was no crime. There's nothing to prosecute. Turns out that, as usual, you were wrong about there being a crime that Bush and Cheney are guilty of.

Deal with it.

Elliot

[excon]

Sorry, excon, but you are wrong.

They were KNOWN terrorists. You can try to spin it however you want. These guys made their living blowing people up for Allah and planning how others would do it. They were captured with other terrorists, in the company of terrorists, with the materials of terrorists in their possession, with cell phones and computers that had contact information for OTHER terrorists, and were hiding in terrorist safe-houses. OTHER terrorists had turned on them as well, giving them up as terrorists. The intelligence community had been keeping their eyes on these folks for a long time because they were active terrorists.

Hello again, El:

So, after all that, we LET THEM GO... How come we did that, if they were so bad??

You don't even know how silly you sound.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

So, after all that, we LET THEM GO... How come we did that, if they were so bad??

Are you really asking that question? After the past 8 years of Bush-Bashing from the left, are you going to sit there and ask me why these terrorists were let go?

Because idiots like you DEMANDED it!! You wouldn't leave the Bush administration alone to do it's job, which it did very effectively DESPITE the pressure put on them from the left. But eventually the left won, and these KNOWN TERRORISTS were let go because of the pressure YOU AND YOUR LEFTIST BUDDIES PUT ON THE GOVERNMENT.

You don't even know how silly you sound.

Excon

You don't realize yet what damage you and your friends on the left have caused.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that you're going to find out.

Elliot

[tomder55]

One good thing is we got an admission finally that EIT is effective.
The debate is now if they were necessary ;not that they are ineffective in gathering intelligence.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis “to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York.” Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.
“Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals — many of who we had never heard of before — that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations,” according to the CIA summary.

In fact ;EIT gave the terrorist psycological cover to cooperate since they had fulfilled their sense of honor in resisting up to a point.

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.
"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

[excon]

The debate is now if they were necessary ;not that they are ineffective in gathering intelligence.

Hello again, tom:

No... The debate is whether they were legal.

Here's what YOUR Republican presidential candidate said about it yesterday:

"BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- do you agree with the vice president when he says this has kept the country safe all this time since this attack and it is because these interrogations worked and we found out information that helped us keep the country safe.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan. I think that these interrogations once publicized helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq who told-- who told me that.

I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed and so-- and I believe that information, according to the FBI and others, could have been gained through other methods.

BOB SCHIEFFER: When you say an al Qaeda operative told you it helped them. What-- what do you mean?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I was in-- Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in-- in Camp Bucca, the twenty-thousand-prisoner camp. We met with a former high-ranking member of al Qaeda. I said, "How did you succeed so well in Iraq after the initial invasions?" He said two things. One, the chaos that existed after the initial invasion, there was no order of any kind. Two, he said, Abu Ghraib pictures allowed me and helped me to recruit thousands of young men to our cause. Now that's al Qaeda.

And the second thing about it is, if you inflict enough pain on anyone, they'll tell you anything that to make the pain stop. So you not only get, perhaps, right information but you also get a lot of wrong information.

But the damage that it did to America's image in the world is something we're still on the way to repairing. This is an ideological struggle as well as a-- as a physical one, so.

McCain did add that he felt opening an investigation, as Attorney General Eric Holder is doing, into the past misdeeds was the wrong approach, that, as President Barack Obama said, we should move forward. However, as McCain said, "Well, the attorney general has a unique position in the cabinet, obviously. He can't be told what to do by the President of the United States."

Just in case anyone wants to blame Obama, he can't stop it, and has made it clear in the past he would prefer not to have these hearings Holder is planning."

---------------------

excon