Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts-1862515294/


Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts
Former Vice President Cheney says he knows how successful the interrogation techniques were in collecting intelligence for the United States and wants that information to be released to the public as well as the legal memos explaining the decision to allow the heavily criticized methods.

FOXNews.com

Monday, April 20, 2009


ShareThisPhotos


PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Sen. Feinstein's Husband Cashes In on Crisis
[2009-04-21]

senator's husband cashes in on crisis, senator's hubbie cashes in on crisis


Irritated Obama 'Stares Down' Reporter During Press Corps Visit
[2009-01-22]
irritated obama 'stares down' reporter during press corps visit, obama, reporters, stares down, politics


Promises, Promises: Obama and Black Farmers
[2009-04-21]
promises promises obama and black farmers, obama

Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor
[2009-04-16]
media use tea parties as platform for sex jokes, cable anchors guests use tea parties as platform for frat house humor, tea, media use tea parties as platform for toilet humor, sex

Bush Keeps 'Em Laughing in First Overseas Trip After Presidency
[2009-04-18]
bush draws laughter in overseas trip, bush keeps 'em laughing in first overseas trip after presidency, bush, bush draws laughter at chinese forum, first



In an interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity aired on "Hannity" Monday night, Cheney questioned the point of releasing the legal decisions behind the interrogations but not the outcome of them.

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney said.

Cheney said he's asked that the documents be declassified because he has remained silent on the confidential information, but he knows how successful the interrogation process was and wants the rest of the country to understand.

"I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

Cheney says he doesn't find it surprising that he's still asked for his views on administrative policies and thinks it's appropriate for those with a different point of view to be able to express it -- and give the American people the ability to evaluate.

"It's important to not personally attack the new president -- I've never done that," said Cheney.

The former vice president says the biggest task he had was to protect the nation's security following 9/11 and to ensure such devastation would never happen again. He says many of the policies he set up are currently being dismantled by the Obama administration.

"There's a great temptation for a new administration to find a problem and blame it on the predecessor. We did it. The Obama administration is not the first one to do that," said Cheney.

Since his departure from the White House, Cheney says he's been concerned over the way the U.S. has been presented overseas and finds Obama's apologies to various countries "disturbing." He also feels Obama's "coziness" with America's opponents like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez is not "helpful."

"Since the U.S. provides most leadership in the world, I don't think we have much to apologize for," said Cheney.

While he feels that a president needs to interact with adversaries, Cheney says it's important to distinguish between the good guys and bad guys. He says that the world will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they feel like they're dealing with a weak president.

"It's important the U.S. that we don't come off as arrogant -- but also important to not come across as weak, indecisive and apologetic," said Cheney.


First of all I would like to say f*ck you Dick Cheney.


On a lighter note when I copied the article I picked up the bolded section of the article. Remember FOx News is not a conservative mouthpiece..:lmao

[boutons_deux]

the CIA is a universe unto itself. with no oversight, nobody controlling it.

Gates politicized it in the early 80s.

Who's going to believe CIA memos, aka disinformation, that justify the "results" of CIA torture? :lol

dickhead, tell the lie again, show us the CIA memos, how Saddam was involved in 9/11. :lol

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah, I saw that interview and it has never been more clear just how much power Cheney had in the Bush administration. He didn't like the fact that the memos were released at all and now he wants even more info released.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the interrogation techniques did produce some intelligence that was useful and did stop possible further attacks.
I don't believe that "torture" is going to stop when push comes to shove and there are certain things that we don't want to hear about but know are necessary.

[ElNono]

Cue in 'the ends justify the means' hyperbole and everything that's wrong with it...
Please keep that man as far as away from power as possible.

[DarrinS]

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?

[Winehole23]

It's unbecoming for former presidents to undermine their own government publicly, but Mr. Cheney is 100% entitled to do it if he wants. There's no law against lacking modesty or graciousness.

Haven't we heard enough from Mr. Cheney already?

[Winehole23]

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?Establishing the truth for the public record, for example. Government transparency and possibly accountability. Do these things matter to you?

[DarrinS]

It's unbecoming for former presidents to undermine their own government publicly, but Mr. Cheney is 100% entitled to do it if he wants. There's no law against lacking modesty or graciousness.

Haven't we heard enough from Mr. Cheney already?



If you have no problem with what Obama released, why have a problem with this?


Again, what was accomplished by releasing the other memos?

[DarrinS]

Establishing the truth for the public record, for example. Transparency and possibly accountability. Do these things matter to you?


Then don't cherry pick. Release it all.

[DarrinS]

Anyone? Bueller?

[DarrinS]

<crickets>

[JoeChalupa]

I don't have a problem with it as long as Cheney will admit that releasing it will weaken the United States and increase the risk of another attack.

[Winehole23]

Then don't cherry pick. Release it all.That's not the way it works. In the interest of national security some things will remain secret. Presidents and VP's have classification powers (Mr. Cheney seems to miss his), so there's always a degree of selectivity at work.

The cause of the kerfuffle IMO is Obama allowing sunshine to penetrate the heart of darkness of the unaccountable, erstwhile (?) 4th branch of government, Mr. Cheney. The complaint that selective declassification is political in nature is undeniably germane, but it is also a commonplace. Government disclosure is always partial, and it usually aims at political ends.

Is there something deceiving or misleading about what has been released? Mr. Cheney seems to implicate that there is, though for obvious reasons he cannot say what. So he seeks to get by on the bare implication Obama isn't telling us the whole story. I don't really see why you should set more stock by Dick Cheney's empty inference than declassified material, Darrin, but you be my guest. You'll probably have plenty of company.

[coyotes_geek]

Establishing the truth for the public record, for example. Government transparency and possibly accountability. Do these things matter to you?

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".

[Winehole23]

BTW, have you read the memos Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".


Exactly.

None of these memos should have been released. The Obama admin can still change policy without releasing this info. It was a bad call, IMO.

[JoeChalupa]

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".

I concur.

[DarrinS]

The cause of the kerfuffle IMO is Obama allowing sunshine to penetrate the heart of darkness of the unaccountable, erstwhile (?) 4th branch of government, Mr. Cheney. The complaint that selective declassification is political in nature is undeniably germane, but it is also a commonplace. Government disclosure is always partial, and it usually aims at political ends.

:lmao

[JoeChalupa]

Exactly.

None of these memos should have been released. The Obama admin can still change policy without releasing this info. It was a bad call, IMO.

Much of the information was already out there but I agree that I don't think they should have been officially released. I agree it was a bad call.
Yeah, that's right....a bad call.
Now that being said Obama would have criticized from the left and right for not being more open like said he would be during his campaign. So he is being true to himself but I still think it was a bad call.

[Winehole23]

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".It does, but are you really ready to watch the interrogations? I'm not.

[Winehole23]

:lmaoThe context is executive secrecy and torture policy, dimbulb.

[DarrinS]

The context is executive secrecy and torture policy, dimbulb.


I just enjoyed your choice of words.

[Winehole23]

None of these memos should have been released. The Obama admin can still change policy without releasing this info. It was a bad call, IMO.Tergiversating (http://dictionary.die.net/tergiversate). You can't have it both ways. You just criticized Obama for making selective disclosure and suggested complete disclosure would be more appropriate, and now you take him to task for disclosing anything in the first place.

Are you sure you remember your own position on this, Darrin?

[Winehole23]

I just enjoyed your choice of words.Sorry for the barb then. I thought you were getting on my case.

[DarrinS]

Tergiversating. You can't have it both ways. You just criticized Obama for making selective disclosure and suggested complete disclosure would be more appropriate, and now you take him to task for disclosing anything in the first place.

Are you sure you remember your own position on this, Darrin?


I have the opinion that releasing the original memo was a mistake in the first place. But, if the admin is being politically selective in what they release, them I'm against that too.

[coyotes_geek]

It does, but are you really ready to watch the interrogations? I'm not.

I'm not either, but what does that have to do with whether or not our government should clue us in on the value, if any, of the information those interrogations obtained?

[coyotes_geek]

I have the opinion that releasing the original memo was a mistake in the first place. But, if the admin is being politically selective in what they release, them I'm against that too.

Agreed. If it's about transparency, let's give the whole story. Without it, how can we be sure that this isn't anything other than an attempt by one group to make their political rivals look bad.

[Winehole23]

I'm not either, but what does that have to do with whether or not our government should clue us in on the value, if any, of the information those interrogations obtained?It doesn't.

We don't even know if the "value" of interrogations has even been formally assessed by our government yet, and we might risk of giving away methods, identities or other helpful information to our enemies if we declassify too much.

It'd be nice to have the certitude that torture saved lives, if you think the ends justify the means. I don't.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record?

no--that's work product of the agency. if any crimes are charged as a result, then maybe.

[Winehole23]

Agreed. If it's about transparency, let's give the whole story. Without it, how can we be sure that this isn't anything other than an attempt by one group to make their political rivals look bad.Why can't it be both at the same time?

[DarrinS]

It doesn't.

We don't even know if the "value" of interrogations has even been formally assessed by our government yet, and we might risk of giving away methods, identities or other helpful information to our enemies if we declassify too much.


Wasn't this already released in excruciating detail?

[Winehole23]

Wasn't this already released in excruciating detail?We've just barely scratched the surface, IMO.

[ElNono]

Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy fucked up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.

[coyotes_geek]

It'd be nice to have the certitude that torture saved lives, if you think the ends justify the means. I don't.

I don't know whether the ends justify the means or not because I have no clue what the "ends" are. I respect your opinion, I just don't see why you think it's a bad thing for me to have the whole story from the government before I form mine. Maybe this isn't you specifically, but I just sense that a lot of the opposition to releasing all the information is rooted in a fear of potentially discovering that these interrogations just might be saving lives, thus making it harder to condemn the actions of an unpopular administration.

[coyotes_geek]

Why can't it be both at the same time?

Because one involves letting people paint their own picture and one involves the government painting it for them.

[DarrinS]

Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy fucked up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.


What city are you willing to sacrifice?

[coyotes_geek]

Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy fucked up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.

As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more? Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?

[PixelPusher]

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

"24" is a TV fantasy, not a documentary.

[DarrinS]

"24" is a TV fantasy, not a documentary.



Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.


Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?

[Winehole23]

Because one involves letting people paint their own picture and one involves the government painting it for them.IMO it's both at the same time. If it is the former, the people can and will paint it to suit their political preconceptions; if the latter, cum grano salis, of course, but the political purpose does not necessarily dispel the revealed facts.

It is a point of guile for propaganda to base itself on the truth wherever possible. The public, being used to the deception by long abuse, reads between the lines and tries to divine the truth, although at a very great disadvantage, which you emphasize...

[Winehole23]

As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more? Out of solicitude for torturers and torture apologists, evidence should be declassified so they can cherry pick it for support. Bullshit. Go ahead and release it anyway, but not to pacify crybaby torturers or their political toadies.


Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?Absolutely not. But when I see posters jumping to conclusions without any evidence, I'll point it out. Don't give me any of that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence crap. Back up your take. The evidence may not back Cheney up.

The inference that Obama has hidden evidence that will back Dick Cheney up is mischievous, indecorous and totally threadbare.

Consider also that other countries may detect war crimes in the requested information, and may also consider official disclosure of *enhanced interrogation* to be tantamount to a profession of legal responsibility for torture and war crimes.

[PixelPusher]

Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.


Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?

Would you allow one of your kids to be taken away, imprisoned and tortured for several years if it resulted in world peace? A hypothetical.


Hypotheticals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticals) are situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real.

"hypothetical" torture is an intellectual indulgence that allows you to avoid grabbling with the real life problem that real life torture will induce real life people to say...anything.

But most torture supporters prefer to indulge in this pretense:



Jack: "I'm only going to ask you one more time - where's the detonator!"

Bad Guy: "I really don't know what you're talking about...I'm just a -"

Jack cuts off a finger with a cigar slicer

Bad Guy: "AAAHHHH!!!! Ok, ok - the detonator is located at 1537 Cherry St., Apartment 17B, back bedroom, bottom drawer of the nightstand in a Nike shoebox"

....

Jack then hurries to the given location and retrieves the detonator, because the intel Jack recieves from torture is ALWAYS correct.

[DarrinS]

Would you allow one of your kids to be taken away, imprisoned and tortured for several years if it resulted in world peace? A hypothetical.


Since I live in the real world and not some "it's a small world after all, let's all hold hands Utopia", my answer is no.





"hypothetical" torture is an intellectual indulgence that allows you to avoid grabbling with the real life problem that real life torture will induce real life people to say...anything.


First of all, what's "grabbling"?





But most torture supporters prefer to indulge in this pretense:


No one I know of is a torture "supporter".

[PixelPusher]

First of all, what's "grabbling"?


spell fail. I meant "grappling"

[DarrinS]

spell fail. I meant "grappling"



I'm not a big MMA fan.

[ElNono]

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

The only thing being sacrificed here is the integrity of our nation. How could you possibly claim any moral authority on anybody when you reduce yourself to the worst scum on this planet? The very same scum we claim we're fighting hard to eradicate.
We all like to think we're better than that, but it's obvious some aren't.

[Winehole23]

What city are you willing to sacrifice?The circularity and question begging is remarkable for such a short post. The poster is alleged to put entire cities at hazard by rejecting torture as immoral. Inferentially, torture reliably works and protects us from mass murder. (Wow. Just like TV.)

You are suggesting there is some magic threshold of human lives that makes torture acceptable.

In Bentham and Mills' hedonistic calculus (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html) maybe there is, but not in judeo-christian morality.

[ElNono]

As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more? Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?

I'm personally not against more disclosure. However, I'd like to see a little more outrage about this situation. Putting Cheney on the air and asking him nice questions about this topic is akin to conducting an interview with a murderer and asking him if you get a nice feeling when you end somebody's life. They should be letting him know what a fucking douche he is, not trying to rationalize if it was all worth it.

[ElNono]

Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.

Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?

Of course it wouldn't be. Specially because waterboarding is not the ONLY way to obtain that information. And I'm certainly hoping you're explaining your kids that there is a price to pay to live free. But that living free is a whole lot better than living in fear.

[Winehole23]

El Nono: The US isn't ready to face it. DarrinS thinks 24 is a work of non-fiction. So do many others.

[coyotes_geek]

Out of solicitude for torturers and torture apologists, evidence should be declassified so they can cherry pick it for support. Bullshit.

No less "bullshit" than our government cherry picking what pieces of evidence should be declassified out of the solicitude for those who are only interested in seeing others arrive at the same conclusion they did.


Absolutely not. But when I see posters jumping to conclusions without any evidence, I'll point it out. Don't give me any of that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence crap. Back up your take.

You're really asking me to justify a desire for government to be transparent? Really? I ask again, what's the harm in releasing the info? What's the harm in letting people decide for themselves whether or not those actions were justified? You say you're not afraid of people reaching a different opinion than you did. Fair enough. So why the opposition?


The evidence may not back Cheney up.

You're right. It might not. Then again it might. We'll never know if the evidence never gets released, will we?


The threadbare inference that Obama has hidden evidence that will back Dick Cheney up, is mischievous, indecorous and totally unsupported IMO.

Is it a threadbare inference that if the CIA is going to keep tabs on how many times they waterboarded someone that they took notes on what he said? Is it a threadbare inference that some might find that information useful in formulating an opinion, irregardless of whether or not said information would change yours?

[ElNono]

You know, coyotes_geek, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But if after centuries of tortures, disappearing people, politically motivated murders, etc you still think any of those things can be justified, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too. There are things that are universally wrong. Torture is one of those things. And we should be really pissed off a guy that had a direct hand in all that is not being prosecuted for crimes against humanity right now.

[Winehole23]

No less "bullshit" than our government cherry picking what pieces of evidence should be declassified out of the solicitude for those who are only interested in seeing others arrive at the same conclusion they did. I agree, but deck stacking is one of the perks of power.




You're really asking me to justify a desire for government to be transparent? Really? I ask again, what's the harm in releasing the info? Who knows? You're not concerned the world may regard it as admission of legal responsibility for war crimes? This seems like a reasonable concern to me.


What's the harm in letting people decide for themselves whether or not those actions were justified? You say you're not afraid of people reaching a different opinion than you did. Fair enough. So why the opposition? I said bring it on. It's time to get it out in the open IMO. I also don't think we're ready for what's disclosure requires us to witness, but that's for another thread.


You're right. It might not. Then again it might. We'll never know if the evidence never gets released, will we? Nope.

Regarding executive secrecy there's plenty of continuity b/w Obama and Bush. I expect that to continue.


Is it a threadbare inference that if the CIA is going to keep tabs on how many times they waterboarded someone that they took notes on what he said? I did not say so. To whom is this directed?


Is it a threadbare inference that some might find that information useful in formulating an opinion...? So obviously it would be absurd to protest, no. But so what? Why should peace of mind for torturers and torture apologists -- and those still sitting on the fence -- necessarily rate more highly than national security rationales for secrecy?

The argument is worth having. You can't put an absolute premium on either security or transparency. A balance always has to be struck.

[PixelPusher]

You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too.

Dark Ages? Such hyperbolic melodrama is sooo uncalled for. We aren't using any of those ancient, barbaric techniques. We're just taking a bunny hop back to Nazi Germany (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html) - much more civilized.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/05/29/translationofmuellermemo.jpg

We have doctors on standby too! :tu

[coyotes_geek]

You know, coyotes_geek, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But if after centuries of tortures, disappearing people, politically motivated murders, etc you still think any of those things can be justified, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too. There are things that are universally wrong. Torture is one of those things. And we should be really pissed off a guy that had a direct hand in all that is not being prosecuted for crimes against humanity right now.

I'm not telling you anything. Form your own opinion. And for the record I haven't said whether or not I'm okay with what went on. I'd like to know what we're getting from these interrogations first. You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

[ElNono]

I'm not telling you anything. Form your own opinion. And for the record I haven't said whether or not I'm okay with what went on. I'd like to know what we're getting from these interrogations first. You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

Unlike murder, torture is very clear cut. Black and white. It's been codified a long time ago where the line is between interrogation and torture. There's no such thing as torture in self defense. There's either torture or interrogation. There's nothing in between. We have invaded countries with the excuse that their governments were subjecting their population to human right violations (which obviously include torture). We love to rail against China for their own violations of human rights. What authority you could possibly have to do any of that, when you're a torturing nation yourself.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with your vision of a gray area there.

[Winehole23]

You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?Absolutely, yes. My hunch is that Obama is concealing and will continue to conceal evidence of our culpability.

Apparently Bush and Cheney's own selective de-classifications did not create the impression that we were justified. Too bad.

[Marcus Bryant]

Absolutely, yes. My hunch is that Obama is concealing and will continue to conceal evidence of our culpability.

Apparently Bush and Cheney's own selective de-classifications did not create the impression that we were justified. Too bad.

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land? I guess you don't spend half a tril a year on 'defense' without it being put into use occasionally.

[ChumpDumper]

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land?Well, that opposition would obviously hate America.

[Winehole23]

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land? I guess you don't spend half a tril a year on 'defense' without it being put into use occasionally.Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out, we all lose.

[Marcus Bryant]

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out (Dems, I direct this at you), we all lose.

Think of it. You have the 'two-fer' of attacks on American shipping and al Qaida support in the hinterlands. The only thing left would be that it would be a diversion from the 'real' front of the war against al Qaida. My guess is the GOP would generally be predisposed to accept it and support the CINC at this point.

[Crookshanks]

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

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.

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.

“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.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

cnsnews.com
=================================
The ends justify the means! Maybe the people in LA would agree?

[Winehole23]

Think of it. You have the 'two-fer' of attacks on American shipping and al Qaida support in the hinterlands. The only thing left would be that it would be a diversion from the 'real' front of the war against al Qaida. My guess is the GOP would generally be predisposed to accept it and support the CINC at this point.Maybe. My guess is that "CINC" sticks in their throats a little bit, as applied to Obama.

Or did you mean the antique, pre-Rumsfeldian (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aacincsunk.htm) sense of the word?

[ChumpDumper]

The ends justify the means! Maybe the people in LA would agree?Kidnapping and torturing their children in front of them might work well too!

Let's give that a shot!

[Winehole23]

For the record, I'm not down with moral relativism. Torture is never morally straight, despite the possible upside.

Somehow, I doubt the CIA's selective leak to Heritage and cns tells the whole story. Maybe they ought to release the whole record, so we can judge for ourselves?

[DarrinS]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

[PixelPusher]

For the record, I'm not down with moral relativism. Torture is never morally straight, despite the possible upside.

Somehow, I doubt the CIA's selective leak to Heritage and cns tells the whole story. Maybe they ought to release the whole record*, so we can judge for ourselves?

*"whole record" does not include video tapes of said interrogations that were subsequently destroyed by the CIA

[Winehole23]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?You tell me, Socrates. I don't write torture handbooks.

[DarrinS]

You tell me, Socrates. I don't write torture handbooks.


Well, I always hear people say there are better ways (or other ways) of obtaining the information, I just wanted to know what they are. If there are more effective ways of obtaining the information without us having to resort to the cruel and unusual punishment of a caterpillar, I'm all for it.

[ChumpDumper]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?You seriously don't know of any?

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, I always hear people say there are better ways (or other ways) of obtaining the information, I just wanted to know what they are. If there are more effective ways of obtaining the information without us having to resort to the cruel and unusual punishment of a caterpillar, I'm all for it.

Better SIGINT and HUMINT, I suppose.

[Yonivore]

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?
He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

[JoeChalupa]

This topic always reminds me of "A Few Good Men" and it was just on this weekend. There are some things we don't like to talk about but know happens...well...Col. Jessep says it better...

"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

All I know is that while I don't agree with torture if someone had one of my family members I would approve any measure to find and rescue them.
And there WILL be another terrorist attack on US soil and it will be blamed on Obama and I would bet that, while they don't want harm to come to the US, there are those who would cheer if it happened. Not cheer because of the tragedy but cheer because of the "I told you so's" they will throw out.

[JoeChalupa]

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

Justifying it doesn't make it right but I understand where Cheney is coming from. But he also wants to clear his name.

[Winehole23]

*"whole record" does not include video tapes of said interrogations that were subsequently destroyed by the CIAHow convenient. The destroyed tapes leave us to accept the CIA's claim the interrogation worked, without us being able to decide for ourselves whether they crossed moral and legal boundaries during the questioning, or, more importantly, whether their own interrogation summaries are substantiated in the first place. The direct historical record was intentionally (some might say contumacious (http://dictionary.die.net/contumacious)ly) destroyed.

It puts me in mind of what c_g just said about painting a picture.

[DarrinS]

Better SIGINT and HUMINT, I suppose.


Ideally.

[DarrinS]

And just so everyone is on the same page, the term is "enhanced interrogation techniques".


Sincerely,

Robert Gibbs

[Marcus Bryant]

Ideally.

The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.

[Winehole23]

That's where it belongs. Regular soldiers shouldn't have anything to do with it.

[PixelPusher]

I'll see Crookshank's dodgy CNSNews right-wing agitprop and raise with a Washington Post article:



Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?wprss=rss_print/asection)

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

(cont.)...

As weeks passed after the capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried.

The pressure from upper levels of the government was "tremendous," driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered.

"They couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new," the official said. "They'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution -- a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.' "

The application of techniques such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime -- prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

[ElNono]

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

That a person that supports Cheney drops the 'created more terrorists' card is mind bending. The doctrine of preemtive attack or whatever it was called, that involved invading a sovereign nation has probably created more terrorists that we'll ever know. You can thank Cheney for that one.

[DarrinS]

The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.


Good point.

[coyotes_geek]

And just so everyone is on the same page, the term is "enhanced interrogation techniques".


Sincerely,

Robert Gibbs

So where exactly is the line between torture and "enhanced interrogation"? And who gets to decide? This seems like a pretty important point to clarify if we're going to make blanket statements about whether or not we should use torture. Okay, so waterboarding is out. What's still in?

[ElNono]

The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.

I think they were worked up enough to speak with their votes. After all, opposition to the war was at an all time high and the primary concern of Americans before the economy bug hit.

[ElNono]

So where exactly is the line between torture and "enhanced interrogation"? And who gets to decide? This seems like a pretty important point to clarify if we're going to make blanket statements about whether or not we should use torture. Okay, so waterboarding is out. What's still in?

Read the Geneva convention declaration. It should clear all your doubts about it.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think they were worked up enough to speak with their votes. After all, opposition to the war was at an all time high and the primary concern of Americans before the economy bug hit.

How many opposed the Afghan invasion?

[DarrinS]

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.

[Marcus Bryant]

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.


What's going to happen to the captured 17 year old Somali?

[ChumpDumper]

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.Did it really? That memo was really strangely worded.

[Winehole23]

Did it really? That memo was really strangely worded.Inside baseball. Source materials. Darrin won't read the memo. He'll just accept the journalistic gloss.

[DarrinS]

What's going to happen to the captured 17 year old Somali?


Amnesty?

[LnGrrrR]

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

That is such a bullshit question.

Tell me Darrin, are you willing to let your mother die from a car accident?

If not, then you should be out banning cars right now.

There's a risk/reward factor, as well as a moral one. One can even argue that it might be an effective risk/reward ratio, were there no moral implications involved.

You can agree that something would work without agreeing with the method.

[ChumpDumper]

Inside baseball. Source materials. Darrin won't read the memo. He'll just accept the journalistic gloss.It's funny -- that memo basically said "Our understanding is that waterboarding is awesome and generated a shitload of actionable intel."

What if the reply to the memo was "Your understanding is wrong. We tried that shit 270 times and all we got was a wet floor."

[Marcus Bryant]

Amnesty?

Well, we're not talking about plotting large scale murder.

[LnGrrrR]

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out, we all lose.

Considering AFRICOM is (relatively) new, I would guess no.

[LnGrrrR]

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA.

On which occassion of the 177 times or so that they used on him did he crack?

[LnGrrrR]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

The same way we've done it for the rest of our history.

Note: I'm sure that we've done some dirty stuff in the past. There's a difference between performing it in the dark (though I don't agree with it) and actively making it an 'acceptable' policy.

[LnGrrrR]

Good point.

Mainly because in a battlefield, there is some leeway on who a soldier fires on in the heat of the moment. However, our conduct towards prisoners far away from war, when we have time to reflect, shows alot more about us.

[LnGrrrR]

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.


Really DarrinS? You're going to be this asinine? I expected better.

[DarrinS]

Really DarrinS? You're going to be this asinine? I expected better.



At some point, everyone is willing to use deadly force to save lives.


The only way I'm against the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques is if there's a more effective way to get the information.

[LnGrrrR]

At some point, everyone is willing to use deadly force to save lives.


The only way I'm against the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques is if there's a more effective way to get the information.

Well, you could just nuke that country. That would eliminate all terrorists there, wouldn't it? :p

[ChumpDumper]

Really DarrinS? You're going to be this asinine? I expected better.You did?

[ElNono]

How many opposed the Afghan invasion?

Does it matter? People supported the Iraqi war when it started because they were lied to. Once the ruse came tumbling down, you think people were not angry that american soldiers were dying for a bullshit war?
Again, go ask the GOP why they lost the '06 elections.

[ElNono]

At some point, everyone is willing to use deadly force to save lives.

The only way I'm against the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques is if there's a more effective way to get the information.

How did we gather information during the cold war? Do you think we went torturing every russian we got our hands on? (And I'm not claiming there was zero torture involved in that case, but you couldn't possibly assert that torture was the only means to obtain information on a theater of that magnitude).
Of course there are other methods.

[DarrinS]

Well, you could just nuke that country. That would eliminate all terrorists there, wouldn't it? :p


Well, Harry Truman did drop two atomic bombs on Japan to save American lives.

[Winehole23]

The monomaniacal focus on the moral probity of torture is ghoulish to me.

[Winehole23]

Well, Harry Truman did drop two atomic bombs on Japan to save American lives.At the time, there wasn't unanimity on that. Have you read the military opinions, Darrin? History can be surprising.

[Marcus Bryant]

The yellow man was nuked, in part due to the likelihood that middle America wouldn't give a damn. The krauts were subjected to massive, repetitive carpet bombing.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, Harry Truman did drop two atomic bombs on Japan to save American lives.

Do you think that was acceptable?

Is there a point at which the ratio of innocent lives lost vs the chance of American lives lost is too great?

[LnGrrrR]

The yellow man was nuked, in part due to the likelihood that middle America wouldn't give a damn. The krauts were subjected to massive, repetitive carpet bombing.

Don't forget the firebomb runs.

I've read some opinion that the Japanese mindset is different from ours, and that if we were to attack the mainland, citizens would take up arms against us, effectively making them combatants. This would lead to as great or greater losses, and hence justify the bombing. However, it doesn't pass the sniff test with me from everything I've read.

[Marcus Bryant]

Who cares? We aren't talking about those who looked like good normal upstanding 'muricans...

[DarrinS]

The yellow man was nuked, in part due to the likelihood that middle America wouldn't give a damn. The krauts were subjected to massive, repetitive carpet bombing.


Well, another reason was probably to scare the shit out of the Russians, but they ended up with their own anyway.

[Winehole23]

In any case after actually dropping the bomb, we never had to use it as a threat again until Clinton, I think, who counter-offered a NK offer to bomb us.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'd rather torture a thousand innocent middle easterners than lose one hypothetical city.

[Winehole23]

I'd rather torture a thousand innocent middle easterners than lose one hypothetical city.Past tense, maybe. It's possible we already did.

What, 500-600 Gitmo prisoners were let go without charges of any kind, right?

[Mr. Peabody]

I'd rather torture a thousand innocent middle easterners than lose one hypothetical city.

Won't somebody please think of the hypothetical children!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Won't somebody please think of the hypothetical children!

they are the hypothetical future after all.

[Winehole23]

Is there something deceiving or misleading about what has been released? Mr. Cheney seems to implicate that there is, though for obvious reasons he cannot say what. So he seeks to get by on the bare implication Obama isn't telling us the whole story. I don't really see why you should set more stock by Dick Cheney's empty inference than declassified material, Darrin, but you be my guest. You'll probably have plenty of company.Today that company includes Obama DNI Dennis Blair.

[Winehole23]

The Bush and Obama takes on *enhanced interrogation* are quasi-identical.

Accountability for Bush era crime will proceed in Truth Comission style, with criminals sworn on the condition of legal immunity. The CIA will be allowed to tell their tales and shrug off their mistakes and meet the challenges of the future. Lessons will be learned and fables told to terrify our nieces and nephews.

The DOJ may still have something to say about it, but Holder seems to bite his tongue just as well as Mukasey IMO.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Bush and Obama takes on *enhanced interrogation* are quasi-identical.

Accountability for Bush era crime will proceed in Truth Comission style, with criminals sworn on the condition of legal immunity. The CIA will be allowed to tell their tales and shrug off their mistakes and meet the challenges of the future.

The DOJ may still have something to say about it, but Holder seems to bite his tongue just as well as Mukasey IMO.

And we pretend elections matter. Oh well, life is too short to be paranoid.

[Winehole23]

The Bush DOJ report on the OLC was harsh, and the repercussions from it could roll up a few guys like Bybee and Yoo.

[Marcus Bryant]

The rules are different for them, as opposed to people like you and me.

[Winehole23]

We'll see if noblesse oblige (http://dictionary.die.net/noblesse%20oblige) still obtains. You could be right.

[Marcus Bryant]

We'll see if noblesse oblige still obtains. You could be right.

And it doesn't change, no matter the party in control. I guess occasionally the odd congressman commits a crime either so heinous or so stupid that they can't avoid doing some time (usually, it seems to be that they aren't financially able to procure proper legal counsel).

[coyotes_geek]

Read the Geneva convention declaration. It should clear all your doubts about it.

Okay, I read it. Since my google search for "geneva convention declaration" returned several things I'm assuming this is what you are talking about. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html#Article%201.1

If it is, the definition of torture provided is pretty vague. And that creates a huge problem in trying to make unilateral statements that interrogation is okay, but torture isn't. Because different people are going to have different interpretations of where that line is.

From Part I, Article 1 of the link above:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..............

So does this mean that intentionally inflicting pain or suffering is not torture so long as that pain and suffering is not severe? What do we do when we all have different interpretations of where that threshold between "severe" and "not severe" is?

[Winehole23]

So does this mean that intentionally inflicting pain or suffering is not torture so long as that pain and suffering is not severe? What do we do when we all have different interpretations of where that threshold between "severe" and "not severe" is?As I recall, the GWB era gloss of *severe* was equivalent to the pain of losing a limb or experiencing organ failure.

[Winehole23]

Until Jack Goldmith revoked the memos, yadda yadda yadda.

[Winehole23]

For the record, I do not find Geneva vague, though I concede that it is not precise. Painful, degrading or inhumane treatment is proscribed. What's so unclear about that?

Geneva was international policy for nearly sixty years, and I don't recall many complaints during my own 40 years that it was too vague -- until the last eight years.

[Winehole23]

Geneva is still the law of the land, despite the legal black hole created for POTUS in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The MCA of 2006 gives Obama the right to interpret Geneva Common Article 3 for the interrogation scenario all by himself, and immunizes the participants retroactively to 9/11.

[coyotes_geek]

For the record, I do not find Geneva vague, though I concede that it is not precise. Painful, degrading or inhumane treatment is proscribed. What's so unclear about that?

It's unclear because what qualifies as painful, degrading and inhumane gets left up to individual interpretation. Sure, it's easy enough to distinguish when we look at the extremes. Tell me, or I'll cut off your fingers = torture. Tell me, or I'll make sure that your breakfast is cold = not torture. Pretty easy to differentiate there. Start working towards the middle from those two extremes and the lack of a precise definition becomes more and more significant.


Geneva was international policy for nearly sixty years, and I don't recall many complaints during my own 40 years that it was too vague -- until the last eight years.

I'd think that has more to do with a lack of participants in global conflicts over the last 40 years who are trying to walk that fine line. When Russia invaded Afghanistan they didn't care about Geneva. They just went ahead and tortured people and didn't give a damn about where the torture/not torture line was. That made it easy for the rest of the world to point and say "look, there's torture". Vietnam, same thing. Bosnia, any of the African conflicts. Same thing. Over the last 40 years who's been an active participant in a conflict who cared about whether or not they followed Geneva? Bush Sr. in Gulf War I? Only example I can think of.

[DarrinS]

Does Sodium Pentothal not work? It is one of the drugs used for lethal injection, so it has to be used with caution.


Just curious. I'm against torture as long as it's not a suicide pact.

[Winehole23]

That the whole world flauts law and humanitarian principles is no reason to disdain the law or humanitarianism. Go ahead and pooh pooh an agreement that has protected American warriors -- not perfectly, not infallibly -- from those who were probably inclined to do them even worse. For sixty years.

I realize that international laws and norms mainly inhabit the realm of the symbolic, but we made Geneva the law of the land, and you'll pardon me if I'm not one to cast it aside like a used tissue, just because others blow their nose with it.

[LnGrrrR]

It's unclear because what qualifies as painful, degrading and inhumane gets left up to individual interpretation. Sure, it's easy enough to distinguish when we look at the extremes. Tell me, or I'll cut off your fingers = torture. Tell me, or I'll make sure that your breakfast is cold = not torture. Pretty easy to differentiate there. Start working towards the middle from those two extremes and the lack of a precise definition becomes more and more significant.


This is why I choose to err on the side of NOT waterboarding. I'd rather we stuck with persistent questioning and giving more carrots than sticks. I'm certainly not for highly elevated/lowered temperatures, sleep deprivation or waterboarding.

[Winehole23]

I'd think that has more to do with a lack of participants in global conflicts over the last 40 years who are trying to walk that fine line. When Russia invaded Afghanistan they didn't care about Geneva. They just went ahead and tortured people and didn't give a damn about where the torture/not torture line was. That made it easy for the rest of the world to point and say "look, there's torture". How can you not see that a strength of Geneva?


Vietnam, same thing. Bosnia, any of the African conflicts. Same thing. Over the last 40 years who's been an active participant in a conflict who cared about whether or not they followed Geneva? Bush Sr. in Gulf War I? Only example I can think of.By all means, refresh (http://www.publicinternationallaw.org/warcrimeswatch/wcpw_current.html) your memory.

[coyotes_geek]

That the whole world flauts law and humanitarian principles is no reason to disdain the law or humanitarianism. Go ahead and pooh pooh an agreement that has protected American warriors -- not perfectly, not infallibly -- from those who were probably inclined to do them even worse. For sixty years.

I realize that international laws and norms mainly inhabit the realm of the symbolic, but we made Geneva the law of the land, and you'll pardon me if I'm not one to cast it aside like a used tissue, just because others blow their nose with it.

I'm not pooh-poohing anything. You say there's a line we shouldn't cross. I'd like to know where that line is. You say Geneva is the law of the land. Good laws have rigid definitions. That's why we have a penal code that specifically spells out exactly what type of behavior is prohibited, instead of having some generic "you shouldn't do bad stuff" verbage where we rely on the interpretation of enforcement to say "I'll know law breaking when I see it".

[Winehole23]

I'm not pooh-poohing anything. You say there's a line we shouldn't cross.Yeah, apparently that makes me a wimp or something. I was partly replying to Darrin when I said that. My reply to you is more particular.


I'd like to know where that line is. You say Geneva is the law of the land. Good laws have rigid definitions. That's why we have a penal code that specifically spells out exactly what type of behavior is prohibited... If you do this, you've just written a torture manual. You're telling the bad guys what they have to get around.


...instead of having some generic "you shouldn't do bad stuff" verbage where we rely on the interpretation of enforcement to say "I'll know law breaking when I see it".I'll agree that it didn't work for porn, but it kind of makes sense for torture. Non US signatories will tend to err on the side of restraint, not knowing where the line is. Vagueness is part of the wisdom of Geneva IMO.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not pooh-poohing anything. You say there's a line we shouldn't cross. I'd like to know where that line is. You say Geneva is the law of the land. Good laws have rigid definitions. That's why we have a penal code that specifically spells out exactly what type of behavior is prohibited, instead of having some generic "you shouldn't do bad stuff" verbage where we rely on the interpretation of enforcement to say "I'll know law breaking when I see it".

I defy you to come up with a 'definite' line for torture. The problem is that torture is measured in degrees as much as it is by actions.

If I keep you awake, it's not torture. But what if I keep you awake for 3 days straight? 7 days? What about if I combine that with lowering the temperature in the room to 50 or so?

I guess while we're at it, we might as well also put you in a stress position designed to make you tired, and blast loud foreign music.

My point is that it is a combination of factors that leads some to break, but for many when they break, they can't be "put together" again.

[LnGrrrR]

If you do this, you've just written a torture manual. You're telling the bad guys what they have to get around.


Honestly, I'd be fine with declaring what we will and won't do. But that's mostly because I'm of the mindset that developing a rapport and gaining trust is a better/more effective way to gain long-term intel. (Short-term probably leans in favor of torture, but the fact that such info can be unreliable, and my own personal morals, lead me to still go with the good cop/bad cop routine moreso than the torture route.)

[FaithInOne]

It's okay to steal from your own citizens and intentionally decrease the standard of living for their future generations, but you dare not deprive some goodhearted men of sleep.

[Winehole23]

Honestly, I'd be fine with declaring what we will and won't do. Another concern is that our friends and enemies may tend to construe it (esp. w/in the historical frame) as an official policy of legally parsed mistreatment.

[JoeChalupa]

"What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight ... is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings. "- General David Petraeus, May 10, 2007

From the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)

According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.

Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation, or that the Justice Department lawyer most responsible for declaring the methods legal had idiosyncratic ideas that even the Bush Justice Department would later renounce.

The process was "a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm," a former C.I.A. official said.

[Winehole23]

It's okay to steal from your own citizens and intentionally decrease the standard of living for their future generations, but you dare not deprive some goodhearted men of sleep.You must still be asleep. SpursTalk posters are pissed off about the bailout all over the map.

Go start a new thread if you care so much.

[JoeChalupa]

It's okay to steal from your own citizens and intentionally decrease the standard of living for their future generations, but you dare not deprive some goodhearted men of sleep.

Bush is out of office now. Move on!!

[Marcus Bryant]

Is he?

[Winehole23]

Honestly, I'd be fine with declaring what we will and won't do.Also, declaring *approved* stress techniques violates the spirit of Geneva.

It looks like a special exception to the rules, and in fact US legal parsing has already underwritten such exceptions under the cover of *compliance*.

Where slicing Binyan Mohammed's penis (http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Guantanamo-Briton-tells-of-.5050147.jp) fits in I guess I'll just leave to wiser heads than mine.

[coyotes_geek]

Honestly, I'd be fine with declaring what we will and won't do. But that's mostly because I'm of the mindset that developing a rapport and gaining trust is a better/more effective way to gain long-term intel. (Short-term probably leans in favor of torture, but the fact that such info can be unreliable, and my own personal morals, lead me to still go with the good cop/bad cop routine moreso than the torture route.)

This is why knowing the results of the interrogations are important.

[Winehole23]

This is why knowing the results of the interrogations are important.I submit it's not important. It's a moral dodge.

[DarrinS]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what are effective and non-tortuous means of obtaining potentially life-saving information.


I mentioned sodium pentathol. Is its use considered torture?

[Winehole23]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what are effective and non-tortuous means of obtaining potentially life-saving information.Google it yourself, Darrin. Why should anybody do your homework for you?

[Winehole23]

What's your goddam take, Socrates?

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what are effective and non-tortuous means of obtaining potentially life-saving information.


I mentioned sodium pentathol. Is its use considered torture?


I could live with it, if we are talking about 'enemy combatants' or whatever the Orwellian speak label is appropriate for them these days. That is, if there is good reason to believe that information needed to prevent a mass casualty attack on civilians is to be gained. But I'm not necessarily too thrilled about setting the precedent of the state shooting up whoever it has in custody with a drug just because there could be something advantageous for the state from doing so.

[coyotes_geek]

I submit it's not important. It's a moral dodge.

Been there, done that. We've already established that it's a perfectly black and white issue whether or not the grey fuzzy line should be crossed.

[Winehole23]

Suggesting that the shame and disgrace of torture should not attach because useful information was gained therefrom, is a contemptuous perversion of morality IMO.

Geez. This issue turns conservatives into post-modern relativists. Don't people care about judeo-christian values anymore, or did they just get too expensive for some people?

[spurster]

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?

The next time some bright boy thinks of a torture policy, he knows he will be outed.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what are effective and non-tortuous means of obtaining potentially life-saving information.


I mentioned sodium pentathol. Is its use considered torture?

The same way it's been done for decades, if not longer. Develop a relationship between detainer and detainee, and get the detainee to trust the detainer.

[LnGrrrR]

Don't people care about judeo-christian values anymore, or did they just get too expensive for some people?

You can't have values if yer dead! [/conservative]

[Marcus Bryant]

Suggesting that the shame and disgrace of torture should not attach because useful information was gained therefrom, is a contemptuous perversion of morality IMO.

Geez. This issue turns conservatives into post-modern relativists. Don't people care about judeo-christian values anymore, or did they just get too expensive for some people?

SS and Medicare turn them into 'socialists,' but please don't let them know.

[DarrinS]

The same way it's been done for decades, if not longer. Develop a relationship between detainer and detainee, and get the detainee to trust the detainer.


Sounds good to me, but I don't see that trust developing between a Muslim terrorist and a non-Muslim interrogator.

[DarrinS]

I could live with it, if we are talking about 'enemy combatants' or whatever the Orwellian speak label is appropriate for them these days. That is, if there is good reason to believe that information needed to prevent a mass casualty attack on civilians is to be gained. But I'm not necessarily too thrilled about setting the precedent of the state shooting up whoever it has in custody with a drug just because there could be something advantageous for the state from doing so.


I agree, but I don't think we're pulling random people off the street for waterboarding sessions. Based on some of the responses in this thread, you'd think our intelligence community are the North Vietnamese in a badly made Chuck Norris film.

[Marcus Bryant]

I agree, but I don't think we're pulling random people off the street for waterboarding sessions. Based on some of the responses in this thread, you'd think our intelligence community are the North Vietnamese in a badly made Chuck Norris film.

I agree, but don't we as a country seem lazy as it pertains to military involvement with, as well as the use of military technology by, law enforcement? It's almost as if we've stopped caring about the distinction (just my random perception).

[Winehole23]

You can't have values if yer dead! [/conservative]At heart, this statement is basically nihilistic; true believers don't believe mortality extinguishes justice.

I realize some will part with me on this point, and I respect that, but I will hold my ground.

God saw us torture those men. Others having died or having been saved does not excuse our fault, and those who survive us may yet receive the benefit of any temporal justice that is done, if we don't receive it ourselves.

The idea that the solitary death of an innocent extinguishes human rights everywhere would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous and so pathetic. Death is accompanied by a loss of rights. Duh!

You can't have values if you're dead is a commonplace that has puffed itself up like a blowfish, and gets worshipped as a principle.

[coyotes_geek]

Sounds good to me, but I don't see that trust developing between a Muslim terrorist and a non-Muslim interrogator.

"Just because you believe that killing me is your ticket to heaven doesn't mean we can't be friends..................."

[Winehole23]

I agree, but I don't think we're pulling random people off the street for waterboarding sessions. Based on some of the responses in this thread, you'd think our intelligence community are the North Vietnamese in a badly made Chuck Norris film.Scurrilous. No such comparison was made.

[Winehole23]

"Just because you believe that killing me is your ticket to heaven doesn't mean we can't be friends..................."Your lullaby, not mine.

[DarrinS]

Scurrilous. No such comparison was made.


You don't really like satire, do you?

[DarrinS]

I agree, but don't we as a country seem lazy as it pertains to military involvement with, as well as the use of military technology by, law enforcement?


I suppose.

[Winehole23]

You don't really like satire, do you?When it's funny or insightful, yes I do. Yours failed on both counts. It also lacks a distinct target.

[burntorange]

Wait a minute . . . torture is always ineffective! That's the ticket.

Right? Right?

[Wild Cobra]

Then don't cherry pick. Release it all.
Don't worry, this is just another reason that will make this administration go down as one of the worse in history. Time will reveal the truth.

[Wild Cobra]

It'd be nice to have the certitude that torture saved lives, if you think the ends justify the means. I don't.
Can we start by agreeing that the harsh interrogation techniques used are not considered torture by everyone.

That it is an opinion...

[ChumpDumper]

Don't worry, this is just another reason that will make this administration go down as one of the worse in history. Time will reveal the truth.Yeah, the last administration always cherry-picked the information it chose to release. Time is revealing the truth that it is one of the worst in history.

[ChumpDumper]

Can we start by agreeing that the harsh interrogation techniques used are not considered torture by everyone.

That it is an opinion...Waterboarding someone scores or hundreds of times is torture.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sorry. I started reading this thread, but it's five pages long, and people keep calling it torture. Waterboarding does not fit that definition in my opinion, or many others. Maybe to the extremes of it, yes. There are different levels of using the procedure, like anything else.

Besides, I was too busy to log on yesterday, and this was a busy past couple days. Global Warming has finally graced us with it's presence. Still a little chilly, but it's no longer cold...

[Winehole23]

Can we start by agreeing that the harsh interrogation techniques used are not considered torture by everyone.

That it is an opinion...No, we can't.

The conversation has already moved way past the semantic showdown. Torture happened, our government has already admitted as much. It was a fucking policy, deliberately and aggressively pursued.

Face it, WC. We're torturers.

[ChumpDumper]

It's torture. If you're ok with its being legal for captors in any conflict doing that to our troops, that's your business.

I'm not.

[ElNono]

I didn't have too much time to post more in this thread, considering the playoffs and what not, but I just wanted to say that the other methods I was referring to include spying, infiltration, bribery, social engineering, fraud, etc. All legal methods that have provided this country with more than enough intel during all sorts of different theaters.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, we can't.

The conversation has already moved way past the semantic showdown. Torture happened, our government has already admitted as much. It was a fucking policy, deliberately and aggressively pursued.

Face it, WC. We're torturers.

torture and gay people belong in the closet in WC's mind

[Yonivore]

No, we can't.

The conversation has already moved way past the semantic showdown. Torture happened, our government has already admitted as much. It was a fucking policy, deliberately and aggressively pursued.

Face it, WC. We're torturers.
Frankly, I don't think the semantic argument is over. Many reasonable people still don't consider the variety (and, yes, there are several) of waterboarding constituted torture.

But, in any case, many, possibly thousands of Los Angeleans are alive today, because our government was willing to employee aggressive interrogation techniques.

I'm okay with that.

[Wild Cobra]

Frankly, I don't think the semantic argument is over. Many reasonable people still don't consider the variety (and, yes, there are several) of waterboarding constituted torture.

But, in any case, many, possibly thousands of Los Angeleans are alive today, because our government was willing to employee aggressive interrogation techniques.

I'm okay with that.
Same here. They proved that this worked.

Thing with torture is that if less aggressive techniques didn't work, torture doesn't either. This was not torture, and it worked.

[Yonivore]

Same here. They proved that this worked.

Thing with torture is that if less aggressive techniques didn't work, torture doesn't either. This was not torture, and it worked.
Meh, whatever you want to call it, it was effective and we need to keep it in our quiver of weapons.

I can't help that the liberal narrative in this matter won't allow for reasonable debate.

[Yonivore]

I'm sure it's already been pooh-poohed by the lefties on this board but, how do they reconcile that Nancy Pelosi was briefed, multiple times, on these techniques and she raised no concerns until it became a political issue?

Just curious.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't help that the liberal narrative in this matter won't allow for reasonable debate.
I agree. All the more reason I say they try to destroy the Heart of America.

[Yonivore]

I pray to God President Obama is never faced with the decision of having to employ such techniques -- now knowing they work -- to thwart a major terror attack on this country.

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.

[jack sommerset]

I pray to God President Obama is never faced with the decision of having to employ such techniques -- now knowing they work -- to thwart a major terror attack on this country.

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.

:lol Obama would have the suspect nuts chewed off. This whole topic is bogus! Just politicians being politicians. Funny. A week ago I am hearing how the Dems think Rush is the leader of the Republican party and now I am hearing how Obama would not rule out prosecuting the Bush admin. Anything to get the people including democrats to forget Obama just signed off on a bill that spent a TRILLION dollars. This dumbass won't get re-elected.

[ChumpDumper]

Dems think Rush is the leader of the Republican partyWell who is it then?

[jack sommerset]

Well who is it then?

Michael Steele

[ElNono]

I pray to God President Obama is never faced with the decision of having to employ such techniques -- now knowing they work -- to thwart a major terror attack on this country.

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.

Praying to God and supporting torture are mutually exclusive. Please pick one or the other.

[Winehole23]

Frankly, I don't think the semantic argument is over. Many reasonable people still don't consider the variety (and, yes, there are several) of waterboarding constituted torture.Bad call, Yoni. Overtaken by facts on the ground, though not yet pursued to a legal certainty. That's really all you have left here.

Who am I going to believe, my lying eyes, or a serial liar and plagiarist like you? It's not a very hard call to make.

[Winehole23]

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.Yoni thinks he wins because "24" might come true someday.

You only wish it would, Yoni.

[Winehole23]

You're obviously pining for it.

[ChumpDumper]

Michael Steele:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I pray to God President Obama is never faced with the decision of having to employ such techniques -- now knowing they work -- to thwart a major terror attack on this country.

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.

Some of us aren't willing to sacrifice our morals for expediency.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm sure it's already been pooh-poohed by the lefties on this board but, how do they reconcile that Nancy Pelosi was briefed, multiple times, on these techniques and she raised no concerns until it became a political issue?

Just curious.

Lefties, as you say, have been railing on politicians like this for awhile. The biggest flaw with the Democrats of today are that a majority of them are right in line with the Republicans when it comes to promoting authoritarian mindsets/rules. Lots of Dems supported FISA as well.

I can only hope that my generation, generation Y, will be for more civil rights, less government interference, and less nation-building efforts.

[Winehole23]

Yoni thinks there are only two flavors of ice cream, so he can't comprehend that someone who hates one doesn't love the other. Fallacious.

He also doesn't see that when it comes to executive power, spending, national security and war, that there's really only one flavor: Cold War liberalism, retrofitted for 9/11. It includes the mainstream of both major parties.

[MannyIsGod]

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush's quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html


Thats right boys and girls, they used torture so that they'd have justification for starting a fucking war.



The terrorists succeeded. Look at what they turned us into.

[JoeChalupa]

I pray to God President Obama is never faced with the decision of having to employ such techniques -- now knowing they work -- to thwart a major terror attack on this country.

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.

But the right will ALWAYS accuse Obama of having the means to extract actionable intelligence because it really can't be totally proven because we simply don't know.

[florige]

:lol Obama would have the suspect nuts chewed off. This whole topic is bogus! Just politicians being politicians. Funny. A week ago I am hearing how the Dems think Rush is the leader of the Republican party and now I am hearing how Obama would not rule out prosecuting the Bush admin. Anything to get the people including democrats to forget Obama just signed off on a bill that spent a TRILLION dollars. This dumbass won't get re-elected.




http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-obama-polls0423,0,6965513.story

approval ratings in new polls
In 5-year first, more Americans say U.S. headed in right direction than not
By Mark Silva | Tribune Washington Bureau
10:26 AM EDT, April 23, 2009
WASHINGTON - Approaching his 100th day in the White House at a time of economic turmoil, President Barack Obama holds the approval of nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed for the job that he is performing -- and seven in 10 say they like Obama, the man.

Most say they approve of the president's overall handling of the economy, while the effects of his policies remain uncertain.

Obama's job approval as president stands at 63 percent in a poll released Thursday morning by the Washington-based Pew Research Center, with just 26 percent of those surveyed saying they disapprove of the way that Obama is handling his job.

The president draws a similar rating in a new poll conducted by the Associated Press and GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media: 64 percent job approval. The AP-GfK survey also finds, for the first time in five years, more Americans saying the nation is headed in the right direction than those who say it is not.



Related links
Obama to meet with credit-card industry leaders
Obama talks up wind power, green jobs on Earth Day
Biden: $300 million from stimulus will go for 'clean' vehicles The president's job approval also stands at 64 percent in the latest results of the Gallup Poll's daily tracking survey.

In a reversal of the way that voters traditionally view leaders of the two major political parties, the Democratic president draws better ratings in the Pew survey for his handling of foreign policy and terrorism than for his handling of domestic issues such as health care, taxes or the budget deficit.

Nevertheless, 60 percent of those surveyed by Pew say they approve of Obama's overall handling of the economy.

First lady Michelle Obama also is having a honeymoon of her own with the American public, with 76 percent of those surveyed voicing a favorable view of her -- up from 62 percent in January, when the Obamas moved into the White House.

This is particularly true among Republican women, whose opinion of the first lady has grown by 21 points since January, to 67 percent approval in the newest survey. Among Republicans in general, the first lady holds the approval of 60 percent.

Still, the Pew poll, like others, reveals a wide disparity between Democrats and Republicans in the way they rate the new president's performance -- with 93 percent of Democrats surveyed voicing approval and just 30 percent of Republicans agreeing.

The Pew survey of 1,507 adults was conducted April 14-21 and carries a possible margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. The AP-GfK poll survey of 1,000 adults was run April 16-20, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.

Nearly half of those surveyed by AP-GfK -- 48 percent -- said the country is headed in the right direction, up from 40 percent in February. And 40 percent still said the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not since January 2004 has an AP survey found more "right direction'' sentiment than "wrong direction'' concern.

For a president whose Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, presented himself as a more seasoned expert on foreign affairs, the Democrat has gained respect at home for his work on the foreign stage. Most Americans surveyed by Pew -- 57 percent -- say that Obama is striking the right balance in pressing American interests while taking into the account the interests of U.S. allies.

The public also is taking a more positive view of Obama's decision to close the U.S. military-run detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- with 51 percent approving -- than it did when the president first announced his intentions to close the facility within a year in January, when 38 percent approved.

The president, who traveled across Europe and to Baghdad earlier this month, draws strong approval for his overall handling of foreign policy in the Pew survey -- 61 percent.

While most (60 percent) approve of Obama's overall handling of the economy, Pew found, most also say that it is too early to tell whether the president's economic policies have had an effect or say they have had no effect. Just 26 percent of those surveyed say his policies have made conditions better.

Most support the extent of the agenda that Obama is tackling early in his presidency, with 56 percent saying he is handling things right and 34 percent say he is taking on too much.

The president's campaign promise of "change'' and his pledge to set a new tone in Washington are still resonating with most Americans, the Pew poll suggests, with 63 percent of those surveyed saying that Obama has demonstrated a new approach to politics and just 27 percent calling his approach business as usual.

However, among the younger voters surveyed, that enthusiasm apparently has waned somewhat, with 61 percent of those under 30 saying the president brings a new approach to politics, down from 73 percent in February.

While the president has held the public's approval after three months in office, Vice President Joe Biden has lost some support.

About half of those surveyed by Pew, 51 percent, said they have a favorable view of Biden -- down 12 percentage points from January. It is largely among Democrats and independents that Biden's standing has slipped, Pew found, with Republicans holding roughly steady in their views of the vice president.




:lmao Not looking too good as of now Repubs.
I guess they will chalk it up as a bad poll or something. lol

[JoeChalupa]

In 2012......YES WE CAN!!!

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html


Thats right boys and girls, they used torture so that they'd have justification for starting a fucking war.



The terrorists succeeded. Look at what they turned us into.So waterboarding proved there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam.

See, torture works!

[Winehole23]

But the right will ALWAYS accuse Obama of having the means to extract actionable intelligence because it really can't be totally proven because we simply don't know.Science disdains the unfalsifiable but politics thrives (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html) on it.


It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.

[boutons_deux]

Flashback: Bush’s FBI Director Said Torture Didn’t Foil Any Terror Plots (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/probes-of-bush-administration/flashback-bushs-fbi-director-said-torture-didnt-foil-any-terror-plots/)

Now that Bush administration officials have launched a major campaign to persuade us that torture “worked,” perhaps it’s worth recalling that George W. Bush’s own FBI director said in an interview last year that he wasn’t aware of a single planned terror attack on America that had been foiled by information obtained through torture.

Robert Mueller, who was appointed by Bush in 2001 and remains FBI director under Obama, delivered that assessment at the end of this December 2008 article (http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=4) in Vanity Fair on torture:
I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/probes-of-bush-administration/flashback-bushs-fbi-director-said-torture-didnt-foil-any-terror-plots/

[Marcus Bryant]

I pray to God President Obama is never faced with the decision of having to employ such techniques -- now knowing they work -- to thwart a major terror attack on this country.

Torture or not, illegal or not, liberal or conservative...the American Public will never forgive him if it finds out he had the means to extract actionable intelligence and because of some silly rhetoric he failed to act.


Sure, the people are predisposed to give up their liberties at the drop of a hat.


Yonivore
Just Right of Atilla the Hun

Pfft. Atilla would have fit in quite well with Benito, Adolf, Leon, Vladimir, and Joseph.

Stop fouling conservatism with your presence.

[Nbadan]

Why Bush/Cheney tortured...

s83uULWyudw