Reply With Quote
I was questioning yours.
Check your facts...
It wasn't done hundreds of time on anyone.
You've been depending too much on your left wing blogs again.
I was questioning yours.
Five?
Eight?
With multiple applications each session?
Why did it need to be done that many times?
Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times
The 183 figure represents the number of times water was poured on KSM's face during no more than 5 waterboarding sessions.
This seems to underscore CD's point to me, even if he is guilty of a slight inaccuracy.
Waterboarding = pouring water on the face
If pouring water on a prisoners face was so effective, why did it need to be done 183 times?
So, if there are 183 hits in a baseball game it means they played 183 games?
You guys are idiots.
All it underscores is how meticulous the government was in keeping accurate records of what was done during the sessions.
Blow it out your ass...
Oh, and to answer an earlier question; then CIA Director, General Michael Hayden, said the tapes were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had any intelligence value.
How meticulous and accurate was it?
Tell us all about it.
They never heard of digital blurring?
Like the man said, they no longer had any intelligence value.
Deal with it, or don't. It doesn't appear there will be any legal ramifications for destroying them.
I believe it was the Red Cross, who has been give access to the detainees all during their detention, that reported this based on their interviews with KSM and the officials at Guantanamo.
Ask them.
No, you said the government.
Not the Red Cross.
More lies from the liar.
Why do you lie so much?
It was a classic covering of the ass.
You're a clown.
Well, that's your contention...stick with that.
I see it differently.
Of course you do.
Because you are a clown.
An apologist.
An excuse-maker.
A partisan hack.
Everyone involved with this is trying to cover his ass and you won't see it.
More like they were just trying to survive the partisan sniping of the left while, at the same time, trying to keep your ass from being beheaded by terrorists.
You're welcome.
You guys spent eight years (and counting) and illegally leaked national security secrets trying to fabricate a crime on which to try the Bush Administration and the best you could muster was Scooter Libby for lying to a prosecutor who already knew who had leaked the name of the "spy" his office was investigating.
Why is Richard Armitage not in prison? He was the person that supposedly outed Valerie Plame...if, in fact, the statute that was alleged to have been violated had actually applied to her.
Here's an interesting twist to the debate...
If Obama releases the interrogation photographs, will the New York Time then accuse him of violating the Geneva Conventions?
After all, the newspaper raised the question of violating international law after photographs of Saddam Hussein in captivity in his underpants were published in newspapers — “The Sun in London and The New York Post, both part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.”
Here is what the New York Times reported on March 21, 2005: “The publication on Friday of photographs of Saddam Hussein wearing only underwear in his cell in Iraq led the Bush administration on Friday to open an investigation into how the pictures made their way into tabloid newspapers in London and New York, apparently supplied by someone in the American military.”
That White House condemned the release of the photo. Deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said: “These photos were wrong; they’re a clear violation of D.O.D. directives, and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.”
Now we are about to release photos that show unlawful combatants under interrogation. I suppose that since it will cast a bad light on us, not them, that is OK.
Say someone detained and interrogated you, Yoni. For being a dangerous extremist asshole or something like that.
You call it torture, they call it theraputic massage and a facial treatment. Nobody believes you, or at least, you can't prove it.
The situation remains at an impasse until there is a change of administrations. The new administration repudiates torture and admits past participation. Information that proves your case is released.
Your basic argument is that laws protecting the dignity of the tortured man should trump the disclosure of information that proves you were tortured. or that the disclosure itself amounts to a grave new injury to your humanity.
Your concern is obviously facetious, but showing the detainees being tortured and humiliated is a serious matter. It is no surprise the law takes a concern. But your argument that humanitarian concern for the victim's dignity must prevent the truth of his mistreatment from being disclosed, is plainly perverse.
US law requires officials to report and punish torture. But you would require them to use the law as a veil to conceal their crimes.
For you, law is a mechanism that serves justice by hiding the truth.
You're an effing political pervert, Yoni. You're a torture freak. You like it. You think there should be more of it. You probably think I should be tortured just for annoying you.
I may be a pedantic , but you're a twisted torture freak. You should really consider that, Yoni. Your cynical take on the law make you look like a sociopath, too.
BTW, why do you suppose the Bush DOD released the Abu Ghraib photos?
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-10-2009 at 12:48 PM.
Accusing an American citizen of being a "dangerous extremist asshole or something like that," is galaxies apart from being a known terrorist believed to possess knowledge of plots that will kill Americans.
But, thanks for the laugh.
Actually no. I don't condone torture of any kind. I do, however, believe it is appropriate to use enhanced interrogation techniques to extract intelligence that just might save your sorry ass so you can continue to be an ignoramus.
Again, you're welcome.
You're torturing the word torture.
I don't remember the cir stance but, I'm sure release of the photographs wasn't the administration first choice.
Your lack of intellectual integrity is showing again. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
If it's a mistake now, it was a mistake then.
There's a difference between willingly releasing photos and being compelled to do so.
Who made the government do it?
I'll give you a hint. The silly grunts that got thrown under the bus had memorialized their misconduct. Some of the photos were going to be released with or without the government's sayso, so they got out in front of it, and covered their own asses with a weak alibi about a few bad apples.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
