Senior Member
I'm sorry... Peter King
Cheney has said: he thinks harsh interrogation saved lives, but what ever the case.
It was I believe rightly decided years ago that Bi-Laden would be killed rather than bring him to formal justice and be a "thorn" to the US until his punishment was dealt. The burial at sea was also a perfect solution to the end of the problem that was Osama..... dead & gone!
Senior Member
Sorry wrong againOriginally Posted by sundaydriver
Waterboarding prevented attacks and saved lives. Much to the dismay of libs who were hoping for another terror attack on Bush's watch
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Plant Parenthood.
^Could rep this post a dozen times.
I'm glad obl is dead, that doesn't mean I have to be glad about how the information that may of lead to his finding was obtained. I have no doubt it is torture, and as such unacceptable.
For anyone who believes that the ends justify the means then you have to ask yourself what means would you not accept.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
revelarts thanked this post
Senior Member
What is sad there are so many weak people who would rather let the attacks happen, have innocent people die - rather then do what is needed to stop them
Again, if people like you were in charge Noir, OBL would be live and well today
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Noir, how many dead would you accept to protect the "rights" of terrorists?
That question has been among the most hotly disputed issues at the center of the continuing controversy over the CIA's interrogation of suspected terrorists. The report released Monday from the former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson should end the debate.
Throughout his report, Helgerson goes out of his way to avoid expressing an opinion about the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs). On page 85, for instance, he writes generally about the CIA's detention and interrogation program:
The detention of terrorists has prevented them from engaging in further terrorist activity, and their interrogation has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists, warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world, and supported articles frequently used in the finished intelligence publications for senior policymakers and war fighters. In this regard, there is no doubt that the Program has been effective.
Then he adds this caveat about EITs:
Measuring the effectiveness of EITs, however, is a more subjective process and not without some concern.
On page 89 he writes:
Inasmuch as EITs have been used only since August 2002, and they have not all been used with every high value detainee, there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness.
And later, on the same page, he argues:
Measuring the overall effectiveness of EITs is challenging for a number of reasons including: (1) the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee actually possesses; (2) each detainee has different fears of and tolerance for EITs; (3) the application of the same EITs by different interrogators may have produced different results.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog..._they_work.asp
Last edited by red states rule; 05-03-2011 at 08:01 PM.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Plant Parenthood.
Both points are as strong as each other.
"At what point would you stop torturing if you believed the person had information"
I look at it from the perspective of the innocent, you look at it from the perspective of the guilty.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Senior Member
These terrorists were not oicked up at a local PTA meeting Noir. Many were captured on the battlefield or in safe houses
and here we have where waterboarding clearly saved lives
What would you Noir? Do all you could to stop the attack, or make nice and say "oops" after the attack happens?
Critics of the CIA program are desperate to convince Americans that no valuable information came from the interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and other senior terrorists. They know that if our citizens learn the details of how enhanced interrogations stopped terrorist plots, most would support the CIA program. A recent Pew poll showed that 71% of Americans believe that there are circumstances under which torture (not just enhanced interrogations, but actual torture) is justifiable to get information from captured terrorists.
This is why Timothy Noah of Slate (with Andrew Sullivan cheerleading him on his blog) is at such pains to debunk the story of the West Coast plot.
This was a KSM plot for a “Second Wave” attack using East Asian operatives to use shoe-bombs to hijack an airplane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Noah states in a blog post that this plot was never realistic. Here is his rationale:
The first reason to be skeptical that this planned attack could have been carried out successfully is that, as I’ve noted before, attacking buildings by flying planes into them didn’t remain a viable al-Qaida strategy even through Sept. 11, 2001. Thanks to cell phones, passengers on United Flight 93 were able to learn that al-Qaida was using planes as missiles and crashed the plane before it could hit its target. There was no way future passengers on any flight would let a terrorist who killed the pilot and took the controls fly wherever he pleased.
Really? Planes were off the table after 9/11? That would come as a surprise to every passenger in the past three years who had their liquids confiscated in an airport security line. Those security measures were instituted because in 2006 we foiled an al-Qaeda plot to hijack airplanes leaving London’s Heathrow airport and blow them up over the Atlantic (a plot our intelligence community says was just weeks from execution). Apparently al-Qaeda didn’t get Noah’s memo explaining that hijacking airplanes for terrorist attacks is “no longer viable al Qaeda strategy.”
In his post, Noah calls the West Coast plot “Thiessen’s claim” and Anderw Sullivan calls it “Thiessen’s LA Tower Canard.” What these two fail to appreciate is that the story of how enhanced interrogation broke up the West Coast plot is not my story — it is the official position of the intelligence community.
In my Washington Post piece, I was citing the very documents which President Obama released, which quote the CIA saying that interrogation with enhanced techniques “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.” The memo released by Obama goes on the explain that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ”
Again, those are not my words. That is the position of our intelligence community.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner.../marc-thiessen
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Plant Parenthood.
I have no doubt there are times when torture works. But I have also no doubt there are times when it fails.
I mean, if you think a guy may know about a bomb, and he is water boarded and says he knows nothing, do you believe him or torture him in different, more painful ways? What if he still says he knows nothing? At what point would you believe that he knew nothing about a bombing?
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Senior Member
Noir, do you know how many terrorists were waterboarded? I know the left wants people to think it was a common practice - but only THREE terrorists were ever waterboarded
THREE!!!!
This same article chased Bully away from his own tread BTW
and waterboading is NOT torture. Squirting a little water down the nose of a terrorist is hardly that Noir
For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.
Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.
Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.
The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ive-only-.html
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Plant Parenthood.
We will never know the truth about what or when 'enchanted interrogation technichs' (talk about something straight out of an Orwell book) were used.
And you may not believe it's torture, I do.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Senior Member
that is why the left is so silent on this topic. They do not want to face the fact they were wrong on how effective waterboarding is. Now they want to dismiss this pecky fact
How is it torture Noir? There are no lasting effects. The three SOB were still breathing afterwards. No wounds to stich up. They were able to walk under their own power
And inncoent lives were saved
What is the downside?
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
WHO the hell would wish for another attack on the US in hope of making someone look bad ? I never met anyone or heard of anyone that would think that that was a fair trade to satisfy their own warped desires! Of course as I see more of some thoughts on this here it does seem there is a lot of almost gleeful threads and finger pointing when things do go bad for us.
Last edited by sundaydriver; 05-03-2011 at 08:51 PM.
Senior Member
I know of many liberals who were.
And many were sad 9/11 did not happen so Clinton could have responded
With most liberals it is all about preserving their politcal power and not what is best for the country
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Plant Parenthood.
I'm assuming you have seen Chrisopher Hitchens being water boarded, were afterwards he made clear that if that isn't torture then nothing is. (and he's not exaclty known fro his soft touch when it comes to terrorists)
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Senior Member
No, I am talking about the three terrorist SOB's who were waterboarded.
Unlike the terrorists prisoners, they did not lose their head over being waterboarded
Last I checked KSM is alive and well - and I believe he has put on a few pounds while in prison at club GITMO
Last edited by red states rule; 05-03-2011 at 08:55 PM.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote