Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
See what I mean about reading. Show me where I said Obama was a good person. I'll wait.
obama is a GOOD PERSON because he never SAID the reason he slaughters innocent pakistanis is...
LOL!
tell us more, margaret
he's NOT
because he never SAID the reason he was killing INNOCENTS was to protect america
LOL!
what we've learned:
1. not prosecuting govt officials for TORTURE is akin to letting a speeder off with a warning
2. if you allow cia agents to use eit's against known assassins, the next thing you know they'll be raping children
3. a person can be a GOOD PERSON so long as he or she doesn't SAY he's killing innocents to protect american lives
LOL!
I never said Obama was a good person.
no one cares what you clicked and submitted in your 60 second intervals of deep thought and debate
we're too concerned with slippery slopes leading from the enhanced interrogation of ksm to the RAPE OF LITTLE GIRLS
LOL!
You're also not interested in honest discourse
what self respecter will engage in any kind of discourse with a 60 second clicker who kneejerks so many ridiculous comebacks
it's more productive to point out the absurdities and LOL!
please continue
(T)he claim we were discussing was excusing torture.... Poor reading skills have kept too many from actually addressing what has been said. Whether it is Bush or someone on a political discussion form, making excuses for torture or any evil puts real doubt on whether that person is "good" or not.
In my view, very few things are absolute. You call Bush's justification for the waterboarding an "excuse," I call it a Hobson's choice. If I were faced with "Waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri or risk another 9/11 and the lives of thousands of Americans," then guess what? I'm going to waterboard the three terrorists. That's not evil. Evil is bargaining away the lives of the citizens I've sworn an oath to protect. For me to characterize Bush's decision as "evil," I'd have to make some assumptions that I as an average citizen am simply not in a position to make, because I'm not privy to the deeper recesses of the American intelligence community. But I'm not going to second guess Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, when he said the agency was forthcoming in giving key members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, infomation on exactly what was done and why it was done. I just found her excuses and pubic grandstanding, especially after she apparently pressed the CIA to do more to extract information from terrorists, to be pathetic. Thanks, Leon, for giving her a smackdown.
So, you're upset because I think faster than you do?
After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials." In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture. Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."
These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques. "KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.
The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate. Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again. "What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."
One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure. "Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "
Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad. "Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary. Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.
how out of touch is someone who perceives LOL's as sign of upset?
LOL!
clicking and submitting is no substitute for thinking
ask someone intelligent
So in order to be convincing, you would have to present something new in either your argument or in the actual facts.
So this is not new to you? You just wrote it off as "little to no evidence anything really valuable was gained from torture"?
you have to ask?
LOL!
(Y)ou... have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.
The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result.
How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com
No, it's not new. It was published in 2009.
Way to alter the intent of my question. Why don't you try answering the question based upon what I wrote? (Or are your reading skills in need of a boost?) I asked if it was new to you.
It is those saying they got things, but very little specifics. Cheny then pointed to the second wave, only to have that prove impossibale as it was thwarted before KSM was even captured. And let's not forget, you also have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.
I realize that for some, just having them say it was good is enough. But I do believe the standard should be higher. Many claims have been made that proved false, like the KSM second claim. So, yes, I need more.
Perhaps you could read the rest of what I wrote... It answers your question.
It is those saying they got things, but very little specifics. Cheny then pointed to the second wave, only to have that prove impossibale as it was thwarted before KSM was even captured. And let's not forget, you also have to show this could not have been gained any other way. it has to be important, significant, and not able to get any other way in order to conivnce.
I realize that for some, just having them say it was good is enough. But I do believe the standard should be higher. Many claims have been made that proved false, like the KSM second claim. So, yes, I need more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?