You'd be wrong. Look up al Libi.
Again, wrong. We have the from Canada with the wrong name, and the cab driver we killed in Afghanistan. verifiable, and not what we thought they were.
Again, the other was easily released. And they tried hard to throw out stuff that was shown false (that too is documented and easily verifiable - see both the Brooklyn Bridge blow torch terrorist and the 2nd wave 9/11)
And I suggest easy to say, harder to prove.
If it is so easy, just prove it.
You can link that directly to the waterboarding, without doubt?
You can link that directly to the waterboarding, without doubt?
And I suggest the testimony from the senate intelligence committee qualifes as 'intelligence'. That the statements were not supported with documentation points to secret documents.
You'd be wrong. Look up al Libi.
Yea, a guy who was caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Who regularly corresponded with bin Laden, al Zarquawi, and many other prominant terrorists. Who escaped and then participated in further actions against Afghan forces, in addition to being a major player in the attacks against Pakistan.
Who has made such great videos as "The Libyan AIDS Children".
Yea, this is a great example you give us. Maybe why this type of thing is needed?
SWOOOOSH! Over your head.
The point is he gave us misinformation, and we acted on it. Cost us, not him.
The military is notorious for being full of yesmen (and I'm talking general grade officers here)..
Over generalization and not accurate, nor does it recognize the legal limitations placed on Military officers in regards to how they speak to and about (publicly) their Commander in Chief.
Actually military officers (and everybody else) has some pretty free rights when it comes to talking about their Commander in Chief. They still have a 1st Ammendment Right, just like everybody else.
However, several Presidents (Clinton comes to mind here) have limited our rights when it comes to making public statements against the President. However, in private and between each other, pretty much anything goes.
And if you question this, here is something to consider. Lately, a lot of people who were "former Special Operations forces" have come forward to speak out against many things in the Obama Administration. Wonder why none of them are currently in uniform? Why, a Presidential Gag Order put in place by President Clinton after Somalia and a few other titsup operations which some in the military spoke out against very publicly. I know many do not seem to remember that, but I clearly do. And that is still in effect to this day.
Which has created a great demand for retired officers to work as Talking Heads on TV News shows.
From Uniform Code of Military Justice
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
It says nothing about "private" conversations. Military members are always subject to the UCMJ while on active duty. Even if they make the comment at a Tuesday night poker game, an Obama loving moron could still turn them in and they could still face charges. At least if they are not on duty or present in a particular state they can call a Governor of other states an idiot, but not National Officials. So no, they do not have "pretty free rights when it comes to talking about their Commander in Chief".
From Uniform Code of Military Justice
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
It says nothing about "private" conversations. Military members are always subject to the UCMJ while on active duty. Even if they make the comment at a Tuesday night poker game, an Obama loving moron could still turn them in and they could still face charges. At least if they are not on duty or present in a particular state they can call a Governor of other states an idiot, but not National Officials. So no, they do not have "pretty free rights when it comes to talking about their Commander in Chief".
Actually military officers (and everybody else) has some pretty free rights when it comes to talking about their Commander in Chief. They still have a 1st Ammendment Right, just like everybody else.
However, several Presidents (Clinton comes to mind here) have limited our rights when it comes to making public statements against the President. However, in private and between each other, pretty much anything goes.
And if you question this, here is something to consider. Lately, a lot of people who were "former Special Operations forces" have come forward to speak out against many things in the Obama Administration. Wonder why none of them are currently in uniform? Why, a Presidential Gag Order put in place by President Clinton after Somalia and a few other titsup operations which some in the military spoke out against very publicly. I know many do not seem to remember that, but I clearly do. And that is still in effect to this day.
Which has created a great demand for retired officers to work as Talking Heads on TV News shows.
The military is notorious for being full of yesmen (and I'm talking general grade officers here).
When their Commander in Chief comes out and says something like:
“Waterboarding is torture. It’s contrary to America’s traditions, it’s contrary to our ideals, it’s not who we are, it’s not how we operate,”
“We did the right thing by ending that practice.”
They are not going to come out and say "yeah its a great program and it works" even if they may think that.
So the fact that you can point out a bunch of people saying it isn't effective doesn't mean much to me.
It also doesn't mean much that they were given bad information, the same thing could happen for any other interrogation technique down to simple questioning. If you already knew the answers to the questions you were asking there would be no point in the interrogation. You don't know everything he knows so there is no way to know if what he is telling you is the truth with 100% certainty.
That is why when you do an interrogation you have to factor in what kind of placement and access to such information the guy might have, you can even cross check it with other sources to verify its accuracy. You can ask him simple questions (like on a polygraph) that you can verify to see if he is lying his face off. If he did know the information lying on purpose simply would not make sense, because as soon as your interrogators find out you lied your going to get interrogated again.
If the guy has the information you seek he will eventually talk. If you made a mistake and he doesn't have the information hes not going to die. There will always be a doctor of medic or some type there throughout the interrogation.
Also this is not something that would be done by a low level interrogator.
I did say yes it was torture in the poll simply because I think people generally consider it torture. I don't however thing it is anywhere in the same ball park as the things Hussein's regime was doing prior to OIF, things like pouring acid on people, hanging them on meat hooks, beating them with cables, electric shock, hacking and slashing and etc.
Unlike the previous mentioned methods you can walk away after being water boarded. Supposedly Khalid Sheik Mohammed has been water boarded more than 100 times and hes still around.
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?