Just stop arguing him. He's not going to give up saying HOLDER or whatever other bull****.
They provided information that was not actionable. KSM confessed to numerous crimes. He said that he wanted to behead Jimmy Carter, he said he wanted to blow up the Brooklyn bridge, etc. These did not pan out to anything. You know why? Because like with any coercive interrogation, these things are made up ON THE SPOT by the suspect, or made up shortly before the suspect's interrogation so he can get his made up story completely straight. If you don't give someone an incentive to talk other than stopping pain, you won't get any good information.
That proves absolutely nothing. The main issue at hand here is the only evidence in support of EITs comes from political appointees. CIA directors, assistant CIA directors (namely this guy who destroyed videotapes, cleared of charges my ass, he destroyed evidence = crime, but since he's a gov. official, he doesn't get charged), directors of national intelligence, etc. These people do not see what goes on on the ground. They are not in the room conducting the interrogations. I can give you quotes from numerous Clinton officials who say these techniques do not work. I can give you the interview with FBI director Mueller (Bush appointee) stating that torture didn't work and didn't save lives. That totally contradicts all these CIA people, who by the way rarely are the ones taking out terror cells. The FBI is the agency that uses the intelligence and makes arrests against suspects on our soil. We can go back and fourth quoting officials all day. It doesn't prove anything.
Find me an interview or a statement by an interrogator who knows how these techniques work and says they work. You will not find one. No cop, agent, CIA officer, will tell you that these techniques work, because they don't. Political level people like directors/assistant directors hear what they want to hear, and then that's what they say to the public.
No I'm not flat wrong about anything. There is no evidence of enhanced interrogation methods providing actionable intelligence on anything. Zero. No evidence. Find me some.You need to look into this more. You're just flat out wrong about that.
You should know better than most that actual 'terror strikes' won't be named. Why don't you? You should know that the intelligence community doesn't speak about anything, period. It's failures are brought up by the press but it's successes are brought up by no one. You should know this, and I think you do. You're just forgetting it to score a political point. That sucks.
Hats off to you Prof.
You're slaying the people in here arguing EIT's did not work.
Wow!
There are still people arguing that EIT's did not produce results?
He isn't a serious.
You should know better than most that actual 'terror strikes' won't be named. Why don't you? You should know that the intelligence community doesn't speak about anything, period. It's failures are brought up by the press but it's successes are brought up by no one. You should know this, and I think you do. You're just forgetting it to score a political point. That sucks.
But that's not true. They DO speak about stuff! Look at the so called "second wave" attacks. Cheney was screaming on and on about how those were prevented by torture. But it turned out to be false.
Remember when Obama issued the EO against torture, and ordered interrogators to use the methods only that are in your army interrogation manual? After that, Cheney came out again and he said that the CIA memos that Obama is releasing are going to show torture worked. The memos were released. It didn't show anything. Janubi, you keep making these claims about how it's classified. The point is, it's not classified. People come out all the time and do this. You said that only failures come out. Not true. Look at Cheney!
If that's why he's there, then there's no need whatsoever for him to ever see a trial.Omar Khadr, aged 15 at the time, is the son of an alleged al-Qaida leader in Canada. He killed a US soldier by throwing a grenade at him during a battle at a suspected al-Qaida base in Afghanistan. Khadr has spent nearly nine years in Cuba as a result.
If that's why he's there, then there's no need whatsoever for him to ever see a trial.
Prisoners of War -never- get a trial.Wrong. Everyone deserves to see a trial.
Prisoners of War -never- get a trial.
This guy was CLEARLY engagd in combat w/ US troops. Thus, he gets held as a combatant, and gets no trial.
some don't need much to be fooled as they don't ask for much.
No I'm not flat wrong about anything. There is no evidence of enhanced interrogation methods providing actionable intelligence on anything. Zero. No evidence. Find me some.
Wrong. Everyone deserves to see a trial.
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?