- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
But you only seem to go back to the same guy over and over, then try to represent that there were more. You don't know that, plus its quite dishonest.Well, we're getting closer. From "yelled at" to "smacked around" is progress. Now, let's see if we can get to "tortured and killed".
And yes, at least some of them were innocent victims. Daliwal was one of them.
Maybe once the public recognizes what actually took place, we can put the past behind us.
What do you think the people brought to Gitmo were in? A US facility, with trained US personnel.
:raises eyebrow: who told you that? SERE is a scheduled course - you are on that train until the training evolution ends. I can't think of a single time when I was being put through stress positions where "I'm too exhausted to hold this position any more" was considered an excuse.
However, if a detainee begins to give up valuable information, EIT also stopped.
:shrug: I don't see the difference that you are trying to draw. I wouldn't say I'm determined to ignore it, I think you are attempting to create it.
Yeah - and had we done it to (for example) uniformed Iraqi soldiers during OIF-1, then that would also have been a crime.
That's an interesting charge. Can you demonstrate that the CIA violated the limits put on it by the Justice Department? Because that could lead to a legitimate case of torture occurring.
Torture has defined legal meaning, it's not "what we think is mean".
Not at all - EIT is still abusive, it's still questionable, and it's still the kind of thing you reserve only for the most extreme circumstances. I think where he is spot-on here is on the issues of A) post-9/11 need and B) the risk of bureaucratization and normalization. EIT is still something we would have to morally wrestle with, even without defining torture broadly enough to include it.
there is a real risk of death from PT, from going to the rifle range, from lifting in the Gym, from driving automobiles, you name it. There is a presence of risk of death in pretty much most of what we do; mitigation of that threat through ensured access to medical personal is just good ORM.
For people who can also legitimately be executed out of hand.
But you only seem to go back to the same guy over and over, then try to represent that there were more. You don't know that, plus its quite dishonest.
Now, I'll ask you the same question I asked Joe...Do you support the current administration using drones?
I agree with most of that. If Obama and Holder are "war criminals", then so were most of their predecessors. I'm not so sure we really want to go there.
But, the fact of the matter is both parties are complicit in these violations of human rights, and the only reason they're coming out now is because of political grandstanding. It's the default position when the (bleep!) hits the fan: Point fingers at the other party.
Hah, yeah, it's amazing that people don't see the difference.
Their thought process appears to be like an Onion headline: "12 Al Qaeda Leaders spared from being waterboarded through the use of Tomahawk Missile"
1. I haven't seen any credible information that we waterboarded innocent non combatants.(1) Yes, now we know that there were more.
(2) No. Killing people with drones may get some of the terrorists, but it just creates more.
Again, I agree that there was/is criminality on both sides. Also agree we don't want to go there.
I do think that there should be reasoned debate about whether we continue down this path. There are arguments on both sides. I do not like us using torture or killing people using joysticks to deploy drones. On the other hand I don't want a bomb to go off at a mall in the U.S. These are not easy issues.
What is that supposed to mean?Beaudreaux is/was in the Air Force. Think about that for a moment.
He's a liar.
VICE News Exclusive: The Architect of the CIA's Enhanced Interrogation ProgramI happened to catch an interview (I think it was CBS) on the world news last night. Scott Pelly was interviewing two admitted CIA torturers.
One guy had never been active CIA, military, or anything else that could be listed as possible requirements for the job. I was thinking: Here come the scapegoats. I guess they must have a written test to discover who the sadists are. I've always thought that it would be odd for a highly credentialed man or woman to be actually getting their hands wet. Those two guys were just scum looking for a great paycheck. It's ****ing laughable.
Maybe we can send Franklin Graham over there with some "shoebox gifts" ... that should do the trick right?No, they are not easy issues. We're dealing with a determined enemy who thinks we're evil, and wants to kill us. They consider freedom a bad thing, as it allows people to disobey Allah. They're convinced that they'll get a reward in heaven if they die killing the infidel (that's us, as you know) We must protect the homeland from such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, but torturing and making war into a video game isn't the way to do it. That's not who we are, and it only helps the radicals recruit more radicals.
Maybe we can send Franklin Graham over there with some "shoebox gifts" ... that should do the trick right?
No.[emoji49]Is that your solution?
1. I haven't seen any credible information that we waterboarded innocent non combatants.
2. So what do we do?
I've contemplated this for several days before commenting.
While I condemn the CIA for the techniques used, what Dianne Feinstein has done is political posturing as part of a temper tantrum over the party losing the Senate. Her nearly treasonous acts endanger the lives of Americans around the globe and give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Shame of Feinstein and the democrats.
Already did. I think this ride is coming back to the starting point again.
Ok, so then you must also have a problem with the drone program under Obama right?
The REAL point is that this report was conceived by, prepared by, funded by and championed by the Democrats on the committee. This was published as a last poke in the eye to President Bush and to keep the attention off the hearings concerning Gruber and the Benghazi cover-up.
I could see maybe fighter pilots practicing for capture by the enemy. But not this enemy. There's no one to shoot down a jet.
Except when they provide a list of examples when it 'worked' they come up empty handed or at best with examples that are ambiguous. The Library Tower and OBL are good examples.
That is a side issue IMO. If we are as a country going to accept torture as a legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tool, the public needs to be informed and buy off on America becoming that kind of country.
No, what that tells me is people exercising vast unchecked powers don't often voluntarily curtail their ability to exercise vast, unchecked powers. Holder is part of the WH, which like all leaders would prefer to operate without meaningful restraints.
They hacked into the committee's computers and attempted to remove files. It's an outrageous act. Sheesh, surely you're not justifying or minimizing the danger of a CIA arrogant enough to target lawmakers are you? That's a very scary situation IMO, and that it didn't immediately result in a dozen heads rolling at CIA is even scarier. What information do they have that protects them from really ANY consequences of that. Must be something big....
Not sure how you can condemn acts that don't see the light of day, that remain secret.
And the acts that endanger the lives of Americans currently abroad aren't revealing what was done, but the acts that were revealed. Someone posted a video of one of the psychologists - part of it included him blaming the media for revealing that the U.S. waterboarded detainees. That's just 180 degrees wrong. It will get out, so the only question is whether, WHEN it does, the fallout is offset by the benefits.
Bottom line is if something we do or did, and which was sanctioned at the highest levels, cannot be disclosed without endangering American troops and others, that's a great clue that we shouldn't be doing it.
No, you didn't. And what you have to address is the fact that they admit they did no study of effectiveness, and that while we did get the information other ways, they can't say whether they needed the torture or not. The fact is, even if the got the little bit they claim, and it is a very little bit, we know we got as much or more misinformation, that we used btw, and that we harmed innocent people. So, no, you have not.
I hate to tell you liberals, but there is no American outrage over this report, whether it's true or not.
I know these Dems think they've won political points, but much like with Obamacare and amnesty, they've done quite the opposite.
There are zoomies in places that might surprise you.
You say they haven't proven so.....yet why would all MS Media new sources have stats and info from people and instances on that they were successful. Or how an attempt was thwarted.
Oh and as to Bin Ladens Courier.....note what the CIA says about not ever being able to discover the courier without those EITs.
2) If you have not done so already, stop what you're doing and read this Wall Street Journal op/ed co written by six former CIA directors and assistant directors. It is devastating to the Feinstein/Democratic report, beginning with the astounding fact that its authors did not speak to anybody at the CIA who carried out or oversaw the 'enhanced interrogation' program. Outrageous:
This fact alone discredits Democrats' final product. This is a shocking, inexcusable "oversight." The remainder of the WSJ piece is devoting to debunking several heavily-reported conclusion the Democrats' report draws: Namely, that enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) "didn't work," and that the agency serially violated the guidelines set out by its civilian leadership. For a more complete picture of how off-base these determinations are, pick up a copy of Hard Measures by Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's clandestine service. EIT's absolutely, unequivocally worked to bring high-value, uniquely knowledgeable and evil Al Qaeda leaders into compliance. For all of the table-pounding over 'waterboarding,' this was a tactic employed against three -- total -- detainees, before the practice was ended. (The US military, by the way, routinely waterboards its own people during training exercises). The package of EITs used by the CIA brought about tangible results that saved lives, disrupted plots, and have US officials a far more complete picture of the shadowy network of death that was and is fixated on killing Americans:
3) For the umpteenth time, Democrats who feign outrage over the CIA's tactics willfully ignore the established fact that Congress' bipartisan leadership teams were extensively briefed on EITs, including water boarding. According to several accounts, reactions from lawmakers ranged from registering no objections to asking if the agency needed to go further. Nancy Pelosi's lies on this matter are uniquely disgusting. Based on documented evidence, the CIA briefed at least 68 members of Congress on the programs. Senate Republicans' competing report on EITs, which has received far less media attention, affirms the CIA's contention that their actions after 9/11 spared innocent lives and weakened Al Qaeda.....snip~
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?