Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

[hotatlboi]

It's really quite simple - when the country is at war, public protests give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Oh god, if I have to listen to that Rovian tagline one more time I think I am going to puke.

NO ENEMY WILL EVER TAKE AWAY THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF AMERICANS TO SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT.

That's the whole thing we are fighting to protect, in case you forgot. If you don't like what people are saying, say something back or tell them why they are wrong, that is your right.

You have absolutely no grounds to tell other Americans that their disagreement with the government on ANYTHING should not be heard. Such an idea is so against the principles of liberty that it is terribly repulsive.

 

[hotatlboi]

Do you seriously think they don't have satellite television in the middle east and Afghanistan? Get real.

The mindset of the middle East and, for that matter, the orientals is such that the fact that public protests are allowed to take place is viewed as a sign of weakness.

Why the fuck should I base my actions on what people in the middle east think of me?

Don't you realize if you are letting terrorists control your actions like that, they have already taken away your freedom, which I assume was part of their goal?

 

[Shafted]

Here's the bottom line. I was watching "Morning Joe" and Scarborough put it succinctly. We'd all have been OK, if KSM had been killed instead of captured. In fact we'd have been ecstatic. So now, we are indignant about doing something significantly less than killing him that has yielded information that has saved lives. The world is upside down.

Don't be ridiculous!
Had he been killed in battle, fine! But once captured we have moral imperative as per our signatures given at the Geneva Convention to refrain from torturing captured prisoners. You can't go after Saddam Hussein for torturing people in underground prisons, and yet do the same. Our credibility has been shot to hell.

It is FACT that KSM yielded no worthwhile information under torture. The whole L.A. Tower plan was yielded under normal interrogations MONTHS before torture became a practice, and according to the FBI, those plans had been abandoned.
If you have to torture a man 188 times, why would you take anything he said at face-value?

 

[Shafted]

It doesn't do any good to tell that to the petulant children - they don't want to hear it. All they know is anti-war and hate Bush.

With good reason. At the very least, Bush was a buffoon led to trough by the hand. More ambitious men took leadership from his hands and he sat and watched as they dragged the whole country to its knees.

 

[Shafted]

When your country is at war, being publicly and loudly anti-war is a very bad thing indeed.

Not if we find out we were lied to about the reasons for going to war.
The Iraq war was sold to the public on a foundation of fear because some brown man in Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction and was involved in 9/11. As time went by, it was less and less about the scary brown man and more about Iraqi freedom.

I've got news for you. We don't give a fuck about the Iraqis! We're over here, they're over there, and naught but ocean and desert separates us. This war wouldn't have happened if they'd tried to peddle that "Iraqi Freedom" bullshit. Why? Because we don't care! So, the whole "smokin' em out" strategy that got 4,000+ of our men and women killed was a fabrication on the part of Bush and Cheney, so that they could get into Iraq and begin profiting from nation-building with our tax dollars. I feel bad for our military families. At least in Afghanistan we were moving against the people who attacked us on 9/11. But Iraq. . . .? There's no glory in dying for a lie.

 

[NickCole]

Obama's unprincipled position just keeps zigging and zagging.


After flipping and flopping from his administration, Wednesday it was reported he said:

President Obama today said he is not opposed to some sort of "further accounting of what took place during this period" . . .

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wh...loose-the-hounds.html?wprss=white-house-watch

Then yesterday it was reported:

Senate Democratic leaders, joining forces with the Obama White House, said they would resist efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats to create a special commission to investigate the harsh interrogation methods that the Bush administration approved for terrorism suspects. At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/senate-leaders-opposes-interrogation-inquiry-panel/?hp

Obama's reluctance again reveals that what's best for the nation (holding elected officials accountable, and especially when issues like torture are at stake) take a back seat to his narcissism.

 

[HenryReardon]

Why the fuck should I base my actions on what people in the middle east think of me?

?

But that is the most often-quoted reason for electing your dear leader/american idol president - to enhance our reputation overseas.

 

[HenryReardon]

Obama's unprincipled position just keeps zigging and zagging.

This whole flap is going to come back to haunt BO and the Dems. We are beginning to learn that congress (members of both parties) were briefed no less than 30 times concerning enhanced interrogation and they not only signed off on it, but did so with enthusiasm.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/23/top-legislators-knew-of-interrogations/

The CIA briefed top Democrats and Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees more than 30 times about enhanced interrogation techniques, according to intelligence sources who said the lawmakers tacitly approved the techniques that some Democrats in Congress now say should land Bush administration officials in jail.

Between 2002 and 2006, the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees "each got complete, benchmark briefings on the program," said one of the intelligence sources who is familiar with the briefings.

"If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding," said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the closed-door briefings.

Those who were briefed included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Rep. Jane Harman of California, all Democrats, and Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, all

 

[HenryReardon]

Not if we find out we were lied to about the reasons for going to war.
The Iraq war was sold to the public on a foundation of fear because some brown .

That whole 'Bush lied, people died' crap has been thoroughly debunked more times that you can count. Give it a rest. Find something productive upon which to expend your energy.

 

[White Eagle]

That whole 'Bush lied, people died' crap has been thoroughly debunked more times that you can count. Give it a rest. Find something productive upon which to expend your energy.

http://www.cabiz.net/vincent/rewritehistory.htm

How History Will View Bush By Bob Fertik and David Swanson

As George Bush prepares to leave office, he and his aides are trying desperately to rewrite history, especially on Iraq. Nearly six years after invading Iraq on the basis of lies that were manufactured inside the White House, the Bush Administration adamantly insists the lies were all innocent mistakes. Were they?

Originally, the invasion of Iraq was justified primarily on grounds that Iraq had substantial quantities of chemical and biological weapons and had "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons development program, and that it could give terrorists "weapons of mass destruction."

But there was no actual evidence Iraq had such weapons, and the White House knew it.

I don't know why you insist on protecting Bush and Co. It is well known that the whole Iraq war was based on lies. And oil.

 

[HenryReardon]

I don't know why you insist on protecting Bush and Co. It is well known that the whole Iraq war was based on lies. And oil.

If believing all that crap gives you comfort, more power to you.

Enjoy and bask in your ignorance.

 

[NickCole]

This whole flap is going to come back to haunt BO and the Dems. We are beginning to learn that congress (members of both parties) were briefed no less than 30 times concerning enhanced interrogation and they not only signed off on it, but did so with enthusiasm.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/23/top-legislators-knew-of-interrogations/

Maybe that's a true characterization of what happened and maybe it's not. All the more reason for a full investigation.

 

[Glafna]

Gotta ask nick.. why is EVERYTHING about Obama??

Now that I asked that... To deal with Henry.

Do you seriously think they don't have satellite television in the middle east and Afghanistan? Get real.

The mindset of the middle East and, for that matter, the orientals is such that the fact that public protests are allowed to take place is viewed as a sign of weakness.

First off, let me address hotalboi's post, which effectively counters your... belief on what treason is.

Don't you realize if you are letting terrorists control your actions like that, they have already taken away your freedom, which I assume was part of their goal?

Also believe that you "missed" this half of his post...


Second, 300 Afghani women held a protest against the new marriage laws that are being considered/coming into effect/who knows atm. Their protest shows weakness???? The counter protest of approximatly 1200 people, men and women, does indeed show weakness. But considering that one of the women in the counter protest said something about now wanting the West to have control over her life.... I'm wondering if it is weakness.. or a abusive strength caused by an unwanted intervention.

The selling of the war was insignificant to me. The WMD issue was one that was developed from intelligence that nearly everyone agreed to. I'm convinced they were likely there and transported out during the 7mth U.N. talks but that's merely speculation. I could care less about any of that because I think we were totally justified I just think the process was too flippant. Commit and execute.

Good point, but I do believe that the US investigator said there were no WMD's in Iraq. And honestly.. there is no proof that they have been there, they were bought, or that Suddam even had a notion of buying chemical weapons for use against other nations. There was no right to into Iraq, which was essentially remove Suddam from power, and put a US friendly politician in place... as well as bases, as I believe Kul has said in the past,

 

[HenryReardon]

Good point, but I do believe that the US investigator said there were no WMD's in Iraq. And honestly.. there is no proof that they have been there, they were bought, or that Suddam even had a notion of buying chemical weapons for use against other nations. There was no right to into Iraq, which was essentially remove Suddam from power, and put a US friendly politician in place... as well as bases, as I believe Kul has said in the past,

Saddam didn't have wmd? Tell that to those ethnic groups in his own country, against whom he used them. Even your sainted Al Gore says so:

http://www.aim.org/wls/saddam-hussein-used-wmd/

“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people.”

 

[HenryReardon]

Maybe that's a true characterization of what happened and maybe it's not. All the more reason for a full investigation.

And the chances of their being a "full investigation" are?

 

[naked gent]

Actually, you may have misunderstood. Rumsfeld went in light. His idea was to go lean and fast, take Bagdad and thus security the country from the capitol. That didn't really happen. Had we gone in heavy our presence would have been more widely known and the insurgency would have likely not developed.

The politics I'm referring to is the ensuing reluctance to manage the process like a war. When you go to war the objective is dominance. I don't think we were politically prepared to do that.

The selling of the war was insignificant to me.

The person "sold" on the war being quick and easy with flowers thrown at the feet of invading U.S. soldiers was George W. Bush. Had he been told the truth he may not have taken the bait and there would have been no invasion.

When you're told that it'll hardly be a war at all and we'll be welcomed as liberators then its not really a surprise that he didn't turn on a dime and change strategy especially since no one was telling him it was necessary. They preferred to cling to the fiction they sold.

The U.S. military stood by and watched the insurgency gather strength around them and did little to stop it......for that they should be ashamed.

 

[hotatlboi]

But that is the most often-quoted reason for electing your dear leader/american idol president - to enhance our reputation overseas.

Uh no, as far as that issue, Obama was elected partly because we felt we had been grossly arrogant toward our allies and therefore their disdain had been rightfully earned. He was elected to change our actions not simply other people's perceptions.

Now obviously we felt that once our actions changed that would probably change perceptions as well, but as far as terror goes, our actions needed to change because a strongly allied nation with many international partners working together is a better defense against terror than an unwieldy unilateral nation. It was not just for a popularity contest.

 

[NickCole]

And the chances of their being a "full investigation" are?

Well, if Obama and Republicans have their way, chances are slim to none.

 

[TX-Beau]

Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda ... and he ended up working directly with al-Qaeda only after Sept. 11 -- and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html

 

[TX-Beau]

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/middleeast/18zubaydah.html?_r=3&hp