Should Obama support investigating torture?

[The Scotsman]

Yeah.....that pretty-much covers those who participated, but....where's the compensation for those who were tortured?​

............ ......compensating tortured terrorists for being terrorists OR for being daft enough to be caught?​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We've already covered that. Bush wasn't AWOL. The military doesn't show him being AWOL.

.....At least, that's what "....they say....", right?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Good point... so since I wrote opinions about how justified water boarding was.... does that mean Obama could come get me too?

Apparently, so!!!!​

"The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

............ ......compensating tortured terrorists for being terrorists OR for being daft enough to be caught?

Gee.....lemme guess.....that'd be dependent-upon accurate-accounting i$$ue$, right?


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No one is going to be prosecuted over this....​

 

[Andy]

.....At least, that's what "....they say....", right?

​

Fact Check, has a good article on this. The entire thing was completely discredited.

No one, who was actually in a position to know, disputes the idea that Bush fulfilled his obligations.

The poster boy for the claim Bush was AWOL is Bob Mintz, a former Guard pilot who said "I Never Saw Him".

But Bob Mintz never claimed that meant he was AWOL. In fact on cross examination of Mintz:

In a telephone conference call with reporters, however, Mintz conceded that he is not certain whether he himself was present on the dates when pay records show Bush being paid for drill attendance, and he volunteered that he can't say that Bush failed to meet his military obligations:

Mintz: I can't say that he didn't do his duties, but I can say for sure that I was there and I never met George Bush.

That's not exactly a proof of theory is it?

Moreover, the charge of AWOL is laughable. National Guard is not under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, unless they are under Federal control. Bush never was. The feds never called up his unit. So he couldn't have been charged with AWOL, even if the case could be made.

The whole thing is a farce. Another liberal hate-bush bigotry of partisanship. It's the camp ground of the intellectually dishonest.

 

[Andy]

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

Clearly without enhanced techniques, this information would not have been acquired, and another jet liner would have crashed into a building in LA.

So the questions remains... would this be acceptable to everyone?

Let's spin the question around. In 1993, after the first terrorist attack on WTC they captured Ramzi Yousef. What if they had waterboarded him, and got information to the location of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, thus 9/11 would never have happened.

Are you happy with the outcome of no waterboarding?

So far, this is all historical theoretical. Can you assume these situations will never happen again? If not, then what do you suggest we do?

 

[PLC1]

​

Clearly without enhanced techniques, this information would not have been acquired, and another jet liner would have crashed into a building in LA.

So the questions remains... would this be acceptable to everyone?

Let's spin the question around. In 1993, after the first terrorist attack on WTC they captured Ramzi Yousef. What if they had waterboarded him, and got information to the location of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, thus 9/11 would never have happened.

Are you happy with the outcome of no waterboarding?

So far, this is all historical theoretical. Can you assume these situations will never happen again? If not, then what do you suggest we do?

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.” — Adm. Dennis C. Blair, national intelligence director

+

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security

That's the bottom line. Torture has done more harm than good, period.

 

[The Scotsman]

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security

That's the bottom line. Torture has done more harm than good, period.

...........yeah I think that's a fair point, look at the outcome after Abu Ghaib for example.

 

[Andy]

+

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security

That's the bottom line. Torture has done more harm than good, period.

So the possible prevention 3,000 deaths on 9/11, and unknown thousands in LA, is more harm than good because.... who exactly loves us now that we've banned waterboarding? Or who hates us now, who didn't before we used waterboarding?

And of those whose views are swayed by this singular issue, do we really care about?

You are going to have to convince me of this.

 

[The Scotsman]

Gee.....lemme guess.....that'd be dependent-upon accurate - accounting issues, right?

Don't feel to bad mate! The US Government bounty offered on Zarqawi was $25million but didn't need to be paid because a couple of guys in the US Military did a number on some mates of his, so, as far as accounting is concerned I guess the US is well in profit on that front huh.............

 

[PLC1]

So the possible prevention 3,000 deaths on 9/11, and unknown thousands in LA, is more harm than good because...

I suppose we would have to ask Adm. Dennis C. Blair to be sure, but I suppose it is because there are other ways in which this information could have been obtained, and because the "damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

If such methods are not essential to our national security, then it follows that they weren't necessary to prevent an attack on California, doesn't it?

At least, that's what he said, and I really think he knows more about the subject of "enhanced interrogation" than you or I do.

Don't you?

 

[Andy]

I suppose we would have to ask Adm. Dennis C. Blair to be sure, but I suppose it is because there are other ways in which this information could have been obtained, and because the "damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

If such methods are not essential to our national security, then it follows that they weren't necessary to prevent an attack on California, doesn't it?

At least, that's what he said, and I really think he knows more about the subject of "enhanced interrogation" than you or I do.

Don't you?

There are many others, just as knowledgeable as Dennis Blair, which have a differing view. Why hold his specific view up, as being more valid than many others who have suggested otherwise?

Again, if we could say that the information could have been gathered without the need of enhanced interrogation, then why didn't we find Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, for 8 years after the 93 bombing until 9/11 happened, even though we captured dozens of his operatives who received funding and direction by him?

If getting his information about the LA attack could have been gotten without enhanced interrogation, then why didn't he talk prior to being waterboarded?

MJK, had been interrogated for around a month prior to being waterboarded. Every time they tried to make him talk about the plans he knew, he responded with “Soon, you will know.” or with reciting parts of the Qur'an. Of course the moment he was waterboarded, we got specific detailed information about the time and location, and people involved in the plot, which was foiled.

So what's your theory?

 

[BigRob]

...........yeah I think that's a fair point, look at the outcome after Abu Ghaib for example.

I think the real damage from the so called "torture memos" is the pathetic job the Bush Administration did on the PR front in this regard. By really refusing to engage in any discussion about what they were doing (and as shown by these memos was not much) it simply allowed the critics to carry all the discussion, 90% of which was simply wrong.

The released memos show that we really did not torture, at least not in the manner everyone accused us of. Further, those that we waterboarded were the masterminds of 9/11. Who really cares what we do to them?

The problem is that Bush lost the PR war in a big way, and by allowing the critics to shape the debate (even though they were just making stuff up, as shown by the memos) is what really hurt our image.

 

[BigRob]

There are many others, just as knowledgeable as Dennis Blair, which have a differing view. Why hold his specific view up, as being more valid than many others who have suggested otherwise?

Again, if we could say that the information could have been gathered without the need of enhanced interrogation, then why didn't we find Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, for 8 years after the 93 bombing until 9/11 happened, even though we captured dozens of his operatives who received funding and direction by him?

If getting his information about the LA attack could have been gotten without enhanced interrogation, then why didn't he talk prior to being waterboarded?

MJK, had been interrogated for around a month prior to being waterboarded. Every time they tried to make him talk about the plans he knew, he responded with “Soon, you will know.” or with reciting parts of the Qur'an. Of course the moment he was waterboarded, we got specific detailed information about the time and location, and people involved in the plot, which was foiled.

So what's your theory?

I have also been personally told by a member of Parliament in the UK that the London airline plot was foiled based on information "tortured" out of a guy in Pakistan.

Is that accurate? I have no reason to think otherwise, and no reason to think he was lying to me about it.

And no Scotsman, you won't get his name.