Should Obama support investigating torture?

[PLC1]

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.

Not even if we torture you?

 

[BigRob]

Not even if we torture you?

Depends on your definition of torture I suppose.

 

[chestnut]

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.

We used some torture tactics to save thousands of people and that's bad. We didn't take any lives, just some terror tactics. Now everyone is in an uproar and want to investigate and prosecute.

Compared to the fact that under this administration, we killed - not tortured - but killed- 3 people to save one merchant marine.

Torture one or two to save thousands and thousands - outcry - dismay...
Kill three to save one - not a peep.

Sounds a little bit one sided to me.

 

[PLC1]

We used some torture tactics to save thousands of people and that's bad. We didn't take any lives, just some terror tactics. Now everyone is in an uproar and want to investigate and prosecute.

Compared to the fact that under this administration, we killed - not tortured - but killed- 3 people to save one merchant marine.

Torture one or two to save thousands and thousands - outcry - dismay...
Kill three to save one - not a peep.

Sounds a little bit one sided to me.

Only if you buy the idea that (1) torture was limited to only a couple of obviously guilty terrorists and that (2) torturing them saved lives. If you believe that, then the torture was justified.

Since we all know that there were far more suspects than that tortured, and that some of them were innocent, and that torture went way beyond waterboarding, and that we prosecuted waterboarders for war crimes after WWII, and that there is no clear cause and effect between stopping the attack and torturing the prisoners, and that it is likely that having tortured prisoners actually was a detriment to pursuing the so called war on terror, then it was not justified, nor was it advisable.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations



How long will he be able to walk this tightrope:

the Justice department should investigate claims and go after them if they find evidence...Obama's support one way or the other should not impact that in any direction. that's the point of the Justice department, and the reason why how Bush tried to use it for Politics was bad.

 

[BigRob]

the Justice department should investigate claims and go after them if they find evidence...Obama's support one way or the other should not impact that in any direction. that's the point of the Justice department, and the reason why how Bush tried to use it for Politics was bad.

The Justice Department is a branch of the Executive, which is run by the President. Good luck having them set up something like this without approval from their boss.

 

[Andy]

Only if you buy the idea that (1) torture was limited to only a couple of obviously guilty terrorists and that (2) torturing them saved lives. If you believe that, then the torture was justified.

According to the memos, and according to all source in the know, and even some source not in the know, yes, there was only three people tortured.

Further, clearly, since we were able to foil a plot to fly a plane into a build in LA, it did save lives. The only way you can claim otherwise, is to make the assumption that we could have discovered the information without waterboarding. Which if that's a valid theory, then so is the idea we could have waterboarded the 93 bombers and prevented 9/11.

Since we all know that there were far more suspects than that tortured, and that some of them were innocent, and that torture went way beyond waterboarding, and that we prosecuted waterboarders for war crimes after WWII, and that there is no clear cause and effect between stopping the attack and torturing the prisoners, and that it is likely that having tortured prisoners actually was a detriment to pursuing the so called war on terror, then it was not justified, nor was it advisable.

Torture did not go way beyond waterboarding, unless you are referring to torture happening outside US control. Which if you want to discuss that... fine, but none of this applies. Why? Because Obama expanded rendition. More detained people will be turned over to foreign authorities, and will be tortured. In short, Obama's actions will increase the number of tortured people, not decrease.

Moreover, there is a clear cause and effect between the waterboarding of Al Qaeda personnel, and terror attacks. The information led not only to the foiling of the LA plane attack, but also lead to specific information about the whereabouts of key Al Qaeda operatives. I've documented this before. If require, I'll repost all the same information again.

 

[Andy]

the Justice department should investigate claims and go after them if they find evidence...Obama's support one way or the other should not impact that in any direction. that's the point of the Justice department, and the reason why how Bush tried to use it for Politics was bad.

When has the justice department ever been not effected by the executive branch? You don't remember Al Gore making fund raising calls from the office of the VP, a huge violation of law. That is where Al Gore's now infamous line "No controlling legal authority" came from.

Of course there was a legal authority. Namely Janet Reno in the justice department. You think she investigated her boss? Of course not. Reno refused to investigate the illegal fund raising activities in the oval office.

 

[The Scotsman]

Depends on your definition of torture I suppose.

...........as I said before....10 minutes with my mother-in-law ought to get it out of you!!!!????.....

 

[PLC1]

According to the memos, and according to all source in the know, and even some source not in the know, yes, there was only three people tortured.

Further, clearly, since we were able to foil a plot to fly a plane into a build in LA, it did save lives. The only way you can claim otherwise, is to make the assumption that we could have discovered the information without waterboarding. Which if that's a valid theory, then so is the idea we could have waterboarded the 93 bombers and prevented 9/11.



Torture did not go way beyond waterboarding, unless you are referring to torture happening outside US control. Which if you want to discuss that... fine, but none of this applies. Why? Because Obama expanded rendition. More detained people will be turned over to foreign authorities, and will be tortured. In short, Obama's actions will increase the number of tortured people, not decrease.

Moreover, there is a clear cause and effect between the waterboarding of Al Qaeda personnel, and terror attacks. The information led not only to the foiling of the LA plane attack, but also lead to specific information about the whereabouts of key Al Qaeda operatives. I've documented this before. If require, I'll repost all the same information again.

As we've already discussed, there was more to the torture than waterboarding, which was called torture by the US when it was done by other nations.

If there really were only three, and the three were the masterminds of the attack, as you assert, then you have a point. You don't have your facts right, however, at least not in this instance.

That said, I'm surprised to see that you are beginning to support Obama's actions.

 

[bododie]

Libs are amazing. You have a cow because you think that Bush's administration might have tortured foreigners who could pose a threat to our nation, but didn't say a thing when Janet Reno ordered the murder of those at Waco, Y'know, AMERICANS, who didn't pose much of a threat to the nation did they? Who was running that administration?

Summary: Libs have a problem with the country not being humane to foreigners who threaten the country, but have no problem with the murder of Americans who might not vote the way they want.

 

[Bunz]

Libs are amazing. You have a cow because you think that Bush's administration might have tortured foreigners who could pose a threat to our nation, but didn't say a thing when Janet Reno ordered the murder of those at Waco, Y'know, AMERICANS, who didn't pose much of a threat to the nation did they? Who was running that administration?

Summary: Libs have a problem with the country not being humane to foreigners who threaten the country, but have no problem with the murder of Americans who might not vote the way they want.

I dont buy this. The Branch Davidians had 51 days to come out with thier hands up. Bottom line. Blaming what happened there on decisions made by a liberal is a joke. I dont see how that situation would have changed if it was a Republican calling the shots.

 

[bododie]

So you are saying that if a bunch of children aren't allowed to "come out" that it's O.K. to murder them? The situation wouldn't be any different if it was a Republican. They will protect their actions just the same way that the Clinton administration protected Reno. The blaming it on liberals is simply using their mentality that if a non liberal is in charge that ALL conservatives are responsible for whatever action that person took, and if they didn't cause a public uprising about it, that they didn't care. Back at you.

 

[PLC1]

I dont buy this. The Branch Davidians had 51 days to come out with thier hands up. Bottom line. Blaming what happened there on decisions made by a liberal is a joke. I dont see how that situation would have changed if it was a Republican calling the shots.

Oh, it would have been totally different. Had it been Republicans carrying out the attack at Waco, then the Democrats would have cried foul. Since it was Democrats, then it's up to the Republicans to cry foul. That's why we have two parties, so that the one can cry foul when the other does something that they would have done had they been in charge.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Libs are amazing. You have a cow because you think that Bush's administration might have tortured foreigners who could pose a threat to our nation, but didn't say a thing when Janet Reno ordered the murder of those at Waco, Y'know, AMERICANS, who didn't pose much of a threat to the nation did they?

Uhhhhhhhhh.......I guess you hadn't heard (big surpise ). That was Bill Sessions' call.

Not to worry......there's still some good ol' Texas-style justice, down that way.​