waterboarding

DOGS THAT BARK

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,505
188
63
Bowling Green Ky
JOSHNAUDI said:
Just a quick pop in - Don't care to debate the principal of interrogation techniques. Interrogation is vital for garnering information but with techniques such as these - false confessions have to be a reality. You waterboard a guy 180+ times and he admits to masterminding 9/11. 360 times and he killed Nicole Brown Simpson. 540times and he crucified Jesus Christ.

There is a reason that these techniques are not used on American citizens. I know, I know it's a war on terror. We don't use these techniques on the war on drugs though. Not a single member of the IRA has been waterboarded and that's one nasty terrorist organization.

To my knowledge - that's similiar to jmo - Osama Bin Laden admitted to being the mastermind behind 9/11 without ever being waterboarded. Waterboard that fucker.

If the techniques did prevent attacks... Then God Bless America - I mean that. I'm all for deadly force when it comes to self defense. Hell, I'm giddy. I'm anti torture, not a big fan of GW (not you Weasie - the other one) or the former administration so I get to chastise them while being thankful that it worked. Hypocrite - get used to it. It's everywhere. Torturing someone has to be a pretty sure deal before you start. You just have to know the guy is involved before using the techniques. It has to be treated like a sniper in a hostage situation though, you have to know who the target is and you can't miss or everything gets fubar'd
Click to expand...

J I've seen several citizens submit to waterboarding including reporter Harrigan on Fox last night. Though extremely discomforting there are no known residual effects --except singing like a choir boy that I am aware of.

I' have prolem when people change their tune in a day because left wing org panties get in wad.

example #1

Blairing Omission
Following the Obama administration's release of the interrogation memos, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair released a copy of a letter to his colleagues in the intelligence community. But the version on his office's Web site did not have several important sentences contained in the actual letter.
One reads, "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."
Another says, "The leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to executive branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."
And another says, "Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 9/11 are becoming more distant, we in the intelligence service must stop them."
<!-- QUIGO --><!-- QUIGO --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> var adsonar_placementId="1425952",adsonar_pid="1373767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com"; qas_writeAd(); </SCRIPT>
Those familiar with the process say it is common, especially in the intelligence community, to send internal messages that are never meant to be public. DNI Spokeswoman Wendy Morigi responded, "Our commitment to the media is that we accurately state the director's views and concerns and that's exactly what we did."

or example #2

O now comes out "without blinking" "no one is above the law"

Odd coming from a person who has provided sancuary for illegals --skirting federal law--
--and you can include his own family still here illegally--or more to the point--odd statement coming from someone who tears up over a dozen tickets and skips town with fck you-I'm Gumby Damit--attitude :)
 
bleedingpurple

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,416
242
63
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
hedgehog0721 said:
Communism is here to stay under Obama, he hates capitalism, We have to vote 2010 for Republicans to try to stop this egomanaical man from ruining our country from the inside
Click to expand...

You thinik he is ruining the country over the past few months yet overlook past 6 - 7 years. The truth is that both parties have had their fair share of putting the country in the shape it is today, but to say Obama is ruining it now is a little bit jumping the gun yet at same time I can agree with you about torturing the bastard terrorists.. I could care less what they do with them. I think the county could also be a little more harsh on rapists and murders but thats another subject.
 
gardenweasel

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,581
229
63
"the bunker"
obama`s opening the door to the prosecution of public servants for doing nothing more than keeping us safe...

it`s incredible to me that even this administration thinks it's a good idea to retroactively prosecute cia officials for simply doing their jobs to the best of their ability and knowledge.....

they couldn't do any more damage to the morale of the cia if they tried.....who in the cia will put their ass on the line after this?...they`ll go through the motions, but won`t take any risks to"connect the dots".

that means, full speed ahead on attack plans by the terrorists....

to obama, people like chavez and daniel ortega can be allies and friends but the cia, who is trying to protect us, is the enemy....

we`re living in the bizarro world...
 
H

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,869
674
113
50
TX
bleedingpurple said:
You thinik he is ruining the country over the past few months yet overlook past 6 - 7 years. The truth is that both parties have had their fair share of putting the country in the shape it is today, but to say Obama is ruining it now is a little bit jumping the gun yet at same time I can agree with you about torturing the bastard terrorists.. I could care less what they do with them. I think the county could also be a little more harsh on rapists and murders but thats another subject.
Click to expand...

I like Bush, so we won't go there, what did he do that was so bad? I made lots of money under him, he cut my taxes, he kept us safe after 9/11 which was the democrats fault
 
DOGS THAT BARK

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,505
188
63
Bowling Green Ky
Maybe we should be more optomistic--

even if O abandons all that made us safe--
we still got Reid and Pelosi bringing up the rear--and if all else fails we got new leader in homeland security--

1523019.bin
Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesU.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in January 2009.

Resassuring to know great leaders surround themselves with competent associates--
I know I feel safer-and am sure terrorist everywhere are trembling at the courage of the fearless foursome :SIB
 
Last edited:
T

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
DTB lets get the real story out okay?

CIA Ludicrously Claims Torture
Prevented Debunked L.A. Terror Plot

Agency claims waterboarding KSM prevented attack, despite alleged plot being debunked by scores of intelligence professionals in 2006

By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
From:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-ludi...rror-plot.html

As the controversy surrounding revelations of the Bush administration?s torture program builds, the CIA has attempted to diffuse the furore by claiming that the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed prevented a terror attack on an L.A. skyscraper, a completely ludicrous assertion since the credibility of the alleged ?L.A. attack plot? was debunked by scores of intelligence professionals years ago.

This claim was made the day after after former Vice-President Dick Cheney urged the CIA to ?put out the memos that show the success of the effort?.reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.?

The ?planned attack on Los Angeles? refers to an announcement made on February 9th 2006 in which it was claimed that an Al-Qaeda plan to fly a plane into the LA Library Tower was thwarted in 2002. The release of the news that the plot had been prevented by means of tapping terrorist suspect?s phone, and not torture as the CIA now claims, was politically timed to coincide with the start of legal hearings on the Bush administration?s domestic eavesdropping program.

Fox ?News,? the White House?s PR mouthpiece,immediately began shown footage from the movie Independence Day, in which the famous tower is destroyed.


Hours after the announcement[in 2006], the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, went public with his absolute bewilderment concerning the alleged plot.

?I?m amazed that the president[Bush 43] would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,? the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. ?I don?t expect a call from the president ? but somebody.?

The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service,angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was ?full of shit.?
Another described the claims as ?worthless intel that was discarded long ago.?

A New York Times story cited ?several counter-terrorism officials? as saying that ?the plot never progressed past the planning stages?. ?To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,? said one senior FBI official.?

The New York Daily News cited another senior counterterrorism official who said: ?There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage.?
The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

Indeed, by announcing that the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to his ?confession? of being behind the non-existent L.A. attack plot, the CIA is only reaffirming the fact that the torture program was designed to elicit false confessions that could then be used as terror propaganda on the fearful and gullible American public.

As Senator Levin highlighted on the back of the release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, the techniques (known as SERE) authorized by officials to be used on detainees, ?Are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes.?

In addition, the senior Army SERE psychologist warned in 2002 against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at Guantanamo Bay, because, ?It usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain? Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low.?

Little wonder then that KSM confessed to everything under the sun, and only stopped short of admitting to being the real Santa Claus, assassinating JFK and creating AIDS. He even ?confessed? to plottingto attack a bank that wasn't even foundeduntil after his arrest.
The idea that waterboarding KSM 6 times a day for a month, as well as torturing his children, would lead to anything other than false confessions is absurd on the face of it.

However, by regurgitating the confirmed hoax that KSM ?confessed? to a plot that never even existed because of the ?success? of waterboarding, the CIA has once again highlighted the fact that not only was the torture program an insult and a disgrace to everything America is supposed to stand for, but that it was also a complete waste of time and only put Americans in more danger because false confessions were taken as gospel so that they could be used not to protect the country from terrorists, but to propagandize to the American people and enlist their support for the thoroughly deceptive and insidious ?war on terror?.
 
T

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
How the Bush administration waterboarded a low-level operative, who was brain-damaged, 83 times

by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 4/22/2009 04:00:00 PM
Last Saturday, Marcy Wheeler broke the news about the extensive waterboarding of two captured terror suspects:

I've put this detail in a series of posts, but it really deserves a full post. According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

On page 37 of the OLC memo, in a passage discussing the differences between SERE techniques and the torture used with detainees, the memo explains:

The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.

Note, the information comes from the CIA IG report which, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, is based on having viewed the torture tapes as well as other materials. So this is presumably a number that was once backed up by video evidence.

Last month, the Washington Post provided this backgroud on Abu Zubaydah:

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. 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, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a "fixer" for radical Muslim ideologues, 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.

And, that article included this tidbit:

He was seriously wounded by shrapnel from a mortar blast in 1992, sustaining head injuries that left him with severe memory problems, which still linger.

Yes, he was low-level and brain-damaged. The CIA knew that and waterboarded him 83 times anyway -- because Bush wanted answers.

Author Ron Suskind in his book, The One Percent Solution, gave the background on Zubaydah. I read that book and found the info. on Zubaydah, who Bush often invoked, just jaw-dropping. Here's a synopsis:

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."

Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.

Bush, with an assist from Alberto Gonzales, allowed the execution of a "mentally retarded" man. It's wasn't a big leap to torturing a brain-injured suspect. They should be really proud of this one.
http://www.americablog.com/
 
bleedingpurple

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,416
242
63
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
hedgehog0721 said:
I like Bush, so we won't go there, what did he do that was so bad? I made lots of money under him, he cut my taxes, he kept us safe after 9/11 which was the democrats fault
Click to expand...

You made a lot of money? Would it have been different if a DEM was president? Me and you are about the same age and we were going to make more money over the last 7 - 8 years or so thats just what happens to many people when theyh get to their late 20s and early 30s. The percentage taken out of my pay check has been basically the samee. He entered a controversial war in Iraq where many $$$$$$ were spent, many lives lost including civilian. Not mention this he spent so much time with war and defense, that he totally ignored, HEALTHCARE, ENVIRONMENT, and EDUCATION.. He didn't seem to have a care in the world when I was paying over $4 a gallon of gas. Maybe there was nothing he could do about that, but he did very little to try to address some of these issues. I don't know how you can BLAME the dems for 9/11. You are so distorted to the right it is unbelievable. You just follow what Rush says. Even though I run more to the left, I voted for Tommy Thompson as gov of Wisconsin and I thought he was good. i would have no problem voting for a Republican candidate if I thought he was good. See you are a type of right winger that would rather die than vote democrat even if the DEM had better credentials. That philosophy is one reason why politics SUCK.
 
H

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,869
674
113
50
TX
bleedingpurple said:
You made a lot of money? Would it have been different if a DEM was president? Me and you are about the same age and we were going to make more money over the last 7 - 8 years or so thats just what happens to many people when theyh get to their late 20s and early 30s. The percentage taken out of my pay check has been basically the samee. He entered a controversial war in Iraq where many $$$$$$ were spent, many lives lost including civilian. Not mention this he spent so much time with war and defense, that he totally ignored, HEALTHCARE, ENVIRONMENT, and EDUCATION.. He didn't seem to have a care in the world when I was paying over $4 a gallon of gas. Maybe there was nothing he could do about that, but he did very little to try to address some of these issues. I don't know how you can BLAME the dems for 9/11. You are so distorted to the right it is unbelievable. You just follow what Rush says. Even though I run more to the left, I voted for Tommy Thompson as gov of Wisconsin and I thought he was good. i would have no problem voting for a Republican candidate if I thought he was good. See you are a type of right winger that would rather die than vote democrat even if the DEM had better credentials. That philosophy is one reason why politics SUCK.
Click to expand...

I have never voted for a single Democrat in my whole life since I was 18 I am now 33 almost 34, will not ever vote for 1 democrat ever, ever, ever...When I was young I grasped all my political knowledge from my Grandpa who died about 5 years ago from emphysema, I will tell you 2 things that will help you in life, Always vote against all taxes regardless, ie Democrats and if you sell a business do not accept anything other than cash, see he got burned by liberals and wanted to make sure his Grandson did not, so here I am...

Democrats are the enemy...
 
H

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,869
674
113
50
TX
bleedingpurple said:
You made a lot of money? Would it have been different if a DEM was president? Me and you are about the same age and we were going to make more money over the last 7 - 8 years or so thats just what happens to many people when theyh get to their late 20s and early 30s. The percentage taken out of my pay check has been basically the samee. He entered a controversial war in Iraq where many $$$$$$ were spent, many lives lost including civilian. Not mention this he spent so much time with war and defense, that he totally ignored, HEALTHCARE, ENVIRONMENT, and EDUCATION.. He didn't seem to have a care in the world when I was paying over $4 a gallon of gas. Maybe there was nothing he could do about that, but he did very little to try to address some of these issues. I don't know how you can BLAME the dems for 9/11. You are so distorted to the right it is unbelievable. You just follow what Rush says. Even though I run more to the left, I voted for Tommy Thompson as gov of Wisconsin and I thought he was good. i would have no problem voting for a Republican candidate if I thought he was good. See you are a type of right winger that would rather die than vote democrat even if the DEM had better credentials. That philosophy is one reason why politics SUCK.
Click to expand...

You will never change my mind and I will never change yours, I respect you but don't agree with you

I will go to my grave never voting for one Democrat/Liberal party member in any race
 
Trampled Underfoot

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
hedgehog0721 said:
I have never voted for a single Democrat in my whole life since I was 18 I am now 33 almost 34, will not ever vote for 1 democrat ever, ever, ever...When I was young I grasped all my political knowledge from my Grandpa who died about 5 years ago from emphysema, I will tell you 2 things that will help you in life, Always vote against all taxes regardless, ie Democrats and if you sell a business do not accept anything other than cash, see he got burned by liberals and wanted to make sure his Grandson did not, so here I am...

Democrats are the enemy...
Click to expand...

You need to start thinking for yourself.
 
DOGS THAT BARK

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,505
188
63
Bowling Green Ky
I see Spongie and we should get "the real story" from your sources of Planet Prison and 2nd source you didn't link the Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5513293

Your a real bonifide purveyor of truth! :)

Fact of the matter-from WJS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044188941045415.html

from O's own Director of National Security
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.
George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."
Last week, Mr. Blair made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."
---------
You were warned about Pres with no experience or qualifications--heres what you get--

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.


or you might want to read Washington post article on how Obies decision will ties our hands in the future--
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/22/slow_roll_time_at_langley_96098.html
April 22, 2009
How Obama's Decision Hurt the CIA

By David Ignatius

WASHINGTON -- At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides.
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution----

Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. They handed him over to the U.S. military.
Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the U.S. in a process politely known as "liaison." A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: "There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they've done in the past."


The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

NOW Spongie if you and your commrades want an issue to debate.

Elaborate on this statement.

To date- every change obie has made-- has been advantageous to terrorist and detrimentle to those who look out for us.
:0corn
 
StevieD

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Since you seem to like this guy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/why_cheney_was_wrong.html

March 29, 2009
Why Cheney Was Wrong
By David Ignatius

WASHINGTON -- Dick Cheney created an uproar when he told CNN that President Obama's terrorism policies were making the country less safe. "He's making some choices that in my mind will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack," the former vice president said.

Cheney's comment was outrageous for several reasons, not least in that he was continuing the kind of fear-mongering that has itself weakened the country. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a mistake with his gratuitously disrespectful and partisan remark, "Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next-most popular member of the Republican cabal."

A more useful response would have been to say that America isn't less safe because Obama hasn't changed anti-terrorism policies as much as Cheney's broadside implied. In fact, the administration's new policies on interrogation and detention reflect a careful effort to balance law and national security -- and are a return to pre-Bush administration standards rather than some new left-wing experiment.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top