Tall Torture Tales

[Truth Detector]

The truth is out, it remains to be seen if those on the left learn from it or will continue their lies and distortions in an effort to impugn America and its political leadership. I am doubtful the left can learn anything, time will tell.

Tall Torture Tales
February 6, 2008; Page A18

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri planned the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Abu Zubaydah was the mastermind of the foiled millennium terrorist attacks, which had Los Angeles airport as one of its targets. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed directed the September 11 attacks, and has claimed to have personally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl.

All three men were captured by the CIA in 2002 and waterboarded in the course of their interrogations. They are also the only U.S. detainees to have been waterboarded. That fact, publicly confirmed yesterday by CIA Director Michael Hayden, shreds whatever is left to the so-called torture narrative, according to which the Bush Administration has engaged in widespread, needless and systematic torture of detainees.

Instead, we have sworn public testimony that the waterboarding was conducted against the three individuals best positioned to know about impending terrorist atrocities. The interrogations took place when a second major terrorist attack was widely seen as inevitable. And we know that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah helped lead to the capture of KSM, and to the foiling of an active terrorist plot against the United States.

The waterboarding was conducted by intelligence professionals who understood they were operating not only with the approval of the Justice Department but also the informed consent of key Congressional leaders, including Democrat Jay Rockefeller, then the ranking minority Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

In his own testimony yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell refused to rule out the use of waterboarding in the future, though he said it would have to be approved by the President and Attorney General. To the extent that his comments provide a measure of uncertainty to terrorist detainees who might otherwise think they have nothing to fear from their captors, this helps make us safer.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120225791056845807.html

[PatrickHenry]

The left...what a crock.

Anybody opposing a police state is "the left" to those who support tyranny.

Conservatives who support torture are already terrorists.

Why fight terror if your method is terror?

[MrHappy]

If waterboarding upsets people, then let's just Taser them. That seems to be sociably acceptable and politically correct.

[Alonzo]

I say we waterboard the waterboarding advocating to get a confession out of them.

We'll see if we can get them to confess that they had sex with their grandparents. If not then I guess the right was right, people won't just say whatever you want to hear, regardless of accuracy, to get you to stop.

Who wants to be the first volunteer?

[lily]

Damn you make me dizzy Truth Detector......in this thread you were giving me the impression that torture was not good.....since they got the information from Sadaam by using flattery and ego-deflation.

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=11131

[Truth Detector]

I say we waterboard the waterboarding advocating to get a confession out of them.

We'll see if we can get them to confess that they had sex with their grandparents. If not then I guess the right was right, people won't just say whatever you want to hear, regardless of accuracy, to get you to stop.

Who wants to be the first volunteer?


I have a much better idea; let's just run them through the TSA lines at airports a few times. Lord knows that is the ultimate human torture (particularly at Vegas McCarran Airport or LAX).

Once more, one has to be living in convenient denial to not believe there are desperate people out there of Islamic persuasion who would love to kill even more of our citizens than were killed on 9-11.

Ignorance is truly blissful, but it can also get you killed. All the social welfare and Government largess, economic success, won't mean a thing to you when you are murdered and dead. [hr]
Damn you make me dizzy Truth Detector......in this thread you were giving me the impression that torture was not good.....since they got the information from Sadaam by using flattery and ego-deflation.

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=11131


Perhaps it is because you find REALITY confusing?

I will presume that the point you are attempting to make is that these two threads contradict one another; this would beg the question, why would you think that?

Is it perhaps because you think that there is only ONE universally accepted method for getting information from desperate people who are trying to kill you?

That's quite a profound view if that is the case. Was that your point? If so, I assure you it could not be further from the truth.

That is almost as ill-informed as the notion that our Government uses torture in all or most cases where terrorists have been interviewed by our armed services, FBI and CIA. It is almost as profound as the notion that our armed services, FBI and CIA are nothing more than a bunch of unintelligent thugs who take gleeful delight torturing their suspects. It is almost as profound as the notion that we are living in a Police State and that George Bush through the Patriot Act has taken away our civil liberties.

I guess this type of profound thinking is caused by getting too much information from less than credible sources and allowing your political bias to interfere with the honest dissemination and interpretation of information.

[piratemonkey]

Main Entry: police state
Function: noun
: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures



Umm... which part of this definition doesn't fit?

Are you claiming Bush hasn't used security tactics that have since been declared unconstitutional? Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld)

Are you claiming Bush hasn't gone around statutory legal procedures in order to secretly wiretap American citizens? wiretap this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy)

Now I'm not saying we are living in a police state, because that's a bit hyperbolic, but the trend in that direction is difficult to dispute.

[Truth Detector]

Main Entry: police state
Function: noun
: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures



Umm... which part of this definition doesn't fit?


Let me highlight them for you: (1) repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life; (2) an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government.

One has to be living on planet absurd to even attempt such nonsensical arguments like this suggesting that we are heading towards or living in a Police State.

However, it is a tactic to deny, lie and spin the truth to promote a failed political philosophy by scaring people into thinking your way.

Is this why you are in engaging in sophistry and hyperbole?

Are you claiming Bush hasn't used security tactics that have since been declared unconstitutional? Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld)

Yes that is exactly what I am claiming. How ironic that you use this case to make your argument, yet it is direct contrast to your absurd assertion that we are heading towards a police state.

I guess you can't see the irony in your arguments. Let me help you. This case illustrates that it is just the opposite of a Police State when the legal authority believed that the Administration and the Appeals court erred in their determination of what was an enemy combatant and their rights.

Are you claiming Bush hasn't gone around statutory legal procedures in order to secretly wiretap American citizens? wiretap this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy)

That is precisely what I am saying. I guess you missed the part where this case went to the courts, and the courts agreed with the administration and the Congress which is continuing to permit this presumed "wire tapping" to catch terrorists outside the country plotting the murder of American citizens.

How profound of you to argue we are heading towards a Police State yet this case you use as another example of how our laws are working and the checks and balances in our system are anything BUT representative of your absurd notions of what constitutes a "Police State."

Even when given the definition, you don't get it. Could this be a case of "willful" ignorance in order to support your absurd politics?

Now I'm not saying we are living in a police state, because that's a bit hyperbolic, but the trend in that direction is difficult to dispute.

You argue that you are not saying we are, yet in the same argument you suggest that we are heading there. That in itself is hyperbole and ironic in its context.

Any argument which attempts to suggest that this country is moving towards a "police state" or that our citizens civil liberties are being impugned as a result of the patriot act is hyperbolic and a disingenuous attempt to promote a failed political philosophy by lying and distorting these acts and their purpose.

It is this same denial that afflicts the Democrat/Leftist mentality that suggests that Islamic Fascists are not planning another attack to kill even more of our citizens after the acts of 9-11.

Denial leads to ignorance, don't do denial even if it is to promote a failed political philosophy by scaring people into thinking we are somehow headed towards a Police State. That is just hyperbole and sophistry.

I suggest that you study the politics of Nazi Germany, the politics of Stalinist Russia or the tactics of the Communist in China if you want to get a better grasp on what “Police State” really means instead of these weak ineffectual attacks on the Bush Administration.

[apdst]

Why fight terror if your method is terror?

It's called, "fighting fire with fire". The whole killing them with kindness approach just doesn't seem to have worled real well in the past. The United States has saved untold millions of lives through humanitarian missions and what do we get for our trouble?

[PatrickHenry]

...The United States has saved untold millions of lives through humanitarian missions and what do we get for our trouble?
Umm...the respect and admiration of the international community?

[Elrathin]

The United States has saved untold millions of lives through humanitarian missions and what do we get for our trouble?


So that somehow gives the U.S. the right to use torture? I don't think so.

[Truth Detector]

...The United States has saved untold millions of lives through humanitarian missions and what do we get for our trouble?
Umm...the respect and admiration of the international community?


I find this continued comment from vague, lacking facts and quite meaningless. The notion that we were respected and admired by the International Community or how important a weight to place on it is naive at best.

The notion that we were MORE respected prior to going into Iraq is absurd and nothing more than a convenient political Democrat talking point.

Please provide me with some specific examples before and after of how much more we were respected. I will counter any and all with equally specific examples where they didn't give a damn about us before or after.

The corruption of the Oil for Food program would be a good place to start in showing how they truly didn't give a damn, they just wanted to keep their precious oil flows going.

Were we respected by the French when they kicked us out of their country shortly after WWII? Were we respected by France when they decided to not be a part of NATO and unilaterally developed their own Nuclear weapons? [hr]

The United States has saved untold millions of lives through humanitarian missions and what do we get for our trouble?


So that somehow gives the U.S. the right to use torture? I don't think so.


Of course not, we should treat Terrorists the same way they treat our hostages.....oh wait, that would be REAL torture and murder, never mind.

Well at least we should show them understanding and extend our laws to them when we capture them. If they know they have Habeas Corpus rights, a proper legal defense and a civilian court of law to try them fairly and not use excessive force or torture, they will see that we are a caring nation and then perhaps they won’t try to NUKE New York City.

After all, they hate us because they don't know how much we really care for them right?

Good lord, you have to have the faculty of a five year old to think one can use conventional police tactics on these killers.
:madlaugh:

[apdst]

Umm...the respect and admiration of the international community?

I guess that's why, at the same time we were saving millions from starvation and genocide, we were being attacked?

Somalia is a prime example. We stem the tide of a famine and how do the Somalis thanks us? By dragging the bodies of dead Americans through the streets of Mogadishu to put on a show for the cameras. Those journalists that filmed the disgusting and disgraceful spectacle respected, loved and admired us so much, they couldn't wait to start rolling film. Uh, yeah; I see you point, PH.

[Elrathin]

Good lord, you have to have the faculty of a five year old to think one can use conventional police tactics on these killers. [/color][/size][/font]
:madlaugh:


And one would have to have the heart and mind of a terrorist to advocate torture. Again, no better than the terrorist themselves.

[apdst]

And one would have to have the heart and mind of a terrorist to advocate torture. Again, no better than the terrorist themselves.

If this were a popularity contest, your argument would hold water. However, it's not a popularity contest.

[Elrathin]

If this were a popularity contest, your argument would hold water. However, it's not a popularity contest.


Honor, Integrity, and Loyalty. How does torture fit in with those terms?

[apdst]

Honor, Integrity, and Loyalty. How does torture fit in with those terms?

If you're using coerced interrogation as a means to gain intel to protect your country, they those terms are most certainly applicable.

[Zahalsky]

The truth is out, it remains to be seen if those on the left learn from it or will continue their lies and distortions in an effort to impugn America and its political leadership. I am doubtful the left can learn anything, time will tell.

Tall Torture Tales
February 6, 2008; Page A18

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri planned the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Abu Zubaydah was the mastermind of the foiled millennium terrorist attacks, which had Los Angeles airport as one of its targets. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed directed the September 11 attacks, and has claimed to have personally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl.

All three men were captured by the CIA in 2002 and waterboarded in the course of their interrogations. They are also the only U.S. detainees to have been waterboarded. That fact, publicly confirmed yesterday by CIA Director Michael Hayden, shreds whatever is left to the so-called torture narrative, according to which the Bush Administration has engaged in widespread, needless and systematic torture of detainees.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120225791056845807.html


The Cole was actually bombed wasn't it?

The millenium bombing was foiled by an alert border patrol officer....

Sept. 11 was a huge success....

so exactly what did the waterboarding reveal that saved any lives?