Should the Pope apologize??

Teejay32 said:
Our policy should be a) recognizing that there are plots against the US, b) finding out what they are and c) taking practical steps to thwart them. For some people it's not only the most important job of the federal government, it's the only job of the federal government they think is really necessary. Why is it so important now? Because of the Islamic nut fringe.

GWB can say if he's erred, he's erred on the side of protecting the US and against some vague definition of civil rights, and even more vague court of world opinion. Only people living the Loose Change, "Bush is a Fascist" soap opera would really have no idea why people want really effective interrogations. He can also say, with complete justification, that he's always held Islam the religion separate from Islamic terrorism. That's awfully nice of him, but for all their grandstanding his opponents never noticed, and by now his so-called "base" thinks differently and says so outright. He's doing his job, and a lot of what he does is a direct result of the Islamic nut fringe. It's nice to see them being picked apart for a change.

Let's cut to the chase and cut through the euphenism "effective interrogations" when you're really using it instead of torture. Are you in favor of torture? Do you feel you can't have an effective interrogation without torture? How far do you want to go? Even though they don't need one, are you comfortable giving others the go-ahead excuse to torture our soldiers? Is the torture chamber part of your vision for America?

Let's just cut through the BS and separate the torturers from the non-torturers.

And, please no ticking timebomb scenarios. In that situation, you do what you have to do when you have to do it and accept the consequences of your actions.
 
Fitswimmer said:
I also don't remember former Presidents publically criticizing the current administration until recently either. I thought there was kind of an unspoken understanding that it wasn't classy to do that. Former President Carter didn't do that with Presidents Reagan or the first President Bush, but he's doing it now as is Former President Clinton. Even when I agree with what they are saying, it feels icky that they're doing it.

I think any Senator or member of Congress should hold themselves to that high standard. I'd sure be lining up to vote for one that did.


Well, you'd have to go back a bit, but Teddy Roosevelt did quite a bit of trash talking against William Taft.

I think you've said something very significant in regards to Carter not criticizing Reagan or Bush 41. IMO, Carter's criticizing Bush is not so much a difference in policy as it is the country's direction and where Bush is leading it. Certainly, like just about every other American, both Carter and Clinton rallied around Bush after 9/11, but then took a 2nd look when it became apparent Bush's real goal was the invasion of Iraq.
 
LuvDuke said:
Let's cut to the chase and cut through the euphenism "effective interrogations" when you're really using it instead of torture. Are you in favor of torture? Do you feel you can't have an effective interrogation without torture? How far do you want to go? Even though they don't need one, are you comfortable giving others the go-ahead excuse to torture our soldiers? Is the torture chamber part of your vision for America?

Let's just cut through the BS and separate the torturers from the non-torturers.

And, please no ticking timebomb scenarios. In that situation, you do what you have to do when you have to do it and accept the consequences of your actions.

The people trying to reconcile effective interrogations with American values are on some higher moral plane than I am, believe me. That's a problem. I'm against having foreign jihadis in our prisons outright. I'm against torture, and without it interrogations aren't effective, so there aren't any in my scenario - they're free, dead, or in foreign jails.
 
LuvDuke said:
And waterboarding is torture as is forcing someone to stand naked for 24 hours in 40 degree temperatures and having cold water thrown on them. It is torture to chain someone to a floor, in a "stress position", lying in their own feces and urine. That behavior is sick and isn't worthy of the United States of America. Btw, IMO, loud music is just plain stupid and points to watching too many "007" movies.

However, no matter what Bush wants to claim, there is NO difference between an American torturing to gain information and an Iraqi torturing to gain information. It is NOT relative and there are no situational ethics involved.

I think I've asked this several times (forgive me if I missed any answers) but since all of the interrogation techniques you just sited are unacceptable to you, please tell us how to get critical information out of a person that you believe holds information to keep our soldiers on the battlefield safe and us safe here at home.

And skip the claim that they don't work. They do.

Keep it simple cause you know I'm an ignoramous.
 

Charade said:
And skip the claim that they don't work. They do.

Proof? Like John McCain giving the names of a football team as his comrades when tortured for information?

Who's going to volunteer to prove it works?
 
cardaway said:
Be sure to hold that thought. I have a feeling that our current President will be the king of smack talk about the admin if it's not one he agrees with.


I'll bet you a Mickey bar he won't.
 
crcormier said:
Proof? Like John McCain giving the names of a football team as his comrades when tortured for information?

Who's going to volunteer to prove it works?

Then how did we get from terrorist "A" to terrorist "B" to plot "C" and so on if "A" gave us crap?
 
Charade said:
Then how did we get from terrorist "A" to terrorist "B" to plot "C" and so on if "A" gave us crap?

Dunno. Can't really comment on hypotheticals. Didn't hear about terrorists A and B in the news or plot C.
 
crcormier said:
Dunno. Can't really comment on hypotheticals. Didn't hear about terrorists A and B in the news or plot C.

Then you missed Bush outlining that in detail last week in his speech.
 
Charade said:
Then you missed Bush outlining that in detail last week in his speech.

Again I say where? This is your argument, not mine, not my job to provide evidence to your claim.
 
gm060919.jpg
 
crcormier said:
Again I say where? This is your argument, not mine, not my job to provide evidence to your claim.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man known as Abu Zubaydah. We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country. Zubaydah was severely wounded during the firefight that brought him into custody -- and he survived only because of the medical care arranged by the CIA.

After he recovered, Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM. Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained -- one while traveling to the United States.

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.

Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a "J-I" cell, and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and, in turn, led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States -- probably [sic] using airplanes.

During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States, and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.

These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program. Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.

We're getting vital information necessary to do our jobs, and that's to protect the American people and our allies.

Information from the terrorists in this program has helped us to identify individuals that al Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations, many of whom we had never heard about before. They include terrorists who were set to case targets inside the United States, including financial buildings in major cities on the East Coast. Information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since this program began. By providing everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding, this program has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill.
 
Charade said:
I'll bet you a Mickey bar he won't.

I left something out. I'm also quite sure his supporters will argue that his statements are somehow different than the stuff people are complaining about now.

People complain about how much vitriol people have towards this President. Fine, there certainly is enough examples here. But what is also true are the people who will support the guy no matter what he does, and in this case, do anything possible to deny that he ever does what they complain about others doing. It's sad and amazing at the same time.
 
cardaway said:
I left something out. I'm also quite sure his supporters will argue that his statements are somehow different than the stuff people are complaining about now.

People complain about how much vitriol people have towards this President. Fine, there certainly is enough examples here. But what is also true are the people who will support the guy no matter what he does, and in this case, do anything possible to deny that he ever does what they complain about others doing. It's sad and amazing at the same time.

You mean like they do with this guy?

stclinton.jpg
 
Charade said:
The White House says that Zubudayah's tortured confession was valuable and helped track down Binalshibh.

You know what they say about using partisan unreliable sources.

Ackerman
Not that it should surprise anyone anymore, but yesterday's stomach-churning Bush speech defending torture contains this little number:


We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used--I think you understand why--if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks--a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


First, according to Ron Suskind, Abu Zubaydah didn't clam up because he was "trained to resist interrogation," but because he has the mental capacity of a ******** child. Second, the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was. Now-retired FBI Al Qaeda hunter Dennis Lormel told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002. Abu Zubaydah getting waterboarded and spouting bin Al Shibh's name did not tell us anything we did not already know.

Of course, most Americans don't have access to Nexis. And most Americans don't remember--and can't be expected to remember--newspaper coverage of Al Qaeda for a seven-month stretch between the attacks and Abu Zubaydah's capture. Bush is exploiting that ignorance to tell the American people an outright lie in order to convince them that we need to torture people. As Bush once said in another context, if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

--Spencer Ackerman

As for Abu Zubaydah, this what Ron Subskind revealed before that speech
Link
One example out of many comes in Ron Suskind's gripping narrative of what the White House has celebrated as one of the war's major victories: the capture of Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002. Described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations even after U.S. and Pakistani forces kicked down his door in Faisalabad, the Saudi-born jihadist was the first al-Qaeda detainee to be shipped to a secret prison abroad. Suskind shatters the official story line here.

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.

More from Suskind

"I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety - against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."
 
So he's ********, insane, and mentally disturbed, and nobody disputes he's the "go-to guy for minor logistics." (?)
 
Teejay32 said:
So he's ********, insane, and mentally disturbed, and nobody disputes he's the "go-to guy for minor logistics." (?)
His tortured testimony was not valuable. The President was lying. That's the summary
 
sodaseller said:
His tortured testimony was not valuable. The President was lying. That's the summary

So how, exactly, did we track him down?

And just so I'm clear on this - You are saying the President and John McCain and the CIA don't really believe cohersive interogation works? They just do it for the hell of it?
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom