DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum CIA Waterboarding Uncovered 2nd Wave Attack on L.A.

LMAO. You are scary.

Presidential Poison
His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency.


Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.

"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'"

So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?

Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before his inauguration, that he wanted to "look forward" and beyond the antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for "anger and retribution." Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama's decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist.

Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.

Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.

Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.

Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.

Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.





http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Quote:

---

LMAO. You are scary.

---

And you can't read

Quote:

---

That's a pretty typical misrepresentation of what I was thinking Jules,,, you do that all the time..

NOT ONCE did I ever say that protecting your family was wrong...

I said that I beleive the act of torture is WRONG...

But if I had to do it to save my family, I would do so in a heartbeat.... and if the world found be guilty for it, I'd take my lumps....

---

What if you torturing somebody and possibly taking the lumps saved MY entire family? If I, for whatever reason, was unable to do it myself, would you do it to save my family? or would you let my wife and 2 young children die? Just curious.

They already said they would sacrifice people.

I am all for stopping the water boarding.

















As long as we lock them up with the general population in a state prison instead.

With all due respect...isn't this line of conversation a little out there? 'What if torture would save your family?' It sounds like an episode of '24' or a line of thinking that Hannity would cook up. As I've said, I think think this is the biggest issue on our plate, nor should it be...but these dramatizations people are conjuring up are a bit absurd.

I haven't seen much in the way of evidence to show that these techniques are very effective or a good use of our time...

I mean, from what I've read we waterboarded one guy just shy of 200 times...whether you agree with waterboarding or not...how illogical does that sound? It sounds kind of redundant to me.

People seem to be overlooking Mac's post which details the US prosecuting japanese soldiers for war crimes for waterboarding POWs. Assuming thats true, its pretty ridiculous that the US prosecutes others for waterboarding labeling it as torture--but then uses the technique as a way to extract information from terrorist.

That sends the message that we think that it should be illegal to use, unless its us using it. That is ridiculous.

I think that it should not be used at all. It is torture---and I am pretty sure that the international coomunity is against the use of torture.

And whose to say that it is even effective. I'm sure if you waterboard anyone enough, they will tell you whatever you want to hear just to stop the torture.

Quote:

---

What if you torturing somebody and possibly taking the lumps saved MY entire family? If I, for whatever reason, was unable to do it myself, would you do it to save my family?

---

That depends,, will you be nice to me for a year

Look,, everyone listen very carefully,, it's not really a family thing.. it's an American thing.. I'd do whatever it took to save a family,,

That still doesn't make torture right,, but I'd do it.. and if I was arrested, charged and convicted of doing wrong, I'll shut up and pay the price..

How many freakin times do I have to say that....


Geesh,,

1,613 MORE TIMES

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html

Here's the Bush administration's own claim that they thwarted the 'Second Wave' attacks.

Quote:

---

In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay two months ago, KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

---

Now, as far as I can tell, this is the jewel of the 'Second Wave' that is being referred to having extracting from Mohammed...who wasn't captured until early '03, I believe.

Couple that with the CIA's wording, and I'm led to believe that the information we extracted was information that we'd already had.

But that's a small slice of the pie...sifting through these documents can blind you.

However if we did not get the information from these people (which would not have happened were it not the waterboarding)...any prior information could not have been confirmed and may have been completely disjointed(especially in the time frame they were working in). And we could be talking about how the intelligence community failed again.....Those ignorant of intelligence gathering would be saying..."we had info...why didn't we stop it?", "Why couldn't we see?"....So they are damned if they do damned if they don't.....

So I am Glad they are damned if they do as it probably saved over 2000 peoples lives.

Torturing Islamic radicals? Eh, big deal.

Now if it was actual human beings, I'd be a bit more concerned.

Whether you choose to believe it or not...Information does save lives.

Information allowed us to stop an event from happening...that event would have cost many lives. As to the number none can say...the number 2000 has been thrown out arbitrarily. But the information obtained from these people was used and it DID save lives. The only question is how many....2000 may be extremely conservative or grossly overstating.

Information is a POWERFUL thing in ANY arena whether it be stocks, terrorism, or the tendencies of the pitcher you are facing...and if used correctly you can do great things. I have ZERO doubt that the information obtained from these people contributed to the safe being of MANY lives.

As far as the efficiency..well that isn't exactly for me to say....I am not exactly an expert in torture...lol......I am, however, pretty sure they have studies upon studies that guide them to that end. And It is also probably why it is not used except in extreme cases....

Quote:

---

Lock them up, interrogate as best you can, give them a fair jury trial, and be done with it.

---

Just a thought here....If this is what you are going to follow and THEY KNOW you are going to follow this.(There's that information thing again)....Well you have already lost....And this is not a battle you can afford to lose.

The thing about waterboarding is that there is no physical harm. So without physically harming the person you make them think the rules have changed. And that goes completely against what they had planned to do(which is keep their mouth shut because if you follow the rules...then nothing happens to them)

It's not about harming someone...It is about getting them out of their comfort zone. And they were living it up in their comfort zone thinking they had won. They knew they couldn't be beaten, etc. They had nothing to fear. Your method lost. It didn't work. And like I said...you cannot afford to lose this battle.

In this extreme case, waterboarding worked. And I would be willing to bet that it would work more often than not. As long as it is used correctly. If it is used as the studies imply it to be used. I don't believe it is meant to be common practice nor is or was it common practice as an interrogation device...but it should definitely continue to be available to be a tool in the chest to be used at the appropriate times.

Quote:

---

1,613 MORE TIMES

---

That would be really funny if it weren't so close to accurate...

Your getting a nasty lump on your forehead

Quote:

---

Your getting a nasty lump on your forehead

---

Yup,, serves me right for talking to some folks....,

Quote:

---

Not only can some people not comprehend what others are saying, that can't even comprehend what they say.

---

Pot Meet Kettle

Quote:

---

We are not talking as standard interrogation. This is something used on POWs who we know have information that is important to our citizens welfare, and refuse to give it up under standard procedures.

---

Just to clarify....We are not talking about POWS. That is against the Geneva Conventions. We are talking about doing these harsher techniques against so called enemy combatants that are known terrorists. All three of these guys were well known Al Qeda operatives, not soldiers of other country. The Geneva Convention never addressed this sort of thing since it didn't occur back then.

Tyler...This is the difference between us and the Japanese of World War II. This is also a different time. I think if we were to drop to atomic bombs on cities today we would have the entire world wanting to prosecute us for war crimes.

As far apart as our football thinking is (I was gonna say knowledge but decided to be nice to U for a change .. *L*) ... our political and economic views are similiar .. we think very much alike when it comes to most things non-football ...

and I really wish we could prosecute for the TORTURE that guys like Phil, Tyler, Da Man Is Hot and mac put us through when reading there views on things like this ... what they say and the examples they bring up just make me wanna PUKE ..

Jules ... I see some progress ... his comprehension has improved enough that at least he now knows your a women ..

Yeah I saw he dropped the "woman" bomb on Jules but I didn't say nothin'....

Quote:

---

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your getting a nasty lump on your forehead


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Not only can some people not comprehend what others are saying, that can't even comprehend what they say.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



what

---

Absolute proof she can't read...

Still not making any sense I see, Daman. When you use your often used catch phrase, "maybe it's just me", I'm sure it very often is.

What

LMAO.