Flying Monkeys
By Nobody
11 Mar 2011 1:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
12 Dec 2014 2:20 pm
Waterboarding is a brief process. Toss in time for recovery and perhaps time to reflect, so what, a few days? A week?Misty » 12 Dec 2014 11:46 am » wrote: So how long did it take to waterboard him 183 times? Was that done in a short time?
Obviously a tremendous amount. He was one of the top planners, with vast knowledge about members and plans.And what actionable intelligence did he give up after the 183rd time that he didn't give up during the previous 182 times?
Read the source, moonbat.
It wasn't "all" his fault. Lots of people bear blame, in both parties and in intelligence.Jackass.
Yeah, it's all Clinton's fault. Spare me the right wing talking points.
But Clinton was president for eight years and dramatically changed policy. He bears more blame than any individual.
Given the choice between losing thousands of lives and waterboarding key terrorists, I'll always go with option B.Just admit that you think it's okay to torture people.
What would you do? Haven't seen you clearly say.
12 Dec 2014 3:58 pm
12 Dec 2014 11:37 pm
Given the choice between losing thousands of lives and waterboarding key terrorists, I'll always go with option B.Misty » 12 Dec 2014 3:58 pm » wrote:RichClem lover of torture.
What would you do? Haven't seen you clearly say.
13 Dec 2014 2:37 am
false premise. it pretends those are the only two optionsRichClem » 12 Dec 2014 11:37 pm » wrote: Given the choice between losing thousands of lives and waterboarding key terrorists, I'll always go with option B.
What would you do? Haven't seen you clearly say.
13 Dec 2014 8:25 am
Bad argument. Torture yields bad intel as much as or more than more proven methods. I think you just like the idea of inflicting pain on people in retaliation for what they've done, or you thought they've done, to us, and the argument that it gets us information is a smokescreen that allows you not to have to admit it.RichClem » 12 Dec 2014 11:37 pm » wrote:
Given the choice between losing thousands of lives and waterboarding key terrorists, I'll always go with option B.
What would you do? Haven't seen you clearly say.
13 Dec 2014 8:47 am
Oh gosh, then you'll have to have extra manpower to run down the bad leads as well as the good.Mark Lindberg » 13 Dec 2014 8:25 am » wrote: Bad argument. Torture yields bad intel as much as or more than more proven methods.
Better that millions, die, right?
And there are no "more proven methods" to get intell from a committed terrorist, moonbat.
I think you just like being a self righteous prig and would allow millions to die to feed your leftist ego.I think you just like the idea of inflicting pain on people in retaliation for what they've done, or you thought they've done, to us, and the argument that it gets us information is a smokescreen that allows you not to have to admit it.
13 Dec 2014 12:45 pm
Your third line: Yes there are.RichClem » 13 Dec 2014 8:47 am » wrote:
Oh gosh, then you'll have to have extra manpower to run down the bad leads as well as the good.
Better that millions, die, right?
And there are no "more proven methods" to get intell from a committed terrorist, moonbat.
I think you just like being a self righteous prig and would allow millions to die to feed your leftist ego.
When the United States was attacked on 9/11, every member of the Central Intelligence Agency’s clandestine services had a rule book on the conduct of interrogations. It was clear and concise.
It outlawed the following methods: “Torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment, or prolonged detention without charges or trial.” It was based on five decades of experience.
President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the leaders of the CIA threw out the rule book as they set out on their global crusade against terrorism. This was unwise.
Anyone who was in New York or Washington after 9/11 remembers the fear — every day, every night, every time the phone rang — that there would be another attack. I sat down with George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, not long after 9/11. The exhaustion, the fear — and the terror — that I saw in his eyes is an image I will never forget.
Fear trumped wisdom for the next seven years.
CIA Director John Brennan said on Thursday that some intelligence officers
used “abhorrent” methods on the people they detained after the attacks. He said it was “unknowable” whether the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques — EITs, in CIA jargon, torture in plain English — yielded useful intelligence.
“We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs,” Brennan said, “… that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees.”
This much we know: The CIA threw out the rule book instructing its officers that torture does not work as a method of gathering intelligence. And out with the rule book went the agency’s institutional knowledge and hard-won wisdom.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... er-learns/
Your fourth line: **** you. Ask George Bush and Richard Nixon about letting their egos drive them to getting people killed.
13 Dec 2014 2:29 pm
Well gosh, who should we believe, every CIA Director for many years and many CIA officials familiar with harsh interrogations, as well as our common sense or liberal-left reporter Tim Weiner?Mark Lindberg » 13 Dec 2014 12:45 pm » wrote: Your third line: Yes there are.
Imbecile.
What, you think KSM was going to cooperate relatively quickly through persuasion and trickery?
How freaking stupid.
13 Dec 2014 2:30 pm
How freaking stupid. Nixon corrected LBJ's stupid Vietnam War policies.Mark Lindberg » 13 Dec 2014 12:45 pm » wrote:Your fourth line: **** you. Ask George Bush and Richard Nixon about letting their egos drive them to getting people killed.
And Bush was correct to topple who everyone agreed was a threat to the country, Saddam Hussein.
13 Dec 2014 2:33 pm
I guess that Gooy is off today so Clemidia and HOOYboy have to fill the gap to help meet the daily quota.RichClem » 13 Dec 2014 2:30 pm » wrote: How freaking stupid. Nixon corrected LBJ's stupid Vietnam War policies.
And Bush was correct to topple who everyone agreed was a threat to the country, Saddam Hussein.
13 Dec 2014 2:36 pm
Sure, right, moonbat.Mark Lindberg » 13 Dec 2014 12:45 pm » wrote: Your third line: Yes there are.
Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives
The Senate Intelligence investigators never spoke to us—the leaders of the agency whose
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :...
What is wrong with the committee’s report?
Opinion Journal Video
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the CIA’s interrogation techniques. Photo credit: Getty Images.
First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.
A powerful example of the interrogation program’s importance is the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, known as KSM, the 9/11 mastermind. We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program.
Information provided by Zubaydah through the interrogation program led to the capture in 2002 of KSM associate and post-9/11 plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Information from both Zubaydah and al-Shibh led us to KSM. KSM then led us to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, East Asia’s chief al Qaeda ally and the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia—in which more than 200 people perished.
The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interro ... 1418142644
13 Dec 2014 4:30 pm
Tell that to Ali Soufan. He managed to get a lot of intel from terrorists without torturing them, including Abu Zubaydah.RichClem » 13 Dec 2014 8:47 am » wrote:....there are no "more proven methods" to get intell from a committed terrorist, moonbat.
13 Dec 2014 9:14 pm
Yes, there are alternative methods for individual terrorists who are weak willed.Misty » 13 Dec 2014 4:30 pm » wrote: Tell that to Ali Soufan. He managed to get a lot of intel from terrorists without torturing them, including Abu Zubaydah.
But for those that weren't, we obtained " invaluable" intelligence that saved thousands of lives.
Babble away.
14 Dec 2014 6:59 pm
Cheney says he doesn't care that we tortured innocent people.
On today's Meet The Press former VP Dick Cheney was asked:
Nice guy.
On today's Meet The Press former VP Dick Cheney was asked:
So Dick Cheney has no problem with the fact that 25% of the people he tortured were innocent.CHUCK TODD: 25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be innocent. They were released.
DICK CHENEY: Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are--
CHUCK TODD: Well, I'm asking you. Is that too high? You're okay with that margin for error?
DICK CHENEY: I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/m ... 14-n268181
Nice guy.
14 Dec 2014 7:00 pm
You're saying that Abu Zubaydah, Bin Laden's senior lieutenant and the third or fourth highest-ranking member of al Qaeda, who was involved in every major terrorist operation carried out by al QaedaRichClem » 13 Dec 2014 9:14 pm » wrote: Yes, there are alternative methods for individual terrorists who are weak willed.
was weak willed?
14 Dec 2014 7:04 pm
First, the only thing you know is that they were released, not that they were innocent. What's the recidivism rate? Pretty high.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:Cheney says he doesn't care that we tortured innocent people.
On today's Meet The Press former VP Dick Cheney was asked:
So Dick Cheney has no problem with the fact that 25% of the people he tortured were innocent.
Nice guy.
Second, three thousand Americans and perhaps thousands more would die if we didn't penetrate Al Qaeda.
Self righteous windbags and liars like you refuse to take that into account.
14 Dec 2014 7:07 pm
Even Cheney did not refute that figure.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:04 pm » wrote:First, the only thing you know is that they were released, not that they were innocent.
So are you saying that Bush released a bunch of terrorists?
14 Dec 2014 7:07 pm
Lots of seemingly strong people cave once caught. There's a huge psychological shock to being caught and helpless.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:00 pm » wrote:You're saying that Abu Zubaydah, a senior Bin Laden official who played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks was weak willed?
If he truly was strong willed, why would he have cooperated, moonbat?
14 Dec 2014 7:09 pm
Because there are other ways of getting people to cooperate besides torture, moonbat.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:07 pm » wrote:Lots of seemingly strong people cave once caught. There's a huge psychological shock to being caught and helpless.
If he truly was strong willed, why would he have cooperated, moonbat?
14 Dec 2014 7:10 pm
It was an interview. Big freaking deal. Lots of things are missed in interviews.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:07 pm » wrote: Even Cheney did not refute that figure.
You know what the facts are. Why are you dissembling?
Answer: because you're a hack and a psychopath.
As did Obama. That's the way the system works.So are you saying that Bush released a bunch of terrorists?
Why didn't you condemn him, too?
Because you're a hack.
Who is online
In total there are 5703 users online :: 6 registered, 16 bots, and 5681 guests
Bots: MicroMessenger, ADmantX, proximic, Mediatoolkitbot, facebookexternalhit, LCC, CriteoBot, YandexBot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, Firefox/7.0, Applebot, curl/7, Baiduspider, GPTBot, bingbot