Flying Monkeys
By Nobody
11 Mar 2011 1:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
14 Dec 2014 7:11 pm
that is the idea of justice for clemmyRichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:04 pm » wrote: First, the only thing you know is that they were released, not that they were innocent. What's the recidivism rate? Pretty high.
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.
innocent people tortured is ok. there is no credible excuse that even clemscum can muster. Exactly guilty of what he clams terrorist are guilty of. no difference. phony american. phony christian. desperate scum
14 Dec 2014 7:12 pm
WTF does that mean? What someone says in an interview doesn't mean anything?RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:10 pm » wrote:It was an interview. Big freaking deal.
The facts are that we tortured people, some of them innocent.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:10 pm » wrote:You know what the facts are. Why are you dissembling?
14 Dec 2014 7:13 pm
Name one that will induce a dedicated, fanatic terrorist to cooperate in a short period of time.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:09 pm » wrote: Because there are other ways of getting people to cooperate besides torture, moonbat.
Rotsa ruck.
14 Dec 2014 7:15 pm
Lots of points aren't made in interviews, or were made and cut out by some liberal journalist.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:12 pm » wrote: WTF does that mean? What someone says in an interview doesn't mean anything?
We tortured very, very few, even granting the term. It's probable that most of those released weren't.The facts are that we tortured people, some of them innocent.
Subjected to less severe forms of interrogations, yes, but not waterboarded or anything like that.
Do you have any proof they were? No?
Never thought you did.
14 Dec 2014 7:16 pm
No, that is not a "fact." Prove it, moonbat.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:12 pm » wrote: The facts are that we tortured people, some of them innocent.
14 Dec 2014 7:17 pm
I told you ask Ali Soufan. He had Zubaydah talking until the CIA contractors showed up and put him in isolation for 47 days.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:13 pm » wrote: Name one that will induce a dedicated, fanatic terrorist to cooperate in a short period of time.
Rotsa ruck.
And riddle me this Pumpkin, if we needed to get info from these guys quickly, (you know that whole ticking time-bomb that you Cons love to talk about) why waste 47 days before you even attempt to interrogate him?
I interrogated the top terrorist in US custody. Then the CIA came to town. By Ali Soufan
In the middle of my interrogation of the high-ranking terrorist Abu Zubaydah at a black-site prison 12 years ago, my intelligence work wasn’t just cut short for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques to begin.
After I left the black site, those who took over left, too – for 47 days. For personal time and to “confer with headquarters”.
For nearly the entire summer of 2002, Abu Zubaydah was kept in isolation. That was valuable lost time, and that doesn’t square with claims about the “ticking bomb scenarios” that were the basis for America’s enhanced interrogation program, or with the commitment to getting life-saving, actionable intelligence from valuable detainees.
The techniques were justified by those who said Zubaydah “stopped all cooperation” around the time my fellow FBI agent and I left.
If Zubaydah was in isolation the whole time, that’s not really a surprise.
14 Dec 2014 7:24 pm
14 Dec 2014 7:28 pm
.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:24 pm » wrote:
So you don't have proof. Thanks for admitting that.
The "fact" is, little "torture" occurred as policy beyond the few who were waterboarded.
Those at Gitmo were treated harshly, but not tortured from anything I've seen.
14 Dec 2014 7:32 pm
According to Rodriguez, a CIA operative on Fox today, Zubaydah cooperated sparingly and gave up only KSM's name, not his location, until he was waterboarded. Then he cooperated fully.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:17 pm » wrote: I told you ask Ali Soufan. He had Zubaydah talking until the CIA contractors showed up and put him in isolation for 47 days.
Try again, moonbat.
I mean, this is quite obvious. Some terrorists do have the stamina not to cooperate unless treated in a very, very harsh manner.
Do you seriously deny that?
14 Dec 2014 7:36 pm
**** off you lying piece of ****.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:28 pm » wrote: .
So you don't have proof. Thanks for admitting that.
The "fact" is, little "torture" occurred as policy beyond the few who were waterboarded.
Those at Gitmo were treated harshly, but not tortured from anything I've seen.
I have already proven without the slightest doubt that you are a dishonest coward.
It is not possible for YOU to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING around here.
ZERO INTEGRITY
14 Dec 2014 7:38 pm
Nice talking points, but prove it.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:28 pm » wrote:The "fact" is, little "torture" occurred as policy beyond the few who were waterboarded.
Those at Gitmo were treated harshly, but not tortured from anything I've seen.
14 Dec 2014 7:46 pm
You smear those who defend the country, then demand I prove their innocence.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:38 pm » wrote: Nice talking points, but prove it.
Typical liberal.
14 Dec 2014 7:48 pm
Cheney also mentioned Rodriguez today. He's the guy who ran the whole torture program, so I guess he has no agenda, like maybe covering his own ***?RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:32 pm » wrote:According to Rodriguez, a CIA operative on Fox today, Zubaydah cooperated sparingly and gave up only KSM's name, not his location, until he was waterboarded. Then he cooperated fully.
He's a nice guy. Apparently the FBI thought he had some involvement in Iran-Contra, and the CIA’s inspector general criticized Rodriguez for a 'remarkable lack of judgment' when he interceded in the drug-related arrest of a friend of his in the Dominican Republic. Reportedly, he was trying to ensure that his friend was not abused or mistreated.
Can you say irony?
He's also the person who ordered that videotape recordings of CIA interrogations be destroyed, because he felt that the heat from destroying the tapes would be nothing compared with what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain.
14 Dec 2014 7:50 pm
I don't know about that Brattle. I'm pretty sure he has most people around here convinced that he's a liar, a nutcase and a partisan hack.Brattle Street » 14 Dec 2014 7:36 pm » wrote:It is not possible for YOU to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING around here.
ZERO INTEGRITY
14 Dec 2014 7:52 pm
You defend those who torture.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:46 pm » wrote:You smear those who defend the country, then demand I prove their innocence.
Typical liberal.
Why did Jose Rodriguez destroy the tapes that showed people 'defending the country' Jackhole?
14 Dec 2014 7:53 pm
You're a proven Democrat Talking Point Liar with an obvious agenda.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:48 pm » wrote: Cheney also mentioned Rodriguez today. He's the guy who ran the whole torture program, so I guess he has no agenda, like maybe covering his own ***?
So we can safely ignore every single thing you write. Thanks for making that clear.
So you have no proof whatsoever of your claim. You can only smear your opponents, as usual.
14 Dec 2014 7:56 pm
I defend those who followed policy that was declared legal by the Justice Dept. in order to defend our country.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:52 pm » wrote: You defend those who torture.
Self righteous windbags like you would have let thousands of Americans be butchered.
Because it had the faces of the operatives, who would have been endangered, and their families, Jackhole.Why did Jose Rodriguez destroy the tapes that showed people 'defending the country' Jackhole?
14 Dec 2014 7:58 pm
Yeah, all the psychotics and liars agree about that.Misty » 14 Dec 2014 7:50 pm » wrote: I don't know about that Brattle. I'm pretty sure he has most people around here convinced that he's a liar, a nutcase and a partisan hack.
You're so desperate you seek support from a wackjob like Babble?
14 Dec 2014 7:58 pm
**** off you twatboyRichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:56 pm » wrote: I defend those who followed policy that was declared legal by the Justice Dept. in order to defend our country.
Self righteous windbags like you would have let thousands of Americans be butchered.
Because it had the faces of the operatives, who would have been endangered, and their families, Jackhole.
I have already proven without the slightest doubt that you are a dishonest coward.
It is not possible for YOU to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING around here.
ZERO INTEGRITY
14 Dec 2014 8:04 pm
You mean by John Yoo and Jay Bybee the two clowns that BushCo. shopped around for to write those ridiculous torture memos? Give me a **** break.RichClem » 14 Dec 2014 7:56 pm » wrote: I defend those who followed policy that was declared legal by the Justice Dept. in order to defend our country.
Those memos were widely condemned by many jurists, and in fact most career attorneys in the Justice, Defense and State Departments strongly opposed the positions taken in the memos but were overruled by senior political appointees.
Misty: Why did Jose Rodriguez destroy the tapes that showed people 'defending the country' Jackhole?
That's not what the deputy to Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, then executive director of the CIA said. He wrote in an e-mail that Rodriguez thought “the heat from destroying is nothing compared with what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain—he said that out of context they would make us look terrible; it would be ‘devastating’ to us.”Clem: Because it had the faces of the operatives, who would have been endangered, and their families, Jackhole.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05854.html
Who is online
In total there are 5865 users online :: 7 registered, 18 bots, and 5840 guests
Bots: NING, Bolt, DuckDuckBot, MicroMessenger, ADmantX, proximic, LCC, CriteoBot, Mediatoolkitbot, YandexBot, facebookexternalhit, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, GPTBot, Baiduspider, curl/7, bingbot, Applebot