|
CIA destroyed interrogation tapes - who's to blame? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
this is f**king gold.
Ain’t that tough enough? Well cue the Fabulous Thunderbirds. Everybody with any sense was a tough guy on terror back in 2002. Now, not so much. Everyone’s tough on Bush but fewer are they who remain tough on the terrorists in anything more than lip service.
Notice what else Pelosi knew about : The CIA’s so-called black sites where terrorists were being held overseas. And she did not object.
Has the actual threat of large-scale terrorism receded enough so that we can all go back to a 9-10 slumber and wash our collective hands of the tactics that we approved of in the clarifying months to years immediately after 9-11? I don’t think so, though the threat has been blunted by, you guessed it, tough action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The degree to which we all feel safer now is the degree to which we argue about everything under the sun, including things that former tuff guys were once fine with, or at least lodged no formal objection to. Only one Congressperson is known to have objected to waterboarding when it would have made any difference, which is when the practice was actually used against three high value al Qaeda targets. 2002 and 2003 were the years to make a strong stand on this, not years later when it’s politically useful and convenient. And those who have made careers out of decrying waterboarding really ought to craft some new spin now, because pinning it all on Bush will no longer fly. The CIA that is under President Bush’s responsibility did its due diligence and notified Congress members in both parties of what it was doing. And with one exception, they didn’t object.
This story exposes the fact that the Democrats have been playing games on waterboarding for years now, publicly decrying it while privately raising no useful objection to it. So I’m in agreement with Captain Ed and InstaPundit among others on this. And I’ll add that we’re seeing one more incident in which the Democrats simply cannot be trusted to live up to their public statements even on so vital an issue as the tactics and techniques that will occasionally be necessary to fight and win the long war on terrorism. During the 1990s they all warned us about the dangers of Saddam Hussein, only to turn their backs on the actual war to remove him, and during 2002 and 2003 they knew about the CIA’s aggressive interrogation of high value al Qaeda terrorists, only to politicize that in the years since.
If you think the Democrats are dishonest and unreliable on matters of war and peace (and a whole lot else), then they are exactly who you think they are. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
this is f**king gold.
Ain’t that tough enough? Well cue the Fabulous Thunderbirds. Everybody with any sense was a tough guy on terror back in 2002. Now, not so much. Everyone’s tough on Bush but fewer are they who remain tough on the terrorists in anything more than lip service.
Notice what else Pelosi knew about : The CIA’s so-called black sites where terrorists were being held overseas. And she did not object.
Has the actual threat of large-scale terrorism receded enough so that we can all go back to a 9-10 slumber and wash our collective hands of the tactics that we approved of in the clarifying months to years immediately after 9-11? I don’t think so, though the threat has been blunted by, you guessed it, tough action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The degree to which we all feel safer now is the degree to which we argue about everything under the sun, including things that former tuff guys were once fine with, or at least lodged no formal objection to. Only one Congressperson is known to have objected to waterboarding when it would have made any difference, which is when the practice was actually used against three high value al Qaeda targets. 2002 and 2003 were the years to make a strong stand on this, not years later when it’s politically useful and convenient. And those who have made careers out of decrying waterboarding really ought to craft some new spin now, because pinning it all on Bush will no longer fly. The CIA that is under President Bush’s responsibility did its due diligence and notified Congress members in both parties of what it was doing. And with one exception, they didn’t object.
This story exposes the fact that the Democrats have been playing games on waterboarding for years now, publicly decrying it while privately raising no useful objection to it. So I’m in agreement with Captain Ed and InstaPundit among others on this. And I’ll add that we’re seeing one more incident in which the Democrats simply cannot be trusted to live up to their public statements even on so vital an issue as the tactics and techniques that will occasionally be necessary to fight and win the long war on terrorism. During the 1990s they all warned us about the dangers of Saddam Hussein, only to turn their backs on the actual war to remove him, and during 2002 and 2003 they knew about the CIA’s aggressive interrogation of high value al Qaeda terrorists, only to politicize that in the years since.
If you think the Democrats are dishonest and unreliable on matters of war and peace (and a whole lot else), then they are exactly who you think they are. |
I don't think it's quite fair to say that the Democrats did nothing whatsoever. For example, in February 2003, upon learning of waterboarding Jane Harman filed "an official protest about the interrogation program":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0801664_pf.html
In fact, she's demanding that Michael Hayden declassify her letter of protest:
| quote: | This matter must be promptly and fully investigated and I call for my letter of February 2003, which was never responded to and has been in the CIA’s files ever since, to be declassified.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=981 |
Was that the person the blogger above was referencing about the protest?
From what I gather it seems to me that Dick Durbin's hands might be clean as he's calling for an investigation:
http://durbin.senate.gov/showReleas...eleaseId=288549
I can't say the same thing for Silvestre Reyes, however, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001879
As for Rockefeller and Pelosi, there's just no ing excuse for them, and poor little Jay is starting to trip over his own bull timeline of events. And while it is to Harman's credit that she did protest, the bottom line is she had numerous avenues to do more than write a ing Sternly Worded Letter and wipe her hands clean. More on that here:
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2...nsequences.html
And it seems that the speculation across the librul blogs might be correct about Pelosi taking impeachment off the table - the bitch knew and sat on her hands. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
They were pretty much boring places with no ideal eating places and the food too was pretty bad.
I think you are forgetting that not only can Texas be an independant nation but so can California, Alaska, and perhaps Florida. I think if the states were to disband and form seperate nations there wouold be like fix or six nations created. And it would be good for the world. |
Wow, you obviously didn't make the most of your visits. You went to Chicago and weren't impressed with the food? You certainly didn't order steak.
And as to states being independent, nobody thinks of themselves as anything but American first (again, except for maybe in Texas). The difference between an Iowan and an Ohioan is negligible - as is the difference between a Floridian and a Californian. They all play baseball and watch Grey's Anatomy. The cultural differences between states and even regions in the US are minuscule in comparison to what they were just thirty years ago. |
|
|
| Chryz707 |
| Back to the CIA Tapes, There is no doubt that there is a cover up, this is typical Washington Bull. The thing is, is that of course their were taped Interogation Technics and I am pretty sure they were brutal as hell, but here is the issue. We all more or less knew they existed, we all knew to we will never see them so what are we worried about, Yes evidence has been destroyed, but I dont think its all destroyed. They need to make a case somehow. Bush and Cheney will go down in History as the worst in History, They need to be in the Hague on War Crimes trials. Bush and Cheney have distorted the truth so much that we might not ever know what to take a real information anymore. I have stopped believing in all medias, FAUX, CNN, BBC, its all distorted. Only what the Evil Illuminati want you to believe! |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chryz707
Back to the CIA Tapes, There is no doubt that there is a cover up, this is typical Washington Bull. The thing is, is that of course their were taped Interogation Technics and I am pretty sure they were brutal as hell, but here is the issue. We all more or less knew they existed, we all knew to we will never see them so what are we worried about, Yes evidence has been destroyed, but I dont think its all destroyed. They need to make a case somehow. Bush and Cheney will go down in History as the worst in History, They need to be in the Hague on War Crimes trials. Bush and Cheney have distorted the truth so much that we might not ever know what to take a real information anymore. I have stopped believing in all medias, FAUX, CNN, BBC, its all distorted. Only what the Evil Illuminati want you to believe! |
I agree, and you make a very good point.
All of us are, or should be, at the point where we no longer can have any trust or faith in the goverment. It's really a shame. |
|
|
| Chryz707 |
| Lets face it Bin Laden is a CIA media tool, the new tapes arent real, they are distortions. As far as I am concerned Bin Laden has been marginalized. He doesnt matter anymore. if we want to succeed in the war on terror, it will be won thru educating people, not dropping bombs on them. We fuel Muslim Rage every time we drop a bomb on them, everytime we hear about Gitmo, it fans the flames. Everytime we hear about Torture, it makes me sick that we are to be americans and we do this to them. We are supposed to be better than them by not torturing and not killing. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chryz707
Everytime we hear about Torture, it makes me sick that we are to be americans and we do this to them. We are supposed to be better than them by not torturing and not killing. |
This is so true - using torture makes it impossible to claim any sort of moral high ground - even against an "enemy" that specifically targets civilians. If the US is to reassert any sort of international legitimacy, it is imperative that we get our own house in order first, and start doing as we say. Senator Paul Wellstone said that one should "Never separate the life you lead from the words you speak." Anything else is just hypocritical. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture
Former Agent Says the Enhanced Technique Was Used on Al Qaeda Chief Abu Zubaydah
A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.
CIA Agent Speaks Out, Part 1 -- Watch the Full InterviewIn the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.
(Editor's Note for Video to the Left: Material from this video transcript may not be used without crediting ABC News in each instance of use. In all cases, use must be limited to one minute or less without the explicit permission of ABC News.)
"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."
"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
Former CIA Agent Speaks OutKiriakou said the feeling in the months after the 9/11 attacks was that interrogators did not have the time to delve into the agency's bag of other interrogation tricks.
"Those tricks of the trade require a great deal of time -- much of the time -- and we didn't have that luxury. We were afraid that there was another major attack coming," he said.
Kiriakou says he did not know that the interrogation of Zubaydah was being secretly recorded by the CIA and had no idea the tapes had been destroyed.
Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.
"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."
But he says the urgency in the wake of 9/ll led to a desire to do everything possible to get actionable intelligence.
That began with Abu Zubaydah's capture following a series of raids in which Kiriakou co-led a team of CIA officers, FBI agents, a Port Authority police officer named Tom McHale and Pakistani police, including a SWAT team.
And, in the case of Abu Zubayda, it ended with waterboarding.
"What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack," Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself."
The former intelligence officer says the interrogators' activities were carefully directed from Langley, Va., each step of the way.
"It wasn't up to individual interrogators to decide, 'Well, I'm gonna slap him.' Or, 'I'm going to shake him.' Or, 'I'm gonna make him stay up for 48 hours.'
"Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations," Kiriakou told ABC News.
"The cable traffic back and forth was extremely specific," he said. "And the bottom line was these were very unusual authorities that the agency got after 9/11. No one wanted to mess them up. No one wanted to get in trouble by going overboard. So it was extremely deliberate."
And it was always a last resort.
"That's why so few people were waterboarded. I think the agency has said that two people were waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah being one, and it's because you really wanted it to be a last resort because we didn't want these false confessions. We didn't want wild goose chases," Kiriakou said.
And they were faced with men like Abu Zubaydah, Kiriakou says, who held critical and timely intelligence.
"A former colleague of mine asked him during the conversation one day, 'What would you do if we decided to let you go one day?' And he said, 'I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on...It's nothing personal. You're a nice guy. But this is who I am.'"
In that context, at that time, Kiriakou says he felt waterboarding was something the United States needed to do.
"At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. And as time has passed, and as September 11th has, you know, has moved farther and farther back into history, I think I've changed my mind," he told ABC News.
Part of his decision appears to be an ethical one; another part, perhaps, simply pragmatic.
"I think we're chasing them all over the world. I think we've had a great deal of success chasing them...and, as a result, waterboarding, at least right now, is unnecessary," Kirikou said.
Brian Ross: "Did it compromise American principles? Or did it save American lives? Or both?"
John Kiriakou: "I think both. It may have compromised our principles at least in the short term. And I think it's good that we're having a national debate about this. We should be debating this, and Congress should be talking about it because, I think, as a country, we have to decide if this is something that we want to do as a matter of policy. I'm not saying now that we should, but, at the very least, we should be talking about it. It shouldn't be secret. It should be out there as part of the national debate."
A CIA spokesperson declined to specifically address Kiriakou's comments.
In a statement, the CIA reiterated its long standing position that "the United States does not conduct or condone torture. The CIA's terrorist interrogation effort has always been small, carefully run, lawful and highly productive."
(Editor's Note on Interview Transcripts: Material from this transcript may not be used without crediting ABC News in each instance of use. In all cases, use must be limited to 250 words or less without the explicit permission of ABC News.)
>link<
>John Kiriakou interview part 1<
|
i'm just not going to buy the "moral high ground" argument when faced with such "pillars of morality" that are being dealt with. this in particular.
this morally upstanding gentleman with a rap sheet longer than my arm was tried, convicted and SENTENCED TO DEATH in abstentia in Jordan 1999. he eluded capture until 2002 when he was picked up in a Pakistani safehouse.
this ass-munch was not only prepared to kill at random anybody that would get in his way, Arab, Muslim, Jew, Yank, whatever, he would probably have no problem dying in a firestorm of Semtex and propane canisters just to get his point across. forgive me if i don't lose sleep at night worrying about some water being put up his nose.
this useful idiot has served his purpose in life. time to give him to the Jordanians |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Bush.
Republican leaders.
And the Democratic leadership.
Interesting, ain't it? |
What's interesting is how dellusional a lot of people are in the face of this reality; a completey compromised and dysfunctional system. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Wow, you obviously didn't make the most of your visits. You went to Chicago and weren't impressed with the food? You certainly didn't order steak. |
Sorry, still on that tangent, I'm a little stunned - New York, for food? Seriously? At all price points, New York has excellent food. Of course, being the size that it is, there's tons of ty food, which is why it's essential to do your research. Is a Zagat really that pricey to find good food when on vacation? Or using Citysearch reviews? |
|
|
| Chryz707 |
Agreed this waste of life should be killed, but if they were going to kill him, dont make a big deal over it, who gives a , he's a terrorist, just kill him out in the desert where no one cares and forget him, the end, but no everyone has to make a federal case. if we didnt make any records and just killed him there wouldnt be anything to have a scandal over. it feed him to some pigs on a Farm in Canada. Let him goto Allah via the pig.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm just not going to buy the "moral high ground" argument when faced with such "pillars of morality" that are being dealt with. this in particular.
this morally upstanding gentleman with a rap sheet longer than my arm was tried, convicted and SENTENCED TO DEATH in abstentia in Jordan 1999. he eluded capture until 2002 when he was picked up in a Pakistani safehouse.
this ass-munch was not only prepared to kill at random anybody that would get in his way, Arab, Muslim, Jew, Yank, whatever, he would probably have no problem dying in a firestorm of Semtex and propane canisters just to get his point across. forgive me if i don't lose sleep at night worrying about some water being put up his nose.
this useful idiot has served his purpose in life. time to give him to the Jordanians |
|
|
|
|
|
