|
Confirmed: "torture" saved L.A. from 9/11 style attack (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You missed the point on my mainstream media comment. I was trying to illustrate that they would be the first ones to go ape over such a discrepency, and yet we hear about it from who... Olbermann? What kind of security clearance does he have? Sorry but I'm more open to listening to the CIA's report about the May 30th, 2005 Justice Department memo clearly stating that enhanced interrogation including waterboarding to KSM lead to info that helped prevent an attack on L.A. |
Please kindly re-read my first post:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=9
There I gave specific information from this website from the DOJ memos:
http://documents.nytimes.com/justic...techniques#p=94
To which this is the money quote:
| quote: | | You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the "Second Wave," "to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into" a building in Los Angeles. |
And as Tim Noah from Slate outlines exactly what I and Clovis describe:
| quote: | In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/ |
To which he gives SPECIFIC sources that you yourself can examine in full. And he follows by asking exactly what I ask you:
| quote: | | How could Sheikh Mohammed's water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration "broke up" that attack during the previous year? |
So stop playing ing dumb and answer this simple question - how can one's confession foil a terrorist attack the year before a so-called confession was given?
| quote: | | Do you know that they weren't talking about a different attack plan than the one foiled in 2002? Do you sit in on the CIA briefings each morning? |
Do you, CNS, Limbaugh, or anyone else have specific knowledge of any other plot? Because as far as anyone knows, this is exactly the one to which even the Bush Administration itself was depicting that was foiled. If you have knowledge otherwise, present it. Otherwise the conclusion of this being the specific event simply follows all the evidence given.
| quote: | | Why do you see it so black and white? |
Because ratification of an international treaty by our Constitutional laws couldn't be more clearer, or "black and white" as you say.
Jesus, and I thought it was you Conservatives who play the "strict constructionists" role.
| quote: | | Do you understand that the techniques used were legally agreed upon and signed off by congress... the same congress that is also made up of Democrats? |
And if any Democrat signed off on it and went along with it, my anger is equally shared towards them. And I hope they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law along with anyone else in the Bush Administration.
| quote: | | Don't give me that Geneva Conventions bull either. |
Yeah, that should be tatooed on your ing forehead.
| quote: | | If you want to follow it to the letter, then you need to also accept the fact that the people we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't wear uniforms, and were not "soldiers". |
Sorry, the Hamdan decision by SCOTUS in 2006, which upheld Common Law Article 3 completely disagrees with your bull assessment. to which I printed earlier:
| quote: | Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hamdan...-and-huge-news/ |
My, you're right, you don't read a ing thing I say to you. Thanks for proving yourself correct.
| quote: | | In fact, calling them that is an insult to actual soldiers. |
Tell that to SCOTUS and the law of our ing land, .
| quote: | | Extending them the respect and consideration due to soldiers serving under an actual flag makes a mockery of the honor true soldiers demonstrate to each other in a time of war. Technically, none of what's outlined in the Geneva Conventions applies to lawless barbarians who hide among civilians and target whoever doesn't believe in their ed up version of Islamic law. A civilized nation is only compromising itself by treating them as true "soldiers". |
See above, .
| quote: | | But you gotta love the Left.... Waterboarding = heinous torture and completely immoral. Pulling a baby's head out of mother and sucking its brain out with long needle = acceptable alternative to contraception. |
Seriously, here's a big " off douchebag" from me to you. Equating torturing people, some of them actually innocent (not KSM) to a woman's right to choose what she will and won't do with her body, including aborting a fetus? I'm not even very much in the pro-choice camp, but your argument is beyond despicable.
| quote: | | Well, thank god we have in you a truly knowledgable source of intelligence analysis to question the FBI's reporting. How are you able to do all that while living in your mom's basement? |
I challenge you to actually read my ing posts, twat, since I gave specific documentation that completely discredits your original story from CNS, including documentation from the DoJ.
| quote: | | I would love to see your reaction if you had a captured friend or family member being broadcast on TV, with a machette to their neck making demands. See how quickly you'd be down with waterboarding if you knew doing it to someone in their group would lead to the location your friend/family member is being held. You can bloviate all you want about the morals and the principles and the Geneva Conventions... you're conveniently insulated from the reality of war and are nothing more than a political armchair quarterback. I'll leave you with this quote from NY Rep. Peter King: |
You don't know how many times I've heard this stupid, 24ish, asinine hypothetical scenario. Unless you know of specific instances that this scenario applies, it is nothing beyond asinine and hypothetical. Speaking of which, here's something else for you to munch on, son:
| quote: | The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."
"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews |
The people that help create SERE tells us that torture via waterboarding will produce "unreliable information". You got that champ? Considering we borrowed this waterboarding from Chinese Communists to which they used it to get false confessions from our POWs, that kinda sorta ing makes sense, doesn't it champ?
And on that same note, do you think torture via waterboarding someone 183 times a month an effective means of gaining intelligence now? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Instant nominee for Top 5 PDD posts of all-time.
pwned. |
|
|
| Clovis |
He can't agree or respond because of adherence to ideology.
At best we'll get attempts to re-frame the issue or steer towards a different subject, as posted above. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So stop playing ing dumb and answer this simple question - how can one's confession foil a terrorist attack the year before a so-called confession was given? |
youre barking up the wrong tree. (or the right tree if we had full discosure but b/c of Obama politization of National Security, we don't. trademark HopeyChangey.:rolleyes: )
the media on both sides have missed some of the context here about some of what exactly KSM provided including the "second wave" plot. understadably, because not everything has been disclosed. you just have to read for yourself and draw your own conclusions until we get full disclosure
you have to go >HERE< to at least try to make sense of context. start at the top of p.10. but you cant' get far b/c the entire next page is redacted. i would guess it further builds upon the successes gained from KSM and Zubaydah, but i can only speculate.
just lay off 17sss for now. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Instant nominee for Top 5 PDD posts of all-time.
pwned. |
stfu |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Jesus, and I thought it was you Conservatives who play the "strict constructionists" role. |
we just don't equate our Constitution as easily you people seem to like doing at the drop of a hat.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And on that same note, do you think torture via waterboarding someone 183 times a month an effective means of gaining intelligence now? |
another false meme, but it's understandable b/c no one is familiar with the procedure. and yes, things get very, very specific when resorting to waterboarding. everything is monitored by third party professionals including psychologists and medical personel.
first, KSM wasn't waterboarded 180 odd times in a month. the 183 times means 183 pours of water or instances during session when water is applied to the bird.
you see things get very strict here and you can't just go pouring water on birds willy-nilly. every pour is counted and the amount of water that can be used each session is limited. in fact, you're limited to how long each "pour" can last which to count as a pour must be longer than 10 seconds but be no longer than 40 seconds for each pour. you are only allowed 6 pours per session in which no session can last longer than 2 hours. in total, water can be poured on the bird for no longer than a combined 12 minutes throughout a 24hr. period.
in addition to that, birds were limited to only 5 sessions for every 30 days. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Sorry, the Hamdan decision by SCOTUS in 2006, which upheld Common Law Article 3 completely disagrees with your bull assessment. to which I printed earlier: |
hold on a second chief. i know your not going to apply Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ex post facto, are ya?
....yeah, i thought so. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The people that help create SERE tells us that torture via waterboarding will produce "unreliable information". |
i'm sure it could - but thats not to say it doesn't produce reliable information...and thats also to say that any form of interogation can "produce unreliable information"...which is to ultimately say nothing at all, really in your rejection of certain interrogation tactics.
to add to that, part of S.E.R.E. training is teaching soldiers and airmen how to give false information to thier captors. professionals assume that goes for any type of captive resistance training, foriegn or domestic from Hamas, Hezbollah, S.A.S., Revolutionary Guard, Spetsnaz, Al Queera, Kampfshwimmer, even Canadian Special Forces.
intelligence information does not exist in a vacuum. you cross reference and corroberate everything you have and you go from there. it's simple investigation 101...but with caterpillars |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
First of all, the supreme court ruled otherwise. |
BUT WHEN THOUGH!!!!!!!. answer this question first before you go typing some more.
| quote: | | Second, who and how is it determined that someone is a "lawless barbarian who hides among civilians"? |
in theater Rules of Engagement.
| quote: | | I don't see why we should not have an identical or similar system to separate terrorists from innocents during a time of war. |
WITHOUT ANY PRECEDENT TO FOLLOW, mind you, Bush in 2002 tried to answer your question with military tribunals. his administration was taken to court and his military tribunals were rejected...
...per SCOTUS instruction, Bush then went to Congress for a resulution to your question. CONGRESS, not Bush, wrote and passed the MCA 2006. which again was rejected by the SCOTUS through Boumendiene.
we are left with what we have today because the liberals on the court INVENTED rights that this country has NEVER given to alien combatants during a time of war. NEVER.
thats where we are with your question. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
youre barking up the wrong tree. (or the right tree if we had full discosure but b/c of Obama politization of National Security, we don't. trademark HopeyChangey.:rolleyes: ) |
Are you making the claim that Obama is abusing FOIA? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Are you making the claim that Obama is abusing FOIA? |
I can't really say that can I? The memos are what they are. There can be valid reasons for the peculiar redactions but as far as I'm concerned theres more than enough context in the sum of all of them to get an honest understanding of what was going on in the mnths after 9/11 regardless where you stand on interrogations.
I guess I'm just projecting my disgust with Donks in Congress onto something Obumble has no backbone to control. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
If you believe that information is being withheld for political reasons, you're welcome to file an MDR appeal to have the information declassified. It's a pretty stream-lined process.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/guide.html
I don't see how Congress comes into this though - your disgust with them for politicizing the national security process really has no bearing on the discussion of these particular declassified documents, as they merely requested them and didn't redact anything. That would have been the Agency itself redacting information to comply with one of the nine exemptions listed under FOIA:
Exemption (b)(1) - National Security Information
Exemption (b)(2) - Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
- "High" (b)(2) - Substantial internal matters, disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement
- "Low" (b)(2) - Internal matters that are essentially trivial in nature.
Exemption (b)(3) - Information exempt under other laws
Exemption (b)(4) - Confidential Business Information
Exemption (b)(5) - Inter or intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process, litigation, and other privileges
Exemption (b)(6) - Personal Privacy
Exemption (b)(7) - Law Enforcement Records that implicate one of 6 enumerated concerns
Exemption (b)(8) - Financial Institutions
Exemption (b)(9) - Geological Information |
|
|
|
|
