|
Confirmed: "torture" saved L.A. from 9/11 style attack (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Atmos
I'm sure none of you would feel the same way if it was you who lost a loved one on 9/11. We can't always be the morale example for the world. As a country we have to put or citizens first. |
americans have lost all perspective regarding terrorism due to 911. Im sure the world would be really pleased if the US' activities overseas had only killed 3000 people that's for sure.
And the whole point of policy is that it is formed by people who aren't using their personal issues like losing a loved one to conceptualise said policy.
and since when has the US been the morale (sic) example for the world? lol. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't know, maybe. how could that not elicit emotion, really?
i read something somewhere today - do you think that guy cared whether or not we frightened some people, didn't mame them didnt permanently disfigure them, in an honest effort to prevent his situation from happening to someone else? |
Maybe he did. He probably didn't. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Maybe he did. He probably didn't. |
umm no. prior to taking the leap he most likely sat at his office window trying to process what the had just happened quickly followed by thoughts of someone he'd miss in a few seconds
he wasnt given the goddamn chance to examine the intricacies of the legal framework involving the interogation of non-state acting mass murderers.
the question falls on us as how to avoid having more Americans being put in the same situation AGAIN. because it can happen again and it can be entirely avoided
, you people are stupid |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the question falls on us as how to avoid having more Americans being put in the same situation AGAIN. because it can happen again and it can be entirely avoided
, you people are stupid |
That's life. I don’t see why you should have to undermine your own principles by engaging in activities such as torture. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
That's life. |
ok fine. lets hear our president say that because thats essentially the position he's taken regarding what he is willing to do and not do with people his Justice Dept. and his intelligence agencies will no doubt capture and deal with on his watch.
however, it must be noted, ANYTHING our President says comes with conditions only he knows will affect his subsequent decisions. you have to expect this with this guy from now on. if you don't know this by now you haven't been paying attention to him.
| quote: | | what I don’t see why you should have to undermine your own principles by engaging in activities such as torture. |
"Law provides guidance for the human condition in all its endless variety. As such, it always accounts for context. It is a favorite talking point of leftists and libertarian extremists that heightened security measures “suspend” the Constitution even though a crisis is when the Constitution is most needed. Never has anything so vapid been repeated with such indignation. The Constitution is never suspended. It anticipates war and peace, insurrection and domestic tranquility, and prescribes adjustments for different conditions. Free speech is guaranteed but treason is proscribed. Privacy is guaranteed but searches are authorized. Liberty is guaranteed but imprisonment is permitted. Life is guaranteed but the death penalty is permitted.
“The great ordinances of the Constitution,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. instructed, “do not establish and divide fields of black and white.” Everything is contingent. In peacetime, the rule of law is what the statutes prescribe and the courts ensure. But the Framers also knew it would not always be peacetime. That is why, Holmes elsewhere wrote, “when it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.” Executive process doesn’t suspend the Constitution any more than Congress would be suspending the Constitution if it suspended habeas corpus. Rather, executive, legislative, and judicial processes are all parts of the Constitution, their roles waxing and waning based on “the necessities of the moment.” |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
however, it must be noted, ANYTHING our President says comes with conditions only he knows will affect his subsequent decisions. you have to expect this with this guy from now on. if you don't know this by now you haven't been paying attention to him. |
im not sure i follow. |
|
|
| BARS-N-STARS |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not sure i follow. |
If he declares war it means war. Official. If he says Nov. 5 is cheeseburger day its official. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not sure i follow. |
it was a disclaimer to the paragragh above it.
our President has expiration dates and conditions on just about every policy statement, foreign and domestic, he makes. he says he won't use the tactics used by the previous administrations but push come to shove, he WILL put a guy in a box with a caterpillar. believe it.
...and unlike Bush, he won't have to ask his Justice Dept. to ask lawyers at the CIA if it's legal or not. nor will any future president because Bush did it for them.
EDIT> apparently I've been misspelling caterpillar since like the beginning of time |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
umm no. prior to taking the leap he most likely sat at his office window trying to process what the had just happened quickly followed by thoughts of someone he'd miss in a few seconds
he wasnt given the goddamn chance to examine the intricacies of the legal framework involving the interogation of non-state acting mass murderers.
the question falls on us as how to avoid having more Americans being put in the same situation AGAIN. because it can happen again and it can be entirely avoided
, you people are stupid |
So let's use the emotional impact of 3000 American deaths to make the point that torture may or may not have saved lives, while ignoring the fact that torture probably led to the loss of 3000 other American lives.
Seems like valid logic to me.
| quote: | Report: Abusive tactics were used to find Iraq-al Qaida link
Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: April 21, 2009 10:34:01 PM
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush's quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who advocated the use of sleep deprivation, isolation and stress positions and waterboarding, which simulates drowning, insist that they were legal.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that intelligence agencies and interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubeida at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.
"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
Excerpts from Burney's interview appeared in a full, declassified report on a two-year investigation into detainee abuse released on Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., called Burney's statement "very significant."
"I think it's obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq)," Levin said in a conference call with reporters. "They made out links where they didn't exist."
Levin recalled Cheney's assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The FBI and CIA determined that no such meeting occurred.
A senior Guantanamo Bay interrogator, David Becker, told the committee that only "a couple of nebulous links" between al Qaida and Iraq were uncovered during interrogations of unidentified detainees, the report said.
Others in the interrogation operation "agreed there was pressure to produce intelligence, but said they didn't recall pressure to identify links between Iraq and al Qaida," the report said.
The report, the executive summary of which was released in November, found that Rumsfeld, former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other former senior Bush administration officials were responsible for the abusive interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld approved extreme interrogation techniques for Guantanamo in December 2002. He withdrew his authorization the following month amid protests by senior military lawyers that some techniques could amount to torture, violating U.S. and international laws.
Military interrogator, however, continued to employ some techniques in Afghanistan and later in Iraq.
Bush and his top lieutenants charged that Saddam was secretly pursuing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in defiance of a United Nations ban, and had to be overthrown because he might provide them to al Qaida for an attack on the U.S. or its allies. |
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| so much good came out of the torture of Sayid Qutb. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
So let's use the emotional impact of 3000 American deaths to make the point that torture may or may not have saved lives, while ignoring the fact that torture probably led to the loss of 3000 other American lives. |
first it's a weak, shallow and intellectually dishonest argument being made corrolating the deaths of New Yorkers at their place of employment on a beautiful monday morning with the deaths of American servicemen dying in the line of their sworn duty.
| quote: | | Seems like valid logic to me. |
i'm soooo not doubting that:haha:
second, whoever wrote that crap is, like yourself, making some huge intuitive leaps not confirmed by anyone or anything other than an anonymous former Army psychiatrist.
i don't doubt we were looking for connections to Iraq/911 at one time or another but the leap you are making here suggest thats the only reason we waterboarded KSM and Zubaydah. thats absurd in the face of court documents from their trials and de-classified memo's accounting their time spent since their capture. IT STATES RIGHT IN YOUR ARTICLE - "The main reason is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11)." the speculation about whatever the secondary reason for waterboarding begins shortly after that. again it's unsubstantiated speculation as to why prisoners were made to stand against a wall or have a woman search their cell or have military dogs present while questioning. none of that adds up to the weak accusation youre trying to make about dead soldiers in Iraq.
and all this time i thought it was your assumption that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a preventative war?
i also suggest you read the two links underneath that article from the Senate Armed Services Committee investigating the interrogation program. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't know, maybe. how could that not elicit emotion, really?
i read something somewhere today - do you think that guy cared whether or not we frightened some people, didn't mame them didnt permanently disfigure them, in an honest effort to prevent his situation from happening to someone else? |
Well that's not an unfair question, I suppose.
And I wouldn't be opposed at all to interrogating the men who flew the plane if, well, ya know...
But to address your question - no, I do not think that man would have minded if we'd tortured or even maimed others if it would have saved his life. But don't you call this honest at all. Most people would probably sacrifice an orphanage full of invalids if it'd save their own skin, much less what are probably perceived to be dirty, Bedouin extremists in a far off land all the more obfuscated by western pronounciation. Too bad real life doesn't actually present such black-and-white opportunities - only in patriot-land does this exist, where we are free to torture and kill everybody who is unlike ourselves or at least does not fall under the same citizenship records.
We aren't saving lives nor protecting anybody. We're back-alley thugs who rough up foreigners and call it 'freedom'. You can believe it and justify it any way that you like, but do not call these 'honest dealings'; because whether they save lives or not, you cannot deny that the US is sacrificing non-citizens in favour of its own, and if that can be called peacemaking, then we may as well sacrifice the rest of the world as well.
But Luciferianism is alright, too, I just don't think that most people have the stomach for it. |
|
|
|
|
