Waterboarding thwarted attack on Los Angeles

Incredible, absolutely incredible...

After reading through the posts following the OP, I have something to say...


Is it any wonder freedom in the US is dead?



(Just watch, someone's probably going to reply to me with some misconception as to what freedom is.)

Freedom and security do not go hand in hand.

The day you realize that is the day you'll understand what happened to your country.



... go lock yourselves up, I'll throw the key away for you, you'll be much safer in cages.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by johnsky]

reply to post by Redpillblues


Very well said.

I hate the idea of torture, but I hate the idea of innocent people being killed even more.

I would rather that one evil person be tortured that that one or more innocent people be killed.

And to whoever said that physical abuse is torture and mental abuse is not...I cannot believe you said that.

Mental abuse can be every bit as bad as physical, and sometimes a lot worse.

reply to post by spellbound


Ah, but they're thinking of one man tortured, one event prevented.

A rather short sighted view I'm afraid.


How many innocent people have to be tortured until they find someone who knows something useful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?

How many innocent people have to lose years of their life, their freedom, dignity, rights, and in some cases, their life itself... until ONE man finally has something useful to say?


Lets gather up the entire civilian populace of the United States... form nice neat lines, and torture every last man, woman and child...

... eventually someone's going to say something useful.



Ends justify the means?

Not when the means go against everything that made your life worth something.

Liberty or death.
Freedom and Security have never fit together.

I think as we see more documents being released the more hysterical the howls of outrage from the CIA's bought and paid for allies in the MSM and former Bush Administration officials will be.It's not like W.and Cheney will really be charged with anything,because in the end it's all a game folks and if anybody is actually brought to trail it will be low level people or at most maybe Alberto Gonzales but I am not holding my breath.

[edit on 033030p://4126 by mike dangerously]

Originally posted by mike dangerously
.... if anybody is actually brought to trail it will be low level people or at most maybe Alberto Gonzales but I am not holding my breath.

[edit on 033030p://4126 by mike dangerously]

And the lowest level people in the chain would be the torturers themselves right?

I'd settle for the torturers being put in jail after given their jury trial. It would act as a deterrent for the rest of the 'low level people'.

Once the precedent was set and the ball got rolling, the people's prosecutors could starting working their way up that chain of torturers.

Heck, I could probably disclose the location of Santa Claus if I was being tortured and knew it would end the suffering.

See, when you are under torture you will agree to anything in order for the process to stop.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by guppy
reply to post by platosallegory

 

Amen. People kick and scream for the torture test no matter how many lives it saves. But if an attack occurs, they will kick and scream why intelligence agencies couldn't stop the attack. What a pack of morons.

This reminds me of Jimmy Carter. The idiot. He did the worse thing ever during his presidency to the intelligence community. Carter passed a bill that requires intelligence agencies have every "asset" pass a background check.

How stupid is that?

I am curious. You mention people wanting the torture techniques to be tested. If you think this torture is ok, would you be willing to submit yourself to this torture test? I bet you wouldnt.

I bet you wouldnt because deep down you know, what good torture does. I bet you wouldnt because you know that torture more often produces a person willing to say ANYTHING just to get them to stop torturing them.

I bet you wouldnt. I wouldnt either because I do understand that torture just doesnt work. It often produces people who will just say anything their captors want to hear, whether it be true or not.

besides, why would you trust what the tortures say anyway? They are essentially saying, yes we tortured them, but I swear it was for good reasons...

That is like when Charles Manson says, "I didnt kill anyone, my people did"

Just give me a break. Torture does more harm than good, and it IS used as a recruting tool for groups such as alquida. They see the stories and say hey I want to stop this torturing machine that is the US and then they strap a bomb to their chest.

Even If this torture stopped one guy, I garuntee you that is a one in a million thing. It has doen more harm than good. and you know it.

So, would you submit yourself to be tortured to see just how effective it really is? If not, why not. And don't say something like "Because I am not a terrorist" because that is NOT what I am asking... Answer the question it is a simple one.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

Why do people incesently compare normal U.S. citizens to terrorist? I belive it is a product of the public/collegate school systems filled with agenda driven professors and teachers, endoctranating our youth. Gimme...why don't you go do hard time in maximum security prison and see if it's humane? Just because you never murdered anyone isn't a valid excuse. This thought process is dangerous and immature, and I pray to God this isn't what our (tax supproted) shcool systems our churning out....I say if you have the right intel and there is life saving informaiton to be extracted from these sobs than go get it.

How can we believe this?

What if they're telling lies? Like they were about WMDs.

Originally posted by peponastick
This thought process is dangerous and immature, and I pray to God this isn't what our (tax supproted) shcool systems our churning out....I say if you have the right intel and there is life saving informaiton to be extracted from these sobs than go get it.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights should always be observed.

So too should the Geneva conventions.

I wouldn't torture anyone.

Would you torture someone? under what circumstances?

Would the Founding Fathers condone what you condone?

Los Angeles no big loss they would kill more illegals then Americans.

they could have San Francisco to for all i care.

OK read the thread and no one mentioned this;If info is so damn important,why the hell were all those translators fired?For gayness?Or to provide an excuse?Same with Sybil Sheppard.Anyone remember what Valerie Plame really did?Before she and her network were blown out of the water by traitors?Talk about screwing the pooch Rummie!Twice even!She was investigating suitcase nuke networks.

The problem with torture in general besides the moral issues is that people will admit to crimes they did not commit. At a certain point, you just want it to stop and will say whatever the person using "enhanced interrogation techniques" wants to hear.

reply to post by Exuberant1



Geneva coventions don't apply to terrorist that don't have a rank and serial number. I'm tired of these people treating terrorists as if they are civilized. Remember they are cutting off peoples heads in front of video cameras, so they can have their 47 virgins....wake up!

Just how many times did the last administration lie to us? Of course there going to tell use there illegal methods were successful, it's the only way of justifying there actions.

Im mean really would any of us by a car from any of these people?

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Exuberant1

The Constitution and Bill of Rights should always be observed.

So too should the Geneva conventions.

I wouldn't torture anyone.

Would you torture someone? under what circumstances?

Would the Founding Fathers condone what you condone?

Guess what George Washington did to suspected spies during the Revolutionary War? He hung them promptly on the battlefield!

So imagining what the founding fathers would do in defense of this country should not even be an issue.

Originally posted by jd140
Torture can be an effictive tool if used properly.

For example.

If we have in our custody someone who is known with 100% certaintly that he has info that could save lives and he will not talk. Then yes resorting to waterboarding or other pyscological torture should be used. If we know the gist of what is going on then the info given can be compared to our intelligance and we could know if he is giving accurate info or not. Kind of like at a crime scene. The police release info on a crime, but hold a few important details back so that any info given to them can be screened to see if the info is valid.

I would argue that this could never happen. Unless you are an omnipotent Godhead, you are unable to know with 100% accuracy if someone "knows something" and odds are that if you do you don't need to torture them to extract information because, as predicted by the logic of the argument, you ALREADY KNOW with 100% certainty that something is happening. Hence you already know what that thing is? So what is the point of the torture again?

To RRConservative. You said in a post that this conduct was not torture but "enhanced interrogation" techniques. I hate to break ti to you but even in SERE training it is considered torture. Only an Orwellian twist of verbiage gives you enhanced interrogation techniques; which for the record, is EXACTLY what the Nazi's called their torture "Verschaerfte Vernehmung" translated into enhanched interrogation techniques. Last I read, we hanged these guys at Nuremberg for their crimes. (Which were obviously worst than what we are dealing with here, but call this what it is and don't hide behind eloquent locution).

As for this whole thread... it is demonstrably false!
Never happened!
IS A LIE, even!

Since the leader of the cell was captured in 2002 and the plot was disrupted and broken up in late 2002. BUT KSM was captured in... oh... MARCH 2003.

Edited to add an article from the LA Times regarding this issue written in 2005

So, saying that waterboarding him 183 times extracted this information needed to foil the LA tower plot is a provably blatant lie.

BTW: I used President Bush's own White House news releases to nail this down.

Obs out

[edit on 22-4-2009 by observer]

I don't get the need for waterboarding and all these other sadistic torture techniques.

It should be simple and straight forward.
If they don't co operate and talk they don't get fed.

A meal in exchange for information.

If they are aware of this rule, then its their choice.

I'd like the people who are against any form of coersion to please state to us what technique they would use to get a terrorist to spill the info?

If not starving the info out of them , Offer them a million bucks maybe?
That seems more humane.

Suggestions please...

Originally posted by Flighty
I

I'd like the people who are against any form of coersion to please state to us what technique they would use to get a terrorist to spill the info?

Considering they have a right to remain silent; I would ask them.

I would offer them the chance to make a plea bargain.

Then they would get their jury trial for the crime they are being charged with.

*Basically, they would be treated as an American citizen would have been 10 years ago.

reply to post by Flighty


Here here I got one

From the oped: Written, by the way, by military interrogators.

The most effective strategies for relationship building are the kind that interrogators used to extract critical information from high-level Japanese and German prisoners during World War II. Interrogators who were familiar with the detainees’ language and culture, and who exhaustively studied each prisoner’s case, used charisma and empathy to patiently elicit vital intelligence. Similarly, it was a relationship-building approach that we used to persuade a detainee to give us information on the whereabouts of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia — information that led to his being located and killed in 2006.

But you know why we did not do this much under Bush? I don't either. My guess? Too hard! It's kind of academic and boring to do it right. It also does not fit well within Cheney's idea that he was at the forefront saving the world from evildoers!

Obs out



[edit on 22-4-2009 by observer]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Considering they have a right to remain silent; I would ask them.

I would offer them the chance to make a plea bargain.

Then they would get their jury trial for the crime they are being charged with.

*Basically, they would be treated as an American citizen would have been 10 years ago.

According to the last administration, they don't have any rights. They think they can hold them forever without trial or representation. And thats why they are being tortured, and thats why they are telling us the torture was successful because the don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Saddam Hussein Tortured people and so did Bush, so what does that make us?