It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIA Official: No Proof Harsh Techniques Stopped Terror Attacks

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

CIA Official: No Proof Harsh Techniques Stopped Terror Attacks


www.truthout.org

Washington - The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.

The risks and effectiveness of w
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Torture is torture no matter what way you spin it. It is also illegal in both US and International law. Obama saying that he wont prosecute because of the fact that these crimes happened in the past is humorous. All crimes happened in the past and that's why we have to prove that they actually happened to get a conviction. He a damn puppet, bow to your master Barack.

www.truthout.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
What troubles me is the self-evident nature of the reality behind torture.

Torture simply serves to drives a human being to comply.

If they can find a way to satisfy their tormentor, they eventually will. Even if it means satisfying a tormentor's delusional fantasy about what constitutes the truth.

It can all be done chemically, without creating an insane requirement for 'dehumanization' of the "interrogator" and the "."

Perhaps our lust for justice blinds us to the truth that torture, in and of itself, is punitive, and should not constitute a tool of intelligence gathering. It is a crime under the circumstances.

Up until 2004 no imminent' attack was thwarted, and even the machinations of fantasy scenarios contrived by the establishment, fails to prove entirely persuasive.

g'nite people. Chin up.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I understand and accept the fact that torture is illegal.

But what if it has actually thwarted terroist attacks from taking place on American soil? If certain memos were released stating that would you feel differantly about the subject?

I know its a what if question, but I have thought about it and have come to the conclusion that if this is the case then I would have a hard time prosecuting those who ok'ed torture to be used. Especially if it had saved thousands or even one American life.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by iamjesusphish
 


Ellis Henican slam dunks Bill O'Reilly on this issue.



I have the biggest non-sexual crush on Ellis.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   


Even some of those in the military who developed the techniques warned that the information they produced was "less reliable" than that gained by traditional psychological measures, and that using them would produce an "intolerable public and political backlash when discovered," according to a Senate Armed Services Committee report released on Tuesday.


Even though torture is against the law...
Even though torture violates the constitution...
Even though torture is proven to be ineffective...

There will still be those who defend it, because they believe the lies they were told by the Bush administration.

There will still be those who defend it, because they believe that terrorists are watching them sleep at night, waiting to pounce at the first moment of weakness.

There will still be those who defend it, because they have no ability to put themselves in others' shoes, and empathize on the most basic of human levels.


Just wait and see, they will come, defending with what little honor they have these inhumane, disgraceful, disgusting acts of torture. They will say it's not torture, they will say it's to protect innocent lives, and they will say it's for the greater good. They will call us pussies, they will call us cowards, and they will call us un-American.

Why? Because some people never learn.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Of course torture doesn't provide useful information.

Any half-wit who can put themselves in others situations can comprehend such a basic concept as lying to make the torture stop.



Unfortunately, for the majority that can't comprehend a basic concept, those who initiated the torture are relying on one fact here...


...it's easier to start a lie, than it is to stop one.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I'll just throw this little line in since everyone on ATS likes to use it when they don't have proof.

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

Ahahahahaha.

Just because there is no proof that torture doesn't work, doesn't mean that it doesn't work!\

Bwahahahahaha.

Anyway, don't worry. Torture won't exist for long. Soon they'll be able to read peoples' minds.

Then you'll have something else to complain about.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I take it you believe in fairies then?

The Easter bunny?

Santa Claus?

The Chipucabra?

Trolls?

Leprechauns?

Angels?

Vampires?

Demons?



You must believe in all of the above if absence of evidence cannot possibly be used to argue absence itself....



Clearly, absence of evidence DOES argue absence itself.

Show me an example otherwise and I'll prove you wrong.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
reply to post by logician magician
 


I take it you believe in fairies then?

The Easter bunny?

Santa Claus?

The Chipucabra?

Trolls?

Leprechauns?

Angels?

Vampires?

Demons?

You must believe in all of the above if absence of evidence cannot possibly be used to argue absence itself....

Clearly, absence of evidence DOES argue absence itself.

Show me an example otherwise and I'll prove you wrong.


I own two exotic tarsiers. One is sleeping, and one is sitting on my desk watching me type, right now.

Prove me wrong.

edit: by the way, you obviously didn't pick up the tone of my original post, but whatever - we can play games.







[edit on 26-4-2009 by logician magician]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I am against torture unless it is proven the most effective means of interrogation, while defendants are PROVEN guilty. Neither appear to be true - however, didn't waterboarding save the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles?

www.rightpundits.com...

???







[edit on 26-4-2009 by alien]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamjesusphish


Torture is torture no matter what way you spin it. It is also illegal in both US and International law. Obama saying that he wont prosecute because of the fact that these crimes happened in the past is humorous. All crimes happened in the past and that's why we have to prove that they actually happened to get a conviction. He a damn puppet, bow to your master Barack.

www.truthout.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


Torture is NOT "Torture", "whatever way you spin it", as there are in fact lines which we do not cross. If you consider smacking someone, and pouring water on their head to be torture, then you have obviously lived a very sheltered life indeed. I myself have been through tougher aspects of a physical and mental nature, yet you do not hear me running around screaming of agony nor abuse. Only the weak minded, and those of pathetically degraded fortitude, are complaining about American "Torture", while completely ignoring what occurred eight years ago, and while utterly turning their backs upon the actions of our enemies.

If you and other such individuals care so much about "Torture", then why are none of you out in the streets protesting against the Public Beheadings courtesy of the Taliban? Where were you when we began planning the takedown of Saddam, and his Sons, who both reveled and lavished in absolutely barbaric physical abuses and extreme torturous fetishes? What of the Iraqi Insurgents who mutilated, burned, and then proceeded to hang the bodies of American Service Personnel? Need I mention the beheaded Americans at the hands of Al-Qaeda? You complain about our War Effort, yet you fail every single time to acknowledge the pure evil against which we have fought, and do currently fight.

You need to seriously work on setting your priorities straight.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
I understand and accept the fact that torture is illegal.

But what if it has actually thwarted terroist attacks from taking place on American soil? If certain memos were released stating that would you feel differantly about the subject?

I know its a what if question, but I have thought about it and have come to the conclusion that if this is the case then I would have a hard time prosecuting those who ok'ed torture to be used. Especially if it had saved thousands or even one American life.


No it's wrong, it's unethical. Attempting to do good by doing bad is wrong, it's like assassinating rich people and stealing their money to give to the poor.

However in extreme cases sometimes the end justifies the means. For example let's say an alien species implants a "planet bomb" into a 5-year old girl, and the aliens announce to our world that unless the girl's head is chopped off by midnight the bomb will go off shattering our planet into pieces. That's an awful and frightening scenerio but the correct choice would be to chop off the girl's head to allow our species to surive.

So is torture justifiable? No for several reasons. First of all there are other methods of extracting information, such as spying, It's not an easy job, but that's what our intelligence services are for. Second if we do as we say (we don't condone torture) it would help foster trust with other countries. Third while an attack on Los Angeles or any other state would be awful there are ways of averting the attack, even the 911 attacks could have been averted but Cheney told our jets to stand down.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join