• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Boo Radley said:
It doesn't do that. Both it and the Washington post story, if you look it, say this was claimed, not supported. If you look, you will find that we knew aboutt he second wave before KSm, so his telling us was not new intel, not something we didn't get another way. What they are refering to was tharted before KSM was even captured.

. . . 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." that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

The Washington Monthly

You might also read this:

If the detainee doesn't immediately respond by giving information, for example he asks: "what do you want to know?" the interviewer will reply: "you know," and walk out of the interrogation room. Then the next step on the force continuum is introduced, for example sleep deprivation, and the process will continue until the detainee's will is broken and he automatically gives up all information he is presumed to know.
There are many problems with this technique.

A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example.
This is why, as we see from the recently released Department of Justice memos on interrogation, the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods, until they reached waterboarding and then there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again. Abu Zubaydah had to be waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. In a democracy there is a glass ceiling of harsh techniques the interrogator cannot breach, and a detainee can eventually call the interrogator's bluff.

In addition the harsh techniques only serves to reinforce what the detainee has been prepared to expect if captured. This gives him a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.

A second major problem with this technique is that evidence gained from it is unreliable. There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. This unfortunately has happened and we have had problems ranging from agents chasing false leads to the disastrous case of Ibn Sheikh al-Libby who gave false information on Iraq, al Qaeda, and WMD.

Testimony


Washington Post Hires Cheneyite Marc Thiessen
Click to expand...

Don't miss this conservative.
 
Grant said:
I included "perhaps".

If the poster is against Islamic terrorism then it is easily resolved.

I'm against shariah law, and Islamic crusades against children, women, Gays, and non Musims.

What about you?
Click to expand...
What about me? Well, I'm pretty sure none of my relatives are Somali pirates. I won't know for certain until the results of my genealogical DNA test come back, though.
 
Conservative said:
I don't get it, what is it about liberalism that prevents them from admitting when wrong and running from the tough questions. Liberals feel and don't seem to think.
Click to expand...

Considering the polls in Britain which suggest a great many Muslims have at least some sympathy for terrorism, it seems clear that those who do also have loved ones. I''m sure those young Muslims who committed 9/11 had loving families. We have a loving family of Muslim terrorists in Canada.
 
Coronado said:
What about me? Well, I'm pretty sure none of my relatives are Somali pirates. I won't know for certain until the results of my genealogical DNA test come back, though.
Click to expand...

Ah. so it's on to DNA tests and Somalian pirates now.

Can you read to the end of this sentence without forgetting what the first part said?
 
Grant said:
Ah. so it's on to DNA tests and Somalian pirates now.

Can you read to the end of this sentence without forgetting what the first part said?
Click to expand...
I'm just taking the Conservative approach at responding to posts. And nectarines are better than peaches because you don't have to shave them first.
 
I was going to likewise suggest, again, in response to Erod, that with the cases of Lincoln, of Jefferson, and so forth, the matter is always far from settled. Just think about how Lincoln could be viewed by Southern Historians around the time after reconstruction ended? A significant change happened there. The change could still significantly end if we thought his control of the Union during the war was extreme and at contrary to our political morals, as a great many Libertarians brought up. With Jefferson, I can't tell you how many times I have walked around discussing Jefferson with people who will be teaching our young people, and having them respond with 1) "Says the man who owned slaves" 2) "Says the man who slept with his slave". There is a significant amount of contempt for Jefferson because of his relationship to slavery and the high likelihood that it was he who fathered a child from Sally Hemmings (though we have no means of identifying exactly that he was the father of said child).
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Don't miss this conservative.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the Washington Post article? How do you know that your source is more credible than others? At this point does it really matter? You have so much invested in your hatred of GW Bush that anything that flies in the face of your own opinions or those of others that for some reason you want to believe you ignore.
 
Conservative said:
Did you miss the Washington Post article? How do you know that your source is more credible than others? At this point does it really matter? You have so much invested in your hatred of GW Bush that anything that flies in the face of your own opinions or those of others that for some reason you want to believe you ignore.
Click to expand...

I did't miss. I read it. It's a claim. The timeline is a fact. It was not possible for KSM to have stoped that threat.
 
Fiddytree said:
I was going to likewise suggest, again, in response to Erod, that with the cases of Lincoln, of Jefferson, and so forth, the matter is always far from settled. Just think about how Lincoln could be viewed by Southern Historians around the time after reconstruction ended? A significant change happened there. The change could still significantly end if we thought his control of the Union during the war was extreme and at contrary to our political morals, as a great many Libertarians brought up. With Jefferson, I can't tell you how many times I have walked around discussing Jefferson with people who will be teaching our young people, and having them respond with 1) "Says the man who owned slaves" 2) "Says the man who slept with his slave". There is a significant amount of contempt for Jefferson because of his relationship to slavery and the high likelihood that it was he who fathered a child from Sally Hemmings (though we have no means of identifying exactly that he was the father of said child).
Click to expand...

I certainly don't suggest that all of the controversy just falls away. I'm saying that the overly partisan vitriole, which only serves political purpose for that specific time, falls away in time, and a more level-headed, honest criticism takes its place.

Today, you can't have an honest debate about President Bush.
 
Boo Radley said:
I did't miss. I read it. It's a claim. The timeline is a fact. It was not possible for KSM to have stoped that threat.
Click to expand...

And yours are just claims as well. The CIA stands by their statements which obviously are trumped by unnamed sources in the NY Times in your world.
 
Erod said:
I certainly don't suggest that all of the controversy just falls away. I'm saying that the overly partisan vitriole, which only serves political purpose for that specific time, falls away in time, and a more level-headed, honest criticism takes its place.

Today, you can't have an honest debate about President Bush.
Click to expand...

And I would agree that being overly vitriole has made discussion a bit more difficult. However, I saw your confidence as perhaps...perhaps, indicative of your political philosophy and that the statement that "he will be" "by history" as too presumptive. For relatively recent perspective, much of our analysis of Presidents in the past century has continued to show a gray area instead of a declarative statement. Now, this is not to say that perhaps even more time is needed than 100 years, as I explained earlier, but that my explicit background knowledge is in how other historians and the masses view Presidents of this past century. There are some men who just do not escape the initial judgement.
 
Fiddytree said:
And I would agree that being overly vitriole has made discussion a bit more difficult. However, I saw your confidence as perhaps...perhaps, indicative of your political philosophy and that the statement that "he will be" "by history" as too presumptive. For relatively recent perspective, much of our analysis of Presidents in the past century has continued to show a gray area instead of a declarative statement. Now, this is not to say that perhaps even more time is needed than 100 years, as I explained earlier, but that my explicit background knowledge is in how other historians and the masses view Presidents of this past century. There are some men who just do not escape the initial judgement.
Click to expand...

All true, although I don't see how Bush could be more unfairly treated by today's liberal scholars and media.

He will be debated in the future, no doubt, but in a much more honest way.

FDR is still hotly debated: Liberals see him as the founder of their political religion, while conservatives see him as the father of American socialism and welfare entitlements. Liberals think he ended the Great Depression with the New Deal, while conservatives say it only lengthened the Depression and created a government-dependent citizenry, while it took WWII and the fall of Europe as the financial mecca to end our economic collapse.

Bush will get a fair shake one day.
 
Conservative said:
And yours are just claims as well. The CIA stands by their statements which obviously are trumped by unnamed sources in the NY Times in your world.
Click to expand...

Standing by them is not enough. They have to deal with the factual information. It isn't possible because of the timeline. Your willingness to believe is not equal to truth.
 
Boo Radley said:
Standing by them is not enough. They have to deal with the factual information. It isn't possible because of the timeline. Your willingness to believe is not equal to truth.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out liberals all over the country demonized Bush for not preventing 9/11 including you and now when there is evidence that shows other 9/11's were prevented you ignore it and continue to demonize Bush for what you believe was torture. Lawyer's believed waterboarding was legal and regardless of the argument you or I make lives were saved by President Bush's efforts. That is good enough for me.
 
Conservative said:
Lawyer's believed waterboarding was legal and regardless of the argument you or I make lives were saved by President Bush's efforts. That is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Well hey, if lawyer's [sic] believed it was legal, I guess that makes it so! :roll:
 
Coronado said:
Well hey, if lawyer's [sic] believed it was legal, I guess that makes it so! :roll:
Click to expand...

yep, when working I always listened to my lawyers for if I didn't why did I pay them? If GW Bush did something illegal, Democrats controlled the Congress from 2007-2008, why didn't they bring Impeachment charges? The answer is quite obvious, they wanted the issue and knew that he didn't do anything wrong and couldn't get a conviction.
 
Conservative said:
yep, when working I always listened to my lawyers for if I didn't why did I pay them? If GW Bush did something illegal, Democrats controlled the Congress from 2007-2008, why didn't they bring Impeachment charges? The answer is quite obvious, they wanted the issue and knew that he didn't do anything wrong and couldn't get a conviction.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Argument from ignorance. Google it.
 
Conservative said:
Typical non response to what I posted as you have no answer. Why didn't Congress Impeach Bush?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought it would go right over your head.

So what happens if one lawyer says waterboarding is not torture, and another says waterboarding is torture?
 
Coronado said:
Yeah, I thought it would go right over your head.

So what happens if one lawyer says waterboarding is not torture, and another says waterboarding is torture?
Click to expand...

Is that what happened with Bush? If what Bush did was illegal as you believe it was, why wasn't Bush impeached?
 
Coronado said:
Yes, a lawyer somewhere said waterboarding is torture. What then, when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not irrelevant at all, if the President of the United States broke the law it was the responsibility of Congress to impeach him. Why didn't they? Could it be they didn't have a case? Could it be that you and others were wrong?
 
Conservative said:
Not irrelevant at all, if the President of the United States broke the law it was the responsibility of Congress to impeach him. Why didn't they? Could it be they didn't have a case? Could it be that you and others were wrong?
Click to expand...
Wrong about what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom