• 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!

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison

you STILL expect the SPIES to TELL

LOL!

that's so stupid, stenographer

sorry, holder's CONCLUSIONS are just gonna have to be the LAST WORD

waterboarding elicited a lot of information

ksm became langley's preeminent source after his spirit was broken

he conducted terrorist tutorials

he (and others) helped agents compile a list of 70 operatives the cia had never heard of

cross referencing from one to another and leveraging knowns to extract unknowns, the cia went on to round up operatives all over the world

how exciting!

thanks, mr attorney general!

your guys did just great!

america is grateful you DIDN'T close gitmo, among so many other things

keep up the good work

assassinate the rest of em
 
well, we crertainly ahve specific information concerning the misinformation we got. Didn't we? :coffeepap
 
so you DO expect the SPIES to tell

LOL!

what an idiot

meanwhile: eric holder accepted that, umm, claim (LOL!) without objection

he then went out and PASSED IT ON to the whole waiting world!

good for holder!

america is grateful

keep up the good work, ag!
 
Just stop arguing him. He's not going to give up saying HOLDER or whatever other bull****.
 
i never said anything

the ig did

holder only put it out

on the monday preceding aug 29, 2009

"preeminent source"

"unparalleled source in deciphering aq's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets"

"cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent"

"only after his spirit was broken"

"terrorist tutorials"

"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information"

"detainees in mid 2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals---many of whom we had never heard of before"

"cross referencing material from different detainees and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another the cia and fbi went on to round up operatives both in the us and abroad"

thanks for the opportunity to repeat HOLDER'S findings, it's very helpful
 
holder is

"preeminent source"

"waterboarding... elicited a lot of information"

america is grateful to our agents who employed the anti terror methods of previous administrations, including detention, the maintenance of gitmo and wiretapping, to enable our heroic seals to accomplish this assassination
 
Wow!

There are still people arguing that EIT's did not produce results?
 
They provided information that was not actionable. KSM confessed to numerous crimes. He said that he wanted to behead Jimmy Carter, he said he wanted to blow up the Brooklyn bridge, etc. These did not pan out to anything. You know why? Because like with any coercive interrogation, these things are made up ON THE SPOT by the suspect, or made up shortly before the suspect's interrogation so he can get his made up story completely straight. If you don't give someone an incentive to talk other than stopping pain, you won't get any good information.

You need to look into this more. You're just flat out wrong about that.


That proves absolutely nothing. The main issue at hand here is the only evidence in support of EITs comes from political appointees. CIA directors, assistant CIA directors (namely this guy who destroyed videotapes, cleared of charges my ass, he destroyed evidence = crime, but since he's a gov. official, he doesn't get charged), directors of national intelligence, etc. These people do not see what goes on on the ground. They are not in the room conducting the interrogations. I can give you quotes from numerous Clinton officials who say these techniques do not work. I can give you the interview with FBI director Mueller (Bush appointee) stating that torture didn't work and didn't save lives. That totally contradicts all these CIA people, who by the way rarely are the ones taking out terror cells. The FBI is the agency that uses the intelligence and makes arrests against suspects on our soil. We can go back and fourth quoting officials all day. It doesn't prove anything.

Find me an interview or a statement by an interrogator who knows how these techniques work and says they work. You will not find one. No cop, agent, CIA officer, will tell you that these techniques work, because they don't. Political level people like directors/assistant directors hear what they want to hear, and then that's what they say to the public.

It proves EIT's were highly succesful and prevented further attacks.

I did provide a statement from a guy directly involved. There are many others who are saying the same thing.

_
 
Hats off to you Prof.

You're slaying the people in here arguing EIT's did not work.
 
You need to look into this more. You're just flat out wrong about that.
No I'm not flat wrong about anything. There is no evidence of enhanced interrogation methods providing actionable intelligence on anything. Zero. No evidence. Find me some.

AND DO NOT GIVE ME A LINK FROM SOME AGENCY EXECUTIVE WHO SIMPLY SAYS "THEY WORKED". You have quotes from different republican appointees saying they worked (save Robert Mueller, highly respected FBI director, who thinks that EITs are a load of bull, just like any other sound interrogator) I want to know an actual terror strike that was prevented due to these, an actual militant who was apprehended thanks to these, etc. Don't give me the "classified" crap either because like I said before, the government has no issue releasing information when they have it. For example, every single little detail about Bin Laden's capture and apprehension was released. Or what about the attacks that were supposed to happen to LA in 2002, that the Bush admin claimed was prevented because of EITs on KSM. OH WAIT! THEY DIDN'T HAVE HIM UNTIL 2003! Whoops!

They were not successful and did not prevent future attacks. There is no conclusive evidence and that's really the final string here. You can go back and fourth posting links from different agency executives saying it worked/didn't work. The point is, that's all a load of ****. These guys have an agenda. Actual interrogators do not, and the consensus among interrogators is that torture does not work. Like I conceded on the other page, could it work in a 1% circumstance? Sure, I guess "anything" is possible.
 
You should know better than most that actual 'terror strikes' won't be named. Why don't you? You should know that the intelligence community doesn't speak about anything, period. It's failures are brought up by the press but it's successes are brought up by no one. You should know this, and I think you do. You're just forgetting it to score a political point. That sucks.
 
You should know better than most that actual 'terror strikes' won't be named. Why don't you? You should know that the intelligence community doesn't speak about anything, period. It's failures are brought up by the press but it's successes are brought up by no one. You should know this, and I think you do. You're just forgetting it to score a political point. That sucks.

To bring up failures, you have to know about them. If you can know about failures, you should be able to know about some successes. Frabkly, if all one has to do is make a claim and then say but we can't tell you about it, how would anyone ever know that anything is true?
 
He isn't a serious.

who is?

a serious, that is?

eric holder?

at least HE doesn't link to sydney, australia on behalf of teachers in new york

LOL!
 
You should know better than most that actual 'terror strikes' won't be named. Why don't you? You should know that the intelligence community doesn't speak about anything, period. It's failures are brought up by the press but it's successes are brought up by no one. You should know this, and I think you do. You're just forgetting it to score a political point. That sucks.

But that's not true. They DO speak about stuff! Look at the so called "second wave" attacks. Cheney was screaming on and on about how those were prevented by torture. But it turned out to be false.

Remember when Obama issued the EO against torture, and ordered interrogators to use the methods only that are in your army interrogation manual? After that, Cheney came out again and he said that the CIA memos that Obama is releasing are going to show torture worked. The memos were released. It didn't show anything. Janubi, you keep making these claims about how it's classified. The point is, it's not classified. People come out all the time and do this. You said that only failures come out. Not true. Look at Cheney!
 
But that's not true. They DO speak about stuff! Look at the so called "second wave" attacks. Cheney was screaming on and on about how those were prevented by torture. But it turned out to be false.

Remember when Obama issued the EO against torture, and ordered interrogators to use the methods only that are in your army interrogation manual? After that, Cheney came out again and he said that the CIA memos that Obama is releasing are going to show torture worked. The memos were released. It didn't show anything. Janubi, you keep making these claims about how it's classified. The point is, it's not classified. People come out all the time and do this. You said that only failures come out. Not true. Look at Cheney!

People ignore this a lot. They tried to show us (false) evidence but could only fool a few. Of course, some don't need much to be fooled as they don't ask for much.
 
Omar Khadr, aged 15 at the time, is the son of an alleged al-Qaida leader in Canada. He killed a US soldier by throwing a grenade at him during a battle at a suspected al-Qaida base in Afghanistan. Khadr has spent nearly nine years in Cuba as a result.
If that's why he's there, then there's no need whatsoever for him to ever see a trial.
 
If that's why he's there, then there's no need whatsoever for him to ever see a trial.

Wrong. Everyone deserves to see a trial. That's a stupid claim. Do you think that a serial murderer deserves a trial, or should we just throw them into some building and not let them enjoy the American ideals of "innocent until proven guilty"?
 
Wrong. Everyone deserves to see a trial.
Prisoners of War -never- get a trial.
This guy was CLEARLY engagd in combat w/ US troops. Thus, he gets held as a combatant, and gets no trial.
 
Prisoners of War -never- get a trial.
This guy was CLEARLY engagd in combat w/ US troops. Thus, he gets held as a combatant, and gets no trial.

They do, however, get released when the war is over. We really ahven't had anything before that is a never ending war (terrorism). That's why it is better to use rules of war against nations you go to war with and not tactics.
 
No I'm not flat wrong about anything. There is no evidence of enhanced interrogation methods providing actionable intelligence on anything. Zero. No evidence. Find me some.

I already have and so has Prof.

I don't care if you refuse to accept the truth.

_
 
Back
Top Bottom