• 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!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

Boo Radley said:
I prefer rule of law to revenge.
Click to expand...

that's nice

it appears ubl was assassinated

there's no denying that gitmo, detention and wiretapping played central roles in uncovering the target, as well as eit's

just the facts, maam

how's sydney?
 
Boo Radley said:
Would they have got those things without taking them out so to speak? Blood lust is common. Not needed, but common. I prefer rule of law to revenge. All of us, myself included, can step over the line easily. It is good to have rules to live by, that guide us even when we don't want them to.
Click to expand...

Why do you wish to defend terrorist? Rule of Law? The USA did nothing illegal so suck it up buster!
 
Kali said:
Why do you wish to defend terrorist? Rule of Law? The USA did nothing illegal so suck it up buster!
Click to expand...

I'm gonna sway towards Boo's dark side for a sec...but just for a sec

Do you think national revenge, support of torture and indescriminate killing are American values?
 
Boo Radley said:
I understand perfectly, but suspect you don't. You accepting unverifable propaganda doesn't change much.
Click to expand...

Actually the sources are first rate and you've no sources whatsoever.

Had they taken OBL alive rather than shooting him in the head the Obama administration would have have had to read him his rights and received no information from him whatsoever. He would have immediate access to lawyers.

Instead Eric Holder is going after the CIA Agents who got the information where OBL was hiding. And you, as an American, think this is a good policy?
 
ric27 said:
I'm gonna sway towards Boo's dark side for a sec...but just for a sec

Do you think national revenge, support of torture and indescriminate killing are American values?
Click to expand...

:prof Yes actually, now I do.
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

The Prof said:
as well as eit's---the preeminent source was "transformed," "reversed," in the extremely rough month after his capture, according to the report holder made public on the monday before aug 29
says wapo, leastaways
Click to expand...
I am looking through the report again, and so far I would have to say that this ^ assessment was made by the journalist who wrote the piece.
In the report it merely notes in more than one place that the quantity of reporting went up but that they hadn't had the time to check and see if the quality went up as well.
Notably, the WaPo article includes this quote from KSM to the Red Cross,
"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. ... I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time."​
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

Simon W. Moon said:
I am looking through the report again, and so far I would have to say that this ^ assessment was made by the journalist who wrote the piece.
In the report it merely notes in more than one place that the quantity of reporting went up but that they hadn't had the time to check and see if the quality went up as well.
Notably, the WaPo article includes this quote from KSM to the Red Cross,
"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. ... I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time."​
Click to expand...

That's quite true, as was stated by those who were doing the interrogating, and which is why he was waterboarded until he began telling the truth.

It was the threat of further water boarding that got him to cooperate and once he began cooperating and telling the truth things went very smoothly. No more waterboarding was necessary. He is now in good shape and the waterboarding had no long terms effects on his physical or, as far as we know. mental health.,
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

"terrorist tutorials" were the on-the-record remarks of agents who were there whom wapo will keep anonymous

that ksm scolded listeners for inattentiveness, that he asked for chalkboards, likewise comes from those agents

"transformation" and "reversal" are the words of wapo's reporter, based on his reading of the ig report

it is the reporter as well who described ksm pre eit as "an avowed and truculent enemy of the us"

"preeminent source" are the ig's words

that ksm was thoroughly uncooperative prior to "waterboarding" is also according to ig

"the evidence is clear---ksm cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture:" wapo's reading of the report

that ksm gave up a network of 70 names comes per ig

"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the 2 most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information:" ig

you're quibbling
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

Grant said:
It was the threat of further water boarding that got him to cooperate and once he began cooperating and telling the truth things went very smoothly.
Click to expand...
I see you saying that. But it's not in the report.
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

The Prof said:
"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the 2 most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information:" ig
Click to expand...
Finish the quote why don't you?

"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview. "But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."​

The Prof said:
you're quibbling
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But it seems to me that getting someone to start spouting what they think you want to hear is different and less desirable than getting useful information.
But, if you see the distinction between a detainee spouting what they think the interrogators want to hear and actual useful information as mere quibbling, I guess that's your business. It certainly explains some things.
 
Last edited:
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

Grant said:
So that means it didn't happen, despite those who had inside information?
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that what you said, "It was the threat of further water boarding that got him to cooperate and once he began cooperating and telling the truth things went very smoothly," isn't in the report.
You responded to me noticing that what you said wasn't in the IG report with a cryptic comment about inside info. You're response is somewhat confusing unless you're the one with the inside info. The expected response was that you would show us where you got your info.
Are you saying that you're one of those with inside information?

Fwiw, in the report, it mentions that they didn't check and verify everything he was saying to see if it was true. Since they didn't verify that, I am not sure how they could've known when he started cooperating and telling the truth.
It also points out instances where they were unable to determine whether a detainee was still holding out or not. This uncertainty is listed in more than one place.

Given these, and a couple of other related comments similar to them, that are in the report, I am curious as to how you came by the info that, "the threat of further water boarding that got him to cooperate and once he began cooperating and telling the truth things went very smoothly." Share if you like.
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

Simon W. Moon said:
"But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."
Click to expand...

but you and i already discussed this, remember?

"waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the 2 most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information:" pretty much speaks for itself

Perhaps.
Click to expand...

no perhaps

"preeminent source" means preeminent source

grow up
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

Simon W. Moon said:
All I am saying is that what you said, "It was the threat of further water boarding that got him to cooperate and once he began cooperating and telling the truth things went very smoothly," isn't in the report.
You responded to me noticing that what you said wasn't in the IG report with a cryptic comment about inside info. You're response is somewhat confusing unless you're the one with the inside info. The expected response was that you would show us where you got your info.
Are you saying that you're one of those with inside information?

Fwiw, in the report, it mentions that they didn't check and verify everything he was saying to see if it was true. Since they didn't verify that, I am not sure how they could've known when he started cooperating and telling the truth.
It also points out instances where they were unable to determine whether a detainee was still holding out or not. This uncertainty is listed in more than one place.

Given these, and a couple of other related comments similar to them, that are in the report, I am curious as to how you came by the info that, "the threat of further water boarding that got him to cooperate and once he began cooperating and telling the truth things went very smoothly." Share if you like.
Click to expand...

Marc Thiessen Tells How Enhanced Interrogation Helped Find Bin Laden

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles | CNSnews.com

ThinkProgress » Rep. Peter King: We Should Still Use Waterboarding Because That’s How We Captured Bin Laden

Rumsfeld: Waterboarding "Produced An Enormous Amount" Of Information
 
Re: Am I the only one reading this report?

Simon W. Moon said:
I am looking through the report again, and so far I would have to say that this ^ assessment was made by the journalist who wrote the piece.
In the report it merely notes in more than one place that the quantity of reporting went up but that they hadn't had the time to check and see if the quality went up as well.
Notably, the WaPo article includes this quote from KSM to the Red Cross,
"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. ... I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time."​
Click to expand...

Who here is ready to admit to being supremely naive enough to think that KSM had planned on spilling his guts and giving the interrogators absolutely truthful information, prior to being tortured?
 
Grant said:
I can't find Spencer Ackerman's name anywhere in the list of CIA officials.

Would you mind sending a link regarding his professional expertise and his CIA involvement?
Click to expand...

Ackerman is a reporter. But, since you question his statements, why don't you post the name of the CIA officials who claim that water boarding was what led to the capture of Bin Laden.

I'll be waiting for your response anxiously!

And, just to further shut conservatives up - here is a CIA official who said the same thing.

Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002, said in a phone interview Tuesday, that coercive techniques "didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information." He said that while some of his colleagues defended the measures, "everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work."

"The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. "It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there."


 
The Prof said:
that's pretty much the way it went down, according to all accounts i've come across

except that ksm "cooperated to an extradordinary extent" and became langley's "preeminent source," conducting "terrorist tutorials," only "after his spirit was broken" with very harsh eit's in europe

"ksm was an unparalleled source in deciphering aq's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, including describing in considerable detail the traits and profiles that aq sought in western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the us"

"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 "

"detainees in mid 2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals---many of whom we had never heard of before---that aq deemed suitable for western operations"

"according to the cia summary"

and tho ghul and al libi were not waterboarded, they were eit'd

one of the sources linked above says that al libi was food deprived and stripped naked because he loved to eat and he was personally very modest

it is what it is

and it aint just eit's

the maintenance of gitmo, the detention of suspects, the warrantless wiretapping of phone calls to al kuwaiti...

they all led up to this ASSASSINATION
Click to expand...
Most accounts claim that the name supplied by KSM was just a nickname, not a real name, that alone would not have been of much use unless it was associated with other information gathered through the years. If credit is to be given to Bush for his "torture" techniques in gathering such information, shouldn't we question why he didn't do anything with the information, but rather became rather callous about not caring where Bin Laden was?
americans are overwhelmingly grateful to president obama for not dismantling the methods of his predecessor, allowing our agents and soldiers to get ubl
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean hear, I understood water boarding was no longer used. If it is, why would Cheney make such a statement?


Dick Cheney says Obama should reinstate waterboarding program
Dick Cheney says Obama should reinstate waterboarding program // Current
 
Grant said:
And the Washington University Law Review has replaced the Supreme Court?

That is news!
Click to expand...


When was the Supreme Court subjected to water boarding?
 
Kali said:
Why do you wish to defend terrorist? Rule of Law? The USA did nothing illegal so suck it up buster!
Click to expand...


I guess we should abolish all our laws when it comes to trying criminals? We shall have a double standard, we use one set of rules for those we don't think are so heinous, and a different one for those we do. That isn't America - and most that object to water boarding are not defending terrorists, but rather our laws, what we stand for. When we start disregarding our own laws we are no longer America, we become just like the enemy. Maybe you like that, most sensible Americans don't.
 
mertex said:
Ackerman is a reporter. But, since you question his statements, why don't you post the name of the CIA officials who claim that water boarding was what led to the capture of Bin Laden.

I'll be waiting for your response anxiously!

And, just to further shut conservatives up - here is a CIA official who said the same thing.

Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002, said in a phone interview Tuesday, that coercive techniques "didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information." He said that while some of his colleagues defended the measures, "everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work."

"The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council. "It took years of collection and analysis from many different sources to develop the case that enabled us to identify this compound, and reach a judgment that Bin Laden was likely to be living there."
Click to expand...

Sounds like his politics are guiding his opinion, more than anything else. The, "un-American", part kind gave it away.
 
apdst said:
Sounds like his politics are guiding his opinion, more than anything else. The, "un-American", part kind gave it away.
Click to expand...

So i guess your politics isn't guiding your opinion?

Are you trying to say torture is pro-American?
 
Jetboogieman said:
So i guess your politics isn't guiding your opinion?

Are you trying to say torture is pro-American?
Click to expand...

Lol...you make it sound like we cut heads off our captives. A little stress and duress here and there...is what we use
 
Last edited:
mertex said:
I didn't find Marc Thiessen's name in the list of CIA officials.

Would you please give me a link to Marc Thiessen's knowledge and involvement with the CIA.
Click to expand...

View the link before responding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom