• 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!

Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

wow. the FAIL is strong with you today. Turn that around and apply it to your anecdotal. :shrug:

I have no anecdotal. I have factual. Al Libi could not have known, but gave us misinformation and we used it. A very sepcific case. Give me anything like it that holds up.
 
I did show you. You choose to believe what you want to believe. :shrug:

No, you didn't. Nothing specific, just some claiming they got something. Not specifically what they got that we can verify.
 
yeah boo. not today, not just because you bore the hell out of me as usual, but cause I'm headed to philly for the stanley cup.


Keep in touch with yourself brother! :2razz:
 
You're avoiding the issue. Do you want to torture them or get actionable intel from them?

With some of these guys, both can be a real desire. But, you can't use the same actions to get both results.


Ofcourse I don't want our troops to torture anyone. With that said, I don't believe that 'waterboarding' as practiced today is torture.

We need actionable intel to win this struggle with radical Islam, and you can bet that won't be forthcoming with a kiss on the cheek, regardless of what one lone, and exploited ex CIA interrogator says.

There can be situations where a less severe interrogation would work, and work well, but not all situations are the same, and with some terrorists, they need, well, lets just say more incentive to talk.


j-mac
 
yeah boo. not today, not just because you bore the hell out of me as usual, but cause I'm headed to philly for the stanley cup.


Keep in touch with yourself brother! :2razz:
0
Enjoy the trip, but it is a fact that you did not provide the specific example I did. ;)
 
Ofcourse I don't want our troops to torture anyone. With that said, I don't believe that 'waterboarding' as practiced today is torture.

We need actionable intel to win this struggle with radical Islam, and you can bet that won't be forthcoming with a kiss on the cheek, regardless of what one lone, and exploited ex CIA interrogator says.

There can be situations where a less severe interrogation would work, and work well, but not all situations are the same, and with some terrorists, they need, well, lets just say more incentive to talk.


j-mac

Yet, as I noted earlier, we got better intel in Iraq when we stopped the brutal stuff.
 
In the case of al Libi, he didn't have the intel. So, wasting our time. And we have tortured others who knew nothing and who were merely innocent civilians. One such evnen died.

No offence but US intelligence services decided a terrorist boarded a plane......once it was 30,000 feet in the air. Remember, the Nigerian guy? There is clearly room for improvement. Just like prison/capital punishment/ war has its risks in regards to innocent people, reliable intelligence gathering can avoid this altogether or at least minimize the affects. A guy dying from torture shows clear excessive force by an agent so faults on him. And the US has enough intelligence agencies, soldiers and spy's to waste a bit of time....it certainly pays off, especially when we save thousands of lives. Could torture have prevented 9/11? Probably. That event was beyond dispicable.....many good American mothers and fathers, sons and daughters died that day.
 
Yet, as I noted earlier, we got better intel in Iraq when we stopped the brutal stuff.


Says the left and their useful idiots that have come out and said so. Others believe differently.


j-mac
 
Ofcourse I don't want our troops to torture anyone. With that said, I don't believe that 'waterboarding' as practiced today is torture.
We need actionable intel to win this struggle with radical Islam, and you can bet that won't be forthcoming with a kiss on the cheek, regardless of what one lone, and exploited ex CIA interrogator says.

But, what if the facts are that a kiss on the cheek will get you more than kicking the **** out of them or torturing them? Would you change your mind then?

There can be situations where a less severe interrogation would work, and work well, but not all situations are the same, and with some terrorists, they need, well, lets just say more incentive to talk.

This is the testosterone fueled attitude that actually does not work.

Here’s sworn testimony from Ali Soufan, the ex FBI interrogator who elicited “actionable” intel from Abu Zubaydah before Cheeney’s CIA goons came in and insisted on torturing him. He is a walking testimony for why torture Is not only ineffective, even in a ticking time bomb fantasy, but…... stupid as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S88mZArx4IE&feature=related

Paraphrasing from the video, Mr. Soufan testifies:
It is my personal opinion that it is a mistake to us enhanced interrogation techniques, a position shared by professional operatives, including CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogations.
These techniques, from an operational perspective, are slow, ineffective, unreliable and harmful to our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda."

So, if we want intel to save lives, why would we use techniques that have been proven to not work? The only reason people like these techniques... they inflict pain.

There are 5 other vids in this series. Anyone who wants to know the truth of torture effectiveness should watch these. Otherwise, you're just speaking from a position of ignorance.
 
Could torture have prevented 9/11? Probably. That event was beyond dispicable.....many good American mothers and fathers, sons and daughters died that day.

Actually, acting on intelligence and intelligence sharing could very well have prevented 9/11. Ali Soufan resigned from the FBI after he found the CIA did not share such info with the FBI.
 
Actually, acting on intelligence and intelligence sharing could very well have prevented 9/11. Ali Soufan resigned from the FBI after he found the CIA did not share such info with the FBI.

What relevance does that have with what i was asking? lol
 
What relevance does that have with what i was asking?

Coupled with what this thread is discussing... showing that torture is not effective now and wouldn't be effective prior to 9/11.
 
No offence but US intelligence services decided a terrorist boarded a plane......once it was 30,000 feet in the air. Remember, the Nigerian guy? There is clearly room for improvement. Just like prison/capital punishment/ war has its risks in regards to innocent people, reliable intelligence gathering can avoid this altogether or at least minimize the affects. A guy dying from torture shows clear excessive force by an agent so faults on him. And the US has enough intelligence agencies, soldiers and spy's to waste a bit of time....it certainly pays off, especially when we save thousands of lives. Could torture have prevented 9/11? Probably. That event was beyond dispicable.....many good American mothers and fathers, sons and daughters died that day.

Didn't they get reliable intel from him without torturing?

And they didn't need to torture anyone to prevent 9/11. Remember the findings on that. All they needed was for the different agencies to talk to each other.

So, I'm unsure of your point.
 
Says the left and their useful idiots that have come out and said so. Others believe differently.


j-mac

No, says General Odieno. Unless you're calling him the left.
 

Coupled with what this thread is discussing... showing that torture is not effective now and wouldn't be effective prior to 9/11.

The fact that the CIA or FBI or whatever failed to share information does not show torture is ineffective. :confused:
 
The fact that the CIA or FBI or whatever failed to share information does not show torture is ineffective. :confused:

My point was that this is another instance where there was a better alternative to torture... as always.
 
The fact that the CIA or FBI or whatever failed to share information does not show torture is ineffective. :confused:

No, but that is all that was needed to prevent 9/11.
 
No, but that is all that was needed to prevent 9/11.

9/11 was a hypothetical question.
They obviously infiltrated Al Qaeda some how or information was given to them by other sources, or a direct link which was happy to hand over information during an interview. In the case this terrorist, or whoever this source might have been, did not crack during an interview, and was refusing to hand over the intel to the CIA, you still wont advocate torture?
Clearly stupid stances like this have prevented us foiling many past attacks on Western soil.
 
My point was that this is another instance where there was a better alternative to torture... as always.

What does CIA's/FBI's failure to share information have anything to do with torture being an affective method of gathering intel? It should be last resort, of course, but if you believe terrorists who are convinced are fighting allah's cause will hand over important intel willy nilly in many instances, you're wrong.
 
9/11 was a hypothetical question.
They obviously infiltrated Al Qaeda some how or information was given to them by other sources, or a direct link which was happy to hand over information during an interview. In the case this terrorist, or whoever this source might have been, did not crack during an interview, and was refusing to hand over the intel to the CIA, you still wont advocate torture?
Clearly stupid stances like this have prevented us foiling many past attacks on Western soil.

"Stupid stances" like yours are how Bush & Cheeney convinced this country to invade an innocent country! Torturing Al Libby produced lies. Those lies were believed, actually "used" in spite of warnings from the Brits they were lies.

"Stupid stances" like yours produced dozens of wild goose chases from the lies torture produced from KSM wasting FBI and CIA resources and time that could have better been used running down true intel.

Show me where torture produced any actionable information. Links would be appreciated.

You'll note no one has come back here with any kind of evidence that KSM actually prevented any attack on LA, from torture induced intel. Because it didn't happen.
 


But, what if the facts are that a kiss on the cheek will get you more than kicking the **** out of them or torturing them? Would you change your mind then?



Possibly, however it would have to be more evidence than one, or two ex interrogators that the liberal left is touting as some sort of 'told you so' example.


This is the testosterone fueled attitude that actually does not work.

Here’s sworn testimony from Ali Soufan, the ex FBI interrogator who elicited “actionable” intel from Abu Zubaydah before Cheeney’s CIA goons came in and insisted on torturing him. He is a walking testimony for why torture Is not only ineffective, even in a ticking time bomb fantasy, but…... stupid as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S88mZArx4IE&feature=related

Paraphrasing from the video, Mr. Soufan testifies:


So, if we want intel to save lives, why would we use techniques that have been proven to not work? The only reason people like these techniques... they inflict pain.

There are 5 other vids in this series. Anyone who wants to know the truth of torture effectiveness should watch these. Otherwise, you're just speaking from a position of ignorance.


No I don't think that ignorance is the totality of the situation here, and neither is some sort of, as you put it 'testosterone fueled' need for vengeance. It is the realization that after some thirty plus years, maybe more of ignoring the problem of the jihadist war waged on the US and western civilization as a whole by Muslim thugs that hold a 7th century vision of dominance want not to negotiate with us as a people for peace, but rather want to dominate our culture and force us into submission, or kill us. If you don't understand that precept of the Koran, and where radicals are using it to fuel hatred within their own culture, and project that hatred outward into manifestations of attacks, and death around the world aimed at western civilizations, then sir, it is you with your eyes and ears plugged so as not to see.

What you show me here with the video is exactly what the liberal left that often seems to side with our enemies more often than not in this country, and that is to hold up one example of someone with inside knowledge of operations, and extrapolate that to a one size fits all scenario. Then taking that lone voice and speaking for the intel community as a whole. It is disingenuous, and dangerous as a tactic, and harkens back to a time where America thought themselves invincible to outside attack due to our power, and the set up of our country being a fortress country.

In short, I view this struggle as one where conventional scenarios of war, and peace are useless in the outcomes of normalized culture, fore the enemy we fight bears no flag, but has many nation allies either through willingness, or forced submission. It is an ideological threat that is at least 10 times more dangerous than that of any of the conventional wars we have ever fought where an enemy could surrender and sign a treaty. This enemy wants no treaty, no talks, no quarter. Only submission, and death.

So you can believe all you want that we are our own worst enemy, and that you can somehow reason with a true enemy that bases their war on total destruction of western culture through any means necessary, and be content to watch your country, and way of life disappear only to be told in stories to future generations, I for one do not accept that. Be careful my friend whom you bed with in the ideal of destroying western civilization, you may be the first 'useful dupe' they come after.


j-mac
 
"Stupid stances" like yours are how Bush & Cheeney convinced this country to invade an innocent country! Torturing Al Libby produced lies. Those lies were believed, actually "used" in spite of warnings from the Brits they were lies.



Iraq and Afghanistan were "innocent"? :shock:
 
Nice dancing around the issue. Or do you truly not understand it?

US courts have convicted soldiers and civilians of waterboarding.
It is quite accepted by SCOTUS as torture.




The Greatness that is the Good Reverend said:
Please link to us courts convicting US Soldiers of torture for waterboarding or stop lying as you are known to do.




Still avoiding this I see.
 
Back
Top Bottom