LOL!
preeminent source, baby!
THANKS, president slash!
keep them detentions and renditions and wiretaps comin!
and while you're at it go ASSASSINATE the others!
USA!
He and others have to present exactly what was gained
you expect LANGLEY to tell you exactly what it got and how?
LOL!
that's dumber than sydney
anyway, thanks are due to president slasher for NOT dismantling the anti terror techniques of his predecessor, thus enabling this assassination
keep up the good work, slash!
I expect claims to be supported
we know that we did not get the intel needed to get OBL until long after the EITs
LOL!
few care what you do or don't expect
Can't speak for the left, but the old McCain had a lot of good qualities. His appeasement of the far right hurt him, as did his vice presidential cadidate.
But, he does know something about torture, and always rightly spoke against it.
All you have to do is present verifiable intel we actually got. We know that we got the OBL intel long after KSM was tortured, so you ahve to torture logic to believe EIT got us that intel. :coffeepap
These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.
"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.
The evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.
"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," [CIA Inspector General John Helgerson] said in an interview. 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 United States and abroad.
"Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of whom we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary. Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.
Why would people argue about this as if they had even close to the requisite information to come to any type of conclusion?
I've never talked to an FBI agent about it, but I have talked to CIA/NSA/DIA and military operatives about it. I don't know why someone would say torture (or even waterboarding) 'doesn't work' in such broad terms. Ever? Never ever? Never ever ever? That seems particularly short-sighted. That said, no one without an HCS clearance can tell anyone either way.
You seem quick enough to defend John McCain's point of view but not those who were actually directly involved.
Those who are involved have reason to deceive. As someone torture, McCain has little reason to do the same. Also, McCain's story is known, and verifiable to a degree that those directly involved have not equaled.
So no matter what those directly involved say, you will not believe them?
Instead you prefer to believe those who have no real knowledge of what happened.
How is McCain's story verifiable if he didn't participate?
As someone torture (sic), McCain has little reason to do the same.
Of course it's a matter of belief because you refuse to believe those who were actually there and saw the results and are instead following the word of a person with no involvement whatsoever. That is clearly what you have chosen to believe.It is not a matter of belief.
.This is what I always try to get across to those on your side. Anyone relying on belief can be fooled. No matter who says anything like this of a factual nature, your response should be what evidence do you have. It doesn't matter who says it. Part of our mistake with Iraq for example was too many relied on belief and not actual evidence. Anyone can say anything, and there are often reasons for them to do so. We should always ask for more.
Yu really shuld follow your own advice.
The evidence is clear and those who participated have been quite straightforward, apart from Panetta who tried to obfuscate a little, just what they did and what the results were. You may believe these people are lying, but that is only your belief. So far there is no one who was directly involved who denied what happened.
Not actually what's being claimed. What the litatrue says is that it is unrealiable, more unreliable than other methods. Absolutes are rarely used because they are rarely true. However, considering the draw backs, and that we know and have verifiable evidence of misinformatiuon that was not only given by those who received IETs, but that we used that misinofrmation in our decision making process, and that we cannot point to anything as specific or verifiable that we actually got that wa valid, well, there is little reason to consider torture a prefered method.
Then, add that it is not only immoral, but against the law, and you have to ask why are people working so hard to try and justify this?