CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attac

[DiveCon]

I wouldn't expect a Murdoch outlet to say anything else.

Do you have info from a reliable source?

seek out professional help for your paranoia of Murdoch

Oh now it is paranoia that Rupurt has politicized Fox news and every other media he owns? Seek help for your denial, and stupidity.

i'm not the one in denial, asshole

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thats the lame old argument you guys have been using for years.

Of course I would torture if I had any degree of certainty.

Now you guys tortured thousands of Iraqi's and Afganistan's and eventually, a lot of them are going to be let go, and you got NOTHING from them, because you didn't have any certainty. You just tortured them all.

You guys are flat out wrong on this one.

Thousands? You have a link proving that?

And it's not a lame argument. We live in a world where that scenario is more than plausible. you have forgotten 3000 dead on 9/11?

If we had actionable intelligence procured via waterboarding and managed to stop those planes from being hijacked, you would still be whining?

Do I need to prove we have thousands in prison or do I need to prove we tortured over 1000.

Thousands of Iraqis held by U.S. to go free
No charges expected against many detainees picked up in raids

Thousands of Iraqis held by U.S. to go free - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

Claims of torture
Abdullah is suing two private U.S. security contractor firms that he said tortured him for a month while being detained at Abu Ghraib in 2003. A U.S. military spokesman confirmed Abdullah's detention at Bucca but did not provide details about his time at Abu Ghraib.

International law allows the capture and detention of people who are considered an "imperative" national security threat during times of war or conflict. However, human-rights groups like Amnesty International have argued that the United States violated detainees' legal rights by holding them without charge after Iraq was declared a sovereign nation in June 2004.

That argument largely became moot with the Jan. 1 agreement. The U.S. currently is referring up to 1,500 detainees cases to Iraqis each month for review.

you said "thousands were tortured" not thousands were held in prisons. Or is mere incarceration now considered torture?

 

[manu1959]

Glad you used those words actionable intelligence. So then you do approve of us bombing Al Queda in Pakistan?

Oh please tell me you do not approve. I would hate it if I found out you weren't a hypocrite. Please be a hypocrite

interesting question....do you approve .....

Of bombing inside Pakistan? Fuck yes.

so you are for the war in afganistan and now pakistan......

 

[Iriemon]

Thats the lame old argument you guys have been using for years.

Of course I would torture if I had any degree of certainty.

Now you guys tortured thousands of Iraqi's and Afganistan's and eventually, a lot of them are going to be let go, and you got NOTHING from them, because you didn't have any certainty. You just tortured them all.

You guys are flat out wrong on this one.

Thousands? You have a link proving that?

And it's not a lame argument. We live in a world where that scenario is more than plausible. you have forgotten 3000 dead on 9/11?

If we had actionable intelligence procured via waterboarding and managed to stop those planes from being hijacked, you would still be whining?

lefties don't give a shit about the three thousand who died on 9-11. That's obvious.

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anything that corroborates it from a source that is not obviously biased toward conservative/Republicans as the Murdoch outlets obviously are.

Yeah, if I cited just the NYT for a opinionated proposition I'd expect you would question the veratcity, and I would understand why you'd do it. It has a rep for a left leaning bias.

In this case, you say they were only waterboarded 20 secs, and as you point out, anyone can hold their breath that lot. Yet this was supposedly enough to induce the alleged terrorists to provide information.

That just doesn't make sense. So, given the source, yeah I question it.

No, unlike you, i would try to find a source that refuted your claim.

you see, it's easy to avoid a discussion when you say "your source sucks"

What's that the "I know you are but what am I" school of debate?

Well then here you go, a source that refutes the Murdoch news outlet claim that "The Memos prove we didn't torture":

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail — like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.’s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

...

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.’s methods and the Justice Department’s long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U., were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.

...

The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?hp

The memos sure "prove" that there was no torture as the Murdoch Street Journal asserts.

The fact that we prosecuted Japanese for torture for doing the same damn thing must just be a "historical anamoly" in thier eyes.

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anything that corroborates it from a source that is not obviously biased toward conservative/Republicans as the Murdoch outlets obviously are.

Yeah, if I cited just the NYT for a opinionated proposition I'd expect you would question the veratcity, and I would understand why you'd do it. It has a rep for a left leaning bias.

In this case, you say they were only waterboarded 20 secs, and as you point out, anyone can hold their breath that lot. Yet this was supposedly enough to induce the alleged terrorists to provide information.

That just doesn't make sense. So, given the source, yeah I question it.

No, unlike you, i would try to find a source that refuted your claim.

you see, it's easy to avoid a discussion when you say "your source sucks"

What's that the "I know you are but what am I" school of debate?

Well then here you go, a source that refutes the Murdoch news outlet claim that "The Memos prove we didn't torture":

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail — like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.’s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

...

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.’s methods and the Justice Department’s long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U., were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.

...

The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?hp

The memos sure "prove" that there was no torture as the Murdoch Street Journal asserts.

The fact that we prosecuted Japanese for torture for doing the same damn thing must just be a "historical anamoly" in thier eyes.

another source that refute your NYT claims (courtesy of Politicalchic....thank youPC)

washingtonpost.com

 

[Iriemon]

read the WSJ piece and find out that a "waterboarding incident" usually lasted 20 seconds or less.

For Christ's sake I could hold my breath that long when I was 3 years old.

I wouldn't expect a Murdoch outlet to say anything else.

Do you have info from a reliable source?

seek out professional help for your paranoia of Murdoch

Paranoia? Why would you say that?

IMO Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch media has a very strong right wing bias.

If you believe think that it is "fair and balanced" good for you. It would be entirely consistent with the quality of your posts.

 

[DiveCon]

Thousands? You have a link proving that?

And it's not a lame argument. We live in a world where that scenario is more than plausible. you have forgotten 3000 dead on 9/11?

If we had actionable intelligence procured via waterboarding and managed to stop those planes from being hijacked, you would still be whining?

lefties don't give a shit about the three thousand who died on 9-11. That's obvious.

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

says the fucking asshole that thinks that just because there is a new owner at a paper that EVERYTHING wasn changed in how they do their business

you are a fucking moron

 

[DiveCon]

I wouldn't expect a Murdoch outlet to say anything else.

Do you have info from a reliable source?

seek out professional help for your paranoia of Murdoch

Paranoia? Why would you say that?

IMO Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch media has a very strong right wing bias.

If you believe think that it is "fair and balanced" good for you. It would be entirely consistent with the quality of your posts.

and you are fucking CRAZY too

 

[sealybobo]

interesting question....do you approve .....

Of bombing inside Pakistan? Fuck yes.

so you are for the war in afganistan and now pakistan......

Of course. I am only against Bush lying us into Iraq for $.

I am and have always been in favor of taking out the Taliban and Al Queda, who are hiding in the Afgan/Pakistan mountains.

Aren't they the ones that attacked us on 9-11?

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the issue with bombing inside Pakistan, but if they are unable or unwilling to take out the terrorists, we sure aren't going to let it go.

PS. Remember you guys gave Clinton a hard time for not taking out Bin Ladin after the USS Cole bombing and the first World Trade Center Attack in 1993? Funny, because it seems now you are flip flopping again on this position. You couldn't understand why he couldn't do anything before 9-11 gave us a reason, but now you are falling back on the idea that we can't go into a soverign nation to take out terrorists.

You guys play politics with everything. Are you ever sincere?

 

[Skull Pilot]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

 

[WillowTree]

Thousands? You have a link proving that?

And it's not a lame argument. We live in a world where that scenario is more than plausible. you have forgotten 3000 dead on 9/11?

If we had actionable intelligence procured via waterboarding and managed to stop those planes from being hijacked, you would still be whining?

lefties don't give a shit about the three thousand who died on 9-11. That's obvious.

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

well face it asshole, it you aren't willing to do what is necessary to prevent a 9-11 then you obviously don't give a shit about the 3000 that died. It's just that simple.. No go read some more media matters. or sumpin

 

[sealybobo]

lefties don't give a shit about the three thousand who died on 9-11. That's obvious.

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

says the fucking asshole that thinks that just because there is a new owner at a paper that EVERYTHING wasn changed in how they do their business

you are a fucking moron

Do you think he would ever report on something that was unfavorable to Republicans or Corporations?

Want to show me one fucking example?

Do you even read the paper?

And if Fox News is any indication, you're a fucking moron.

 

[WillowTree]

just look at media matters. Their whole existance consists of supposedly debunking Fox news.. They are truly desperate idiots.




Media Matters


now you know where all the DUmmies hang out..

 

[Iriemon]

No, unlike you, i would try to find a source that refuted your claim.

you see, it's easy to avoid a discussion when you say "your source sucks"

What's that the "I know you are but what am I" school of debate?

Well then here you go, a source that refutes the Murdoch news outlet claim that "The Memos prove we didn't torture":

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Thursday made public detailed memos describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency, as President Obama sought to reassure the agency that the C.I.A. operatives involved would not be prosecuted.

In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail — like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.

The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the C.I.A.’s secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon were the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.

Some senior Obama administration officials, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, illegal torture. The United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.

...

Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.’s methods and the Justice Department’s long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.

The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the A.C.L.U., were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.

...

The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?hp

The memos sure "prove" that there was no torture as the Murdoch Street Journal asserts.

The fact that we prosecuted Japanese for torture for doing the same damn thing must just be a "historical anamoly" in thier eyes.

Did you study the NYTimes article listing exactly how the methods had to be employed?

And do you know tht AG has a history of sending back reports that don't contain the results he wishes?

And did you read the article by Mark Thiessen explaining how releasing these memos obviates any interrogation?

In short, the jihadists allow one to talk if he has reached his psychological limit. The methods are designed to make them think they have reached this limit. For example, a wall was constructed to make a loud noise when he is pushed into it. Thus the force seems greater than it is . This is to limit the physical aspects of the method. A collar was worn to prevent whip lash.

Some torture.

So you'd be fine with all this being done to captured US soldiers or agents?

 

[eots]

No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
- George Orwell,

 

[sealybobo]

the question is simple folks

Would you use one of the techniques laid out in the NYT article describing the "torture" if you were reasonably sure it would save an American life?

And if you chose some moral high ground, would that comfort you when you are living with the knowledge that an American died because of your failure to act?

Would I torture 100 Iraqi's "in hopes" of saving one American life, without any credible information? No.

They were never reasonably sure of anything. When those abu grabe pictures came out, what were those guards sure of?

But yes, if I was sure, I'd torture. But I wouldn't let the world find out. I wouldn't be so sloppy.

You must admit, bush was sloppy in Afganistan, sloppy in Iraq, sloppy with our economy, the worst fucking president ever. He should be in prison. Or at least he should have been impeached. Keeping us safe. HA! No ones buying that Skull.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Like I said earlier, if radical left lugnuts and ACLU-types achieve high legal restrictions on interrogation, places like Guantanamo will be empty. But we will still obtain the information we need. It is all theatre.

 

[DiveCon]

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

says the fucking asshole that thinks that just because there is a new owner at a paper that EVERYTHING wasn changed in how they do their business

you are a fucking moron

Do you think he would ever report on something that was unfavorable to Republicans or Corporations?

Want to show me one fucking example?

Do you even read the paper?

And if Fox News is any indication, you're a fucking moron.

i've seen them report on things bad for repiublicans
you are a fucking idiot

 

[Iriemon]

lefties don't give a shit about the three thousand who died on 9-11. That's obvious.

Says the real "patriot" who'd just as soon see what he calls "the fucking country" go bankrupt.

well face it asshole, it you aren't willing to do what is necessary to prevent a 9-11 then you obviously don't give a shit about the 3000 that died. It's just that simple.. No go read some more media matters. or sumpin

Go whine about bankrupting "your fucking country" to someone else, traitor.