Author Topic: Waterboarding KSM Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on LA (Read 8051 times)

Decker · « **Reply #75 on:** April 23, 2009, 03:31:01 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 23, 2009, 03:00:00 PM

Then you're the exception. The attempt to investigate members of the Bush administration over this "torture" crap is nothing more than partisan politics at its worst.

It's not partisan politics. That's facile.

Torture is a federal crime.

You may not respect that law but your personal views will take a backseat to the law.

Decker · « **Reply #76 on:** April 23, 2009, 03:32:50 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 23, 2009, 02:08:37 PM

No, you cannot.

I'm a supporter of those who are doing whatever they can to protect us from the animals who want to kill us.

....

Whatever they can to protect us?

And you say I make loaded statements?

Waterboarding doesn't work and it's illegal.

Other than that, it's a hell of a way to protect us.

IFBBwannaB · « **Reply #77 on:** April 23, 2009, 05:57:24 PM »

Quote from: Decker on April 23, 2009, 03:31:01 PM

It's not partisan politics. That's facile.

Torture is a federal crime.

You may not respect that law but your personal views will take a backseat to the law.

You assume that everything that is a crime is wrong and/or should be punished for but that's a very far from the truth, most laws get updated over the years, you wouldn't want to live with 1400's witch hunting laws do you?

It's morally right to torture ONE person that holds information that will save THOUSANDS , just think of it as of it as if they shot down some plane who is about to drop a bomb on you, the only difference is that you don't wait so long that you are on the verge of disaster and you didn't even have to kill the pilot/terrorist.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #78 on:** April 23, 2009, 06:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Decker on April 23, 2009, 03:31:01 PM

It's not partisan politics. That's facile.

Torture is a federal crime.

You may not respect that law but your personal views will take a backseat to the law.

Of course it's partisan politics. I guarantee you any attempt by Congress to investigate this crap will consist of all or pretty all Democrats. We have a Democrat president sticking his finger in the wind to see what the public response will be. It is as partisan as the Clinton/Lewinsky matter.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #79 on:** April 23, 2009, 06:39:07 PM »

Quote from: Decker on April 23, 2009, 03:32:50 PM

Whatever they can to protect us?

And you say I make loaded statements?

Waterboarding doesn't work and it's illegal.

Other than that, it's a hell of a way to protect us.

The CIA disagrees with you.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #80 on:** April 23, 2009, 06:40:35 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 23, 2009, 06:38:40 PM

Of course it's partisan politics. I guarantee you any attempt by Congress to investigate this crap will consist of all or pretty all Democrats. We have a Democrat president sticking his finger in the wind to see what the public response will be. It is as partisan as the Clinton/Lewinsky matter.

Was the Clinton impeachment for the betterment of the country or was it just partisan politics?

Dos Equis · « **Reply #81 on:** April 23, 2009, 06:45:09 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on April 23, 2009, 06:40:35 PM

Was the Clinton impeachment for the betterment of the country or was it just partisan politics?

I just said it was partisan politics.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #82 on:** April 23, 2009, 08:48:59 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 23, 2009, 06:45:09 PM

I just said it was partisan politics.

Just making sure... I needed to get the confirmation that I wasn't just seeing something that wasn't there.

The Coach · « **Reply #83 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:40:10 PM »

Should we also prosicute the libs who knew and claimed they didn't like Palosi?

tu_holmes · « **Reply #84 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:54:44 PM »

Quote from: The Coach on April 23, 2009, 09:40:10 PM

Should we also prosicute the libs who knew and claimed they didn't like Palosi?

If you prosecute one, you have to prosecute them all... So, I say, yes.

The Coach · « **Reply #85 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:57:38 PM »

But she was one of the ones who are calling for any investigation......she's third in command (good God)

!

IFBBwannaB · « **Reply #86 on:** April 24, 2009, 01:27:23 AM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on April 23, 2009, 08:48:59 PM

Just making sure... I needed to get the confirmation that I wasn't just seeing something that wasn't there.

Clinton made most of the mess himself, if he would have admitted at the start (when it was political) it would have blown off quickly but since he lied under oath, that's when shit hit the fan and they had a legitimate reason to go after him. Although that all thing was BS, they got him in a corner since they knew he would act like that.

Decker · « **Reply #87 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:18:07 AM »

Quote from: IFBBwannaB on April 23, 2009, 05:57:24 PM

You assume that everything that is a crime is wrong and/or should be punished for but that's a very far from the truth, most laws get updated over the years, you wouldn't want to live with 1400's witch hunting laws do you?

It's morally right to torture ONE person that holds information that will save THOUSANDS , just think of it as of it as if they shot down some plane who is about to drop a bomb on you, the only difference is that you don't wait so long that you are on the verge of disaster and you didn't even have to kill the pilot/terrorist.

Everything that is a crime is wrong. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If one person held the answer to saving 1000s of lives then surely we would have to torture him. That's great reasoning. It's never happened in our recorded history. But it happens on 24 all the time.

And that, my friends, is why it should be US policy.

Decker · « **Reply #88 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:18:59 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 23, 2009, 06:38:40 PM

Of course it's partisan politics. I guarantee you any attempt by Congress to investigate this crap will consist of all or pretty all Democrats. We have a Democrat president sticking his finger in the wind to see what the public response will be. It is as partisan as the Clinton/Lewinsky matter.

Obama campaigned on transparency and against torture.

You must have missed that finger.

Decker · « **Reply #89 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:25:18 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 23, 2009, 06:39:07 PM

The CIA disagrees with you.

Really. Would you please show me the Agency's official statement that torture worked?

Mind you, that's the admission of a felony.

See, stuff that Obama is showing the public indicates that the CIA broke the law, that Bush and Co. broke the law and that, if he chooses, Obama can try them for felonies.

Interrogators, who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity, said they believed Zubaydah told them everything he knew before waterboarding began. They communicated this to agency higher-ups in Washington, who nonetheless insisted on the use of the practice, and asked to watch it take place.

"You get a ton of information, but headquarters says, 'There must be more,' " recalled one intelligence officer who was involved in the case. As described in the footnote to the memo, the use of repeated waterboarding against Abu Zubaydah was ordered "at the direction of C.I.A. headquarters," and officials were dispatched from headquarters "to watch the last waterboard session."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0420/p99s01-duts.html

They already knew. The waterboarding...was extra.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #90 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:28:52 AM »

As I understand it yes.....they're enemy combatants, not soldiers under a flag. The term is made up because we had no idea what to do with them. Prior to this, most terrorists were either dead or let go. If u look at other terror events from the 70's on, either the anti-terror forces killed em, or they were used in an exchange somewhere down the line. We don't do that. Plus once we rolled over the Taliban, we found tons of foreign fighters.

tonymctones · « **Reply #91 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:38:23 AM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on April 23, 2009, 02:54:38 PM

You equate chinese water torture with yelling at people?

There is physical duress during all of these "methods", so I'm afraid your leap doesn't really make a lot of sense here.

No, they're not dying, but there is physical and mental trauma being performed at the same time.

LOL you equate waterboarding to cuting the heads of ppl, suicide bombings, killing innocents and using innocents to hide behind, using mentally diaabled and children to harm ppl and this is a far leap for you? hahahah wow

IFBBwannaB · « **Reply #92 on:** April 24, 2009, 07:47:07 AM »

Quote from: Decker on April 24, 2009, 07:18:07 AM

Everything that is a crime is wrong. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If one person held the answer to saving 1000s of lives then surely we would have to torture him. That's great reasoning. It's never happened in our recorded history. But it happens on 24 all the time.

And that, my friends, is why it should be US policy.

You're not getting it genius, the Nazi's have Nirenberg laws...they were sooo right...

You're the one who keep mentioning them so please explain that , laws are made at a certain time by a few certain individuals , thus they can easily be wrong themself or absolute.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #93 on:** April 24, 2009, 12:40:37 PM »

Quote from: Decker on April 24, 2009, 07:18:59 AM

Obama campaigned on transparency and against torture.

You must have missed that finger.

Obama is still campaigning. I can honestly say I'm concerned about the safety of our country given what he has done so far. I saw a bumper sticker the other day:

OneBigA**MistakeAmerica

Decker · « **Reply #94 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:12:31 PM »

Quote from: IFBBwannaB on April 24, 2009, 07:47:07 AM

You're not getting it genius, the Nazi's have Nirenberg laws...they were sooo right...

You're the one who keep mentioning them so please explain that , laws are made at a certain time by a few certain individuals , thus they can easily be wrong themself or absolute.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The Nuremberg holdings are still good law to this day.

Decker · « **Reply #95 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:14:19 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 24, 2009, 12:40:37 PM

Obama is still campaigning. I can honestly say I'm concerned about the safety of our country given what he has done so far. I saw a bumber sticker the other day:

OneBigA**MistakeAmerica

Don't let your nebulous fear get the better of you. That was the m/o for 8 years under Bush. Obama is a much better president than Bush was at this time in his presidency. Then again, Bush had a surplus and good economic times.

Obama's saddled with the Bush Depression.

Don't let the fear win Beach Bum.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #96 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:20:41 PM »

Quote from: Decker on April 24, 2009, 02:14:19 PM

Don't let your nebulous fear get the better of you. That was the m/o for 8 years under Bush. Obama is a much better president than Bush was at this time in his presidency. Then again, Bush had a surplus and good economic times.

Obama's saddled with the Bush Depression.

Don't let the fear win Beach Bum.

How can you say we had a surplus considering the national debt we have???

It was all a smokescreen anyway by the same wall street thieves Rubin et al.

OzmO · « **Reply #97 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:22:55 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 24, 2009, 02:20:41 PM

How can you say we had a surplus considering the national debt we have???

It was all a smokescreen anyway by the same wall street thieves Rubin et al.

Didn't Clinton leaved him with one?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #98 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:27:30 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on April 24, 2009, 02:22:55 PM

Didn't Clinton leaved him with one?

They had a brief budget surplus, however that was done using SS receipts which should not be part of the general fund.

OzmO · « **Reply #99 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:34:01 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 24, 2009, 02:27:30 PM

They had a brief budget surplus, however that was done using SS receipts which should not be part of the general fund.

Research it. Not true.

It was still a surplus even if you take out the SS.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html