PDA

View Full Version : RickSantorumSaysMcCainKnowsNothingAbout Torture



Gayle in MD
05-17-2011, 10:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>By Associated Press, Published: May 17
WASHINGTON — Former Sen. Rick Santorum said Tuesday that Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years enduring brutal treatment at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, doesn’t know how effective waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques can be. The Republican presidential contender insisted the tactics led the United States to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a speech last week that waterboarding al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, did not provide information that led to bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan

McCain said he asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and that the hunt for bin Laden did not begin with fresh information from Mohammed. In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.

“Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information,” McCain said.

In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday, Santorum said McCain was wrong.

“Everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten

McCain said he asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and that the hunt for bin Laden did not begin with fresh information from Mohammed. In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.

“Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information,” McCain said.

In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday, Santorum said McCain was wrong.

“Everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation,” Santorum said. “And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he (McCain) doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works.

“I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that’s how we ended up with bin Laden,” said Santorum.

He added: “Maybe McCain has better information than I do, but from what I’ve seen, it seems pretty clear that but for these cooperative witnesses who were cooperative as a result of enhanced interrogations, we would not have gotten bin Laden.”

McCain, the 2008 Republican president nominee, said his information came from Panetta. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, backed up McCain’s assessment that waterboarding of Mohammed did not produce the tip that led to bin Laden.

Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for McCain, said Tuesday she would not dignify Santorum’s comments with a response.

In the House, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the Intelligence committee, said the Justice Department should stop investigating CIA interrogators for alleged abuse of detainees under the Bush administration because their work was a “vital part of the chain” that led to the successful raid on bin Laden’s hideout.

The Justice Department had no comment.

____
</span> </div></div>

Gayle in MD
05-18-2011, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/g...7z5G_story.html

</div></div>

Perky
05-18-2011, 09:13 AM
However.... apparently Santoum does know very great deal about "frothy mixtures" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif

eg8r
05-18-2011, 11:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain said he asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and that the hunt for bin Laden did not begin with fresh information from Mohammed. In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.
</div></div>And you can bet all the money in the world that enhanced interrogation was going on in that "other country".

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-18-2011, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain said he asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and that the hunt for bin Laden did not begin with fresh information from Mohammed. In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.
</div></div>And you can bet all the money in the world that enhanced interrogation was going on in that "other country".

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, Ed, as it turns out, we didn't originally get anything about it from ANY detainee...



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Defenders Keep Digging
Gayle in MD Gayle in MD
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 20/02/02
Posts: 14676
Loc: Maryland http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/g...7z5G_story.html



Quote:Posted at 12:51 PM ET, 05/17/2011
Bush torture defenders keep digging

By Greg Sargent


Former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey — who has been leading the charge for torture defenders intent on claiming a piece of Bin Laden’s killing for Bush — has now responded to CIA chief Leon Panetta’s letter downplaying the role of torture in tracking down Bin Laden.

But Mukasey’s latest pushback is also undercut by what’s available on the public record.

As you know, Panetta’s letter contradicted Mukasey’s initial suggestion that the trail to Bin Laden “began” with information squeezed out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed via torture. Mukasey had suggested torture got KSM to unleash a “torrent of information,” including the “nickname” of Bin Laden’s courier. But Panetta’s letter claimed that we first learned the name of the courier from a source not in CIA custody and that no detainee in CIA custody ever revealed the courier’s true full name or whereabouts.

Now, according to ABC News, Mukasey has responded by reiterating that KSM disclosed the courier’s nickname, but he seems to have qualified his account by allowing that this wasn’t the first time a detainee had mentioned the name. Mukasey added that the name only became significant “when it came out of [KSM’s] mouth.”

But this doesn’t respond to what Panetta said, which is that we initially learned of the courier’s name from someone not in CIA custody — and that no one in CIA custody ever copped to the courier’s true full name or whereabouts. Mukasey is only claiming that a CIA detainee had previously mentioned the courier’s name and that KSM later attested to its significance.

What’s more, as Ben Armbruster notes, this latest pushback doesn’t strengthen the pro-torture case when you stack it up against the New York Times’s careful and extensive investigation into what happened. The Times concluded that KSM was only first asked about the courier months after he had been waterboarded, and that if anything, he had misled investigators about the courier’s identity. So it’s hard to see how what KSM said vindicates torture.

As Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted yesterday, Mukasey had already been resorting to “verbal sleight of hand” to draw a tenuous connection between toture and Bin Laden’s death. Mukasey’s response to Panetta will do little to alter that judgment.



</div></div>

eg8r
05-19-2011, 08:26 AM
Back to what you posted originally...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.
</div></div>You can bet all the money in the world the enhanced interrogation was in full steam in that "other country".

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-19-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to what you posted originally...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, came from a detainee held in another country.
</div></div>You can bet all the money in the world the enhanced interrogation was in full steam in that "other country".

eg8r </div></div>

What I posted originally, was updated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But this doesn’t respond to what Panetta said, which is that we initially learned of the courier’s name from someone not in CIA custody — and that no one in CIA custody ever copped to the courier’s true full name or whereabouts.

What’s more, as Ben Armbruster notes, this latest pushback doesn’t strengthen the pro-torture case when you stack it up against the New York Times’s careful and extensive investigation into what happened. The Times concluded that KSM was only first asked about the courier months after he had been waterboarded, and that if anything, he had misled investigators about the courier’s identity. So it’s hard to see how what KSM said vindicates torture.

</div></div>

BTW, I'm against torture, of any kind, against people, animals, or the environment.

Before W. came along, it waas beneath the principles of our country, to torture captives, and in fact, we signed a treaty that, The Gevneva Conventions, broken by Bush, and considered a Treasonist Act when he committed it.

G.

eg8r
05-20-2011, 05:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But this doesn’t respond to what Panetta said, which is that we initially learned of the courier’s name from someone not in CIA custody — and that no one in CIA custody ever copped to the courier’s true full name or whereabouts.
</div></div>None of this supports your theory though. The idea of the courier was known for many years now. It is what they have been searching for quite some time. Just because the actual name of the man did not come out of those interrogations means zip as to whether the enhanced interrogations were vital to the mission.

eg8r

eg8r
05-20-2011, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Before W. came along, it waas beneath the principles of our country, to torture captives, and in fact, we signed a treaty that, The Gevneva Conventions, broken by Bush, and considered a Treasonist Act when he committed it.
</div></div>I also disagree with this immensey. This is the age of information. We are learning more in these days than ever before. In the years before W our armed forces and intelligence community operated much more quietly. They have lived lives of subterfuge for a reason. Why do you think they threw that all in the garbage just so that you could have all the pertinent information now?

Don't you think for at least a moment you are not getting all the real information? Or do you think the guts of classified missions are now spilled to the media?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-20-2011, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Before W. came along, it waas beneath the principles of our country, to torture captives, and in fact, we signed a treaty that, The Gevneva Conventions, broken by Bush, and considered a Treasonist Act when he committed it.
</div></div>I also disagree with this immensey. This is the age of information. We are learning more in these days than ever before. In the years before W our armed forces and intelligence community operated much more quietly. They have lived lives of subterfuge for a reason. Why do you think they threw that all in the garbage just so that you could have all the pertinent information now?

Don't you think for at least a moment you are not getting all the real information? Or do you think the guts of classified missions are now spilled to the media?

eg8r </div></div>

Ed,
I'm addressing the use of torture.

We signed a Treaty, promising not to use Torture.

We have made agreements, when we have signed International Treaties.

International law, prescribes certain remedies, for breaking agreements, of Treaties.

There is loads of sworn testimony, available, on C-span's site, clips, which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we got absolutely NOTHING of value, from torturing people, and that it only made prisoners MORE determined to give false information, just as McCain, has stated, many times.

FBI, CIA, HLS, many, Retired Generals, the vast majority of our top level people, from the Pentagon, to the CIA and the FBI, have stated, that torture does not produce reliable information.

There is no proof, anywhere, that we got anything accurate, from anyone who was tortured. In fact, the opposite.

IMO, it is a desperate attempt, by the Bush Administration, to try to brighten up the shame they brought upon our country, and take from this administration, disgracefully, the credit for finally getting the head of the snake, and our country lost a great deal of honor, when they stooped to the level of rogue countries, and thugs, who torture people.

IMO, we're better than that, and Bush et al, broke the law, and hence, you won't see them traveling abroad...not Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld.

It is a black mark on us, that same black mark, the Powell stated, would remain on his career, when he went before the U.N. and used fake, Cherry picked information, at the UN, to justify an illegal invasion and occupation, of a country that never attacked the U.S. on our shores, now even had the means to do so.

Iraq, was the worst foreign policy decision in our history, and we wouldn't even be in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, right now, IMO, if Bush hadn't diverted his own stated mission, which was to get bin Laden, and smash al Qaeda, over to invading Iraq, which, as we now know, was no threat, and in fact, five former Secretaries of State, from both major parties, have stated as much.

bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban, could have been just dark memories by now, if Bush hadn't lied us into an incredibly, expensive, un-necessary, illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of inocent people, producting millions of refugees, and empowering and emboldening Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda, Russia, it was just plain dumb, a waste of lives and treasure, and it was all about OIL CONTRACTS! Just as Greenspan admitted.

At some point, the right will have to own up to how far behind we are, because the Republican Party, has held us back form creating better energy alternatives, and a cleaner environment.

I can only hope, American will study the scientific proof, about what is happening to our own health, and the health of the environment, due to Republican obstructionism, in their interest of protecting dirty fuels, and getting a pay off from unconscionable polluters, who only care about their own bottom line, and multi billion dollar bonuses.

None of the grudges we have created for coming generations in the Middle East, would be a problem, now, if we had only had taken stept earlier, to accept, decades ago, that our energy policies, would create further risks to our country, if we did not get completely off, foreign oil, and invest in conservation methods, and clean renewable fuels.

Again, we got nothing of any value, from any of those whom we tortured. It's all on C-Span. Sworn Testimony, from CIA, FBI, expert Intelligence officers, and many Military professionals...you don't have to take my word for it.



G.

eg8r
05-20-2011, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm addressing the use of torture.

We signed a Treaty, promising not to use Torture.

We have made agreements, when we have signed International Treaties.

International law, prescribes certain remedies, for breaking agreements, of Treaties.

There is loads of sworn testimony, available, on C-span's site, clips, which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we got absolutely NOTHING of value, from torturing people, and that it only made prisoners MORE determined to give false information, just as McCain, has stated, many times.
</div></div>What good do you think would have come out of all this if they actually told the truth and said we used torture to get the info? Do you think the media would forgive them? I don't. There is nothing to gain for being honest in this matter. In the end they did what they had to do (use enhanced interrogation) to get the information needed and the rest is smoke and mirrors for all those who trust the media.

The real guts and glory behind this is under lock and key and will not be exposed to the media. All we have is to be happy OBL will not be terrorizing us anymore (at least directly).

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-21-2011, 02:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm addressing the use of torture.

We signed a Treaty, promising not to use Torture.

We have made agreements, when we have signed International Treaties.

International law, prescribes certain remedies, for breaking agreements, of Treaties.

There is loads of sworn testimony, available, on C-span's site, clips, which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we got absolutely NOTHING of value, from torturing people, and that it only made prisoners MORE determined to give false information, just as McCain, has stated, many times.
</div></div>What good do you think would have come out of all this if they actually told the truth and said we used torture to get the info? Do you think the media would forgive them? I don't. There is nothing to gain for being honest in this matter. In the end they did what they had to do (use enhanced interrogation) to get the information needed and the rest is smoke and mirrors for all those who trust the media.

The real guts and glory behind this is under lock and key and will not be exposed to the media. All we have is to be happy OBL will not be terrorizing us anymore (at least directly).

eg8r </div></div>


I don't know which "They" you mean. The Obama Administration has outlawed the use of "Torture" aka Enhanced Interrogation.
We no longer waterboard people. Waterboarding has been known as, and called, torture, forever.


The Cheney/Bush administration has already admitted to using torture. Renaming it "Enhanced Interrogation" doesn't change the fact that they broke The Geneva Convention Treaty, IOW, they committed War Crimes. That Part, has already been proven, and admitted to, by both Bush and Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld.

It has also been proven to have been used, very effectively, as a recruiting tool, for al Qaeda.



I don't rely on Media news, for my information. I watch the live testimony, well, I should say, I record it, and watch it, or access it on the C-Span web site.

I don't think I've missed a single testimony on the subject.

If you go to C-Span's web site, every investigation of any importance, is all there. I can tell you, we got nothing of value, no actionable intelligence, by torturing people, and it hurt us, to have an administration, prove, that America didn't keep her word, and that we stooped to the low level of our enemies.

It's a big deal, Ed. It's not a minor thing, at all. It's not really a matter of what good it would do for "Them" to tell the truth, if we're talking about the Bush Administration, the truth, is known.

What it actually is, is an attempt by the right, to take credit, for getting bin Laden, saying in so many words, that getting bin Laden, was based on their administration's USE OF TORTURE.

For them to make those statements, is quite simply, proven lies, and a desperate attempt, to grab some of the credit, away from President Obama, and at the same time, try to lie to justify the fact that they committed war crimes.

Changing the name, using semantics, to soften what they actually did do, tortured people, is bad enough, but to then, try to take credit, by suggesting that their use of torture, played a role in getting bin Laden, is just not true.

Now, If they want to say that their overall contributions to tightening security, or pushing for better more shared, intelligence, I don't have a problem, with that, although, I do think that the Pesident sets the agenda, and I think if Bush had really made getting bin Laden, his top goal, we may well have had him years ago.

Where I draw the line on this RW push they have displayed, to grab credit, is when they try to suggest they deserve credit for getting any actionable information, that led to this success of getting bin Laden, by their, meaning the Bush Administration, past use of torture.

That is simply not true.

They, Bush and Cheney, have been saying that for years, that they gained valuable information, that kept America Safe, by using torture, after they realized that the Supreme Court, said it was torture, and it wasn't legal, and for years, others have exposed it as a lie, over and over again, under sworn testimony, before the Senate.

I think that when this president, signed an Executive Order, outlawing torture, it showed, to me, at least, an important difference between the kind of man President Obama is, and the kind of people, that Bush, Cheney, Rumfeld and Rice, are.

their use of torture, and the legal implications, have been overlooked, here. In other countries, they have been warned, they WILL be arrested, for war crimes, if they enter. Those are the facts.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2011, 03:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm addressing the use of torture.

We signed a Treaty, promising not to use Torture.

We have made agreements, when we have signed International Treaties.

International law, prescribes certain remedies, for breaking agreements, of Treaties.

There is loads of sworn testimony, available, on C-span's site, clips, which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we got absolutely NOTHING of value, from torturing people, and that it only made prisoners MORE determined to give false information, just as McCain, has stated, many times.
</div></div>What good do you think would have come out of all this if they actually told the truth and said we used torture to get the info? Do you think the media would forgive them? I don't. There is nothing to gain for being honest in this matter. In the end they did what they had to do (use enhanced interrogation) to get the information needed and the rest is smoke and mirrors for all those who trust the media.

The real guts and glory behind this is under lock and key and will not be exposed to the media. All we have is to be happy OBL will not be terrorizing us anymore (at least directly).

eg8r </div></div>


Santorum lied.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>“Everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation,” Santorum said. “And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he (McCain) doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works.

“I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that’s how we ended up with bin Laden,” said Santorum.

</span> </div></div>



The Facts:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As you know, Panetta’s letter contradicted Mukasey’s initial suggestion that the trail to Bin Laden “began” with information squeezed out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed via torture. Mukasey had suggested torture got KSM to unleash a “torrent of information,” including the “nickname” of Bin Laden’s courier. But Panetta’s letter claimed that we first learned the name of the courier from a source not in CIA custody and that no detainee in CIA custody ever revealed the courier’s true full name or whereabouts.

Now, according to ABC News, Mukasey has responded by reiterating that KSM disclosed the courier’s nickname, but he seems to have qualified his account by allowing that this wasn’t the first time a detainee had mentioned the name. Mukasey added that the name only became significant “when it came out of [KSM’s] mouth.”

But this doesn’t respond to what Panetta said, which is that we initially learned of the courier’s name from someone not in CIA custody — and that no one in CIA custody ever copped to the courier’s true full name or whereabouts. Mukasey is only claiming that a CIA detainee had previously mentioned the courier’s name and that KSM later attested to its significance.

What’s more, as Ben Armbruster notes, this latest pushback doesn’t strengthen the pro-torture case when you stack it up against the New York Times’s careful and extensive investigation into what happened. The Times concluded that KSM was only first asked about the courier months after he had been waterboarded, and that if anything, he had misled investigators about the courier’s identity. So it’s hard to see how what KSM said vindicates torture.

As Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted yesterday, Mukasey had already been resorting to “verbal sleight of hand” to draw a tenuous connection between toture and Bin Laden’s death. Mukasey’s response to Panetta will do little to alter that judgment.




</div></div>

Again, I don't base my opinion on this, I base it on years of watching testimony, and reading books.

We got nothing of value, by using torture. We lost our honor, for nothing, and they, the Bush Administration, are still lying about it, and doing so in a very dishonorable way.

They stopped using it, before the end of the Bush Administration, because their Law cabal, who rigged up a defense for doing it, was struck down, by the Supreme Court.

That's the point. They committed War Crimes, and they're still trying to say it brought us safety, when it surely did not, in fact, it hurt us.

G.

eg8r
05-21-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" doesn't change the fact that they broke The Geneva Convention Treaty, IOW, they committed War Crimes. </div></div>You are making this up. There were no war crimes committed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For them to make those statements, is quite simply, proven lies, </div></div>They are not proven lies at all. You cannot prove otherwise. The only thing you can base your opinion on is what you hear in the media and if you are taking that as fact and the final word then that is the reason you are missing the mark. The military and intelligence community ONLY tell you what they want you to know. If you think you have the whole story then you are sadly mistaken.

eg8r

eg8r
05-21-2011, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Facts:
</div></div>This is getting real old. You are not providing any facts whatsoever. What you think are facts are parts of a story you were told no more or less.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-22-2011, 06:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" doesn't change the fact that they broke The Geneva Convention Treaty, IOW, they committed War Crimes. </div></div>You are making this up. There were no war crimes committed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For them to make those statements, is quite simply, proven lies, </div></div>They are not proven lies at all. You cannot prove otherwise. The only thing you can base your opinion on is what you hear in the media and if you are taking that as fact and the final word then that is the reason you are missing the mark. The military and intelligence community ONLY tell you what they want you to know. If you think you have the whole story then you are sadly mistaken.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed,
I never said I had the whole story, about anything. I know that Waterboarding is torture, and has been labeled torture, and clearly, we agreed, in the Conventions, not to use it, and doing so, is considered committing War Crimes, and that the SC, struck down the Bush Administration's attempt to redefine TORTURE, and hence, they had to stop waterboarding people.

I know as well, according to everything I've seen, with my own two eyes, and read, and watched, we got nothing of any actionable value, by torturing people, and in fact, it hurt our cause, according to sixtgeen agencies, which contribute to our National Intelligence Estimate, AND five former Secretaries of State, from both political parties.

So, here again, we will probably never agree on this, but the documented facts, are surely on my side of this argument.

If you can post something documented to the contraty, please, you're welcome to do so. I'll be glad to read it.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-22-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Facts:
</div></div>This is getting real old. You are not providing any facts whatsoever. What you think are facts are parts of a story you were told no more or less.

eg8r </div></div>

I suggest you go to the C-Span website, and watch the clips of sworn testimony, on torture, and waterboarding, where CIA, FBI, and others, state, under oath, that no actionable intelligence, from using torture, and that using it actually cost us in may ways, and also only led to the captured, only lying tot us.

One FBI agent, as I recall, told a story of how he was getting somewhere, with one of them, might have been KSM, and then the Torture guys came in, and the prisoner clammed up, and refused to communicate....

Additionally, it is well known, and an accepted FACT, among experts in the field of interrogation, that torture methods, do not provide accurate information...

Some may think that they know more than the best interrogators in the FBI, and the CIA, our best trained interrogation agents, I believe their testimony.

G.

LWW
05-22-2011, 06:59 AM
T o begin with dear heart, your thread title is grossly inaccurate.

From your link:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum said Tuesday that Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years enduring brutal treatment at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, doesn’t know how effective waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques can be.

Gayle in MD
05-22-2011, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" doesn't change the fact that they broke The Geneva Convention Treaty, IOW, they committed War Crimes. </div></div>You are making this up. There were no war crimes committed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For them to make those statements, is quite simply, proven lies, </div></div>They are not proven lies at all. You cannot prove otherwise. The only thing you can base your opinion on is what you hear in the media and if you are taking that as fact and the final word then that is the reason you are missing the mark. The military and intelligence community ONLY tell you what they want you to know. If you think you have the whole story then you are sadly mistaken.

eg8r </div></div>

FYI, I've already posted the documentation for everything I've written about this matter, a number of times, with links. Former Intelligence Agents, cannot lie under oath. FBI, cannot lie under oath.

IMO, if I'm dealing with people who deny the findings of 16 national Intelligence agencies, books written by former Attorney Generals, who wrote mock trials, including all of the crimes of the Bush Administration, explaining how they committed War Crimes, and used unconstitutional, illegal, law breaking, throughout their administration, and somr on the right, still prefer their own slanted, incorrect version, then why should I bother, digging up all of the proof, which I've posted here already, over the years.

Look in the archives, or pull up the C-Span, Senate Intelligence investigations, on TORTURE, or read all of the books, written about the subject, which I have read, or explain how five former secretaries of state, from both Parties, all agree, that Bush's lie which led to the invasion and occupation, of Iraq, was the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

I never just "Make Up" anything, that I haven't throughly researched. But, I'm not about to post the same proof I posted here years ago, for the same kinds of RW partisans, who refused to accept the proof then, and still refuse, now.

Here's a good reason why it's a waste of my time.


You still maintain, that Valarie Plame, was just a secretary. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

This, of course, isn't true, and it's been proven, over and over again, that your statements about her are wrong, yet you continue to deny that the Bush Administration, performed an on-going, mission, from White House offices, of the Vice President, his aid and Rove, with Bush's approval of the mission, to expose the identity, of a covert, CIA NOC Agent specialist, on WMD, Valarie Plame. It's also true that allies of ours, lost their lives, as a result.

Clearly, an act of treason by Bush/Cheney/Libby and Rove.

The remedy for Treason, is to be hung.

I suppose you would deny all of that, too, even now, even though the Special Prosecutor, stated, clearly, that there was a cloud hanging over the Vice President's Office, who used the standard Repiglican format, "I don't recall" over and over again, and Libby was convicted on five counts of obstruction of Justice. Everyone knows, he took the fall for Cheney/Bush/Rove.

So, I now post only my own, educated opinions, for which I have already posted plenty of proof, all along, throughout the Bush Administration, and after, which was denied then, by righties, and in your case, and some others from the right, are all still denying to this day. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Tell me this, if Bush didn't lie in his famous Mushroom Cloud SOTU Address, about Saddam tryng recently to get Yellow Cake, from Niger, why did he remove the language, about Saddam trying to get Yellow Cake, after hie lies had been exposed by Joe Wilsoon, and then we learned that he had been told, that the memo was a fake, by our own CIA, and not to use it...but used it anway, and then turned right around after making the deceitful, fear mongering statements, and took it out, after the address???

I suppose you don't think they were using lies, to fear monger in order to build their case to invade and occupy Iraq and that that had nothing to do with the oil there????

See, why should I bother, with links, which I've already posted in the past, for people who will read them, deny their PROVEN voracity, and then simply insult and cntinue to deny, when the facts have already been proven, over and over again???

A waste of my time.

And also, the reason why I leave most from the right, on ignore.

G.

llotter
05-22-2011, 09:29 AM
The Left recently has adopted the line, 'we support the troops' to deflect the long standing critique that they are weak on defense and that gets us into war. The shallowness and insincerity of this new mantra, however, is in direct conflict with another long standing position of the Left, i.e. favoring the criminal rights over those of the victim or the rest of society.

The Left has staked out this position because they do not support the traditional American interpretation of what comprises a free society. They are married to the egalitarian workers Utopia that is antithetical to capitalism, and an individual's responsibility for their own welfare. They have never bought into the concept that 'ordinary' and capable to taking care of themselves without their 'help'.

This extreme bias against the traditional establishment extends not only to our police but most especially to the military and to America's role in the world as 'super power'. This helps explain why we have not 'won' any wars since the Left became such a dominant force in our politics.

What the Left is saying between the lines is that enhanced interrogation not only doesn't work but that those who support it are sadists and evil because they know it doesn't work and do it anyway. They believe that we must rid ourselves of these evil capitalists and welcome the egalitarian change they will bring to us...reelect The Pathetic Moron.

LWW
05-22-2011, 03:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Former Intelligence Agents, cannot lie under oath. FBI, cannot lie under oath.

G.
</div></div>

So ... the crime of perjury is mythical?

eg8r
05-23-2011, 10:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suggest you go to the C-Span website, and watch the clips of sworn testimony, on torture, and waterboarding, where CIA, FBI, and others, state, under oath, that no actionable intelligence, from using torture, and that using it actually cost us in may ways, and also only led to the captured, only lying tot us.

</div></div>You simply want to live in denial that is all. Again, what benefit would there be if the CIA, FBI and others, under oath stated they did get actionable intelligence from using torture?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-23-2011, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suggest you go to the C-Span website, and watch the clips of sworn testimony, on torture, and waterboarding, where CIA, FBI, and others, state, under oath, that no actionable intelligence, from using torture, and that using it actually cost us in may ways, and also only led to the captured, only lying tot us.

</div></div>You simply want to live in denial that is all. Again, what benefit would there be if the CIA, FBI and others, under oath stated they did get actionable intelligence from using torture?

eg8r </div></div>

Lying under oath, is a felony, Ed. Many who testified, were beyond reproach, and some had resigned, after long, sterling careers, due to the illegal, treasonist, unAMerican Activities of the Bush Administration. If you'd like to do some actual research, on the subject, I sugest you read several great books, written by even Republican writers, about the degree of denial, in that bubble, where Bush lives, in Bod Woodward's book, State Of Denial and also a book written by a former Federal Judge, called, THE UNITED STATED OF AMERICA/VS GEORGE W. BUSH et al who take every single accusation, against Bush, and his administration, and quote the laws, which proof their illegal, treasonist, activities.

But, since you've never seen any of it, live, on C-Span, nor looked for the clips, on C-Span's Video Library, nor read any of the books about it, I forgive you for being so uninformed on the subject. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I know how busy you are with your job, and your family. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

G.

eg8r
05-23-2011, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lying under oath, is a felony, Ed.</div></div>But what is the alternative? You are not answering my question...What benefit would there be if they came out and said they got the info from torturing the enemy?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-23-2011, 12:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lying under oath, is a felony, Ed.</div></div>But what is the alternative? You are not answering my question...What benefit would there be if they came out and said they got the info from torturing the enemy?

eg8r </div></div>

You're kidding, aren't you?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The Former Bush Administration officials have been trying to justify their illegal use of torture, a war crime, in and of itself, because for one thing, they are wanted in a number of other countries, for committing war crimes.

In a Senate Investigation, You'd better be telling the truth.

They got NOTHING, through torture. Nothing, but dishonor, which they will wear for the rest of their lives.

History, will NOT be kind to Bush, Cheney, Rice or Rumsfeld.

Go watch the testimony, don't take my word for it, it's all out there, all you have to do is look it up.

G.

pooltchr
05-23-2011, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Lying under oath, is a felony,
</div></div>

Unless your name is Clinton, and you are lying about sex.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

eg8r
05-23-2011, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Former Bush Administration officials have been trying to justify their illegal use of torture, a war crime, in and of itself, because for one thing, they are wanted in a number of other countries, for committing war crimes.

</div></div>I am referring to the people whom you refer to as "beyond reproach". What benefit would they have to be honest?

eg8r

pooltchr
05-23-2011, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for one thing, they are wanted in a number of other countries, for committing war crimes.

G. </div></div>

You have made this statement before, and were asked to provide some source to verify it. As yet, you have not done so. Until you do, it remains just another of your partisan fantasy lies.

Who specifically is wanted for what specific crimes in what specific countries?

Steve