CIA interrogation probe steams those on right and left

OK, then let's see the evidence.

He said the questioning “played a role in nearly every capture of al-Qaida members and associates since 2002.”

Well then you should have started doing it in 2001 then. Like when you got that report that got tossed in the trash.

SuperLib says:

OK, then let's see the evidence.

Read the IG's report. In the case of three terrorists that were given the EIT treatment, each of them provided information on operational planning , information that led to the apprehension of other terrorists, or to the disruption of terrorists plots. Very little of this type of information was obtained using the old good-cop bad-cop routine that we are limited to now. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad become the "most prolific" intelligence source after getting water-boarded. The Left is just in denial. Cheney is right and that is what is driving you guys so crazy. The program saved many lives and not a single one of the very few high value terrorists who were subjected to the enhanced interrogation tactics had any bones broken or finger nails pulled out. None were beheaded or shot in the back of the head. Speaker Pelosi was aware of all of this at the time and had no problem with it. Aren't you folks aware the the US military regularly uses water-boarding to train certain special operations personnel? I never heard Pelosi crying about that...

OK, then let's see the evidence." No, better yet. If proven that these things did save lives, those who were against it should give their lives up.

He totally missed the part where cheney pixie dust also created jobs, melted the pounds away while you sleep, violated the rule and intent of the Constitution of the United States of America and put our troops in greater danger of being tortured themselves.

Can't believe he'd miss all those points. Must be the excess evil squeezing out the memories and ethics (of course there were few to start, but still).

Taka

What if imposing martial law would also saved lives and lead to captures of terrorists? Where does this guy draw the line between what is right and wrong?

Cow76,

scooter libby. He drew the line at scooter. Everyone below, including you and I didn't matter.

Let's remember the motto for the right: it ain't immoral unless it involves a blue dress. ;-)

Taka

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says, ... “saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks," “deserve our gratitude,” do not deserve “to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions” “ and "played a role in nearly every capture of al-Qaida members and associates since 2002.”

Save the rhetoric for your trial, buddy.

He said the questioning “played a role in nearly every capture of al-Qaida members and associates since 2002.”

So if you were to make a logic tree all the captures would lead to how many people at the top of the tree? What the hell am I talking about? Look he is saying that everyone captured was a result of what a person already captured said or someone they snitched on said. Person one gives info on person 2. Person three is either from info from person one or two or they don't meet Cheney's criteria and would therefore be deemed NOT "nearly every capture." In statistics they used the term confidence level. So I want to ask if Cheney would say "nearly every capture" fits roughly into a 95%, 97.5% or 99% confidence level? Since Cheney has a habit of lying his ass off (especially in CIA matters} (i.e. - Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda (and so many more)), I would bet this is just another case of his presenting the American public with another crock of shit. I would accuse him of double talk but that would mean he would occasionally have to speak the truth; he never seems to get around to that.

I just want a conservative to say he believes that all the al Qaeda captures stemmed from the initial captures of prisoners with extremely few exceptions. That means the ground troops capturing al Qaeda were guided by the CIA "nearly every" time.

What a filthy liar. Conservatives should be ashamed of a former V.P. who was derisive for so long and now is practically begging the American people not to prosecute him (read between the lines of his rhetoric!). It is unheard of to make such divisive comments toward a new administration, especially because he has dirty hands in this matter. But then that is why he is doing this, making these statements, because he has dirty hands.

Wolfpack said:

Read the IG's report. In the case of three terrorists that were given the EIT treatment, each of them provided information on operational planning...

Nope, never read it, source please and I will read it; even if it is anecdotal evidence that the CIA states is contrary to their findings. Hmmm, IG report, must be public record.

The program saved many lives...

Source please!

Aren't you folks aware the the US military regularly uses water-boarding to train certain special operations personnel?

I was not aware of that. Source Please!

If you claim inside knowledge from being in the service you better tell us what your job was. I was in the Air Force, worked in an office the entire time, had a high security clearance and was privy to a hell of a lot of information. I worked in operations two years and for the Security Police, at one of the largest bases in the world, for two years.

So which will it be sources or crock? I would not bet either way on this one. I am a wait and see kinda guy. Waiting for proof that is.

So, let me get this straight. We need to let the guys in Gitmo go free and go after the people who put them there and put them in jail?

GD,

On Monday's taping of The View, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura -- who was waterboarded as part of his military training -- repeated the mantra he offered last week, calling waterboarding torture and demanding criminal prosecution for those who authorized it.

"I would prosecute the people who did it," he said. "I would prosecute the people who ordered it. And they would all go to jail."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/ventura-and-hasselbeck-de_n_204774.html

Because I know you like sources.

Taka Taka

Personally I say let the CIA boys and girls do their jobs but for the love of all that is Holy, Mr. Cheney, please be quiet and enjoy retirement like President Bush. Seriously, go golf or something, maybe take a muzzle awareness course, anything but please stop drawing attention to yourself.

I have no doubt in my mind that every country in every war since the concept of two nations fighting each other started have resorted to torture in one form or another. It's not personal, it comes with the business of achieving a tactical edge over the enemy. And hay, as far as we know nobody has been killed at GITMO (although four terrorists did commit suicide) which beats the heck out of the other side’s track record.

Taka, I would hardly consider Hufferington an unbiased source. Additionally, i would also argue as to whether Jessie is playing politics. I mean, would you argue with a woman as fine as Hasellbeck? I'd let her have her way regardless of what she was saying. now do you understand?

Thanks Taka, but the real question remains; Did Jesse give up any secrets under torture?

skipthesong said:

If proven that these things did save lives, those who were against it should give their lives up.

So, let me get this straight. If those things didn't save lives, Skip is ready to give his life up?

Wow, this grammatical context interpolation stuff really is fun. Almost as fun as putting words in other people's mouths.

Taka313: "He missed the part where cheney pixie dust also created jobs, melted the pounds away while you sleep..."

Lame.

"...violated the rule and intent of the Constitution of the United States, and put our troops in greater danger of being tortured themselves"

Cheney did no such thing.

gD: "Save the rhetoric for your trial buddy"

Dream on.

skip - "So, let me get this straight. We need to let the guys in Gitmo go free and go after the people who put them there and put them in jail?"

Incredible, isn't it?

Nothing like a Cheney article to get the left all wee wee'd up I'd say.

sarge: "Cheney did no such thing." "Dream on." "Incredible, isn't it?"

Lame.

So, let me get this straight. If those things didn't save lives, Skip is ready to give his life up?" I'm not the one making the argument! don't start showing your young age.

Wow, this grammatical context interpolation stuff really is fun. Almost as fun as putting words in other people's mouths."" And what part of my post puts words in people's mouths? You taking mind reading courses lately?

The Question says: "I have no doubt in my mind that every country in every war since the concept of two nations fighting each other started have resorted to torture in one form or another. It's not personal, it comes with the business of achieving a tactical edge over the enemy. And hay, as far as we know nobody has been killed at GITMO (although four terrorists did commit suicide) which beats the heck out of the other side’s track record."

The US says it is fighting for democracy and the rule of law. So breaking not only international law as well as US law surely weakens every attempt to persuade. Torturing your enemies leads to bad intelligence (people will say anything to stop torture) and risks your own troops being tortured if they are captured. Torture does not make sense and is never justifiable.

Tireias: (people will say anything to stop torture)

So they'll give up the location of their training camps and future plans?

risks your own troops being tortured if they are captured

Sure, if we're torturing Russian or Chinese troops. But this is Al Queda and known terrorists. They're the ones who cut your head off and put the video on the internet. And you presume they're "holding back?"

I think at certain times, torture will always be used.....by everyeone.

Tireias: (people will say anything to stop torture)" And they won't say anything to get something good?

I am so glad that in wars past, the US didn't have to deal with such nonsense as to whether or not they were doing the right thing in gaining info.

Skip said:

So, let me get this straight. We need to let the guys in Gitmo go free and go after the people who put them there and put them in jail?

Who said let the guys in Gitmo go free? Did Cheney put them there? Who is to say their interrogators are the same agents who put them there in the first place? So who did "put them there" and who is trying to "put them in jail?" It doesn't take a mind reader to see the implications you are making were never expressed by anyone and it remains to be seen if you can even identify who "the guys," "the people" and "them" are.

skip said:

I'm not the one making the argument! don't start showing your young age.

You are the one making the argument that others should risk their lives for their beliefs. So why shouldn't someone who believes in nothing not risk his life? Don't call for others life until you are ready to risk your own. I know you didn't tell me not to show my young age. Besides the fact that I turned 51 years old today at this early hour in the morning in America I could go through your posts on this thread alone and show a litany of errors that I would not have made at 30 years old much less 35 years old. The bottom line would be that you could not even recognize when someone was mimicking you.

"No, better yet. If proven that these things did save lives, those who were against it should give their lives up." Millions of people were and still are "against it." And yet the suggestion is made and then further defended that the "better yet" way would be for those millions, easily tens of millions if not 100 million, people "should give their lives up." But a person who asks for this mass destruction of human life should give up nothing. Then there is the issue of "save lives." Since it is plural I will assume the threshold would be as low as two lives saved. I guess it does not matter how many non-Americans should die to save two lives. It does not matter their level of innocence. Just as long as the people with the right ethnicity did not lose their life and those with the wrong ethnicity did lose their life to ensure that in fact it "did save lives."

How can anyone not find it morally reprehensible to say an innocent persons life only has the value that their nationality, religion, or ethnicity assigns value to that life. Yes, completely innocent people were sent to Gitmo. They were as young as 14 years old.

CIA Releases Its Instructions For Breaking a Detainee's Will (By Joby Warrick, Peter Finn and Julie Tate, The Washington Post)

Sure they did. They've already come up with new (undisclosed) methods.

The US says it is fighting for democracy and the rule of law. So breaking not only international law as well as US law surely weakens every attempt to persuade. Torturing your enemies leads to bad intelligence (people will say anything to stop torture) and risks your own troops being tortured if they are captured. Torture does not make sense and is never justifiable.

Morals are nice, intel is better. And as to tortureing leading to bad information I would counter and say that if the CIA is doing its job (wich I think they are) they will have insured that the terrorists know full well that if they feed the U.S with corrupt intelligence than they will be treated even worse. Plus, our troops were and are being tortured anyway, and not for intelligence but for sport. They would have tortured and executed our people whether or not we had taken prisoners.

This is absurd. Why not give Osama a post in your cabinet Obama you freaking MORON! I predict a major terrorist attack against US during Obama's 4 years in office. He will not get re-elected, thank God! Obama and Holder are traitors and should be tried for treason!

How can anyone not find it morally reprehensible to say an innocent persons life only has the value that their nationality, religion, or ethnicity assigns value to that life. Yes, completely innocent people were sent to Gitmo. They were as young as 14 years old.

goodDonkey, good point, make sure you include the Taliban, who have gone on reacord to say that none believers are infidels and should be killed or taxed a special tax. The methods saved lives. The people who they did it on had bad intentions on the US and others. If this were simply a case of a criminal murderer (even though I would be glad if it is done to them) I realize that under our justice system they have the right not to face such tactics. But these are people captured in war, and frankly I don't give a darn if a little threats were made to them. Ask that to the guys on the videos that the Taliban has released showing their beheadings (like the reporter for the Wall Street Journal), or the other people who just happen to be non believer or believers in their religion but whom these people have said they need to die in the name of Jihad so that some guy can go in their midst and blow himself up along with them.

Skip,

It doesn't matter what the site is when it has the video of him saying it.

Nothing like a Cheney article to get the left all wee wee'd up I'd say.

Trolling now Sail? Geez.

Taka

Restoring the nation's moral staure must be a top priority, and that includes affirming that there are consequences for authorizing illegal practices. If it turns out that no laws were broken, then the investigation will vindicate officials, and that is equally important. None of this will help Obama move his domestic agenda, but it's the right thing to do.

"...violated the rule and intent of the Constitution of the United States, and put our troops in greater danger of being tortured themselves"

Cheney did no such thing.

To use a debating technique on a kind of par with the above, Did too.

Times one million, no come backs.

How about backing your view up with some evidence, instead of monosyllabic reflex asininity?

IvanCoughalot - ( cough, cough ) - How about proving that former Vice President Cheney violated the rule and intent of the Constitution of the United States and put our troops in greater danger of being tortured to death instead of saying something as lame as "To use a debating technique on a a kind of par with the above, Did too."?

Nah...

Brave ACLU lawyers have clandestinely photographed CIA employees involved in the interrogation of so called terrorists and showed the photos of them and their family members to AlQaida detainees housed against their will in Guantanomo Bay. This is undoubtedly a factor in the probe.My feeling is the president and his attorney general want to level the playing field.Oh and yes, this is completely different from how cheney outed Valerie Plame.

Seiji, it doesn't look like President Obama is closing Guantanamo.

In fact, he plans to send more to Palau, Bermuda and a third place I can't remember. I know the British government is miffed that he didn't consult them first about Bermuda.

-Cheney and Plame? That was a completely affair. Her husband boasted drunkenly at many parties and affairs that his wife was a 'CIA agent'. This same husband complained about Cheney or whoever 'outting' his wife. What a joke. The husband bragged about this constantly to anyone who'd listen long before the bidness you bring up.

How about proving that former Vice President Cheney violated the rule and intent of the Constitution of the United States and put our troops in greater danger of being tortured to death

As you will.

If you fabricate the reason for a war, then send young men and women to fight in it, you put them in greater danger.

You start a war of aggression, you defy international law. Don't bother spouting the usual claptrap about "winsome sons" and "running Iraq into the ground from his many palaces" here. There was no case for that war. It was based on a pack of lies. Just because a country is ruled by a Bad Man is not sufficient case to invade it. Sending men and women to fight there for no good reason made it more likely they would be killed, maimed, and yes, tortured to death.

You send soldiers into action ill-equipped, you endanger both their lives and the ultimate success of the mission.

You legitimise torture as a means to an end (you'll no doubt have something to say about "people who would kill you and your family without hesitation" here), you legitimise it for the people you're fighting against and radicalise a whole generation, making it vastly more likely that your methods will be used against you and your troops will be tortured to death.

Q.E.D.

Now you prove the Constitution was upheld by Bush/Cheney. You know, that "Goddamned piece of paper".

USARonin said:

-Cheney and Plame? That was a completely affair [sic]. Her husband boasted drunkenly at many parties and affairs that his wife was a 'CIA agent'.

HILIARIOUS stuff !!!!

Which party were you at? Or you can just give us the name of the person who heard this at a party. Hey Ronin, "Everybody knows he said it." Hey Ronin - "He said it all the time."

So many parties, it should be simple to come up with some names of people who heard this. I'll be waiting.

I heard the same bullshit over and over. I guess when the Republicans got busted so many times for dishonoring America they just started lying to get out of messes. I heard so many smears by the Republicans on Valerie Plame. What I did not hear was the CIA, under the Bush Administration, confirm one damn lie that these gutless wonders were circulating to smear her name.

It takes a real lowlife to out a CIA undercover agent just because you can't stand that you were exposed by her husband for lying about WMD; specifically both manufacturing, distributing and further promulgating lies about yellow cake.

It went down like this:

1.) Joe Wilson exposed the lies about Iraq getting yellow cake to build a nuclear weapon.

2.) Cheney outed Plame.

3.) Cheney's underlings got sacrificed because Cheney got caught.

4.) The Conservative Machine put out lies saying others outied Plame not Cheney who really did

5.) The Conservative Machine put out lies concerning Valerie Plame's job - saying she was unimportant.

6.) The conservatives got caught again lying.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/60minutes/main3378089.shtml

Now Cheney has been caught telling the CIA to withhold information which is clearly illegal as I posted the law on another thread.

Cheney is now whining about a probe that may expose his corruption.

Alphaape said:

goodDonkey, good point, make sure you include the Taliban, who have gone on reacord to say that none believers are infidels and should be killed or taxed a special tax.

I do not vote for nor do I live in a Taliban territory. I am an American. When my government kills it kills it my name whether I like it or not. When my government does good it does good in your name whether you like it or not.

You choose to stoop to their level I do not.

The methods saved lives.

If so, prove it!

I'll listen to agents who actually worked in the field all their lives. I already posted a former CIA Director's statement here are more.

Former FBI agent Ali Soufan also indicated that the harsh interrogation techniques may actually have hindered the collection of intelligence, causing a high-value prisoner to stop cooperating - during congressional hearings.

For all the bullshit that has been espoused why not listen to an actual expert, William Egan Colby, who died before our most recent Bush was ever elected president. That would be former CIA Director, William E. Colby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkanFveaCn0

High-profile retired CIA officers like Bob Baer, Frank Anderson, and Vincent Cannistraro spoke out in November of 2005 about their opposition to torture on practical grounds (Cannistraro said that detainees will "say virtually anything to end their torment"). Burton L. Gerber, a decorated Moscow station chief who retired in 1995 after 39 years with the CIA, surprised some when he said he opposes torture "because it corrupts the society that tolerates it." "The reason I believe that torture corrupts the torturers and society," Gerber says, "is that a standard is changed, and that new standard that's acceptable is less than what our nation should stand for. I think the standards in something like this are crucial to the identity of America as a free and just society."

From 1972 to 1975, Frank Snepp was the CIA's top interrogator in Saigon, where he choreographed elaborate, protracted sessions with Nguyen Van Tai and, at one point, seven other senior Vietcong captives. To the question of whether torture or abusive behavior by interrogators is justified, Snepp's answer is unequivocally no. And the fact that this point isn't understood at the agency today, Snepp says, is a sign of serious problems.

I actually to not want any CIA agents prosecuted; this was forced on them by the executive branch.

I loved this guys take on torture so I posted it seperate:

Merle L. Pribbenow, a 27-year veteran of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations. Writing in Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's in-house journal, Pribbenow recalled that an old college friend had recently expressed his belief that "the terrorist threat to America was so grave that any methods, including torture, should be used to obtain the information we need." The friend was vexed that Pribbenow's former colleagues "had not been able to 'crack' these prisoners." Pribbenow sought an answer by revisiting the arcane case of Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking Vietcong prisoner captured and interrogated by both South Vietnamese and American forces during the Vietnam War. Re-examining in detail the techniques used by the South Vietnamese (protracted torture that included electric shocks; beatings; various forms of water torture; stress positions; food, water, and sleep deprivation) and by the Americans (rapport-building and no violence), Pribbenow reached a stark conclusion: "While the South Vietnamese use of torture did result (eventually) in Tai's admission of his true identity, it did not provide any other usable information," he wrote. In the end, he said, "it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans, and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided." But perhaps most noteworthy was Pribbenow's conclusion: "This brings me back to my college classmate's question. The answer I gave him -- one in which I firmly believe -- is that we, as Americans, must not let our methods betray our goals," he said. "There is nothing wrong with a little psychological intimidation, verbal threats, bright lights and tight handcuffs, and not giving a prisoner a soft drink and a Big Mac every time he asks for them. There are limits, however, beyond which we cannot and should not go if we are to continue to call ourselves Americans. America is as much an ideal as a place, and physical torture of the kind used by the Vietnamese (North as well as South) has no place in it."

USARonin posted the results of a search engine search. However none of the results had one single person stating they heard Joe Wilson claim what USARonin said Joe Wilson said. Not One! You will have to do better than that when trying to spread conservative propaganda on JT.

I am just asking for one person at the "many parties" as you claim on the "cocktail circuit" as you claim, before that is the date we have confirmed that Cheney outed Plame.

Just one person to support your claim. A simple request!

GD, of course representatives of foreign powers took note of the clown who outed his wife as a member of the American intelligence community well before 'Novak'.

Do you imagine otherwise?

Why are you obsessed and so enraged on this and other topics? You'll do yourself an injury in the real world if you haven't already. I'd bet you have.