Forums Register login What's New?
Republicans chances of winning Senate majority continue to brighten
Page 18 of 21
  1. So I read the summary....sue me. Did you? I doubt it. I have no need for political talking points; I form my own opinions based on the information at hand. So nice try but not so fast.
    I don't care what Feinstein says. I am talking about the report itself. But apparently you are worrying about what Feinstein is saying.....whose merely using political talking points? The report is very clear that there was nothing of value garnered from the methods described and, in fact, went on to say that the CIA hid this information from congress, the president and the press and, further, deliberatly lied to us about the effectiveness of those methods. Of course the CIA "disagrees" with the report. Did you expect them to fess up or something? It's the CIA for Christ's sake.......lying and lying well is what they do.
  2. The CIA operates independently as usual and it has often been a problem. But Bush was not in the dark. In 2002, the Bush justice department told the CIA that what they were doing was legal.

    http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques.

    How about Bush's own memoir? In Decision Points, George W. Bush admitted that he enthusiastically authorized that certain detainees be waterboarded – or tortured, a crime under domestic and international law. When asked if he would authorize the torture of one detainee, former U.S. president Bush declared “Damn right!”

    How about the White House National Security team? LINK

    The FBI e-mail was put into a new light by news reports last week that senior White House officials – including Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice – did meet secretly to discuss specific interrogation methods that could be used against detainees.

    “The most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al-Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA,” ABC News reported, citing unnamed sources.

    “The high-level discussions about these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed – down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

    “These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al-Qaeda suspects – whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC News.”    ​

    On Friday, President Bush confirmed the report, stating matter-of-factly: “I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved … I told the country we did that. And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.”​

    So, you who distrusts government believes that Bush was not in control of his own justice department and National Security team?

    [/QUOTE]I just told you. It's a public mea culpa and wink-wink, nudge, nudge pledge that we'll never do it again, so that we can go back to doing it covertly as before and as everyone else does.
  3. $80 Million??? WTF??? The Chinese had perfected torture thousands of years ago. Want to keep it in house. Borrow the techniques of the American Indians.
  4. Even the CIA cannot point to a single event that was stopped or any actionable intelligence that resulted from their techniques. The examples that they used previously as glowing examples of torture's effectiveness have now been debunked. So no, I'm not swallowing a bunch of crap as you say. I'm looking at the facts. Those people who are out there today trying to say that they were never allowed to refute these accounts were invited to testify but refused to do so earlier because they feared being prosecuted by the Attorney General. This has been stated over and over today by members of both parties.
    Torture is contrary to our American values. Period. End of discussion brother. I don't care how you want to justify it or point to it's effectiveness it is wrong, plain and simple. Torture need not be motivated by sadism to be torture. Answer me this: If you were being tortured do you think it would occur to you that your torturers didn't mean anything by it? Just another day at the office, huh guys?
  5. If I were being tortured I would tell them everything I knew. I like to believe that I'm a stand up guy and wouldn't rat out anybody but as soon as I saw the knife near my balls I would rat out Mother Teresa if I could.
  6. the old sharp things around the Johnson method gets'em every time:p
  7. Of course I didn't read it. I certainly didn't have the time in the last 24 hours to absorb 500 pages of government bullshit and if you did indeed read just the summary, you can't say with confidence what the detailed information really revealed.

    The report itself is nearly 2,000 pages. When you get done reading it, let me know. I don't worry about Feinstein....she just happens to be chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and about to hand her job over to a Republican. It was her decision to release the report and it was her giving a speech about the report. I provided 3 different points of view on the report, not just Feinstein's opinion.

    A summary can't really claim to be "clear". It's a summary so basically we are talking generalizations. But again, there was no mention of "nothing of value". The claim is that no "actionable" information was received. I expect both sides to disagree, it's what they do. This is a political joke, not some deliverance of justice or honest mea culpa from the US.
  8. So does removing their arm at the elbow and clubbing them to death with it, or cutting off their ear, their other ear, a finger.....all at intervals while their buddy watches knowing they are next.
  9. Some folks claim an eye for an eye is an American value.

    Until the office workers come home and have to adjust.
  10. It's clear from several sources today (I already gave you one) that the specifics and extent to which torture was being used and it's effectiveness were misrepresented to everyone by the CIA. With Bush, the issue has always been a little roughing up and water boarding being discussed as the worst. Brennan was conducting and orchestrating far worse and lying about it. I don't believe Bush or Obama has ever truly known or even wanted to know what Brennan was doing. Evil. Pure evil. And before there was a "Brennan", Bush's dad was heading up the CIA and he wasn't hearts and flowers either.

    I get that but was it necessary in the first place? I don't think so.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 18 of 21