Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Vekta]

It's ok guys. All the cool kids do it so torture is A-OK.

For all the National pride and over the top nauseating patriotism that the right showed during the last 8 years you would think they would be beside themselves with anger and disgust that their beloved country has gotten such a horrible black eye.

id be more concerned about the apparent levels of illiteracy.

[Rhinox]

you would wouldn't you.

[Kuya]

To understand what we're dealing with:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if []he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

lol

[Tristam]

Thanks to Obama's national intelligence director we know they weren't minuscule gains. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...2blair.html?hp

I will just never believe we should put the comfort of terrorists before the lives of Americans, especially when if the situation were reversed they would do much worse to us.

This is the most amazing post in the entire thread.

You fail, in the most incredibly stupid way I've ever seen, at reading your own cites, Blair specifically states that he has no reason to believe that the "valuable information" gathered through harsh interrogation could not be gathered through other means. Others form the CIA, FBI, army, navy, (cited multiple times in this thread) etc have said that harsh methods are entirely unnecessary as well, and that torture only serves to justify those who wish us harm.

from your own argument:
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

I also cannot believe you set up a false dichotomy about TORTURE in this fucking thread when people are trying their best to avoid that failure of logic which plagues people such as yourself. Comfort of terrorists vs. american lives? You cannot possibly think the entirety of national security boils down to something that simple when the reality of information gathered via torture is, at best, horrendously complex and makes judgment unfathomably difficult for the CIA and FBI (that is, when they're comfortable coordinating and not worried about actually breaking international law). Seriously, how on earth would you act on information obtained from ONE source via torture?

edit: If the situation were reversed? If you were plucked from your home tonight and asked for detailed information about troop movements in iraq and afghanistan, what would you say? Do you honestly know the information they want? I sure as shit don't. Even if I were the most unpatriotic of americans, and I cracked at the sight of a knife, I bet I still couldn't give them the information they wanted. Would I make something up to confuse them?

[Tristam]

You doubt, and you know what helps with doubt? Evidence. But how do we get that when the FBI (experts at rapport building) leave because they want nothing to do with the CIA's torture? You already saw the Abu Zhubaida case, right? The situation is pretty clear cut, and we need more investigations.

Shit, even the CIA left it up to contracted help for things they didn't get expressed written permission from higher ups. Everyone with half a brain knew this was a clusterfuck from the beginning and covered their asses as best as possible.

[Deftscythe]

A man in the news media saying what a lot of people are thinking, and surprisingly enough saying it on Fox News.

YouTube - Shepard Smith Live: We Are America — We Do Not Fucking Torture!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

This is the most amazing post in the entire thread.

You fail, in the most incredibly stupid way I've ever seen, at reading your own cites, Blair specifically states that he has no reason to believe that the "valuable information" gathered through harsh interrogation could not be gathered through other means. Others form the CIA, FBI, army, navy, (cited multiple times in this thread) etc have said that harsh methods are entirely unnecessary as well, and that torture only serves to justify those who wish us harm.

from your own argument:
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

He said that AFTER his initial statements which weren't meant to be made public were made public. If you didn't fail at reading you would have read that I think that sounds a lot like covering his ass to stay in sync with Obama in public.

edit: If the situation were reversed? If you were plucked from your home tonight and asked for detailed information about troop movements in iraq and afghanistan, what would you say? Do you honestly know the information they want? I sure as shit don't. Even if I were the most unpatriotic of americans, and I cracked at the sight of a knife, I bet I still couldn't give them the information they wanted. Would I make something up to confuse them?

Except the U.S. isn't doing that?

[Elvis]

It isn't Swamp? You must be trolling.

[Leif]

Everyone keeps posting all these links to ridiculous news sources like The New York Times, the cable news networks, The Huffington Post, and the BBC. Everyone seems like they've moved past whether torture is good or not because as SwampdonkeyPLD describes, not being in sync with Obama is not a very politically smart position. The debate is between whether we "go after" people who tortured, which is essentially a ridiculous debate. You can't change the law then go after everyone who acted within its bounds (and yes, forceful interrogations described in those memos were legal, despite what the op-ed page of the New York Times says.)

The media essentially has Liberal Democrats debating radical Democrats as on CBS news this morning between John McCain and Patrick Leahy.

Did the US torture? Yes.

Was the torture potentially beneficial to attempts to save American lives? Yes.

Was the torture potentially harmful to attempts to save American lives? No.

What kind of possible spin can you put on torture that doesn't boil down to "My priorities lie with saving non-American lives" or "I care what France thinks about the US" or "Someone besides the US sets foreign policy", all of which are frankly ridiculous statements.

"Human rights" concerns simply aren't valid in wartime and when trying to save lives on a massive scale. That's why we ban MSM from giving blood and secretly scan Arabs in airports so they don't get sued for preventing people who look like the other 19 that murdered 3,000 Americans from boarding planes.

[Leif]

Also, does anyone see it as ridiculous that people call anybody with even a slightly conservative viewpoint "trolls"?

Do you guys do anything than scream louder and actually respond to reasonable points with facts?

"Bush lied! Torture's wrong! Torture's illegal! JAIL BUSH AND CHENEY! HALLIBURTON!"

If the situation were reversed? If you were plucked from your home tonight and asked for detailed information about troop movements in iraq and afghanistan, what would you say? Do you honestly know the information they want? I sure as shit don't. Even if I were the most unpatriotic of americans, and I cracked at the sight of a knife, I bet I still couldn't give them the information they wanted. Would I make something up to confuse them?

You're right. Torturing people that don't know anything is pretty cruel. But torturing people who we know for a fact have killed Americans, want to kill Americans, and are radical extremists with ties to terrorists is actually very effective.

Do you have another plan for getting information out of people who are prepared to die for their cause. Can you give them benefits that beat eternity in paradise with lots of virgins that will convince them to give their information up. Seems like torture has the best chance.

You honestly think that Gitmo is filled with people the previous administration just "didn't like"? As I said before, the argument "torture doesn't work" might make some sense if we were actually picking up random people off the street.

[Muffins]

^ Post of the year right there.

[Maxxthepenguin]

"Human rights" concerns simply aren't valid in wartime and when trying to save lives on a massive scale.

Not going to address the entire thing, post, but I do have an important question: When do you think this wartime is going to be over and those stupid tree-hugging "human rights" will matter again.

Also, what news sources do you consider NOT ridiculous

[Leif]

Wartime is over when radical Islamic terrorists are gone or permanently disabled. Most people couldn't be connected to a Gitmo terrorist by the six degrees of separation rule. So as far as a big "human rights" concern, the argument really isn't there.

Essentially, as long as there is someone to reasonably torture, we have a problem on our hands.

Mainstream media and admittedly-liberal biased news sources are unreliable on anything with a political spin. Any news organization that won't debate Liberal Democrats against radical Democrats is a wonderful place to start. I suggest Fox News. Despite its reputation among liberals as "evil" "crazy" "Republican", its really only given these names because it lies middle of the road as opposed to the far left. It has its fair share of liberal characters like Greta Van Susteren.

Edit: I cite liberal haven Wikipedia here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Bay_detainees

These people are almost exclusively Arabs. And they didn't rob convenient stores or steal lollipops from innocent young girls. The people detained are involved with terrorism. Half of the ones that have been released have since been taken out/assassinated/bombed by terrorists over the fear that they probably gave into torture. The other half probably join back up with terrorist cells after being released, and are subsequently killed by the US military after being under surveillance in raids that kill lots of terrorists.

Go America. Killing terrorits, keeping America safe.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Wartime is over when radical Islamic terrorists are gone or permanently disabled. Most people couldn't be connected to a Gitmo terrorist by the six degrees of separation rule. So as far as a big "human rights" concern, the argument really isn't there.

Essentially, as long as there is someone to reasonably torture, we have a problem on our hands.

Mainstream media and admittedly-liberal biased news sources are unreliable on anything with a political spin. Any news organization that won't debate Liberal Democrats against radical Democrats is a wonderful place to start. I suggest Fox News. Despite its reputation among liberals as "evil" "crazy" "Republican", its really only given these names because it lies middle of the road as opposed to the far left. It has its fair share of liberal characters like Greta Van Susteren.

Ok you're just as I thought.

Unintentional troll

[Elvis]

One thing Leif does not address is WHY we were attacked. Why we may be attacked in the future. If I believed that terrorists had no legitimate arguments then of course I'd be all for Team America-style justice.

We're not just fighting terrorists anyways. We're fighting an entire people.

Before Iraq, 500,000 children were killed by the sanctions we (essentially) imposed. We supported Saddam at one point. Blah blah blah.

Was it 'worth it'? Anything we do - no matter how horrific - can be construed as 'worth it'.

Governments are not moral institutions.

The people of Iraq have legitimate grievances that have not been addressed.

Nothing Leif says is particularly controversial.

Furthermore his argument ignores the geopolitical history of the region which has changed very little throughout the last century.

All this information in the periphery builds context.

His argument is simplistic: Terrorists want to kill Americans just for the fun of it and we need to stop them in any way possible.

[Leif]

The pattern continues.

"I won't even bother to respond"

"Troll"

Gimme a break. If you could reasonably respond, you would jump at the chance. Traitor. Pick America for once.


....



We were attacked because terrorists are crazy. Got any other explanation? Want them to go to therapy so we can "understand their intentions". Seems like a lost cause.

Good luck with that.

[Jodwahh]

If "Wartime is over when radical Islamic terrorists are gone or permanently disabled." then this War is never going to end. You ever think how many more terrorists this practice has made? They might stop 1 attack by getting information in this manner but surely it's only going to create more problems in the future.

[Maxxthepenguin]

The pattern continues.

"I won't even bother to respond"

"Troll"

Gimme a break. If you could reasonably respond, you would jump at the chance. Traitor. Pick America for once.

SHIT I FORGOT MY FLAG PIN, CAN I GET SOME PATRIOTIC BACKUP HERE?

First you pretty much laid out a justification to always ignore "human rights" for the rest of the history of America.

Then you just said that liberal media can't be trusted and what is considered the central pillar of conservative media is completely trustworthy. I particularly liked how you said "Cable News Networks" are untrustworthy then said FNN was great. It's like when people don't trust the MSM because Bill O'Reilly told them not to.

Come on man, can't you do any better?

We were attacked because terrorists are crazy.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[Correction]

Everyone keeps posting all these links to ridiculous news sources like The New York Times, the cable news networks, The Huffington Post, and the BBC.

Post your sources and stop puting quotation marks around 'human rights' like they only exist in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. It's typical of an intellectually cornered conservative to start crying liberal bias and 'you guys don't want a reasonable argument' without actually contributing to a better situation themselves.

Gimme a break. If you could reasonably respond, you would jump at the chance. Traitor. Pick America for once.

Pick a stand that doesn't require five minutes of eye-rolling and the others may find you worth replying to. As it stands you're contributing bufkis.

[Muffins]

This raises an interesting question, though. I'm not fully studied on this, but is it trolling when what one would normally consider a troll actually and sincerely believes what they're posting?