Doc Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 no, they aren't. what evidence supports that conclusion? Fair enough. And just checking where people stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 no, everyone became less safe when the cia engaged in government sanctioned torture. you think that those that were tortured (or their compatriots) were unaware of this before this disclosure? the only people unaware were those who chose to ignore the evidence. the report only provides the gruesome details and confirmation for those that wouldn't publicly admit what happened. and why exactly wouldn't they publicl;y admit it if it is defensible by arguments like yours? i would argue the most harm to the safety of the world comes from pols and regular people who, when confronted with the facts of torture at us hands, defend it and show no regret. that's the real measure of depravity. Try again. Next time use English. I wonder what Scooter Libby thinks about all this He called. He said he thinks you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The only bad part is that it doesn't hold gov't officials responsible like Cheney and Rice. The CIA wasn't acting without encouragement from them. Oh boy....the 'get Dick Cheney' fantasies certainly do die hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Try again. Next time use English. Ha! No he did use English, but its ok, you don't understand because...well...because of Progressives! Oh boy....the 'get Dick Cheney' fantasies certainly do die hard. I know, right? Everyone knows EVERYTHING is Obama's fault. Gees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Ha! No he did use English, but its ok, you don't understand because...well...because of Progressives! Congratulations on your ability to translate potato head. You !@#$ing potato head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Oh boy....the 'get Dick Cheney' fantasies certainly do die hard. Give NoodleJoe a break. He did admit that Susan Rice should be brought to justice for her lies to the American public and Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) So: let's recap. The political party which espouses gun control, state interference in people's healthcare, bypassing of the constitutiton to allow illegal immigrants to stay who will most certainly vote in their favor...big government Democrats...are shocked and appalled when an overbearing central government abuses its power in a manner THEY DON'T LIKE? Couldn't have seen that coming. No sir. Edited December 10, 2014 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Exactly. That's why the Senators and Congresspersons who were briefed regularly and "knew about" these activities will never permit charges to be brought against whomever. Charges would shine the flashlight of responsibility into the dark corners of Congress. So the only way to "shine a light" is to press charges? Because there aren't any charges the entire issue should continue to be classified and kept in the dark? That doesn't help anything. With regard to sliding down the slippery slope, I wonder how we will combat beheadings by reading Miranda rights to the executioners who feed on the publicity of the original act....? I also wonder about the acceptability of "droning" the household of a terrorist leader, but publicly denouncing sleep deprivation, loud music over time and waterboarding to determine the location of that household. The amount of accurate intelligence garnered from "enhanced interrogation" was nil. Nada. Zip. And you're an Egyptian living in denial. Whadda expect? He believes in extraterrestrials and zombies. It was after dark and I was trying to give him nightmares, otherwise I would have just referenced the Waffen SS and Unit 731. I believe in zombie extraterrestrials... get it right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The amount of accurate intelligence garnered from "enhanced interrogation" was nil. Nada. Zip. You have absolutely nil, nada, zip basis for making that statement. You are not gatortard. You know a political snowjob when you see one and that's what we have here with this entire 'investigation' and report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/opinion/pregent-torture-report/index.html?iid=article_sidebar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The amount of accurate intelligence garnered from "enhanced interrogation" was nil. Nada. Zip. Probably not true. Nothing is ever 0% effective (except for Geno Smith). But it's the nature of "actionable" intelligence that we almost never find out about it. And I have a natural aversion to trusting investigations or reports generated by Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Being able to recall the end of WW II, and having seen Korea, Vietnam, and various other formal and informal international dust ups, I must admit that there is a point, when we are under direct physical attack, here or abroad, at which I'm OK with turning the tables on the enemy and using extraordinary methods to respond. I don't want any part of beheading (receiver or giver), but there may come a time when waving a copy of our Constitution in the face of the enemy doesn't stop them. So I guess I'm not a subscriber to absolute adherence to no torture. In critical situations, I expect those charged with protecting us to develop the information necessary to keep us safe. I don't believe the John Kerrys nor the Joe Bidens of the world can diplomatically resolve the philosophy expressed by many of our current international enemies. In a similar vein, it appears to me that POTUS is not a devotee of absolute adherence to his oath to the Constitution in terms of manipulating and changing laws passed by Congress (See the ACA), nor his authority limits with regard to his recent action on stopping deportation of illegal immigrants. These actions, absent an imminent threat to the nation, appear both ignorant and arrogant in nature. Like you, in today's relatively peaceful world, I abhor torture of any human being; unlike you, the point where I'd support crossing the line comes much sooner than yours does. But make no mistake, there is a point where you would/will cross that line. You either don't know it yet, or you're too sensitive to admit it. This describes my feelings on the issue perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Probably not true. Nothing is ever 0% effective (except for Geno Smith). Justin Rogers disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The Dems had to say that the "torture" didn't produce any accurate intelligence because if it did, people would be less outraged. So that claim means nothing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 What would offend me is if the government wouldn't do all it could to protect it's citizens. THAT would offend me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Give NoodleJoe a break. He did admit that Susan Rice should be brought to justice for her lies to the American public and Congress. I thought he was talking about Condoleezza Rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I thought he was talking about Condoleezza Rice. What justification would he have for condemning Condi Rice? Susan Rice is the one that no doubt lied to the American people and to Congress. You can't be thinking that PastaJoe is such a partisan hack that he would condemn Condi rather than Susan, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/12/10/obamas-endless-lies-and-his-media-accomplices/?subscriber=1 The “torture” controversy also proves to be a diversion from discussing Obama’s alternative—the use of drones to shoot air-to-surface Hellfire missiles and literally obliterate suspected terrorists. When terrorists die in drone strikes, they yield no intelligence data because they do not end up alive in U.S. custody. Plus, women and children die alongside them. This is supposed to be more “humane” than alleged “torture” of the individual terrorists, who survive the “torture” and then get fat at Gitmo. Obama gets away with this because the media, once again, are feeding out of his hands, eager to take his line on foreign affairs when it is nonsensical and counter to U.S. interests. In his 2013 remarks to the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged that “…it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Obama declared, “…America’s actions are legal.” Case closed. That’s good enough for the media. At the same time, he said, “I believe we compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.” Obama’s flimsy justification for drone strikes is a self-serving memo generated by his own administration. It purports to explain why killing Americans does not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution for U.S. citizens accused of crimes. The memo refers to U.S. drone aircraft as “contemplated lethal operations.” Apparently, however, wiping out terrorists and their families, friends, and relatives, is not something that compromises our basic values. The fact that Obama gets away with this deception says something about the gullibility of the American media. It was appropriate that the Democratic Senate report on “torture” was released on the same day that Jonathan Gruber was testifying about lying to the American people regarding the benefits of Obamacare. The Senate report was another form of deception, designed to confuse and mislead about what Obama has used in place of interrogation techniques of terrorists. Obama doesn’t interrogate terrorists, he kills them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 http://www.gopusa.co...s/?subscriber=1 The “torture” controversy also proves to be a diversion from discussing Obama’s alternative—the use of drones to shoot air-to-surface Hellfire missiles and literally obliterate suspected terrorists. When terrorists die in drone strikes, they yield no intelligence data because they do not end up alive in U.S. custody. Plus, women and children die alongside them. This is supposed to be more “humane” than alleged “torture” of the individual terrorists, who survive the “torture” and then get fat at Gitmo. Obama gets away with this because the media, once again, are feeding out of his hands, eager to take his line on foreign affairs when it is nonsensical and counter to U.S. interests. In his 2013 remarks to the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged that “…it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Obama declared, “…America’s actions are legal.” Case closed. That’s good enough for the media. At the same time, he said, “I believe we compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.” Obama’s flimsy justification for drone strikes is a self-serving memo generated by his own administration. It purports to explain why killing Americans does not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution for U.S. citizens accused of crimes. The memo refers to U.S. drone aircraft as “contemplated lethal operations.” Apparently, however, wiping out terrorists and their families, friends, and relatives, is not something that compromises our basic values. The fact that Obama gets away with this deception says something about the gullibility of the American media. It was appropriate that the Democratic Senate report on “torture” was released on the same day that Jonathan Gruber was testifying about lying to the American people regarding the benefits of Obamacare. The Senate report was another form of deception, designed to confuse and mislead about what Obama has used in place of interrogation techniques of terrorists. Obama doesn’t interrogate terrorists, he kills them It's OK to murder people in war - just don't be mean to them first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 It's OK to murder people in war - just don't be mean to them first. It's not "murder" if it's "war." Unless it's done to us. Then it's murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts