The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

One of the guys who did the legal, pre-torture interrogation of Abu "totally crazy" Zubaydah has an op-ed piece in today's NYT. It seems to give a lot more context to that memo released yesterday, and basically agrees that the torture was useless and shouldn't have been done.

He must hate our country. He should go move over their if he loves them so much.

 

/kaperbole

[kapkomet]

One of the guys who did the legal, pre-torture interrogation of Abu "totally crazy" Zubaydah has an op-ed piece in today's NYT. It seems to give a lot more context to that memo released yesterday, and basically agrees that the torture was useless and shouldn't have been done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

 

Intel chief: Harsh techniques brought good info

Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight

 

 

By Peter Baker (New York Times)

 

updated 9:21 p.m. CT, Tues., April 21, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

 

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

 

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

 

Some parts of memo deleted

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

 

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

 

"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."

 

Admiral Blair’s private memo was provided by a critic of Mr. Obama’s policy. His assessment could bolster Bush administration veterans who argue that the interrogations were an important tool in the battle against al Qaeda.

 

 

Techniques 'made us safer'

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Mr. Bush, said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a separate interview with Fox, endorsed that conclusion and said he has asked the C.I.A. to declassify memos detailing the gains from the harsh interrogations.

 

Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week to bolster that conclusion.

 

The White House would not address the question of whether the tactics have been effective on Tuesday but fired back at Mr. Cheney. “We’ve had an at least two-year policy disagreement with the vice president of the United States,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country.”

 

Mr. Obama’s team has cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations, but in a visit to the C.I.A. this week, the president did not directly question that. Instead, he said, that any sacrifice from banning those tactics was worth it to uphold the nation’s belief in rule of law.

 

“I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve,” he said. “I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while.”

 

But he added: “What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

 

'Torture is not moral'

The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.” But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked.

 

“Do you believe the C.I.A.’s interrogation detention program has been effective?” Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, asked him.

 

“I’ll have to look into that more closely before I can give you a good answer on that one,” Admiral Blair answered.

 

But of course, Obama's tact here REALLY is to put any blame on future attacks back on the Bush administration because of "torture". And judging by all you liberals, it's working. You don't want to think that the Messiah can be wrong about anything. This guy brainwashes you all better then anyone I've ever seen. Just keep drinking the kool-aid and don't ever stop and ask yourself what the truth really is. And as I always say, it's about somewhere in the middle, but you all want to blame Bush so bad you can't stand the thought that they could maybe be right on some of this stuff. It couldn't be, could it? Oh, the BROKE THE LAW, HANG THOSE f***ERS. They didn't break laws. But you all want to believe it so bad you can't stand it.

[lostfan]

This is not something that's so easily quantifiable, you can't really just take statements from random people and take them at face value.

[kapkomet]

This is not something that's so easily quantifiable, you can't really just take statements from random people and take them at face value.

I know that, but I see more s*** come from the liberals here that they always just take at face value, because it fits their viewpoints. Bush administration tortured, the information was bulls***, and no matter what, that is it. How many posts have we seen with that schtick? Too damn many.

 

[StrangeSox]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

 

 

 

But of course, Obama's tact here REALLY is to put any blame on future attacks back on the Bush administration because of "torture". And judging by all you liberals, it's working. You don't want to think that the Messiah can be wrong about anything. This guy brainwashes you all better then anyone I've ever seen. Just keep drinking the kool-aid and don't ever stop and ask yourself what the truth really is. And as I always say, it's about somewhere in the middle, but you all want to blame Bush so bad you can't stand the thought that they could maybe be right on some of this stuff. It couldn't be, could it? Oh, the BROKE THE LAW, HANG THOSE f***ERS. They didn't break laws. But you all want to believe it so bad you can't stand it.

 

Conversely, you have seemed incapable of ever giving him credit lately. It's Obama Derangement Syndrome, and it set it much earlier than Bush Derangement Syndrome set in for most liberals.

 

As for the second bolded part, isn't that for an investigation to determine?

 

I know that, but I see more s*** come from the liberals here that they always just take at face value, because it fits their viewpoints. Bush administration tortured, the information was bulls***, and no matter what, that is it. How many posts have we seen with that schtick? Too damn many.

 

Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias. Aren't you accepting the claims that the information was good/ prevented attacks that otherwise wouldn't have been stopped at face value while scrutinizing any other claims much more heavily?

Edited April 23, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

Conversely, you have seemed incapable of ever giving him credit lately. It's Obama Derangement Syndrome, and it set it much earlier than Bush Derangement Syndrome set in for most liberals.

 

As for the second bolded part, isn't that for an investigation to determine?

 

 

 

Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias. Aren't you accepting the claims that the information was good/ prevented attacks that otherwise wouldn't have been stopped at face value while scrutinizing any other claims much more heavily?

You would have to read all of this and the other thread. I've said before, war's a dirty business, and you have to do some things you don't want to do. It's not this pretty, nicey nice crap some people want it to be. Define "torture". You can't. They can't. No one can. The law is not clear, it's gray on purpose. But you cannot go back after the fact and change the rules, like Obama wants to do. It's not about "torture", it's about blame shifting.

 

I JUST posted that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe everything Cheney has to say, nor do I Obama's drivel.

 

[BigSqwert]

John Marshall's 'Junta Party' analogy:

 

This analogy isn't close to being complete. And it doesn't match up at every point. But where it does connect, it's so spot-on that I must share it with you.

 

In former Banana Republics, in their post-transition- to-democracy phases, you'll often have a Junta Party. It's an opposition party whose main goal isn't to get elected so much as to maintain the legacy of the former junta regime, defend its record of service to the state and most of all keep its former leaders from being put on trial or shipped off to the Hague. Often the party will be headed up by the former Generals themselves. But if they're dead or otherwise occupied in the slammer or abroad, maybe you'll have their relatives or the one-time cronies and lickspittles of this or that el jefe of the old regime filling the leadership roles.

 

And today, as we watched the on-going parade of Cliff Mays on TV or Dan Burton praising waterboarding as essential to the American dream, Eric Kleefeld pointed out to me that that really is pretty much the role the GOP -- at least for the moment -- has taken in our present politics.

 

Yes, Republicans have tried to distance themselves from President Bush's fiscal profligacy. But on the core value issues of militarism and human rights violations and keeping faith with the war criminals of the previous regime they really couldn't be more unified or on message. If you were plopped down on earth today in front of a TV set in the United States, on the testimony of the party members themselves, you might easily get the idea that state-sanctioned torture was the main policy legacy of the outgoing administration. Sort of like Democrats looked back on late 90s budget surpluses with a proud defiance in the aftermath of the Clinton years.

[Rex Kickass]

You would have to read all of this and the other thread. I've said before, war's a dirty business, and you have to do some things you don't want to do. It's not this pretty, nicey nice crap some people want it to be. Define "torture". You can't. They can't. No one can. The law is not clear, it's gray on purpose. But you cannot go back after the fact and change the rules, like Obama wants to do. It's not about "torture", it's about blame shifting.

 

I JUST posted that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe everything Cheney has to say, nor do I Obama's drivel.

 

You're absolutely right. Obama clearly only got elected to the Presidency to blame Bush. Oh and America, too.

[kapkomet]

You're absolutely right. Obama clearly only got elected to the Presidency to blame Bush. Oh and America, too.

He pretty much has everywhere he's gone. You want to deny that? I could fill up the whole damn forum with his blame game.

[lostfan]

I could fill up the whole damn forum with his blame game.

lol, "could"

[Balta1701]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

 

 

 

But of course, Obama's tact here REALLY is to put any blame on future attacks back on the Bush administration because of "torture". And judging by all you liberals, it's working. You don't want to think that the Messiah can be wrong about anything. This guy brainwashes you all better then anyone I've ever seen. Just keep drinking the kool-aid and don't ever stop and ask yourself what the truth really is. And as I always say, it's about somewhere in the middle, but you all want to blame Bush so bad you can't stand the thought that they could maybe be right on some of this stuff. It couldn't be, could it? Oh, the BROKE THE LAW, HANG THOSE f***ERS. They didn't break laws. But you all want to believe it so bad you can't stand it.

It's actually somewhat remarkable to me that you bothered to post that after I already pointed out the flaw in it with my post before you. I will make it more clear.

 

If you read both that full article, not just the part you want to hear but the full thing, the guy says...everything that was gotten out of the torture could have been gotten without it, the U.S. has been put in a worse position by the torture, and if he had the choice he would not have done it.

 

This meshes EXACTLY with the FBI version I posted, which I pointed out. He says that a small bit of intelligence was obtained under duress. But both also state it could easily have been obtained without slamming the guy against the wall.

 

Basically, if you actually read the things you're trying to cite, it makes a solid case that the FBI was close to the end of their interrogation of the guy, the Administration decided that it was time to get more, the FBI was ordered to stop, and the last few questions were answered while the CIA and the contractors were beating him senseless. They both say that any answers that were obtained under duress could have been obtained without the torture, and that it was totally unnecessary as a method of gathering intelligence in this case.

 

Citing a case where the people doing the interrogation universally say the torture was unnecessary does not even remotely suggest that it was necessary. It suggests the exact opposite, and the very memo you're trying to cite undermines your entire case if you read the whole thing.

[kapkomet]

lol, "could"

It would take me way too much time to do it, since pretty much every damn speech there's a strawman about how America is at fault for all the world's current problems and George W. Bush was an asshole and he's so much better.

[BigSqwert]

It would take me way too much time to do it, since pretty much every damn speech there's a strawman about how America is at fault for all the world's current problems and George W. Bush was an asshole and he's so much better.

I think the "could" referred to 99.9% of your posts already doing that.

[kapkomet]

It's actually somewhat remarkable to me that you bothered to post that after I already pointed out the flaw in it with my post before you. I will make it more clear.

 

If you read both that full article, not just the part you want to hear but the full thing, the guy says...everything that was gotten out of the torture could have been gotten without it, the U.S. has been put in a worse position by the torture, and if he had the choice he would not have done it.

 

This meshes EXACTLY with the FBI version I posted, which I pointed out. He says that a small bit of intelligence was obtained under duress. But both also state it could easily have been obtained without slamming the guy against the wall.

 

Basically, if you actually read the things you're trying to cite, it makes a solid case that the FBI was close to the end of their interrogation of the guy, the Administration decided that it was time to get more, the FBI was ordered to stop, and the last few questions were answered while the CIA and the contractors were beating him senseless. They both say that any answers that were obtained under duress could have been obtained without the torture, and that it was totally unnecessary as a method of gathering intelligence in this case.

 

Citing a case where the people doing the interrogation universally say the torture was unnecessary does not even remotely suggest that it was necessary. It suggests the exact opposite, and the very memo you're trying to cite undermines your entire case if you read the whole thing.

It might be unneccessary. it might not be. You want to side on the fact that we should be nice to everyone and make it all rainbows and foo foo kissy kissy for these guys and we would/could get the same information. I want to side on the fact that we have 3,000 people dead, and I don't want it to happen again, so I don't want to take the chance that these perpetrators will know something that might save more thousands of lives. And that doesn't even take into account "what is torture", as that's a whole different argument.

 

History shows us that "being nice" got us 3,000 people killed, so I think it makes little to no difference in these radical's eyes about what "interrogation methods" we use. Yet another strawman arguement from liberals including the Obama Adminisration.

[lostfan]

I think the "could" referred to 99.9% of your posts already doing that.

^^ This

 

It's a pretty common understanding that you (kap) jumped the shark several weeks back therefore "could" is unnecessary.

[BigSqwert]

It might be unneccessary. it might not be. You want to side on the fact that we should be nice to everyone and make it all rainbows and foo foo kissy kissy for these guys and we would/could get the same information. I want to side on the fact that we have 3,000 people dead, and I don't want it to happen again, so I don't want to take the chance that these perpetrators will know something that might save more thousands of lives. And that doesn't even take into account "what is torture", as that's a whole different argument.

So you're in favor of a fascist, socialist government having the right to torture? I mean that's what the Obama administration is right?

[kapkomet]

^^ This

 

It's a pretty common understanding that you (kap) jumped the shark several weeks back therefore "could" is unnecessary.

And what's he done to prove me wrong? Nothing. I don't post quote after quote about what a dick he is, I just generalize.

 

That's fine. Clearly, I am "wrong".

 

[kapkomet]

So you're in favor of a fascist, socialist government having the right to torture? I mean that's what the Obama administration is right?

Yes, except it's not "torture" if the guidelines that were followed are followed.

[lostfan]

It might be unneccessary. it might not be. You want to side on the fact that we should be nice to everyone and make it all rainbows and foo foo kissy kissy for these guys and we would/could get the same information. I want to side on the fact that we have 3,000 people dead, and I don't want it to happen again, so I don't want to take the chance that these perpetrators will know something that might save more thousands of lives. And that doesn't even take into account "what is torture", as that's a whole different argument.

Let's say that hypothetically torture was legal and constitutional, and we didn't have to worry about this whole debate here for a minute. "Torture" then should just be viewed as another interrogation technique. It shouldn't be looked at as the "nuclear option" or anything because it's not guaranteed to work. It doesn't work on everyone, in fact I'd say it doesn't work on the majority of people. For every 1 prisoner you get to break and start giving you good, accurate information, you probably have 2 or 3 that would just start making s*** up, curl up into the fetal position and cry, get on their knees and hug your calf and beg for mercy, and/or start mumbling Koranic verses.

 

There are other methods that are just as effective or better, I mean you could even get a PS3 and start playing Killzone with them if that gets them to talk. You're only limited by your imagination, and the changes in direction don't necessarily have to be "harsher" to be effective.

Edited April 23, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Let's say that hypothetically torture was legal and constitutional, and we didn't have to worry about this whole debate here for a minute. "Torture" then should just be viewed as another interrogation technique. It shouldn't be looked at as the "nuclear option" or anything because it's not guaranteed to work. It doesn't work on everyone, in fact I'd say it doesn't work on the majority of people. For every 1 prisoner you get to break and start giving you good, accurate information, you probably have 2 or 3 that would just start making s*** up, curl up into the fetal position and cry, get on their knees and hug your calf and beg for mercy, and/or start mumbling Koranic verses.

 

There are other methods that are just as effective or better, I mean you could even get a PS3 and start playing Killzone with them if that gets them to talk. You're only limited by your imagination, and the changes in direction don't necessarily have to be "harsher" to be effective.

As I just said, IMO, the guidelines that were followed was not torture. It's a slippery slope, and there has to be lines, but to go back and prosecute on a straw man's argument is terrible judgement, IMO. If he doesn't want to adhere to these policies, that's his choice, and don't make it public just to scream about previous administration's "wrongs". Our country didn't used to work that way. Can we go back and prosecute FDR post-humoursly, pretty please? Come on.

[Balta1701]

History shows us that "being nice" got us 3,000 people killed.

Oh that is complete bullplop. Being stupid, perhaps.

[lostfan]

As I just said, IMO, the guidelines that were followed was not torture. It's a slippery slope, and there has to be lines, but to go back and prosecute on a straw man's argument is terrible judgement, IMO. If he doesn't want to adhere to these policies, that's his choice, and don't make it public just to scream about previous administration's "wrongs". Our country didn't used to work that way. Can we go back and prosecute FDR post-humoursly, pretty please? Come on.

I don't like the idea of retroactively going back and prosecuting people for giving s***ty legal advice (can be read as "an opinion you disagree with) either. It sets a bad precedent for any time an administration changes over. I feel like Obama is trying to play both sides of the fence here and making himself look weak or indecisive.

[BigSqwert]

Oh that is complete bullplop. Being stupid, perhaps.

I find it ironic that people living in the middle of nowhere, who have a 1 in a billion chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack, are more vocal about this than people in NY, LA, Chicago.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Oh that is complete bullplop. Being stupid, perhaps.

 

 

Yes Kap, don't you know it was the evil Bush administration that arranged 9/11?

[Balta1701]

I don't like the idea of retroactively going back and prosecuting people for giving s***ty legal advice (can be read as "an opinion you disagree with) either. It sets a bad precedent for any time an administration changes over. I feel like Obama is trying to play both sides of the fence here and making himself look weak or indecisive.

I'm going to go all Murphy's law here.

 

That same logic says Adolf Eichmann was an innocent man. He didn't personally kill anyone, he followed orders, he did his job methodically, did it very well, made sure the trains ran on time, and he was judged after the administrations changed. People went back and applied a different set of moral standards to the work he did after the fact.