What purpose does it serve? Pro and con.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/17/newly_released_bush_documents_detail_torture_tacti cs/

I believe under the ACLU lawsuit ruling they would have had to release the documents or fight a battle to keep them secret.

Regardless it's almost certain that they would have leaked anyway, and this allows Obama to get the issue behind him rather than have leaked documents keep a story running that's a distraction.

Yes, some will argue that this will cause the CIA to pull back, but if we just keep our behavior in line with the law, I'd wager our intelligence professionals can be very productive. From what I've read, it sounds like most of the detainees who were tortured gave up the good info using legal techniques. Had torture resulted in good intel that's saved lives? I haven't heard any stories that indicate this, although we may never really know. Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence

what no blowtorch and vise grips???....ahhhhh the bug! if they have high value intel and it will save lives.....

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.
There are a lot of experts in the area who would say that no coercive methods or torture are effective as the reliability of information is so suspect as to be worthless.

That being said, to assert that we should use torture simply because it's effective shows a real lack of ethics or belief in the rule of law.

-spence

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.

If by "super effective" you actually mean, "has never provided substantially useful information" then you'd be spot on.

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/29/politics/washingtonpost/main4901154.shtml

All waterboarding does is get the person to say whatever they possibly can to make the torture stop - be it useful information or not.



Buckman, to answer your question, my understanding is that this was released on a Freedom of Information Act request.

brain scanning technology will soon make torture obsolete...

Yes, some will argue that this will cause the CIA to pull back, :rotflmao:

but if we just keep our behavior in line with the law, I'd wager our intelligence professionals can be very productive. From what I've read, it sounds like most of the detainees who were tortured gave up the good info using legal techniques. Had torture resulted in good intel that's saved lives? I haven't heard any stories that indicate this, although we may never really know. Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?

The sodium pentathol budget will be increased.

and the guy will be babbling like a brook :as:

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?

The sodium pentathol budget will be increased.

The Defense budget is the only budget thats going to see cuts. Every other will see massive increases.

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?
The fish rots from the head down.

-spence

The Defense budget is the only budget thats going to see cuts. Every other will see massive increases.

Nice to see a statement on a sunny Sunday morning that's based entirely on no facts.

-spence

My taxes will go up too...:deadhorse::tooth::tooth:
Obama's raised taxes! Taxation w/o representation!
Taxes! Cuts! Taxes! Cuts!

Currently, 61% of Americans approve of the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as president while 26% disapprove. His approval rating is largely unchanged from March (59%) or February (64%). Obama is loved by Democrats (91% approve) but has already run into growing opposition from Republicans (29% now approve). But the president retains his high approval rating overall with independents supporting him by a two-to-one margin (56% approve, 27% disapprove). Obama also enjoys strong support with respect to his economic leadership. Fully 70% say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in him to do the right thing when it comes to fixing the economy. By comparison, 55% have confidence in congressional Democratic leaders and only 38% have confidence in Republican leaders in Congress. Majorities also believe the president’s policies will both improve economic conditions (66%) and reduce the budget deficit over time (54%).

TEA PARTY PROTEST:
http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/2009/03/29/07/626-771-0329homecity.standalone.prod_affiliate.50.jpg

OBAMA RALLY:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/18/us/politics/obama-oregon533.2.jpg

Nice to see a statement on a sunny Sunday morning that's based entirely on no facts.

-spence

It was a prediction, Spence.
It will become fact, like so many of the predictions about this nutty bunch you voted in.

I figured this wouldn't take long.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495

I figured this wouldn't take long.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495

Good. If illegal actions took place, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Politicians need to be shown that they are not above the law and are going to be held liable. Like the slap on the wrist Mark Foley got for sexually inappropriate solicitations with his pages.

And then there's Sen. Craig who pleaded guilt to sexual misconduct, then decided that he was confused about the plea and changed it to not guilty. Then, was allowed to submit a guilty plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Good. If illegal actions took place, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Politicians need to be shown that they are not above the law and are going to be held liable. Like the slap on the wrist Mark Foley got for sexually inappropriate solicitations with his pages.

And then there's Sen. Craig who pleaded guilt to sexual misconduct, then decided that he was confused about the plea and changed it to not guilty. Then, was allowed to submit a guilty plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Yup. And then there's Jim McGreevey, Gary Studds, Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, Eliot Spitzer, Willliam Jefferson, Mel Reynolds, Charley Rangel, Diane Wilkerson, Bill Richardson, Diane Feinstein, Rod Blagojevich, Jack Murtha, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Tim Mahoney . . . and so on.

Yup. And then there's Jim McGreevey, Gary Studds, Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, Eliot Spitzer, Willliam Jefferson, Mel Reynolds, Charley Rangel, Diane Wilkerson, Bill Richardson, Diane Feinstein, Rod Blagojevich, Jack Murtha, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Tim Mahoney . . . and so on.

I see what you did there... clever.:doh:

The utter lack of non-partisan thought by some people is amazing to me. Can't have a general discussion about liability without some nitwit being ridiculous.

Good. If illegal actions took place, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
.

Well, this is disturbing, under Bush, with his Attorney General, Judges and Lawyers, waterboarding was not considered illegal, but now the new administration says it is, so we can go back and prosecute those involved in making those decisions. Would that be kinda like when I turned 18, that was the legal age to drink, but when I was 19 they changed it to 21, they were not able to prosecute me for underage drinking as it was legal when I started at 18. Or another comparison would be, if Oregon changes their medicinal marijuana laws to make it ilegal and then prosecuting the laywers and politicians that had a hand in making it temporarily legal. It happened legally under Bush, Obama's team changed it, so from now on, it can be prosecuted, but I don't think they should try to go back and go after those involved under Bush. Different times and different measures were thought to be required. I'm sure many of our left leaning friends here even would have supported it, after 9/11. It's hard to go back and remember the way we felt, but we would have done anything to prevent another attack.

Well, this is disturbing, under Bush, with his Attorney General, Judges and Lawyers, waterboarding was not considered illegal, but now the new administration says it is, so we can go back and prosecute those involved in making those decisions.
Waterboarding is clearly illegal under International Law and the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, the United States has recognized water boarding as a war crime historically and has prosecuted people for water boarding under war crime statutes.

There's ample precident to state that it is indeed illegal.

Under Bush, his council came up with some reasons they thought we could get away with it and the Administration, based on that advice, allowed it to occur.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't still illegal, a court would have to decide, but the case doesn't look good.

I'm sure many of our left leaning friends here even would have supported it, after 9/11. It's hard to go back and remember the way we felt, but we would have done anything to prevent another attack.

Your statement is akin to pleading insanity. I wasn't responsible for my actions after 9/11 because I was afraid, or Bush's position, that laws don't really apply any more. Neither option looks good from where I'm standing.

And I'm sure many of our right leaning friends here would at least take a few steps backwards, look at how we reacted at that time, and seek to learn from past behavior so we can operate in a more responsible manner in the future. While there may have been good information derived from torture was there a net gain?

I think Obama is in a tough situation here but is taking a reasonable course of action. I don't think we should go after the CIA and other agents who took part in the activity, and I don't think the Nazi "we were just following orders" attack is necessarily applicable either.

If there is evidence that Bush's attorney's understood the legal ramifications and still sought to give Bush the authority (i.e. cooked the books) then they should be held accountable, although I'm not sure if they've technically broken any law.

-spence

If there is evidence that Bush's attorney's understood the legal ramifications and still sought to give Bush the authority (i.e. cooked the books) then they should be held accountable, although I'm not sure if they've technically broken any law.

-spence

If anyone should be punished it should be these guys, that told the military and CIA it was acceptable to use in certain cases. The greater responsibility lies on those at the top, including Bush if it is proven illegal actions took place.

I'm retired navy and if I was ordered and told that it was required under these set circumstances due to possible gains, I probably would have done it. There is no way in hell, that any military person should be prosecuted unless it can be proven they went beyond what was prescribed by Washington. I know there is a high possibility some of the military may have exceeded their authority, and in those cases it may be necessary to prosecute. But if it was deemed necessary by their superiors and they acted within guidelines, they should not be prosecuted.

If anyone should be punished it should be these guys, that told the military and CIA it was acceptable to use in certain cases. The greater responsibility lies on those at the top, including Bush if it is proven illegal actions took place.

How about the political officials that have since admitted they knew waterboarding was a form of torture (or as they spin it "a harsh interrogation technique), yet still authorized the use of it?

Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all knew it.

I do agree that no military or CIA personnel should be held liable, and this position is supported by Obama.

I see what you did there... clever.:doh:

The utter lack of non-partisan thought by some people is amazing to me. Can't have a general discussion about liability without some nitwit being ridiculous.

What partisan? Just helping you flesh out your non-partisan list. It is fun, though, to be a clever nitwit.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;683383]waterboarding was a form of torture (or as they spin it "a harsh interrogation technique),

I think this is just hilarious....we beat ourselves up over whether or not waterboarding and/or putting a bug in a box with a terrorist is torture.....while the guys that actually torture, and not with bugs or water.... laugh their asses off...did anyone watch the Danny Pearl video???? I'm guessing he would have preferred having the lights left on all night or even the horrible waterboarding to having his head slowly cut off with dull knives listening to Arabic chants.....to the folks that claim it doesn't work and does not provide any useful information....WANNA TRY????....were you the same folks during the campaign that complained the McCain had broken under REAL torture?...and that it showed bad character.....can't have it both ways...

What partisan? Just helping you flesh out your non-partisan list. It is fun, though, to be a clever nitwit.

I listed two names, not much of a list.

Not to mention names of people that were actually reprimanded, one of which initially had criminal charges brought on him.

Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence



Eric Holder spoke out on the interrogation of unlawful combatants in 2002.


"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."


--Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

You could very easily make the argument that they are not prisoners of war. There are other aspects of the Geneva Convention that could possibly exclude terrorist prisoners as well.

However, the Geneva Convention is not the only treaty the US has approved and signed that bars torture. In April 1988, the United States signed the "UN Convention Against Torture." This bars all forms of torture regardless of their prisoner status.

As such, Eric Holder's entire opinion in invalid, along with any other argument that tries to say we're outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is familiar to people and supporters of the previous administration tried to use to to rationalize torture to the American public.

It seems ridiculous to try to justify torture based on a technicality, even if the Geneva Convention was the only reference to torture.

do you think Obama would "justify torture" if God forbid one of his adorable kids were kidnapped by terrorists and we held one of their associates who we believed had info to their whereabouts...

there is a huge chasm between what the left has defined as "torture" done by Americans, I believe simply for political advantage and what the rest of the world actually employs as torture....

I've read plenty of accounts of the day to day routine of the Gitmo detainees....we accomodate their specific meal requirements, their religeous needs despite following a "faith" that implores them to kill infadels to please Allah...it is prison after all and these are cockroaches whose own countries don't even want them back which is why they'll likely end up here in the States on welfare......they were not infantry on a battlefield in service to their respective countries, they a religeous finatics who kill indiscriminantly..... that said...

I challenge you to point to a time in history where Pow's or detainees or whatever you want to call them, were treated better as a group than these human cockroaches......certainly not American POW's...we know how they look if and when they are ever released....

I challenge you to point to a time in history where Pow's or detainees or whatever you want to call them, were treated better as a group than these human cockroaches......certainly not American POW's...we know how they look if and when they are ever released....

Oh ok. So your position is one that because other countries tortured and killed POWs, we're allowed to do what we want with them because we given them food and let them pray?

no, what I'm saying is that we are better and have always been better than the rest of the world in this regard....don't know about the universe but certainly the world....unless I'm mistaken...post waterboarding, lights left on all night, blaring Hannah Montana, bugs in boxes...these guys still had their heads.... right?....and probably have no lasting ill effects and are likely far better cared for than they were in their terrorist training camps or in the field...Abu Ghraib was not common practice for military personell but it was sure characterized as such by the media and left simply for political advantage....most people still have no idea what waterboarding actually is...they just know that they've been told over and over that it is the worst kind of torture...I wonder how the public will feel regarding waterboarding if/when the rest of these memos are released and we find that a major attack on LA was interrupted because we waterboarded one of these rats....

It's a scary time when a new administration can prosecute the fromer administration based on their feelings on right and wrong. Think Bush could have locked up Clinton for blowing up an asprin factory.This has Pelosi all over it. It would never happen under a Republican administration and will do more harm to the country, then good. This has nothing to do with moral high ground. It's petty politics at it's worst and we can expect more from this bunch. I will reiterate my stance, Obama is bad for America.

no, what I'm saying is that we are better and have always been better than the rest of the world in this regard....don't know about the universe but certainly the world....
And when we behave in a manner that might demonstrate to some that we're not really better then the rest of the world you don't seem to have any issue with it???

Did you ever stop and think that maybe the real reason some are so upset over the torture issue is because they do believe we really are better and don't want our nation to be seen as hypocrites?

unless I'm mistaken...post waterboarding, lights left on all night, blaring Hannah Montana, bugs in boxes...these guys still had their heads.... right?....and probably have no lasting ill effects and are likely far better cared for than they were in their terrorist training camps or in the field...
Um, you forgot the part about them being FREE men. I'd think such a Patriot as yourself wouldn't discount the value of freedom.

Abu Ghraib was not common practice for military personell but it was sure characterized as such by the media and left simply for political advantage....
Actually, it was characterized as an example of a system that didn't think such behavior was beyond reproach. It was America at it's worst and none of the leadership seemed to care. Hmmm....

most people still have no idea what waterboarding actually is...they just know that they've been told over and over that it is the worst kind of torture...I wonder how the public will feel regarding waterboarding if/when the rest of these memos are released and we find that a major attack on LA was interrupted because we waterboarded one of these rats....
Do you know something we don't? Please let us know...

-spence

.I wonder how the public will feel regarding waterboarding if/when the rest of these memos are released and we find that a major attack on LA was interrupted because we waterboarded one of these rats....

When and if those memo's are released, along with the others, they will be unclassified. Until then, if your position or friends put you in the know, I'd be cautious as to naming cities or too much details.
I know from very reliable sources of a few other cells and attacks that were prevented, but for now,... those are still classified. I guess only time will tell if the public ever learns exactly what could have/almost happened.

But if they come clean with these details, then they would have to admit "Bush was Right". (at least on the terrorists).

And when we behave in a manner that might demonstrate to some that we're not really better then the rest of the world you don't seem to have any issue with it???

Did you ever stop and think that maybe the real reason some are so upset over the torture issue is because they do believe we really are better and don't want our nation to be seen as hypocrites?"

-spence


I agree with this.
I also believe that if you know someone has info that could save lives you do what is best for the situation. It's a tough call.

Politicizing it the way I fear Obama is about to, is dead wrong.

Politicizing it the way I fear Obama is about to, is dead wrong.

I don't see Obama politicizing the issue, in fact it looks like he's trying to downplay it. Congress has been the bigger baiter, but even with that it looks like they're trying to leave the door open a crack rather than push it open.

My take is the administration knows it's a %$%$%$%$storm, and only wants legal action to move forward if there's a real case to be made. They want to balance the interests of the Left with reality.

-spence

I don't see Obama politicizing the issue, in fact it looks like he's trying to downplay it. Congress has been the bigger baiter, but even with that it looks like they're trying to leave the door open a crack rather than push it open.

My take is the administration knows it's a %$%$%$%$storm, and only wants legal action to move forward if there's a real case to be made. They want to balance the interests of the Left with reality.

-spence

My take is he is saying one thing while doing another. I don't believe a word he says. He is the most cunning and two faced politician that has ever decieved the American public. Wake the F##$ up!

What purpose does it serve? Pro and con.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/17/newly_released_bush_documents_detail_torture_tacti cs/




Why is it that that Boston Globe report left out the fact that because of the use of waterboarding on one of these friggin TERRORIST another 911 type attack that was planned to Los Angeles never happened ???

Why is it that that Boston Globe report left out the fact that because of the use of waterboarding on one of these friggin TERRORIST another 911 type attack that was planned to Los Angeles never happened ???

It was left out because it would be inaccurate.

Why is it that that Boston Globe report left out the fact that because of the use of waterboarding on one of these friggin TERRORIST another 911 type attack that was planned to Los Angeles never happened ???

Have to agree with JohnnyD here.

According to Bush KSM was captured in March 2003. Also according to Bush the LA attack was thwarted in February 2002.

Hmmm...

It appears as if KSM was confessing to something that was already defunct, we just didn't know we had already disrupted the same plot. Others have said that this LA attack never got beyond the very early planning stages and wasn't a real threat.

I've yet to read anything that substantiates the argument that waterboarding stopped an attack on LA.

-spence

Eric Holder spoke out on the interrogation of unlawful combatants in 2002.


"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."


--Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

You should really try placing quotes in context...

http://premium.edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/28/ltm.03.html


ERIC HOLDER, FORMER DEP. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good morning.

ZAHN: The president will be meeting with his National Security team this morning to talk about, well, the apparent discord here. Give us a preview of what this discussion might entail. When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."

HOLDER: Yes, it seems to me this is an argument that is really consequential. One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.

ZAHN: So is the secretary of state walking a fine line here legally? He is not asking that the United States declare these men as prisoners of war right now. He's just saying let's abide by the Geneva Convention in the meantime.

HOLDER: Yes, and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention. You have to remember that after World War II, as these protocols were being developed, there seemed to be widespread agreement that members of the French Resistance would not be considered prisoners of war if they had been captured. That being the case, it's hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war.

And yet, I understand Secretary Powell's concerns. We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. And I think ultimately that's really the decisive factor here. How are people, who are in our custody, going to be treated? And those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al Qaeda members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated.

ZAHN: The administration this morning playing down any discord among its team, but if you could, help us understand how you reconcile this.

HOLDER: Well, I think you've got people on the one hand saying that these are folks who should not be treated pursuant to the Geneva Convention, and at the same time, you're going to have people saying, "Well, you know, what does that mean for our forces down the road? What does that mean for people who are going to be doing what we tell them to do throughout the course of this conflict, which is worldwide and which is going to be taking years to ultimately resolve?"

I can understand the tensions that exist, but I think the way to resolve it is, in fact, the way Secretary Powell has proposed, which is to say these are not people who are prisoners of war as that has been defined, but who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention.

ZAHN: Final question for you, moving onto the issue of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?

HOLDER: Well, I mean, it's hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should. I would expect that this is not a case that ultimately is going to go to trial. I'd be very surprised if the case went to trial. It seems to me that he is different from other people like Moussaoui, obviously the people who went into the World Trade Center. I suspect this is not a young man who is a zealot, who now, with a good lawyer and here in the United States once again, is likely to try to reach some kind of an agreement with the United States. And if in reaching that agreement with him, we get information from him, I think that makes a lot of sense.

ZAHN: I am hearing you say, "Plea bargain, plea bargain." Right? I'm not reading too much into what you just said?

HOLDER: No. That would be my guess. I would be very surprised if at the conclusion of this whole process, after you have gone through discovery, after you have gone through the pretrial hearings, I'd be very surprised that there's actually a trial on this matter.

ZAHN: Erick Holder, again thanks for dropping by A.M. -- appreciate your time this morning.

HOLDER: Thank you.

Why is it that that Boston Globe report left out the fact that because of the use of waterboarding on one of these friggin TERRORIST another 911 type attack that was planned to Los Angeles never happened ???

this is excellent, of course, we won't know for sure until Obama has all of the memos released rather than just the memos that suit him politically...

Lloyd Mann

LA Legal Profession Examiner Lloyd is one of...
330
Los Angeles Examiners


Lloyd S. Mann has been an attorney for more than 25 years. His law firm, Mann & Zarpas, LLP, was recently listed as one of the top 30 firms in the San Fernando Valley Business Journal, and for his entire career he has been passionate about explaining the law, lawyers, and the legal system to others - which is precisely what he intends to do with his column. He can be reached at Lmann@mannzarpas.com.





Next ArticleLA Legal Profession Examiner Did Waterboarding save Los Angeles lives?
April 21, 5:57 PM · Add a Comment
ShareThis Feed
Was Los Angeles saved from a 9/11 type brutal attack as a result of the controversial tactic of "Waterboarding?" According to a report on a popular website that is exactly what happened.



CNSNews.com, a conservative leaning website, is claiming that waterboarding, which has now been banned by the Obama administration, induced captured terrorist, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, to give American interrogators information that enabled authorities to prevent a major attack upon Los Angeles that could have resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of American citizens and others living in Los Angeles.

CNSNews.com is the creation of the conservative lobbying group, Media Research Center. Its leader, L. Brent Bozell III, certainly makes no claim of being an Obama supporter. According to the CNSNews story, the Central Intelligence Agency continues to defend an assertion it made that appeared in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo to the effect that the use of "...enhanced techniques" of interrogation on Mohammed led to this invaluable information getting into the hands of American intelligence officials which, in turn, saved Los Angeles from a major terrorist attack by Islamic extremists.

As reported in the CNSNews report, Mohammed, who was the master-"mind"-if you can call it that-behind the first hijacked-airliner in the 9/11 attack upon New York and Washington D.C., was not cooperative after he was captured by the American military.

The American officials had reason to believe, given Mohammad’s position as such a significant leader in the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, that he would have information regarding potential imminent attacks upon Americans. Under the Obama administration edict on waterboarding, this tactic is beneath the dignity of the American people. Under the Bush administration, where-under a limited number of circumstances-it was permitted, the CIA claim, as reported in CNSNews, is that it saved lives of Los Angeles residents.

According to the May 30, 2005 memo, which quoted from an August 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo had sent to the Justice Department, waterboarding could only be used on a "high value detainee" if the CIA had "credible intelligence" that a terrorist attack was imminent, substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny the attack, and where other interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.
The CIA memo contends that prior to waterboarding being used Mohammad was not only "...uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves." However, the CIA contends that after Mohammad was subject to the waterboard technique, he became "...cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is suggesting that President Obama should "...immediately declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, and what plots foiled, by the interrogations of high-level al Qaeda detainees in the wake of September 11.

It sounds nice when President Obama talks about how certain American values that distinguish us from the terrorists are what allow us to say how proud we are to be Americans. That sounds fine. It is nice to know that President Obama evidently and correctly believes that Americans are morally superior to the Islamic extremists. Here, however, are the relevant questions if this legal issue involving an interrogation technique had ever reached closing arguments in a courtroom:


Under what circumstances was waterboarding permitted? Was it only in rare instances where "high value detainees" were believed to possess invaluable information concerning imminent attacks upon Americans?

Have there been instances where waterboarding has saved American lives where other techniques were used which were not successful in obtaining information that led to saving Americans?


If the answers are that waterboarding was a technique that was used only in extraordinary instances where nothing else was working, and where it was believed that the captured terrorist suspect had information about imminent harm to Americans, and American lives have actually been saved in the past by such techniques, would it not now be reasonable to conclude that in an effort to be and sound reasonable, in an effort to be Americans and not terrorists, we have actually caused serious harm to our goal of fighting terrorism and saving American lives?

Let us hope that these questions are simply hypothetical, and that we won’t get definite answers during the remainder of the Obama administration by way of additional 9/11 type attacks.

CNS News ??? :rotflmao:

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;683580]You should really try placing quotes in context...

I can understand the tensions that exist, but I think the way to resolve it is, in fact, the way Secretary Powell has proposed, which is to say these are not people who are prisoners of war as that has been defined, but who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention.



and they have absolutely been treated in a very humane way considering they act like something far less than human and we have been "ALMOST" consistent with all of the dictates Geneva Convention dictates......unbelieveable...

CNS News ??? :rotflmao:

-spence

that's your problem Spence....

that's your problem Spence....

I wasn't aware I had a problem, please explain...

-spence

we don't read the RIGHT news, thats the problem.

we don't read the RIGHT news, thats the problem.


NY Times OK for you?

Intel chief: Harsh techniques brought good info
Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight


updated 10:21 p.m. ET, 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.



HUH?, wonder why they deleted that?????

It was left out because it would be inaccurate.

It's the Globe! Thats not the reason. They print many inaccurate things.:humpty:

It's the Globe! Thats not the reason. They print many inaccurate things.:humpty:

Eh, doesn't matter much. The NYT will more than likely be shutting the Globe down in May or June.