WaPo: Release of torture memos political

posted at 10:11 am on April 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Buried deep within the Washington Post’s front-page story on the decision to release the OLC memos, Barack Obama’s motivation gets revealed. Former VP Dick Cheney’s criticism that Obama’s policies had made America less safe apparently stung more than the White House admitted. Unfortunately, Obama may have gone a long way towards proving Cheney’s point in allowing himself to get baited (via Michael Goldfarb):

Several Obama aides said the president’s decision was in line with his frequent criticism during the campaign of President George W. Bush’s policies on interrogations at secret prisons. On his second day in office, Obama banned the prisons and the tactics in an executive order.

The aides also said they hope the memos’ release will focus public attention on the coldness and sterility of the legal justifications for abusive techniques, with Obama telling reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that the documents demonstrate that the nation lost its “moral bearings” in the Bush years.

A source familiar with White House views said Obama’s advisers are further convinced that letting the public know exactly what the past administration sanctioned will undermine what they see as former vice president Richard B. Cheney’s effort to “box Obama in” by claiming that the executive order heightened the risk of a terrorist attack.

Rather than doing that, though, it prompted members of his own administration to publicly corroborate Cheney. The White House tried to suppress the key part of Dennis Blair’s memo that acknowledged the success of the interrogations in thwarting at least one major terrorist attack against the US, the “Second Wave” airliner attacks after 9/11 aimed at Los Angeles. The CIA separately insisted that its actions protected America from attack. Cheney himself went back on the attack, describing some of the memos that Obama didn’t declassify, and launched a high-profile campaign to get them released.

On Capitol Hill, Obama’s strategy also backfired. Republicans balked at the limited disclosure. Pete Hoekstra has demanded that the White House release the memos from Congressional briefings on the interrogations, which will show that Democratic leadership knew exactly what was happening and didn’t object at all to it. Even one of Obama’s few allies in the GOP on this issue, John McCain, warned Obama that he was setting up a “witch hunt” that would turn America into a “banana republic”.

Instead of the headlines being about what the Bush administration sanctioned, they became about Nancy Pelosi’s denial and then non-denial of her knowledge on waterboarding interrogations, the success of the interrogations in preventing an attack, and Obama’s lack of testicular fortitude in sticking with his original position to let sleeping dogs lie. Small wonder that he began backtracking in earnest yesterday when meeting with Congressional leaders.

Now we have confirmation that Obama planned this all along as a political attack against a man who hardly matters on the national political scene any longer – or at least he didn’t until Obama decided to pick a fight with him. Just as with his strange attack on Rush Limbaugh, all it did was elevate his opponent and diminish himself.

Tags: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, White House

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

all it did was elevate his opponent and diminish himself.
At home and abroad

aceinstall on April 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM

It’s over for the gop.

Torture was the final nail in the gop coffin.

RIP gop.

getalife on April 24, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. More three sentence posts that barely even make a point.

Tell me, are you intellectually able to actually make an argument past weak platitudes.

You fail to answer anyone that responds to you, you fail to actually participate in a debate. In essence, as usual, you fail. When your arguments and views can’t (or won’t) be defended, it shows the weakness of your position.

A weak failure… yep, that’s getalife.

ManInBlack on April 24, 2009 at 1:11 PM

In the immortal words of my 10 year old (again), “Torture is when they do it for no other reason than to hurt you”.

“President Obama, if you believe that this is torture, WHY is letting a baby die after a botched abortion NOT torture”.

Oh to see Gibbs squirm on that twist of fate

HarryStar on April 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Anyone who has to “prove” that a particular interrogation method is “torture”, by the fact that they insist upon “proving” it, merely demonstrates that the thing they are trying to “prove”, namely torture, does not exist.

People instinctively *know* what kinds of things are truly considered to be torture. Case in point: have you ever seen a Lefty trying to “prove” that any of the methods Saddam used at Abu Ghraib were torture?

/crickets

Wanderlust on April 24, 2009 at 1:33 PM

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) — including the use of waterboarding — caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Tom,if you have a problem with what the memo that the Obama administration released,the memo that the CIA still stands by,then you need to take it up with them.
The Obama administration did not release these and claim they were not true and factual.
This could be easily cleared up if the Obama administration would abide by it’s campaign rhetoric of transparency and release “all” of the information attributed to enhanced interrogation techniques instead of what helps them politically.
It is the Obama administration that is misrepresenting the facts,not ED.
democrats need to quit lying,spinning,and hiding from the truth and disclose all the memos and transcripts of the intelligence meetings showing the 100% support by democrats for these methods.

If the success of these methods did not exist,then why did the Obama admninistration attempt to hide this information by purposely cutting it out of the memo release?

Because democrats are politicizing national security for their own personal gain just like they did the Iraq war they voted for.
Blair makes it clear that democrats were briefed many times on these techniques:

In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues last Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair described those briefings. “From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.”

Tom keeps going on about the fact that these techniques did not work,but even Obama’s own intelligence official states they obtained important information from the jihadist:

That passage from Blair’s letter – along with another confirming that the interrogations produced “high-value information” that provided a “deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization attacking this country” – was dropped when language from the letter was released publicly. A spokesman for Blair attributed to the omission to normal editing procedures.

What part of “deeper understanding of the al-aqeda organization ATTACKING this COUNTRY” don’t you understand Tom.
He clearly states that they obtained information to help foil terrorist attacks.
Stating that they don’t know if they could have gotten this information in another way does not disprove that these techniques worked.
If the intelligence officials did not care about what techniques worked and how to apply them,they would have just water boarded everybody.
Instead it is obvious with these memos that this administration sought to balance the legalities with the diverse and effective policies of enhanced interrogation.
But common sense is right out the window with liberals like Tom who now consider putting caterpillars into the cells of jihadist ‘torture”.

Here is another democrat that apparently understood how important it was to get information from the jihadist before it became a political issue for democrats:

Sen. Chuck Schumer in 2004:

I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. . . . It is easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used, but when you are in the foxhole it is a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President is in the foxhole every day.

I don’t think Schumer feels playing loud music and keeping terrorist up past their bedtime trumps national security in this statement.

Tenet, a democratic appointed intelligence chief states that these techniques were incredibly effective in stopping attacks and gaining intel on the jihadist.

As former CIA Director George Tenet points out in his book “At the Center of the Storm,” KSM and others never would have talked about “imminent threats against the American people” had they not been dealt with harshly. “I believe that none of these success would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal,” he writes.

The CIA shows that the interrogation of captured terrorists created a chain that thwarted attacks and lead to further captures of terrorist that had launched major attacks in the past and were planning on making more.

Hayden: Chain of Interrogations Yielded Bulk of Intelligence Knowledge

The former head of the CIA told FOX News last year that five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, 60 percent of the knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community about Al Qaeda came from enhanced interrogation techniques.

FOXNews.com
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/22/hayden-chain-interrogations-yielded-bulk-intelligence-knowledge/

But U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence gained from the interrogations pointed to examples of how the chain of information expanded. They detailed how in the spring of 2002, Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda’s operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained, was picked up in Pakistan.
Zubaydah was nearly killed in the fire fight and was saved by U.S. Army doctors.
He ended up providing leads to Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was also captured in Pakistan. Bin al-Shibh was part of the Hamburg, Germany, cell of Al Qaeda where Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta was also stationed.
The information from Zubaydah and from bin al-Shibh led to the capture in the spring of 2003 of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to U.S. officials.
A close reading of the memo from May 2005 shows that U.S. officials learned during the Mohammed interrogations about a “Second Wave” of attacks aimed for Los Angeles.
It also led to the unraveling of a cell in Southeast Asia led by Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, who was head of an Al Qaeda-affiliated group that was identified with the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002 that was responsible for the deaths of more than 100 people.

once again,if liberals don’t like the timeline concerning statements and information released by the Obama administration and our intelligence officials,then RELEASE ALL OF THE MEMOS.

More examples of how these techniques led to the capture of terrorist cells and stopped major attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818_pf.html

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques “led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.” KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ” In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that “[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah — again, once enhanced techniques were employed — furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda’s ‘organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi’ and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.” This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: “Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network” in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

Tom,you can play word games and use the typical liberal selective outrage when it comes to ignoring the role democrats played in the very same policies that liberals consider “war crimes” when Republicans do them,but there is no denying that the policies of the Bush administration took this country from being attacked by the jihadist with increased lethal results to this:

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

The facts are that we are safer.
Now the question is,will the democrats screw this up.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Pick the target, and polarize it. Seems Obama is the victim of his own maniacle designs. He may not be the target, but slowly, he’s polarizing himself.

capejasmine on April 24, 2009 at 1:53 PM

How can they talk about losing moral bearings when Obama et al are willing to kill any unborn baby without provocation?

bperiwinkle on April 24, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Second of all, the Bush administration claims that plot was thwarted mid-2002 according to the Bush administration — months before Sheik Mohommad was captured. Sorry, but I’m not buying the sketchy CSN story.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Mohammad linked up with another group of jihadist to carry out these 2nd wave of attacks.

You do know that terrorist create different cells and launch attacks independent of each other all the time,right Tom.

Scope of Plots Bush Says Were Foiled Is Questioned

By Josh Meyer and Warren Vieth
October 08, 2005 in print edition A-15
http://articles.latimes.com/p/2005/oct/08/nation/na-terror8

Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn’t completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.

Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.

Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.

Also see:

Waterboarding Worked, Part 2: The Timing of the Library Tower Plots
http://patterico.com/2009/04/24/waterboarding-worked-part-2-the-timing-of-the-library-tower-plots/

Don’t let anyone tell you that the events described in the memo are fictional because of the timing. I told you the other day that the naysayers will tell you that the timing doesn’t work out, because the plot (they claim) was completely disrupted in 2002, before KSM’s arrest in 2003. I said: “I often hear that the plot was foiled before KSM was captured, but there were evidently two such plots.”

I think it’s time to flesh that out in detail. Because sure enough, after the recent release of these memos, Slate’s Tim Noah and others resumed pushing the claim that the timing couldn’t have worked out. This Daily Kos story was featured prominently on HuffPo last night, and the meme is spreading.
But it’s not true.

“But it’s not true” is the one consistent theme in dealing with liberals.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM

That passage from Blair’s letter – along with another confirming that the interrogations produced “high-value information” that provided a “deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization attacking this country” – was dropped when language from the letter was released publicly. A spokesman for Blair attributed to the omission to normal editing procedures.

What part of “deeper understanding of the al-aqeda organization ATTACKING this COUNTRY” don’t you understand Tom.
He clearly states that they obtained information to help foil terrorist attacks.

I don’t know what you’re smoking, but that in no way is a clear statement that waterboarding yielded actionable information that foiled terrorist attacks. To me, a “deeper understanding” means background material, not actionable material.

But, aside from that Ed claims that Blair’s memo says the that these techniques led to the “foiling” of the Library Tower plot. That’s just a lie or misstatement or whatever you want to call it. That’s incorrect.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Our gov’t has forgotten what happened to Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl. If we have another attack that could/would have been thwarted if we waterboarded a captive combatant but didn’t because of our limp-wristed president then NO ONE will be able to stop the march on DC.

Heads will role indeed….

jbh45 on April 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM

ZERO, taking lying to new heights.

tarpon on April 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Here’s the full story from the Times:

The brief White House document offered no details about the timing of the airliner plot, or potential targets. White House officials on Friday confirmed that one of the targets referred to in the document was the Library Tower, which was renamed the US Bank Tower in 2003.

The description of the plot was based on claims made by Mohammed, who has said he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, during interrogations after his capture in Pakistan in March 2003. But those familiar with Mohammed’s comments and the alleged plot have suggested that, at most, it was a plan that was stopped in its initial stages and was not an operational plot that had been disrupted by authorities.

In March 2004, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that it had been briefed on Mohammed’s statements. “We were made aware of that information last spring,” John Miller, then the LAPD’s top anti-terrorism official, said at the time.

On Friday, Miller – now the chief spokesman for the FBI – said only that the LAPD had discussed the matter in depth with the Joint Terrorism Task Force and concluded that whatever plot that had existed in its initial stages already had been dismantled with the arrest of Al Qaeda operatives in Indonesia and elsewhere.

Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn’t completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.

Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.

Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.

“To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines.

And, as I said in another thread, any plot to hijack a passenger plane and crash it into a building after 9/11 should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. On 9/11, the hijackers relied on the fact that American passengers did not think they were suicidal and crash the planes. But, as flight 93 showed, that thinking changed rather quickly after the two planes hit the twin towers.

I don’t buy that AQ would invest much time and effort into a plot that would most likely be tripped up by passengers on the plane. It seems to me Sheikh Mohommad gave them an inconsequential plot to chase.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I don’t buy that AQ would invest much time and effort into a plot that would most likely be tripped up by passengers on the plane. It seems to me Sheikh Mohommad gave them an inconsequential plot to chase.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I don’t see your argument making any sense. Planes are small, constrained spaces where numerical differences matter very little over some minimum number, probably 5 or 7. Plane hijackings are still very real threats. All that one can expect is that the enemies will look to fill in gaps that were identified by FLight 93. There is, seeing this whole idiotic interrogation idiocy, no stomach in the US government to actually shoot down a hijacked plane full of passengers. The jet pilots understand that they can be tried for doing that, just after, the same way that we all see this manipulation to jail the former administration and render illegal even the discussions that took place in their decision-making. It is insane and primitive.

The left of today are French revolutionaries in their hearts and will follow the same path. That’s pretty ugly, you know.

progressoverpeace on April 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Why water board them? Just send them on a ride with Teddy Kennedy or hunting with Dick Cheney.

Jerricho68 on April 24, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Cheney definitely stuck it to them, but the foundation for why this backfired rests entirely upon Obama’s team.

They are learning that scapegoating means you’re also making sure that person has a voice.

If that person sticks to facts and throws in just a bit of pixie dust to cloud it up, it’ll backfire.

Steele and Jindal need to take notes.

AnninCA on April 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM

The same party that insists on publishing photos of torture will not allow photos or videos of the events and horrific deaths/destruction in the US on 9/11.

onlineanalyst on April 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM

…all it did was elevate his opponent and diminish himself.

No one messes with Cheney! Do so at your own peril. Why would you go after someone with no political aspirations. Simply stupid. Releasing the pictures will be stupid too. He better hope and pray long and hard that nothing happens in the USA like 9/11 or outside the USA like the USS Cole. Bush isn’t the one whose gonna get blamed for it.

Sultry Beauty on April 24, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Was a subject best left alone BO.
Add another thing you’ve screwed up in your 100 days.
How much more crap can you break?

johnnyU on April 24, 2009 at 6:46 PM

He believed that he was the idol of the world. He forgot to notice how people jeered within moments of him leaving.

AnninCA on April 24, 2009 at 6:58 PM

I don’t buy that AQ would invest much time and effort into a plot that would most likely be tripped up by passengers on the plane. It seems to me Sheikh Mohommad gave them an inconsequential plot to chase.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Tom, the fact that “you” don’t buy something means absolutely nothing.

The facts of the intel show that enhanced interrogation was used to gain information that lead to stopping the planning,thus the carrying out of an attack.

If you have facts that can dispute this,present them.
Your partisan opinion carries no weight on this issue.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 7:43 PM

I don’t know what you’re smoking, but that in no way is a clear statement that waterboarding yielded actionable information that foiled terrorist attacks. To me, a “deeper understanding” means background material, not actionable material.
Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM

once again,your opinion or “to me” means absolutely nothing.
I presented statements from some of the leading intelligence officials in this country who worked under democratic and Republican administration that state categorically that enhanced interrogation produced intel that thwarted attacks and saved lives.

If you have facts or evidence that disputes the testimony of Goss,Hayden and the others that I stated,please present it because your “feelings” and “opinions” carry no weight.

I don’t buy that AQ would invest much time and effort into a plot that would most likely be tripped up by passengers on the plane. It seems to me Sheikh Mohommad gave them an inconsequential plot to chase.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

British,Paksitan,and the US were involved in breaking up a major plot that involved trying to blow up airplanes that had taken off from Europe over major cities in the US well after 9/11.
‘Mass murder terror plot’ uncovered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/10/terrorism.politics

· Claims 10 planes were targeted
· 24 held following raids
· Chaos at British airports

A plot to kill thousands of people by detonating explosions on up to 10 transatlantic flights from UK airports was disrupted today.

The home secretary, John Reid, today said such an attack could have caused civilian casualties on an “unprecedented scale”.

It is believed the intention was to set off near simultaneous blasts on flights, probably bound for the US, using explosives smuggled into passenger cabins inside hand luggage.

This was a well publicized event and once again points to the fact that your “opinion” or “not buying” that al-qaeda or other terrorist groups want carry out a certain plan does not make it so.

Once again.
The intel and people who were involved in acquiring intel (not anonymous sources like you rely on but major players ) have stated these procedures worked and the facts show that they worked.
If you can’t accept that,it is your problem.
But it is going to take a lot more than your opinion and anonymous sources to dispute the leaders of our intel agencies.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 8:03 PM

WaPo: Release of torture memos political

Releasing the torture memos is nothing but a distraction. Come on Barry, let’s have a look at something of interest, like your BIRTH CERTIFICATE???

byteshredder on April 24, 2009 at 8:06 PM

This is going to blow up in Obama’s face. The memos Cheney refers to will eventually be released and will likely confirm what he has maintained all along.

In the event of a future terrorist attack Obama will have to fight the impression that it might have been avaoided if only we were still sending people to Gitmo and engaging in tough interegation techniques.

This is a no winner for Barry and the teleprompter in chief.

moxie_neanderthal on April 24, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Underestimating Dick Cheney exemplifies what some of us already understand.

Obama is an imbecile.

Saltysam on April 24, 2009 at 9:30 PM

I voted for Obama but this is one of the few times I have agreed with Mcain.

[(AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.]

Seems that no matter who bacame president both men knew that if we called it torture when it was done to us, it is called torture when we do it to others.

DustyGreen on April 24, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Alinsky tactics do not work when you are the guy in power, moron. You cannot pretend to be isolating the common, all-powerful, ever encroaching enemy of man when you are trumpeting yourself around as the most powerful man on earth.

You can be any two of these three things: Narcissist, Alinskyite, public official. Once you try possessing all three qualities at once you destabilize into a petty moron.

Since Obama is and will always be a narcissist, his old ways will not work.

BKennedy on April 24, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Either we’re a nation of laws or we’re not, and you can bet Obama knows that has a deeper appeal to Americans than torture does.
starfleet_dude on April 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I agree. Now perhaps you can convince O to stop fighting the release of his birth certificate so we can see whether or not he is in violation of the law.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on April 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Obama has always looked like a weak little wussy, and now this confirms that fact. If we are hit again by terrorists, and any of my friends or family is hurt, the Obamas will have some explaining to do, to me, personally. God help him!

apco on April 24, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Seems that no matter who bacame president both men knew that if we called it torture when it was done to us, it is called torture when we do it to others.

DustyGreen on April 24, 2009 at 9:38 PM

But the big problem we have here is that the same people who are so morally indignant about these practices are a lot of the same people who agreed with there use and are now moving the goal posts as to what actually constitutes torture.

Barack Obama
Bill Clinton
Chuck Schumer
Nancy Pelosi
John Rockefeller
Leon Panetta……..are just a few democrats who support harsh interrogations and rendition.

These policies are being instituted as we speak, yet all the morally righteous grandstanding going on seems to start and
end with “Bush”.

So when it is wrong to enact these practices in the past,It is wrong to be using them now also, right?

if we called it torture when it was done to us, it is called torture when we do it to others.

I like this straight up comparison.

Another way to say this would be:

It is just as wrong to inflict pain and suffering on captured terrorist,as it is to a child in a woman’s womb.

yea,I agree with you.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Once again.
The intel and people who were involved in acquiring intel (not anonymous sources like you rely on but major players ) have stated these procedures worked and the facts show that they worked.
If you can’t accept that,it is your problem.
But it is going to take a lot more than your opinion and anonymous sources to dispute the leaders of our intel agencies.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 8:03 PM

If nothing else, Cheney’s push to have interrogation documents declassified should put the silly “interrogating prisoners doesn’t work” meme to rest once and for all. Military and law enforcement interrogators have extracted information from prisoners throughout recorded history, in every culture around the world… and, of course, all of the previous generations of interrogator were much less concerned for the health of the prisoner than Americans are. As a rule of thumb, people don’t continue doing something universally, across centuries of time, if it’s entirely ineffective.

To those who point fingers at conservatives and accuse us of relishing torture, I would say this: I would be very uncomfortable with waterboarding somebody. I would also be very uncomfortable with blowing the head off a teenaged Somalian pirate, even if I had the marksmanship to do it. I would have a hard time living with myself if I threw a grenade into a room full of people, or poured machine-gun fire into someone at close range, or blew a truckload of people to pieces with a rocket. I would not want to look down at a man dying in agony because I blew him in half, or roasted him alive in a secondary explosion.

I desperately hope that I can get through the rest of my life without doing any of those things… but I would do them to save the life of my family. And so would you. You would be renouncing a part of your basic humanity by denying it, and all but the most deranged of you would be lying – or fooling yourselves. You would not stand by and allow evil men to slaughter your parents, friends, wife, or children, out of a desire to avoid seeming brutal or causing the evil men any discomfort. There are no painless ways to die in war, with the possible exception of a perfect head shot – and believe me, you want to look at pictures of that even less than you want to see photos of terrorists with wet towels on their faces.

Knowing that you would do terrible things to protect your loved ones, your sanctimony against the people who dedicate their lives to protecting them with professional skill is disgusting. You only indulge in that sanctimony because you’re comfortable that your immediate circle of friends and family are safe – you’ve convinced yourselves there will never be another 9/11, and the odds of yourself being personally affected by a terrorist attack are slim to none. That leaves you feeling free to make political points with other peoples’ lives, and flaunt your moral superiority and 20/20 hindsight, because all those people who died in New York eight years ago are just statistics. You’re eager to see Obama toss out some photos of CIA agents doing unpleasant things, because no one will ever force you to look at the photos of people burning alive and leaping from the top floors of the World Trade Center. You’re happy to use intelligence agents, who made tough decisions in dangerous times, as human sacrifices to your political bloodlust, because you don’t think you need them any more.

All of you wringing your hands about what Bush, Cheney, or Rice might have authorized, or what the CIA did to the savages we captured in the war against al-Qaeda, will have a long uphill climb convincing any sane person that any of the people involved in those actions is some kind of sadist who just gets off on hurting people. If you think the military goes out of its way to hire deranged torture junkies to handle sensitive intelligence-gathering, and assigns them to interview people who want to commit mass murder against American civilians, you’ve been watching too many cheesy action films. If you think the chain of command in the Bush Administration was filled with gleefully bloodthirsty monsters who couldn’t wait to receive their next shipment of snuff films from Afghanistan, you’re an imbecile who has nothing further to add to the national discourse, and nothing meaningful to say to the normal people whose safety you find so elegantly negotiable.

Our laws were not meant to be chains that hold us helplessly in place while we are murdered, or implements of revenge to be placed into the hands of bloodthirsty fanatics who do not recognize one single principle on which those laws are based. One of those principles is the presumption of innocence, which in liberal minds appears to apply only to terrorists, violent criminals, and members of the proper political party. The rest of us are willing to extend a healthy does of that presumption of innocence to officials, intelligence agents, and soldiers who battle to protect us against a dishonorable and cunning enemy who stands beneath no flag, and respects no rules of war.

When you Democrats clean that ancient piece of treasonous garbage Jack Murtha from your party, and let him know he’s being run out of town because of the false charges he leveled against Marines under fire, I’ll take your charges against the other people protecting America a little more seriously. While you’re at it, send Barney Frank with him, and then we can talk a little more about how much of the economy should be entrusted to the control of the government.

Doctor Zero on April 25, 2009 at 12:02 AM

… sorry about the messed up italics there, everyone.

Doctor Zero on April 25, 2009 at 12:02 AM

And, as I said in another thread, any plot to hijack a passenger plane and crash it into a building after 9/11 should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. On 9/11, the hijackers relied on the fact that American passengers did not think they were suicidal and crash the planes. But, as flight 93 showed, that thinking changed rather quickly after the two planes hit the twin towers.

I don’t buy that AQ would invest much time and effort into a plot that would most likely be tripped up by passengers on the plane. It seems to me Sheikh Mohommad gave them an inconsequential plot to chase.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Aren’t you looking at this in a rather simple-minded way? The same plans often work repeatedly. All you have to do is disguise them. Note that the plan did not include taking an American airplane. Note that the plan was to take a plane that was already bound for Los Angeles. So you cannot conceive that taking the plane very late in flight, possibly just a few minutes from landing, might not help the terrorists avoid a miss? If the plane is already over a populated area, even if they don’t hit their original target they can create a major disaster. It would also keep the air defense fighters in the area from getting to the plane in time.

It is interesting how liberals can be so inventive when they choose to find reasons to attack conservatives. Yet you become utterly obtuse when faced with this situation and cannot possibly understand how it can be made to work.

Hawthorne on April 25, 2009 at 8:56 AM

once again,your opinion or “to me” means absolutely nothing.
I presented statements from some of the leading intelligence officials in this country who worked under democratic and Republican administration that state categorically that enhanced interrogation produced intel that thwarted attacks and saved lives.

Yeah, but YOUR take (your “to me”) is:

He clearly states that they obtained information to help foil terrorist attacks

Let’s look at what he said again:

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

It is possible to interpret that statement different ways, but to say that it clearly says the US obtained information through waterboarding that foiled a terrorist attack is asinine.

And actually, I noticed you engaged in a little selective editing. You say:

What part of “deeper understanding of the al-aqeda organization ATTACKING this COUNTRY” don’t you understand Tom.

You take the words “that was” out. Again, I stand by my assessment of the quote (which I don’t feel the need to have to alter to fit my point). He’s saying that they gained a deeper understanding of organization that was attacking us (or plotting to attack us, I read that as).

If you have facts or evidence that disputes the testimony of Goss,Hayden and the others that I stated,please present it because your “feelings” and “opinions” carry no weight.

Where do you quote ANYONE, aside from the CSN story quoting “The Central Intelligence Agency” (did they interview the entire agency at once?) saying waterboarding led to the foiling of any plot. That’s not a feeling or opinion of mine. It’s a fact.

British,Paksitan,and the US were involved in breaking up a major plot that involved trying to blow up airplanes that had taken off from Europe over major cities in the US well after 9/11.

Yeah, that was a plot to blow up planes mid-air, not hijack them and crash them into a building, which is what the Library Plot was. My point still stands. I don’t see AQ investing time and money into a plot that they knew would most likely be foiled like flight 93. Flying hijacked planes into buildings was a one shot deal for them.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM

If the unemployment and economy data for April turns out to be really bad when it gets released in a few weeks, I think you’ll see another facet of why Obama is dumping all these Bush documents. The man once not fond of Distractions is now in the game of creating them.

Seixon on April 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals 101: Pick a target, freeze it, frame it.

Obama is living the book as he has for his entire life. Both Alinsky and Obama were community (communist) organizers in Chicago. Both seek to destroy America from within by changing it to a socialist nation.

We must boot out ALL leftists in congress in BOTH parties in 2010!!

dthorny on April 25, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Doctor Zero on April 25, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Doctor Zero : would you mind responding to my comment on the previous page? I believe you are one of the few folks here with whom I can have a discussion on the topic, I think most would just ignore it.

peter_griffin on April 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I am still trying to find proof of torture .

Jamson64 on April 25, 2009 at 1:29 PM

If nothing else, Cheney’s push to have interrogation documents declassified should put the silly “interrogating prisoners doesn’t work” meme to rest once and for all.

Yes, Cheney merely requesting the memos release should end any discussion on the issue… meanwhile, in the real world…

But the JPRA’s two-page attachment, titled “Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation,” questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to gain intelligence.

“The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible — in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life — has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture,” the document said. “In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.”

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 1:35 PM

I’ll take a crack at it, for you.

I think this is a sociological issue working here. The reasoning whether to torture or not to torture should be driven by this question : if we torture enemy soldier A, will we want to be tortured by the exact same methods if we are in A’s shoes?

Incorrect. The question of which interrogation methods to use (stop saying “torture”, as that is a disingenuous way to slip your bias into the question, to begin with) is governed by three factors:

1) Which methods are effective?

2) What are the parameters this war is being waged within – i.e. what are the possible consequences of failing to extract information?

3) The US government is responsible to NO ONE but US citizens. This is sovereignty and the most basic function of a national government. Any government that worries more about non-citizens than its own citizens is a government unfit to operate.

This can be better discussed in the context of the prisoner’s dilemma in game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_Dilemma).

The prisoner’s dilemma concerns allied prisoners being held separately by one side, not opposing prisoners being held by each side. If you want to apply game theory, then fine (and appropriate) but you have to use the correct game.

Not trusting the enemy and torturing is an excellent strategy when there is a *finite* number of rounds.

Life is finite. Everything in life is finite. The number of rounds in any competition between groups is finite. I don’t see where you think you’re going with this.

You need to concentrate more on the consequences than the rounds. That’s what nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, the vulnerability of the West to oil cutoffs, … do to the game.

On the other hand, *evolutionarily* (where number of rounds is infinite), it is better to adopt a “tit-for-tat” policy where, we torture soldiers captured in enemy camp A, only when we know for a fact that A has tortured soldiers in our camp.

I’m not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. If you want to take an evolutionary approach (which I agree with) then part of it has to do with taking pressure off, in certain parts, in order to encourage a sloppy growth and concentration of the enemy in that area, to be later obliterated in total. Of course, the left has declared obliteration to be “illegal” (even in war) so this approach is rendered ineffective.

Your idea about one-for-one torturing is just silly. If you wanted to hike that up to 100-1, then I might be with you. But, in the end, as I said above, this is not about process but about consequences, which you never mention even once. Why is that?

This is not to support or denounce torture, I just wanted to add some perspective to the argument.

peter_griffin on April 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Just stuffing the word “torture” in this is a de facto denouncement.

We maintain a strategic nuclear arsenal because we have not gone totally insane, yet. Our silly moralizing over perfectly legitimate interrogation techniques shows that we are very close to losing it, as a society. We have too many self-haters who are happy to put the US on a suicidal track, happy to argue about methods of interrogation without considering the consequences of a failure to gather information.

And whether any single interrogation technique yields information or not does not detract from its use as part of the interrogation arsenal that the enemy must spend time and effort training against (and they will train against all methods that can be publicly debated – I’m pretty sure some sort of simple hypnosis could render waterboarding totally ineffective).

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 1:39 PM

DustyGreen on April 24, 2009 at 9:38 PM

.
The Japanese fascists also use Americans as living bayonet training dummies, broke every bone in a man’s body, beat male sex organs with bamboo switches, and starved people to death in mass.
.
This does not make waterboarding torture.

darktood on April 25, 2009 at 1:44 PM

(stop saying “torture”, as that is a disingenuous way to slip your bias into the question, to begin with)

But these enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. They are based on the SERE program that prepared U.S. personnel to handle “torture” by enemies like Communist China. In WWII we prosecuted Japanese — and American — soldiers for using these techniques.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 2:10 PM

But these enhanced interrogation techniques are torture.

No, they aren’t.

They are based on the SERE program that prepared U.S. personnel to handle “torture” by enemies like Communist China.

I don’t care what they are “based on”. They are not torture, no matter how many times you say it.

In WWII we prosecuted Japanese — and American — soldiers for using these techniques.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Really? First of all, this issue has nothing to do with US soldiers doing anything. This is about the CIA – our SPIES. Do you understand that? Do you have any idea what our SPIES have had to do over history (and to this very day)? Do you want to imprison everyone who’s ever served in the clandestine services, where our personnel routinely break the laws of other countries (as a matter of our policy) as well as do things to enemies that cannot be discussed in public?

Try and confront reality every once in a while.

We maintain our strategic nuclear arsenal for reasons that have to do with a reality that you think doesn’t exist. Are you going to get our nukes declared illegal and force us to unilaterally disarm? Is that where you are going?

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 2:22 PM

According to the US military, these techniques are torture. We adapted these techniques from the SERE program which trained soldiers to endure torture. People using these same techniques were prosecuted by the US military for carrying out torture. Our military referred to these techniques as torture when it was using them on our enemies was first discussed. It is torture. I mean, you can keep saying it’s not. But you’ll continue to be wrong.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 2:28 PM

We maintain our strategic nuclear arsenal for reasons that have to do with a reality that you think doesn’t exist.

You left out that I “can’t handle the truth!”

I understand that this is the CIA using these techniques. But the CIA is part of the United States. And the United States going back to WWII at least deemed these techniques torture. Those are the facts.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 2:30 PM

According to the US military, these techniques are torture. We adapted these techniques from the SERE program which trained soldiers to endure torture.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 2:28 PM

So why aren’t you calling for the military command (up to, and including, the Commander in Chief who ultimately authorizes all of the this, as well all through the chain of command) for “torturing” people? It doesn’t matter if they “volunteer”. “Torture” is immoral and cannot be tolerated anywhere in society, right? Someone cannot “volunteer” to let you cut his arm off. That’s torture. It is not condoned, anywhere. But you allow these methods to be used by our military on US citizens? How do you square that, legally?

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Someone cannot “volunteer” to let you cut his arm off. That’s torture.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 2:54 PM

To put it more simply for you, you could not have a game show where people have their arms cut off. But you could have a game show where people are stuck in boxes with really disgusting insects, forced to eat things “that would make a billy goat puke”, or being waterboarded. Why is that?

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM

How do you square that, legally?

Because of the point you try to dismiss by… just dismissing it.

It doesn’t matter if they “volunteer”.

Yes it does. Torture, by definition is an act of malice, meant to get information or punish a person. When simulating these techniques on US soldiers, the military is not attempting to punish or get information from them, but prepare them for these techniques in the event they are subject to them if captured.

Here’s an interesting take on SERE and the origins of “enhanced interrogation techniques.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103447118

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 3:05 PM

“Someone cannot “volunteer” to let you cut his arm off.” That’s torture”

There are lots of “extreme body modification” surgeries that would be considered torture if done to someone against their will but legal when the person volunteers. If you pass a pych examination and find a willing physician it is pretty open with regards to what you are allowed to do to and with your body.

“Stelarc” got a ear surgically attached to his arm

Not something I would choose, I was 16 when I finally was able to stomach getting my ears peirced. Also most men in the USA have their genitals mutilated. We call it circumcision since it is culturally acceptable but it essentially just hacking off a body part. It is just culturally acceptable extreme body modification.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 3:05 PM

There are lots of “extreme body modification” surgeries that would be considered torture if done to someone against their will but legal when the person volunteers.

And if you had images of the processes of many of these modifications plastered over the media day after day you would probably get a public outcry against them. I put up a game show analogy, to find not only what is done, but what is culturally acceptable.

The fact is that you are not allowed to sign a contract that breaks the law. No one is allowed to “torture” anyone else, with or without their consent. That would be as if two people signed a contract transferring ownership of a car that one had stolen. The contract is invalid. You cannot contract with someone to kill you. Dr. Death went through all that in the courts, right?

And you kid yourself if you think these analogous acts, taken “voluntarily” are going to escape the same scrutiny. Legally, they cannot.

If you pass a pych examination and find a willing physician it is pretty open with regards to what you are allowed to do to and with your body.

There is a definite limit to this, as I pointed out with my example. Beyond that limit, the “volunteer” would be deemed insane just by virtue of requesting it be performed.

“Stelarc” got a ear surgically attached to his arm

Not something I would choose, I was 16 when I finally was able to stomach getting my ears peirced. Also most men in the USA have their genitals mutilated. We call it circumcision since it is culturally acceptable but it essentially just hacking off a body part. It is just culturally acceptable extreme body modification.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Er … to equate circumcision (done, generally, as an infant) with hacking off a body part is … uh … well … a stretch. But there could be cases and by the same reasoning being employed against our interrogation techniques, coupled with the argument that the US government must protect its own citizens more than non-citizens (an abuse of this turism, by the left, is sure to come) will give the government tons more “authority” over what people can do to themselves or contract others to do. Torture is torture and no court of law can condone it, in any way – by the stance of the left.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM

No one is allowed to “torture” anyone else, with or without their consent.
Okay first adresssing semantics. Torture by is definition in involuntary so you can’t volunteer for it. That is like talking about a round square. It impossible. We have to talk abot individual acts. So say extreme whipping…..that is whipping to the point of leaving a persons back bloody and bruised.

Who would ever volunteer for this….I don’t know but I do know that it is involved in some people’s S&M fantasies and is legal when carried out between to willing people “getting their freak on”. Again not something I would choose and if it was done to me against my will…definately torture……but if MR. nad Mrs. BDSM want to do it…then they can.

I am thinking of msm

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 3:46 PM

wait ….”msm” isn’t the right acronym now that I look at it and I forget what the proper one is. Anyway you know what “kink” I am refering to.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Okay first adresssing semantics. Torture by is definition in involuntary so you can’t volunteer for it. That is like talking about a round square. It impossible.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 3:46 PM

This is just flat incorrect. The definition of torture has nothing to do with whether it is voluntary or not. I am seeing a lot of odd definitions of “torture”, these days. Just in the post above, Tom_Shipley tried to say that “Torture, by definition is an act of malice, meant to get information or punish a person,” which is also incorrect.

Cutting off someone’s fingers is torture, no matter who is doing it, why they’re doing it, or who ever signed onto it.

The left’s attempt to attack necessary defense mechanisms is another replay of their old game, they twist and pervert all the definitions surrounding the one act, not informing people that their twists and perversions will eventually seep into the rest of our society, wreaking havoc with all sorts of behaviors that no one had even given two thoughts to, before. They did this sort of perversion with our debt markets, and that could not be quarantined to their intended applications any more than this silliness about waterboarding will be.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Just in the post above, Tom_Shipley tried to say that “Torture, by definition is an act of malice, meant to get information or punish a person,” which is also incorrect.

You’re mistaking how people use a word for its actual definition. By definition, “torture” is an act of malice — cruel, inhuman treatment inflicted upon a person in custody of another entity meant to get information or punish.

People use the word torture all the time — “that test was torture.” That medical procedure was “torture.”

If a person has been shot, there’s no anesthetic available, a doctor would not be torturing a patient by attempting to remove the bullet to save his life. The patient may describe it as “torture”, but actual torture would not be taking place.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 4:44 PM

You’re mistaking how people use a word for its actual definition. By definition, “torture” is an act of malice — cruel, inhuman treatment inflicted upon a person in custody of another entity meant to get information or punish.

Wrong. A machine can torture someone (i.e. the person can experience torture), even without a human operator.

People use the word torture all the time — “that test was torture.” That medical procedure was “torture.”

And people say, “I’ll kill you” all the time, without meaning anything about actually killing. You mistake idioms and hyperbole with the actual definitions of words.

If a person has been shot, there’s no anesthetic available, a doctor would not be torturing a patient by attempting to remove the bullet to save his life. The patient may describe it as “torture”, but actual torture would not be taking place.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 4:44 PM

That medical treatment is still torture, as the patient would easily testify to afterwards. But, the ends justify the means in those cases. There are other cases where the ends also justify the means of torture (or bombing cities to ash). Of course, when it is inconvenient, the left forgets any consequences, as I explained above. Your definition still needs a lot of work.

That said, waterboarding isn’t even in this discussion, as it is not torture. Not even close.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM

You’re the one mistaken hyperbole for an actual definition. If a doctor performs an operation by necessity without anesthetic, it’s not torture. People may say it was like torture because of the pain, but the doctor was not torturing the patient, he’s attempting to save his or her life.

If the doctor performs a procedure without anesthetic unnecessarily (think “The Marathon Man”), then he is torturing a patient. There is a difference. Intention do come into account when it comes to torture.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Progressover peace

you never addresssed the fact that “whipping someone” when voluntary is legal and when involuntary illegal.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM

There are many cases when torture has come into the court room. But personally could not find one where your …everything that hurts alot is torture….definition was ever used Progressoverpeace.

On the other hand there are tons of legal cases in the US and on documents that US has signed liked the UN convention gainst Torture that define it as Tom is.

Perhaps if you have some legal documents that define it as anything that causes extreme pain…regardless of intent. You could share it because right now all I can think of is the way the US defined it when prosecuting those waterboarding Japenese and when signing the UN Covention.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 5:34 PM

If ~~a doctor~~ an interrogator performs an ~~operation~~ interrogation by necessity without anesthetic, it’s not torture. People may say it was like torture because of the pain, but the ~~doctor~~ interrogator was not torturing the ~~patient~~ detainee, he’s attempting to save ~~his or her~~ American life.

Okay. That works for me. As long as the reason for doing it is to save lives (multiple lives saved makes an even stronger case for the interrogators, obviously) then it’s okay – no matter what it is.

If the doctor performs a procedure without anesthetic unnecessarily (think “The Marathon Man”), then he is torturing a patient. There is a difference. Intention do come into account when it comes to torture.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 5:04 PM

So your definition has nothing to do with one subject to the actions, now? Torture is torture.

Can I be tortured by an animal (non-human)? Think about it.

you never addresssed the fact that “whipping someone” when voluntary is legal and when involuntary illegal.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM

You’re kidding, right? Touching someone involuntarily is illegal. Give me a break. Let’s hear some real arguments for your side.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM

My definition of torture is in US COURT DOCUMENTS and THE UN Convention Against Torture which the USA signed. Where in the lega realm is your definition of torture found?

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Intention do come into account when it comes to torture.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 5:04 PM

So … if an interrogator only cuts a guy’s arm off because he is motivated by the need to save his own countrymen, and gets no personal pleasure out of the task he has to perform to save his people, then according to you it isn’t torture. I can live with that. Can you?

My definition of torture is in US COURT DOCUMENTS and THE UN Convention Against Torture which the USA signed.

Ooooh. I would think you would be able to argue it better, in that case. The “UN Convention Against Torture”? LOL.

Give me your US Court definition and I’ll tell you what I think of it. But you had better stick to the documents, since your forays into independently trying to support your position have been pretty poor.

Where in the legal realm is your definition of torture found?

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM

I go by common sense, logic, and a deep understanding of the language. You see, while our courts might accept idiocy along the lines of “That depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is,” I do not.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM

How about the ones I led this conversation with.

The prosecution of Japense who waterboarded Americans in an attempt to see if the could garner info. I should also mention they were trying to save lives….we did drop atom bombs on them killing countless innocent lives. I could see how they thought torture was justified since we were willing to do such mass damage to civilians via NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 6:22 PM

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 6:22 PM

You answered your own question. Our firebombings of their cities, as well as our nuking of a couple, would have qualified as war crimes by the same criteria we were using against the Japanese and the Germans. So what?

That’s why the war crimes trials after WWII, especially the Nuremberg trials, were jokes that never should have happened. It was just a matter of the winner humiliating the loser (which is fine) and us telling them that they were bad people, which they were. Big whoop. Of course, we still maintained our strategic nuclear arsenal, up to this very day, the sole utility of which is to incinerate tens of millions of civilians. As I asked before, and no one dared answer, do you want to declare our nuclear arsenal to be “illegal”, because according to the Geneva Conventions it is? I can see The Precedent having his treasonous administration arguing that point in court. Can you?

Was JFK a war criminal for threatening the entire Soviet population with incineration if Cuba launched a nuke at French Guyana? He even made the threat on national TV, which probably scared more Soviet citizens than any threat of waterboarding scares a detainee.

You’ll also have to be more specific in your citing of waterboarding and the Japanese. American POWs (which the detainees in Gitmo are NOT, by the way) knew that death could very well be their end. They saw others killed in front of their eyes, all the time. I think that most would have preferred to just be waterboarded, but that wasn’t really the context, now, was it? There was more going on with Japanese interrogations than mere waterboarding. You love comparing apples and oranges, I see.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Wow you American look bad.

Apparently we are nothing but a bunch of liars who word isn’t worth the paper it is written on. No wonder the world hates us. We say one thing and then do the other. If it results i our personal gain F#@$ EVERYONE else.

I have a lot of issues with some of our poast actions. I have no doubt that we commited war crimes…..most recently in Iraq and I am saddened by the fact that the perpetraytors have not been brought to justice.

I keep hoping we are getting closer to being the “moral compass” we pretend to be. You live by your word and “silly” ideas like that. American is boiund to lose it’s place in the world…we just dn’t have the people power like India and China…what do we do then when our word is worthless?

Ugh…..your celebration of U.S. duplicity and hypocrisy is nauseating.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Answer my direct question about our strategic nuclear arsenal. Don’t be scared.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 6:47 PM

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM

And spare me the hysterical drama about accords that none of the signatories follow, except for as an “a la carte menu”, as you seem to be so fond of. We are not bound by a treaty that no one else follows, or ever followed. Get a clue, man.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 6:50 PM

So … if an interrogator only cuts a guy’s arm off because he is motivated by the need to save his own countrymen, and gets no personal pleasure out of the task he has to perform to save his people, then according to you it isn’t torture

No, because as I said, torture is the infliction of pain or mental duress in an attempt to gain information or punish.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Okay I am out for dinner but

1. You ae putting all our soldiers at greater risk. There has been a gentlemans agreement between democracies that there are something we don’t do. Why should our allies help us if we lie. There are WMD’s, we don’t Torture. Is it any wonder we are virtually alone in Iraq. Do we really want to alienate people from helping us in places like Afghanistan too.
We are a powerful country but these wars have shown us our limits.

2. As for the specifics of what we signed about nuclear weapons…I’ll need to research.

DustyGreen on April 25, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Your word games and shifting the goalposts in this discussion is pathetic.

Obama’s own intelligence selection plainly states (which was conveniently omitted from the public release) that :

confirming that the interrogations produced “high-value information” that provided a “deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization attacking this country”

water boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation” and has already been revealed to have been used on only 3 people.Other methods have already been determined by liberals to be “torture” even up to putting caterpillars in the cells with the jihadist.
These methods “combined” have produced intel that helped stop attacks.Gaining a deeper “understanding of al-qaeda” applies directly to this point.
We are not trying to stop them form baking cookies or summer camp,we are trying to stop them from killing thousands of people.

Tom originally posted that the statement from ED and our intel sources that a plot to stop an attack in La could not have happened because of the time line:

Second of all, the Bush administration claims that plot was thwarted mid-2002 according to the Bush administration — months before Sheik Mohommad was captured. Sorry, but I’m not buying the sketchy CSN story.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 12:14 PM

You were plainly shown that you did not know what you were posting about:

Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn’t completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.

Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.

He continued to try and carry out the attack by forming another cell,networking the attack like has been done hundreds of times.This is pretty easy to understand for people that actually are familiar with how the jihadist work instead of spending all of their time on the huffington post.

The LA times article that was critical of the Bush administration plainly shows that through waterboarding and other enhanced techniques,were able to stop this plot before it was carried out.

Then you shift the goal posts by stating that terrorist would not be likely to try another attack by taking over a plane:

And, as I said in another thread, any plot to hijack a passenger plane and crash it into a building after 9/11 should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. On 9/11, the hijackers relied on the fact that American passengers did not think they were suicidal and crash the planes. But, as flight 93 showed, that thinking changed rather quickly after the two planes hit the twin towers.

You were wrong here also:
British,Paksitan,and the US were involved in breaking up a major plot that involved trying to blow up airplanes that had taken off from Europe over major cities in the US well after 9/11.
‘Mass murder terror plot’ uncovered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/10/terrorism.politics

· Claims 10 planes were targeted
· 24 held following raids
· Chaos at British airports

A plot to kill thousands of people by detonating explosions on up to 10 transatlantic flights from UK airports was disrupted today.

The home secretary, John Reid, today said such an attack could have caused civilian casualties on an “unprecedented scale”.

It is believed the intention was to set off near simultaneous blasts on flights, probably bound for the US, using explosives smuggled into passenger cabins inside hand luggage.

You are left with playing word games like “I said Hijack,not blow up” as if you have some inside knowledge of how they were going to carry out this attack.
You don’t know that they were not going to attempt to get control of the flight or any other specifics.
The facts are that your premise of the jihadist probably not attempting another attack similar to 9/11 is dust.
This was a plan to use planes to inflict as much damage as possible.

Then you call me out for supposedly selective quoting:

And actually, I noticed you engaged in a little selective editing. You say:

What part of “deeper understanding of the al-aqeda organization ATTACKING this COUNTRY” don’t you understand Tom.

You take the words “that was” out. Again, I stand by my assessment of the quote (which I don’t feel the need to have to alter to fit my point). He’s saying that they gained a deeper understanding of organization that was attacking us (or plotting to attack us, I read that as).

This is hilarious since part of the whole scandal regarding the release of these memos is that the Obama administration
“EDITED OUT ” Blair’s assessment that enhanced interrogation provided valuable intel against the jihadist to twart attacks.
I don’t need to edit out the fact that these procedures produced results,Goss,Hayden,Tenet and other top intel people state emphatically that these procedures were successful.

These posts contain their statements regarding this fact:

Here is one of many coming from the head of the CIA

The former head of the CIA told FOX News last year that five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, 60 percent of the knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community about Al Qaeda came from enhanced interrogation techniques.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM

add the Washington post,NYtimes and on air interviews,all of them having our top intel people stating that these policies worked.

Then you go back to word games:

Where do you quote ANYONE, aside from the CSN story quoting “The Central Intelligence Agency” (did they interview the entire agency at once?) saying waterboarding led to the foiling of any plot. That’s not a feeling or opinion of mine. It’s a fact.

Tom,I know being in that huffington post bubble makes it hard for reality to get through but,

Waterboarding was part of the whole “enhanced interrogation” methods that were used.

The foiled plot in La was a specific incident noted and has not been shown to be false. The Obama administration nor has any intel body come forward and stated:
The LA plot was a hoax.

You and your debunked conspiracy theory is the only statements saying the LA story is without merit.

Your opinions and feelings do not trump the prestige,experience,and positions of our top intel people.

What proof do you provide that disputes or shoots down the statements and testimony of some of the leading intel people in the country that have worked for democrats and Republicans:

Your opinion and a quote from an anonymous source:
“

To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines

This is simply pathetic.

If the Obama administration will back up their campaign rhetoric of transparency and full disclosure we will surely get many more examples of the effectiveness of these procedures.
Cheney has asked for 2 specific documents to be de-classified that will add to the already large amount of statements and testimony to the success of these programs.

You still have not produced one item that refutes or shoots down the statements and testimony of Hayden,Tenet,Goss and the other people and articles that testify to the success of
enhanced interrogation.

Put up or shut up Tom.

Baxter Greene on April 25, 2009 at 8:14 PM

I don’t need to edit out the fact that these procedures produced results,Goss,Hayden,Tenet and other top intel people state emphatically that these procedures were successful.

Then why did you edit out those words? You altered the quote. Why?

First of all, you haven’t shown one item in which Hayden, Tenet or Goss have said that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation has disrupted any plots.

But, since you asked, here are two people who have said IE have not led to the disruption of any plots:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

And

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Here’s the Mueller link:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=4

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Then you shift the goal posts by stating that terrorist would not be likely to try another attack by taking over a plane:

Are you dense. I explained this in an earlier post. learn to read.

I didn’t say AQ would not likely try another attack by taking over a plane. I said they were not likely to invest in a plot that would hijack a plane with the intent of flying it into a building — which is what the library tower plot was. It was actually part of the original 9/11 plan.

The plot you cite was not a plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, but to blow them up in midair.

The library plot was specific about hijacking the plane and crashing it into the tower. But after the two planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11, the opportunity to have passengers sit idly by during a hijacking was lost forever, as flight 93 quickly showed.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:56 PM

No, because as I said, torture is the infliction of pain or mental duress in an attempt to gain information or punish.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Okay. So, now jailing someone for committing a crime is torture, as the mental duress they are placed under by having their life so severely restricted in order to punish them is, according to you, torture. I guess we don’t even have to talk about anyone being locked in solitary confinement as a punishment, as that is also clearly torture, to you. We’d better get started on those charges against everyone involved in our penal system, including the judges who knowingly sentence people to, what falls under your definition of, torture. Great. You have brought down our entire penal system, as it is nothing but torture, by your definition.

Amazing, tom.

We can also go after Al Gore for his fear-mongering among children, intentionally placing them under extreme mental duress (as is proven by the various polls and info showing the increase of anxiety disorders in children subjected to the global warming scams) to punish their parents for not buying his global warming idiocy. Let’s arrest all of them, too.

By the time we’re finished applying your definition of torture, we should have somethign like 90% of society behind bars – except that being jailed is torture, so …

This is what liberal idiocy always leads to – chaos. Enjoy it.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM

You’re right, PP, I should have said “extreme mental duress.”

No, jailing someone is torture. But putting them under extreme psychological duress, through sleep depravation of fear of dying (like waterboarding) is.

And pp, I hope you’re being willfully dense, or else I’d feel a bit of a fool for engaging is a debate for so long with such and idiot.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 9:07 PM

No, jailing someone is not torture

Fixed.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 9:07 PM

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Thanks for taking your time to respond. As I said, normally most people on blogs either ignore such comments or try to respond without properly realizing the background.

(1) Actually, I meant tit-for-tat in the enemy A v/s enemy B context, so in this case America v/s terrorists. I was in no way suggesting one-for-one in terms of personnel ratio.

(2) I used the word “torture” not to propose that people have been tortured, but as an “even if” case.

(3) My comment on the evolutionary success of tit-for-tat is not my own conclusion, it is a known and proven mathematical result.

(4) You are correct that the prisoners’ dilemma is not exactly applicable here. My point was: sociologically, most approaches to *not* torture are based on trust : if I don’t torture you, then you won’t torture me : and prisoners’ dilemma games solely on that trust.

Personally, I am very much torn on this topic. I understand the need for this in very extreme cases, but also understand the slippery slope argument. I probably agree with Doctor Zero at the gut level on this one – I wish I never had to do it or see it, but I am glad somebody is making that decision for me.

peter_griffin on April 25, 2009 at 9:19 PM

(1) Actually, I meant tit-for-tat in the enemy A v/s enemy B context, so in this case America v/s terrorists. I was in no way suggesting one-for-one in terms of personnel ratio.

I’m not clear on the scale you are addressing.

(2) I used the word “torture” not to propose that people have been tortured, but as an “even if” case.

Okay. But the issue is really over “interrogation techniques”, not torture. When we talk about torture, it should be understood to mean cutting off limbs, fingernails, etc. Slapping someone around is not torture, even though the thought of it seems to make many pretend to cringe in moral revulsion. Heh. And then they run off to watch the next Tarantino Bloodfest and proclaim what an artistic genius the moron is. Funny people, really. Just dangerous to have guarding us. Big time.

(3) My comment on the evolutionary success of tit-for-tat is not my own conclusion, it is a known and proven mathematical result.

The result you are probably referring to was also built on a different game.

I am all for a game-theoretic approach to the arab/persian/muslim enemies (along with their communist stooges now, too). I would like to see any analysis along those lines, but you have to be careful to model the situation properly. There are still too many variables that are essentially unknowable, such as the likelihood of an attack or the level of destruction and ancillary effects, but the analysis would still be very interesting.

As I said before, I am more given to using an evolutionary strategy against them, but that involves tactics that the naive people have declared illegal (while evolution allows everything, you know) … so all we can do with respect to the evolutionary pressures on the enemy is understand that we have assured them room to grow and develop, along with more and more detailed knowledge into our internal operations, so that they will have a decent chance to eventually evolve cells that will be able to do some city-sized destruction to us and our allies. That’s pretty clear.

(4) You are correct that the prisoners’ dilemma is not exactly applicable here. My point was: sociologically, most approaches to *not* torture are based on trust : if I don’t torture you, then you won’t torture me : and prisoners’ dilemma games solely on that trust.

That’s true. But that game was all about individual trust and individual suffering. It was about individual prisoners each saving himself, with no thought about his country or task. You are correct in that it was ana assessment of trust, but that was only the means to achieve a likely minimum in individual pain.

Personally, I am very much torn on this topic. I understand the need for this in very extreme cases, but also understand the slippery slope argument. I probably agree with Doctor Zero at the gut level on this one – I wish I never had to do it or see it, but I am glad somebody is making that decision for me.

peter_griffin on April 25, 2009 at 9:19 PM

I know what you mean. I’m not torn, myself, but I understand where you’re coming from.

Hey, if they showed normal surgical operations live on TV they’d have people puking in their living rooms. Empathy is a strong emotion, but it cannot be taken outside of its range of application. Much of the problem with liberals is that they cannot control their empathetic responses and let them run their policies.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 10:18 PM

I see that the 9/10 world is alive and well for some.

Jamson64 on April 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM

In fact terrorists are counting on 9/10 thinking so I could see another similar attack happening. They know they can count on the complicity of the Tom S.s of the world.

Jamson64 on April 25, 2009 at 10:37 PM

I think this is a sociological issue working here. The reasoning whether to torture or not to torture should be driven by this question : if we torture enemy soldier A, will we want to be tortured by the exact same methods if we are in A’s shoes?

This can be better discussed in the context of the prisoner’s dilemma in game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_Dilemma). Not trusting the enemy and torturing is an excellent strategy when there is a *finite* number of rounds. On the other hand, *evolutionarily* (where number of rounds is infinite), it is better to adopt a “tit-for-tat” policy where, we torture soldiers captured in enemy camp A, only when we know for a fact that A has tortured soldiers in our camp.

This is not to support or denounce torture, I just wanted to add some perspective to the argument.

peter_griffin on April 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I don’t think the nature of modern warfare, particularly with regard to terrorism and the coming age of nuclear/biological/chemical terrorism, can support the concept of a slow escalation of aggression. In earlier eras, this was seen as a moral structure for conducting warfare: responding to a minor incursion with a comparable level of force, and treating enemy soldiers the same way ours are treated.

The War on Terror is similar to the barbarian assaults suffered by ancient civilizations, with attacks coming unpredictably, without diplomacy preceding them, or any laws of war to govern the conduct of the enemy. It is a simple fact of war that it continues until one side is unwilling or unable to fight, and the techniques available to break the barbarian’s will to fight are much more limited, and necessarily brutal. The barbarian has no cities to defend, no vulnerable infrastructure to protect, no unhappy electorates who will grow weary of battle and vote out the leadership. The only thing that breaks his will to fight is unrelenting, deadly force, reducing his numbers until the leadership is deposed or captured. The only way to deter the barbarian from attacking in the first place is to make him believe the costs outweigh the benefits, by demonstrating strength and resolve. This is as true of al-Qaeda and the Somali pirates as it was of the Barbary pirates, the Visigoths, and every other uncivilized enemy, all the way back to the days of the first walled cities and uniformed armies.

I believe the political infighting and second-guessing over coercive interrogation techniques is dangerous because it weakens the resolve necessary to both combat and deter terrorists. I wrote earlier that every aspect of war is painful and unpleasant. Against a barbaric enemy, a mature society should express its heartfelt reluctance to employ *any* of the bloody tools of warfare… and its equally heartfelt determination to use *all* of them to safeguard its citizens. It makes no positive impression on the enemy to pick a few things we’re especially squeamish about and advertise that we become paralyzed with indecision when we’re forced to confront them. It’s not ethical, or efficient, to lead our soldiers and intelligence agents to believe they’ll be second-guessed and scapegoated by civilian back-biters after the danger is past. It will lead them to hesitate in dangerous situations, and it further distances civilian and military societies that have already become too far apart – too much of civilian America seems to regard its military as unstable, unruly mercenaries from an alien culture they don’t understand.

It’s one thing to appropriately investigate and punish insubordinate, criminal behavior, such as what occurred at Abu Ghraib. It’s another thing to stage politically motivated witch hunts after eight remarkable years of domestic safety, against the people who helped secure that safety… knowing, as I wrote earlier, that none of them were psychotic sadists dancing with glee at the thought of having some Arabs to torture. No one at Guantanamo Bay suffered any more than the Serbians who died under Bill Clinton’s bombing runs.

The correct approach is to make it clear to both our soldiers, and the enemy, that we do not seek violent conflict, but are prepared to respond with overwhelming force and resolve if conflict is forced upon us. We will extend every benefit of the doubt to our own people, working as they do under intense pressure against an enemy whose tactics are always shifting, and whose methods include the targeting of civilians and use of indiscriminate weapons as a matter of course. No enemy willing to murder civilians in vast numbers should ever think they’re one American presidential election away from obtaining concessions through terrorist violence, or having a friendly environment to build cells and plan operations, thanks to a U.S. intelligence community that is afraid to do what needs to be done. Proceeding down the road Obama is contemplating signals a provocative lack of resolve, and a dangerous lack of respect for those who fought the first battles in the War on Terror… and yes, liberals, it is extremely important that Obama show appropriate respect for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, for the continuity and legitimacy of a democratic republic depends on each new administration displaying proper respect for its predecessors.

Doctor Zero on April 25, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Then why did you edit out those words? You altered the quote. Why?

Are you paranoid or what.
I pasted and addressed part of your post.No conspiracy,no nefariousness,your quote is derived from the same thread for crying out loud. What was there to hide.

First of all, you haven’t shown one item in which Hayden, Tenet or Goss have said that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation has disrupted any plots.

Tom,I have shown over and over and over that our leaders in the intel business have stated that these techniques provided information that revealed the operations of al-qaeda and prevention of attacks.
What do you think the terrorist are trying to do?
Can you tell us what this information that our intel agencies gain is used for except to plan attacks.
Is al-qaeda in any other business that we don’t know about Tom.
Please enlighten us what this information that is obtained is for except plotting and carrying out attacks.
Since you seem to have a major reading and comprehension problem,I will post some more examples for you:

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.”

Made us safer Tom.
Get it.
What do you think they made us safer from Tom.
delivering Ice Cream,music lessons,planning field trips.
No,they made us safer from BEING ATTACKED.

“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.

Blair,deeper understanding …..attacking this country.
Once again,what would this understanding we gained benefit except to prevent attacks.

The Office of Legal Counsel memo states “we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM” and notes that “intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda.” The memos refer to other classified documents — including an “Effectiveness Memo” and an “IG Report,” which explain how “the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information.”

6,000 intelligence reports….more than half of our intel against al-qaeda….all gained using enhanced interrogation
for what Tom,what would all of this information be obtained for except to thwart attacks.

Here is your specific incident:

The memo explains that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ” In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

Justice Dept. states:
Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ .

CAN YOU COMPREHEND :the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001

FAILED TO LAUNCH ATTACKS.
just read it real slow Tom,maybe out loud to yourself,and it will get through.
Here,one word at a time: FAILED….TO…..LAUNCH…..ATTACKS.

Here is President Bill Clinton endorses “torture” as a way of ….here it is again Tom.
say it real slow for you: STOPPING …..AN…..ATTACK.

Audio: Clinton endorses “torture” in special cases; Update: World opinion opposes “torture”
posted at 12:30 am on October 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/audio-clinton-endorses-torture-in-special-cases/

Three minutes. The best part is at the very end, where Billy Jeff chuckles at the notion that anyone would oppose torture in a true ticking bomb situation. Reality-based, our BJ is.

More from Tenet:

As for waterboarding, it is mostly a political sideshow. The CIA’s view seems to be that some version of waterboarding is effective in breaking especially tough cases quickly. Press reports say it has been used only against a few high-value al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah. As former CIA Director George Tenet points out in his book “At the Center of the Storm,” KSM and others never would have talked about “imminent threats against the American people” had they not been dealt with harshly. “I believe that none of these success would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal,” he writes.

More from the Washington Post

The Post and Abu Zubaydah
[Marc Thiessen]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

In fact, what Abu Zubaydah disclosed to the CIA during this period was that the fact that KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and that his code name was “Muktar” — something Zubaydah thought we already knew, but in fact we did not. Intelligence officials had been trying for months to figure out who “Muktar” was. This information provided by Zubaydah was a critical piece of the puzzle that allowed them to pursue and eventually capture KSM. This fact, in and of itself, discredits the premise of the Post story — to suggest that the capture of KSM was not information that “foiled plots” to attack America is absurd on the face of it.

The Post also acknowledges that Zubaydah’s “interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla” but dismisses Padilla as the man behind a fanciful “dirty bomb” plot and notes that Padilla was never charged in any such plot. In fact, Padilla was a hardened terrorist who had trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and was a protégé of al Qaeda’s third in command, Mohammed Atef. And when he was captured, Padilla was being prepared for a much more sinister and realistic attack on America.

In June of 2001, Padilla met in Afghanistan with Atef, who asked him if he was willing to undertake a mission to blow up apartment buildings in the United States using natural gas. He agreed, and was sent to a training site near the Kandahar airport to prepare for the attack under close supervision of an al Qaeda explosives expert, who taught him about switches, circuits, and timers needed to carry it out. He was training in Afghanistan when Coalition forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom. Atef was killed by a Coalition airstrike, and Padilla joined the other al Qaeda operatives fleeing Afghanistan.

But no Tom,keep on moving the goalposts or playing word games while the facts and reality of the success brought by NSA wiretapping,bank tracking,and enhanced interrogation stares you right in the face.

But the memos note that, “as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, ‘brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.” In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can — and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that “Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable.” The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

From the terrorist own mouth they state that when it gets to be to much,it is alright to talk.
This is where enhanced interrogation comes in Tom.
and it has worked.
The facts on the ground and the testimony of our intel people prove this.

Baxter Greene on April 25, 2009 at 11:33 PM

The library plot was specific about hijacking the plane and crashing it into the tower. But after the two planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11, the opportunity to have passengers sit idly by during a hijacking was lost forever, as flight 93 quickly showed.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:56 PM

No Tom,you are the one that is dense.
Please cite the information you have that proves that in the process of carrying out the plot to blow up planes,that they had no intention of trying to take over the planes.
You have no way of knowing what or how they wanted to carry out there plan.

But to the larger point,what does the fact that your “opinion” is that they would not try this have any bearing or show any proof that they would not.

The fact that they did try other attacks involving using planes as weapons goes a whole lot further to debunking your factless and baseless opinion than it goes to help it.

You conspiracy theory about the time line was wrong and you want us to dismiss the whole plot because you don’t think it was plausible,after being shown that in fact,the jihadist did try to use planes as weapons.

This reasoning of yours is a joke right,I mean you must have lost a bet or something and are having to post impersonating Rosi Oddonell with this.

Baxter Greene on April 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

But, since you asked, here are two people who have said IE have not led to the disruption of any plots:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

Here is what I posted:

If the Obama administration will back up their campaign rhetoric of transparency and full disclosure we will surely get many more examples of the effectiveness of these procedures.
Cheney has asked for 2 specific documents to be de-classified that will add to the already large amount of statements and testimony to the success of these programs.

You still have not produced one item that refutes or shoots down the statements and testimony of Hayden,Tenet,Goss and the other people and articles that testify to the success of
enhanced interrogation.

Total discloser is what we need here and the Obama administration is afraid to do that.
They released memos after redacting information that they knew would hurt their agenda (politicizing national security) and are stalling in releasing information that top intel people have stated shows that this program worked.

Full Transparency,release the memos and transcripts of intel meetings showing the democrats 100% support and approval of enhanced interrogation.

As for Mueller,he is certainly more credible than your opinion,but how does his opinion refute or debunk :

You still have not produced one item that refutes or shoots down the statements and testimony of Hayden,Tenet,Goss

As of 2009, The CIA stands behind the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation and the results:

CIA: We stand behind our actions — and the results
posted at 2:45 pm on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/21/cia-we-stand-behind-our-actions-and-the-results/

When Mueller comes out and states “Tenet said this”…
I know that is not true because of this……

Goss said this……….I know this is not true because of this……..

Hayden said this…………I know this is not true because of this………….

We are getting somewhere.
These statements merely show a disagreement in policy or a lack of knowledge concerning these policies.

The FBI and CIA have a history of conflict and disagreement .

This one stands out:

Levels Of Enhancement
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/levels-of-enhancement.html

Well. One hopes the actual interrogations were done in compliance with FBI guidelines, even if the treatment of the prisoner was “enhanced” a bit on an extra-curricular basis outside of the interrogation room. From the May 30 2005 memo (p. 94 of 124) I infer that the proponents of enhanced techniques scored this as a win for their techniques. And since per the DoJ IG report the FBI withdrew its agents in May and June because of the harsh CIA techniques, we are left wondering just what sort of “traditional” FBI interrogation Mr. Soufan normally conducts.

F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

Pissing matches between agencies are pretty common.
This however does not in any way change the overwhelming consensus from many intel leaders that the policies that the Bush administration employed have shown to be very successful:

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

Baxter Greene on April 26, 2009 at 12:17 AM

The War on Terror is similar to the barbarian assaults suffered by ancient civilizations, with attacks coming unpredictably, without diplomacy preceding them, or any laws of war to govern the conduct of the enemy. It is a simple fact of war that it continues until one side is unwilling or unable to fight, and the techniques available to break the barbarian’s will to fight are much more limited, and necessarily brutal. The barbarian has no cities to defend, no vulnerable infrastructure to protect, no unhappy electorates who will grow weary of battle and vote out the leadership. The only thing that breaks his will to fight is unrelenting, deadly force, reducing his numbers until the leadership is deposed or captured. The only way to deter the barbarian from attacking in the first place is to make him believe the costs outweigh the benefits, by demonstrating strength and resolve. This is as true of al-Qaeda and the Somali pirates as it was of the Barbary pirates, the Visigoths, and every other uncivilized enemy, all the way back to the days of the first walled cities and uniformed armies.

Incredible insight.
Thanks.

Baxter Greene on April 26, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Get it.
What do you think they made us safer from Tom.
delivering Ice Cream,music lessons,planning field trips.
No,they made us safer from BEING ATTACKED.

First of all, this is what I asked for:

First of all, you haven’t shown one item in which Hayden, Tenet or Goss have said that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation has disrupted any plots.

You have yet to provide this. You just cite vague quotes like “enhanced interrogation has made us safer…” You assume that means IE led to intel that disrupted actionable plots, but you don’t cite any specifics from these men.

the only “specifics” you cite is the CNS story that quotes the “Central Intelligence Agency” as saying IE led to the disruption of the Library Towers plot in 2003, when Bush has said that plot was disrupted in 2002. Again, as I said, if that’s the best proponents of IE can come up with in defense of its usefulness, then that’s pretty weak tea.

As for Tenet’s claim, he seems to be talking about the Tower Plot as well:

Then-CIA director George Tenet, in his 2007 memoir, says that tough interrogation of al-Qaeda members – and documents found on them, he is careful to add - thwarted more than 20 plots “against U.S. infrastructure targets, including communications nodes, nuclear power plants, dams, bridges, and tunnels.” A “future airborne attack on America’s West Coast” was likely foiled only because the CIA didn’t have “to treat KSM like a white collar criminal.”

I put the part about documents in bold because it seems to back up Blair’s assessment that, though valuable information was gained through IE, he’s not sure it wouldn’t have been gained through traditional interrogation methods.

Now, back the the Tower Plot. The fact the Sheikh Mohommad spilled the beans about it AFTER it had been foiled in 2002, seems to back up the assertion that waterboarding and other IE methods yield unreliable intel:

But the JPRA’s two-page attachment, titled “Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation,” questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to gain intelligence.

“The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible — in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life — has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture,” the document said. “In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.”

Doesn’t seem like KSM knew they wanted something big out of him, so he gave him the details of this plot, which he already knew was dead in the water? Shaky intell indeed.

Now, on to Abu Zubaydah. You imply that waterboarding or IE led to the discovery that Shaikh Mohommad was “muktar” and to the arrest of Padilla. But according to the person who actually interrogated him, that is not the case:

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1240745939-xZHQ6ogYXObng7Hx36D6/Q

Now onto this quote:

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ .

Now, we all know how credible Gonzo and company are (/sarc). Gonazalez in this memo claims the CIA believes intelligence gained from waterboarding, etc… is key to why no attack has occurred since 9/11.

But let’s see what the CIA actually believed:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html

Mind you, this is after the “Tower Plot” was thwarted in 2002.

For all the talk of enhanced interrogation yielding “critical data” that “saved lives” the only specific plot people claim it disrupted was the Library Tower plot, which Bush and company said was disrupted in 2002 prior to KSM’s capture.

Blair also concludes that he cannot say if the intell gained through waterboarding could not have been gained through traditional interrogation techniques.

Tom_Shipley on April 26, 2009 at 7:59 AM

But let’s see what the CIA actually believed:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
Tom_Shipley on April 26, 2009 at 7:59 AM

Tom,the CIA as of 2009,stands firmly behind the use of enhanced interrogation:
CIA: We stand behind our actions — and the results
posted at 2:45 pm on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/21/cia-we-stand-behind-our-actions-and-the-results/

This is the third time I have linked this because you seem to think if you keep saying the samething,like the 2004 quote you keep citing,that somehow this inconvenient fact will go away for you.

The “vague” comments are direct statements from some of the nations leading intel agencies and are backed up by actual results,all of which I have listed.

The fact that you cannot accept or prove that the LA plot is not credible is simply your problem,not the problem of our intel agencies that confirm it and HAVE HAD NO ONE ABLE TO REFUTE IT.

Two cells were broken up (1 cosisted of 4 people and the other of 17)that were working on carrying this plot out.
The intel provided through enhanced interrogation stopped this plot.
period.end of story.No intel source including the Obama administration has come forth and stated “This information is incorrect”.
The only people stating this are liberal activists like yourself who ignore any and all facts and information that does not fit your talking points and agenda,then continue to repeat the same things over and over and over trying to convince yourself and anyone dumb enough to listen to you that they are true.
This works in liberal echo chambers like huffington post and Kos,but not in the real world.

But I am going to simplify it for you one more time because
reality and comprehension are such a problem for you:

Terrorist caught + interrogation methods used + Intel derived from terrorist = terrorist attacks stopped

Tom,all of your posting and conspiracy theories have not debunked these simple chain of facts.

Baxter Greene on April 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Blair also concludes that he cannot say if the intell gained through waterboarding could not have been gained through traditional interrogation techniques.

Tom_Shipley on April 26, 2009 at 7:59 AM

You keep stating this as somehow proof that the enhanced interrogation did not work.
In your mind maybe so.
In the real world,the fact that something elese might have worked does not refute the fact that after these policies were enacted,they achieved intel that stopped attacks.

Again,
Through the use of enhanced interrogation,we derived intel that stopped attacks.period.
You have not been able tp refute or shot down this simple fact in any way.

Your analogy is like :the man weighed 100 lbs.
After we feed him steak and potatoes everyday for 3 months,he weighed 150 lbs.

The fact that he “may” have gained the weight eating beans and rice does not change the fact that eating the steak and potatoes helped him gain weight.

Tom,dealing with you is really like talking to some 6 yr. old kid that just jumps up in the middle of the room yelling and screaming because he can’t get his way.

Facts don’t matter to you,
Results don’t matter to you,
You can’t refute the facts that don’t agree with your agenda,
So you just repeat the same thing over and over no matter how stupid it is.

You really need to grow up if you won’t to quit making such a fool out of yourself.

Baxter Greene on April 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM

The hits just keep coming Tom,
Here are some more facts and statements from the Obama administration and our leading intel agencies that enhanced interrogation stopped attacks:

(via hotair)

The West Coast Plot: An “Inconvenient Truth”
[Marc Thiessen]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Here are some relevant quotes:

Really? Planes were off the table after 9/11? That would come as a surprise to every passenger in the past three years who had their liquids confiscated in an airport security line. Those security measures were instituted because in 2006 we foiled an al-Qaeda plot to hijack airplanes leaving London’s Heathrow airport and blow them up over the Atlantic (a plot our intelligence community says was just weeks from execution). Apparently al-Qaeda didn’t get Noah’s memo explaining that hijacking airplanes for terrorist attacks is “no longer viable al Qaeda strategy.”

Dam#,now where have I heard this before.
Ohhh yea,pretty much what I have been posting on this thread
that Tom’s “opinion” is supposed to refute.

What these two fail to appreciate is that the story of how enhanced interrogation broke up the West Coast plot is not my story — it is the official position of the intelligence community.

In my Washington Post piece, I was citing the very documents which President Obama released, which quote the CIA saying that interrogation with enhanced techniques “led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ to ‘use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.” The memo released by Obama goes on the explain that “information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ”

Again, those are not my words. That is the position of our intelligence community.

And not just in the released memos. In his September 2006 speech revealing the existence of the CIA program, President Bush described specifically how the interrogation of KSM led to the capture of the key operatives in this attack.

This was the most carefully vetted speech in presidential history — reviewed by all the key players from the individuals who ran the program all the way up to the director of national intelligence, who personally attested to the accuracy of the speech in a memo to the president. And just last week on Fox News, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said he went back and checked with the agency as to the accuracy of that speech and reported: “We stand by our story.”

But none of this matters to Tom,because he and his liberal friends “opinion” is that this can’t be.
Damned the facts.
Damned the intel.
Damned the statements from the people that were “actually”involved in all of this.

Tom doesn’t think it is so,so it must not be so.
I guess next Tom is going to heal the world with just the raise of his hand like Obama.

Reality does not seem to be a strong point for Tom and his liberal friends so they might as well believe this too.

Baxter Greene on April 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Selective release. Redacted paragraphs. Waffled comments. SNAFU for the current crew.

When Chaney gets access to the documents he’s filed FOA on, we’ll see what happens.

unclesmrgol on April 27, 2009 at 3:01 AM

Really? Planes were off the table after 9/11? That would come as a surprise to every passenger in the past three years who had their liquids confiscated in an airport security line. Those security measures were instituted because in 2006 we foiled an al-Qaeda plot to hijack airplanes leaving London’s Heathrow airport and blow them up over the Atlantic (a plot our intelligence community says was just weeks from execution). Apparently al-Qaeda didn’t get Noah’s memo explaining that hijacking airplanes for terrorist attacks is “no longer viable al Qaeda strategy.”

Well, two things. I never said aircraft were not susceptible to attacks. I said plots that involved hijacking planes and flying them into buildings were, in my opinion, not a priority for al qaeda after what happened with flight 93. This is important because the specific plans of the Library Tower plot were to hijack the plane and fly it into the Tower.

Now, this Heathrow plot. I’ve read a couple stories about it. I didn’t see one mention of the men trying to hijack the plane as part of the plot. As I understand it, they were going to bring explosives onto the plane and blow them (and the plane) up. No one accuses of them of trying to hijack the plane. And, with that sort of plot, there’s no need to hijack the plane. You just detonate the explosives and the rest is history.

To back up that point, here’s page recounting the arrest and trial of the plotters. And here’s a summary of their plot:

* The group purchased a flat in north-east London in July 2006 for £138,000 ($275,558 US dollars at today’s exchange rate.) in cash and transformed it into an alleged “bomb factory.”
* Searches of the property produced many components with the ability to create liquid improvised explosive devices that could be assembled and detonated on an aircraft.
* The woods near one suspect’s home contained a suitcase filled with syringes and chemicals.
* The main ingredient of the explosives mixture was hydrogen peroxide mixed with other organic materials.
* The terrorists would inject the liquid explosive into sealed 500 milliliter plastic bottles of soft drinks “Oasis” and “Lucozade” prior to boarding the plane.
* Tang, a sugary drink, would be mixed with the hydrogen peroxide solution for a more powerful explosion.
* The liquid explosives would be detonated using a substance called HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) concealed in AA 1.5-volt batteries.
* Pages from one of the suspect’s (Mr. Ali) handwritten diary make apparent references to how the bomb materials would have been taken onto the aircraft.
* The bombers would have used a syringe to insert the explosive material into the base of the bottles, without breaking the seal on the cap.
* The detonator would have been ignited using a metal wire, a small bulb or the flash from a disposable camera.
* Pornographic magazines were to be placed in carry-on luggage to distract security personnel and indicate that the men were not religious zealots.
* Each man intended to carry two bottled explosives through security in case one of them was taken away.
* The allegedly targeted flights included aircraft bound for Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/terror_plot_hearing.shtm

Through the use of enhanced interrogation,we derived intel that stopped attacks.period.

Both the CIA and FBI director have said that no attacks were prevented because of the use of waterboarding. That’s a fact.

Again, I don’t buy that CSN news story about the “Central Intelligence Agency” claiming waterboarding KSM helped stop the Library Tower plot because it’s a weak attribute and President Bush claims the plot was foiled nearly a year prior to KSM spilling the beans about. Plus, my other reasonings.

Again, that’s the only specific evidence anyone has trotted out to prove waterboarding prevented an attack. As I said, if that’s the best defenders have, it’s pretty weak tea.

Now, I have shown an internal CIA memo from 2004 that said there’s no conclusive evidence that waterboarding prevented an attack. That clashes with your CSN story as well.

Tom_Shipley on April 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The closest analogy I can get on the new government is kind of like a steward/stewardess deciding to take off and land an airplane. Who would want to be a passenger on that ride?

DL13 on April 27, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

WaPo: Release of torture memos political

posted at 10:11 am on April 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Quotes of the day

Hey, how about a “Jeb Bush vs. Palin” brokered convention?

Great news: “The Walking Dead” was arguably watchable last night

Was Romney pro-life before he was kinda sorta pro-choice before he was pro-life?

Democratic hypocrisy on religious liberty

No money for D.C. voucher program in Obama’s gigantic new budget, of course; Update: Meanwhile, White House to boost subsidies for Chevy Volt

GreenRoom

Hot Links

Feeds