On "Meet the Press" today:
"Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
264 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 264 of 264THe Guardian also by the way Ritmo, I'm sure wrote about how the UN and Geneva Conventions were against enhanced interrogations. I suppose there I should read the Guardian, but when the Guardian calls what you are advoacting as going against 50 years of international law, why then that should be discounted.
O Ritmo wrote;
Probably something more favorable than they will to your half-ass weaksauce defenses of torture.
But Obama did it! Not fair!!!
HOw much more favorable jackass? A member of the UN says what you and Obama are advocating are probably war crimes and goes agaisnt half a century of International Law.
So when is the cut off point? Bush is moral monster because he went against 60 years of International Law? It has to be more than half a century agiasnt International Law until it rises to the occasion where we need to get all morally outraged at it.
ANd how much do you want to bet that when Obama was talking about how we have to stop air raiding villages were you, Ritmo, using that Obama denunciation as an attack on Bush's drone strikes?
"But Obama did it. I'ts not fair" is what you say I'm arguing. Yet it seems, that waht makes it fair in your mind is that Obama did it.
And you want to accuse me of being self serving?!
Not closing Gitmo, not giving KSM a civilian Trial. Outrageous! OBama not closing Gitmo or giving KSM a trial. Obama did it so, it's not an outrage.
By the way Ritmo,just so you know, i have no problems with enhanced interrogations OR drone strikes whether done by Obama OR by Bush.
I just love pointing out what a complete hypocrite you are.
O Ritmo wrote:
Unlike you, I don't fancy myself a judge, jury, executioner and plaintiff. I actually recognize that these are separate parties to a dispute in the law.
I also, unlike you, recognize that what someone writes in a magazine, like The Guardian, is none of these things.
The guardian saying what it said about targeted killings is roughly equivalent to what Ritmo says about enhanced interroagtions being "Torture" (and most likely what the Guardian also said about enhanced Interrogations).
I think, the Guardinan, and the lefties that believe the same things would by now be calling Ritmo a moral monster for advocating policies that set International Law back 50 years and are probably war crimes.
You, sir, are a war criminal. Or an advoate of war crimes!
How does it feel to be lumped in with the anti international law neo cons? For shame sir. For shame.
Bush is not a monster. He's a cackling frat-boy whose thinking doesn't ever rise above the level of wondering what kind of a warm dinner he'll get tonight and if it will allow him to be in his pajamas, ready for bed by 9 PM.
Cheney's a bit more of a problem.
I suppose there I should read the Guardian, but when the Guardian calls what you are advoacting as going against 50 years of international law, why then that should be discounted.
I know this may be a problem for a little authoritarian shit-kicker like you, but I couldn't care less who says something, unless there is some sort of expertise to back up what they say. I care about what evidence and reason show.
Because you are a bootlicking toady, though, you cannot understand this. For you it's all about who follows whom. Independent thought is anathema to your kind.
Your only argument is: We should be able to torture because Obama kills war criminals that are beyond our detention capacity! Yes, the UN will be very considerate to your political grievance, Jr. Republicans have a right to win elections for no reason, too! Waaahhh!
O ritmo wrote:
I know this may be a problem for a little authoritarian shit-kicker like you, but I couldn't care less who says something, unless there is some sort of expertise to back up what they say. I care about what evidence and reason show.
Ill take the Guardian over you, and I think the Guardian should be used to line bird cages.
I'm wondering what Jr thinks the Guardian will say once Republicans file their brief on the political assault on their right to gerrymander. Oh no!!!
Republicans have a right to make shitty arguments and find common cause with left-wing extremists! They do so! Please help us, Guardian and UN -- we want Obama out of office and us back in NOW! WahahaaaaaaahhHH!
O Ritmo wrote:
Your only argument is: We should be able to torture because Obama kills war criminals that are beyond our detention capacity! Yes, the UN will be very considerate to your political grievance, Jr. Republicans have a right to win elections for no reason, too! Waaahhh!
Well, we were having the discussion about enhanced interrogations before Obama ever took office, so how would that be my position? My positon has been consistent. Has the lefts?
Oh Great and Powerful U.N. We Republicans beseech thee to remove the Mean Marxist Obama from office due to the Ben Ghazi thing. Please help us! Obi Wan, you're our only hope!
WahahahahaaaahhhhhH!
O Ritmo wrote:
Oh Great and Powerful U.N. We Republicans beseech thee to remove the Mean Marxist Obama from office due to the Ben Ghazi thing. Please help us! Obi Wan, you're our only hope!
When have I appealed to the UN to overturn elections. I want the UN out of New York not dictating to us who should be our president. No, the veneration of the UN is solidly the lefts domain.
I would think you would know that being that you so obviously wallow in their shit.
Freder Frederson said...UN lawful combatants are allowed to be hung according to the Geneva Convetion...While the Convention doesn't ban the death penalty, it does not permit the torture of anyone, regardless of their status.
That is disingenuous. The Geneva Convention neither permits nor does not 'permit the torture of anyone, regardless of their status.' It is solely concerned with the rights of lawful combatants. It does not address the rights of illegal combatants in any way.
My positon has been consistent. Has the lefts?
I don't know. But their punctuation has been.
But then, life is full of inconsistent situations that must be handled in inconsistent, different ways. You remind me of the Palestinians who whine to the U.N. about dealing with Israel by a "double-standard". Well, it's the same standard applied differently to two different parties. One that abides by the laws of war and one that does not. Same standard, different application.
Same thing you and the Democrats.
WahahahaaahhhhhH!!!!
When have I appealed to the UN to overturn elections.
Um, right now.
Question marks, much?
The fact that you don't even know that you are carrying out your tantrum for political reasons is as funny as anything I've ever seen.
O Ritmo wrote:
But then, life is full of inconsistent situations that must be handled in inconsistent, different ways. You remind me of the Palestinians who whine to the U.N. about dealing with Israel by a "double-standard". Well, it's the same standard applied differently to two different parties. One that abides by the laws of war and one that does not. Same standard, different application.
I would love it if the left applied even half the standard they applied to Obama that they applied to Bush .Even one quarter the standard, one tenth the standard? Any standard?
Cricket, cricket... (That by the way is my inmpression of the left speaking truth to power under Obama).
I suppose, if the left even had a standard it would be step up.
B wrote:
That is disingenuous. The Geneva Convention neither permits nor does not 'permit the torture of anyone, regardless of their status.' It is solely concerned with the rights of lawful combatants. It does not address the rights of illegal combatants in any way.
This.
I would love it if the left applied even half the standard they applied to Obama that they applied to Bush .Even one quarter the standard, one tenth the standard? Any standard?
No more "enhanced interrogations" - the biggest gripe. No more unfunded, expensive, unilateral wars.
But then, even Republican Ron Paul is against these things.
But you ignore them because to acknowledge them is political suicide for Republicans - or so they believe. Hence all this changing of the subject and moving of the goalposts by you.
Loser.
@freder fredersen:
The statute and the convention defined "severe and prolonged"(and under the convention, the pain merely needs to be severe), which Yoo ignored.
---lol
Liar.
Yoo specifically analyzed them. He merely argued that the definition did not encompass waterboarding.
But of course you don't parse Yoo's argument why he thinks that. You merely try to "condemn overall" with no analyss other than "waterboarding is torture in the vernacular, therefore, it is torture in the legal", and pray no one notices you're just acting like a Soviet prosecutor with a show trial.
You lose, liar.
And you anti-lefties really believe we can treat the left civilly. lol. Treating such sub-human, two-faced liars and thugs as civilized human beings is how you get to the state we're in: societal degradation.
Enjoy the decline, meatheads!
O Ritmo wrote:
Same thing you and the Democrats.
WahahahaaahhhhhH!!!!
While I agree my punctuation and spelling can be better, I'm still trying to parse that sentence. "Same thing you and the democrats". Is that supposed to be a legible sentence?
And generally you don't end a word with a capital H. Usually capital letters start a sentence. (Yes, I'm being petty, but since you were too, i figure, why not?)
It was done for effect.
The missing preposition, "with", misses you, too, jr. I hereby reinstate it into that sentence.
And I wish you were just being petty. But it unfortunately just seems like the same old immaturity we've come to expect.
O Ritmo wrote:
No more "enhanced interrogations" - the biggest gripe. No more unfunded, expensive, unilateral wars.
But then, even Republican Ron Paul is against these things.
I never voted for Ron Paul, specifically because his view of foreign policy was so akin to the lefts.
And was it not Obama who did the regime change in Libya bypassing Congress, (war powers act anyone?) and escalating in Afghanistan? That war didn't cost any money?
I wonder if the reason you support Obama is because you don't actually know what Obama's done.
Ritmo thought process:
Targeted killings? Bush is evil and drone strikes only make them angrier and we need to stop air raiding villages as Obama said.
Wait Obama did targeted kilings? Far more than Bush? Oh, well, War on women!"
"Bush is evil for not closing Gitmo. Those terrorists need civilian trials like Obama said. The Nurmember Trials showed us at our finest just as Obama said. Oh, the Nuremberg trials were actuall tribunals and afforded fewer righs to the Nazis than Bush did to Al Qaeda. And GItmo is still open and those there have not faced any sort of trial be it a civilian or a tribunal for six years after the connipition that the left threw when Bush didnt try them? Er, ah, er, ah....Mitt Romney is a doody head!"
I happened to be sitting in on a law school class (for first years) when the memos became public.
The professor was an old 60's lefty. He was telling the class throughout that a lawyer's job was to see both sides of the issue, to parse the language, to understand that a lawyer's job is to argue, not to impose moral judgments.
Then he posted a slide of the Yoo memo and actually stated, "Except in cases like this." And proceeded to rant that there were certain lines lawyers should not cross---like arguing for torture! Even though the memo's job was explaining how it was not torture under the law!
I laughed out loud at one point as this professor actually contradicted everything he'd preached previously, with no feeling of contradiction or hypocrisy on his part.
Apparently,in the professor's mind, you suspend moral judgment in all cases except where the left has determined something morally evil. Then, no matter how strong your argument, you deliberately stop talking and give up.
This is leftist thinking: normal morality doesn't beat their tasks, but their morality supersedes all logic. Very womanish.
You can see this on display in cases like Brown v. Board (I & II), Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. Completely illogical decisions, but because they adhere to leftist morality, sacrosanct and pure in left-wing eyes.
O Ritmo and Freder Fredersen are just partaking in that particularly girly worldview. Lying, two-faced arguments, and hypocrisy don't apply in their minds because this is leftist morality. By any means necessary is perfectly justified in their minds.
Fascism on display, in argument form.
Can I just say how honored and privileged I am to have my logic decried as "womanish" by someone who goes by the name "Whore of the Internet"?
Now you're being sexist Ritmo for assuming that whore has to refer to a woman.
I'm assuming that's "whoresoftheinternets"' assumption, actually.
Ritmo is the Beyonce of progressive "thought."
@Ritmo:
lol. Such a typical leftist---so stupid. Cannot even read properly.
Must be a woman's studies major.
And torturing one or two individuals is a heck of a lot more humane than dropping a cruise missile on an aspirin factory.
The clinton cruise missile to get Monica off the front page? I thought that factory made anti-malaria drugs. I don't know the fallout, but Christopher Hitchens thought it might end up killing very large numbers.
That's why he wanted Clinton tried as a war criminal. I think he got so far as to find Clinton forced the decision. Oh, you might think this was Hillary. It was Bill, the "I feel you pain" guy.
And what is St Freder's judgment on incinerating dudes with drone-fired missiles in lieu of waterboarding them? Please weigh in on the moral rectitude of the current administration, O high and mighty one.
"Once (the Demos) thought they were safe and had to cut into Dubya's 90% approval, only then did it become 'torture'".
Oh, no...it was always torture.
"It's a good thing that our policy is now solemnly understood to mean that we shall never ever ever capture alive any terrorists, even if that means we vaporize anyone in a 200' radius. That way we keep our hands clean, you see."
No, we don't keep our hands clean at all, this way...they're dirtier.
Exchanging the abomination of torture for the abomination of murder simply escalates our crimes.
"Shit. Actual torture should be used. Waterboarding ain't nothin."
Oh, yes, it's something. It's torture. It has been used since the Spanish Inquisition and has always been considered "actual torture."
"Waterboarding isn't torture you dumb lying two faced cocksucking asshole."
Yes, it is.
"Remember when RobertCook lied and claimed that Dick Cheney's methods never saved his ass, and that, instead, Cheney belonged in prison for them?"
Yes, that's right...I spoke truthfully.
Ah, Cook. you're another morally superior being, maybe you can tell me whether waterboarding dudes is more or less moral and civilized than incinerating them with missiles. Whaddya think?
If you were a terrorist kingpin, would you rather be captured, taken to Gitmo and waterboarded by the evil Booosh or would rather you get fried by a missile fired by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama?
Oh, yes, it's something. It's torture. It has been used since the Spanish Inquisition and has always been considered "actual torture."
just because something is called something similar doesnt mean its the same thing. Have you actually read ow they water boarded people? It was A LOT worse than pouring water over people's faces. They made them drink water till their stomach became distended. Ten either jumped on their stomachs or beat them till their stomach ruptured.
Again, not the same thing at all!
"Ok, we waterboard our troops when they undergo SERE trainig. Thousands of soldiers have been so waterboarded. When we waterboard them are we torturing them?"
Sure we are. We torture them with the (no doubt, futile) intent to train them to resist torture. There'd be no point to the exercise if they weren't actually tortured.
"...maybe you can tell me whether waterboarding dudes is more or less moral and civilized than incinerating them with missiles. Whaddya think?"
One is an escalation of the other; they're both abominable and criminal. One is torture, the other murder.
"War, by it's nature, is immoral."
Which is why it's criminal to start a war, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, (and unofficially in how many other countries in the mid-east, now?).
Given the innate immorality of war, one can be justified in going to war only to defend against an imminent (or already launched) attack by an enemy force that presents an existential danger.
In the whole of at least the last century, only WWII can fit that description.
In the whole of at least the last century, only WWII can fit that description.
Yes but you deplored as immoral what precipitated VJ-Day and probably would have cheered a bloodier fight to the finish, including defending the deaths of the parents of some commenters here.
So you must be ashamed too of the way Obama concluded the WOT too what with the use of waterboarding to help end it.
It's almost like you're ashamed to see wars end because you deplore victory.
For those who say "Waterboarding is torture," have you read the definition? The definition is to cause permanent physical and/or mental disease.
Didn't some of those Gitmo folks go off and take up arms again? Are US military folks subject to waterboarding unable to live their lives?
Anyway, you don't need to go to a waterboarder to get the sense of what it is like. Exhale completely, and don't inhale for as long as you can. That's what it does, and that's where the panic comes in. You'll feel it after 10 or fifteen seconds.
You decide if it's torture.
In the whole of at least the last century, only WWII can fit that description.
...or the Six-Day("imminent") and Yom Kippur ("already") Wars. "Existential", I believe, too.
Your ignorance of those two examples is telling.
Robert Cook is the only honest broker here. Lets get a few things straight.
1. All "enhanced interrogation" is torture. People won't tell you stuff unless you are really mean to them. You can argue about definitions of this and that but it is silly. Being mean is being mean. But it is also effective and useful.
2. Drone strikes are mean too. They kill a lot of people and more innocents at that. We had to go mop up after some of these. Not everyone dies quickly. Not all of them are more than 3 feet tall. Some are still smoldering and moaning when we get there. Some live missing large parts of their bodies or have their eyes burned out. Sucks.
3. Cheney is revered in the armed forces. Why? Because he stuck up for us and didn't say we were evil and try to make political hay out of it. Obama is a Hypocrite x1000. He is pretty universally hated. He is doing some things that are worse than what Bush did, but he makes moral grandstanding moves that undermine what we do. People who support him on this should wise up. He is using you like useful idiots.
4. Nobody thinks torture is "right." Neither is shooting people. It may not be necessary in this war, but only because our enemies are so pathetic right now. But we will be less effective without it. Sure there are other ways to gather intel but they all lose effectiveness without the firsthand corraboration you get from interrogations. When a real conflict comes hopefully we have mind reading machines. Otherwise you have to decide whether winning is important enough.
"So you must be ashamed too of the way Obama concluded the WOT too what with the use of waterboarding to help end it."
???
Since when has Obama "concluded" the so-called war on terror?
I certainly deplore Obama's continuation and expansion of the so-called WOT and particularly his campaign of mass murder via drone bombers. He is as much a war criminal as Bush.
"..or the Six-Day('imminent') and Yom Kippur ('already') Wars. 'Existential', I believe, too."
I don't believe those were wars against or that involved the USA.
"For those who say 'Waterboarding is torture,' have you read the definition? The definition is to cause permanent physical and/or mental disease."
Assuming you have not simply misread or cherrypicked some definition you have found somewhere, or assuming you are paraphrasing the carefully tailored legal definition rendered by John Yoo for George Bush--intended to make virtually any maltreatment of prisoners exempt from being called torture--you've been misled.
Torture does not always cause permanent physical harm and this is certainly not a necessary requirement for physical abuse to be torture.
kind of like arguing that the Normandy Invasion was won because of the logistics of moving the troops and equipment across the English Channel and ignoring the fact that without the sacrifices of the men coming ashore shooting and being shot. It's disingenuous, but entirely consistent with the Obama narrative.
Such wringing of hands!
Such gnashing of teeth!
Oh! My! The liberal bleeding! The conservative posing!
We have already established that war is immoral, correct? That the things that proceed from this immoral activity are, by extension, also immoral, correct?
Why all the drama over stepping on some guys balls?
My opinion is that it's only torture when you do it for fun.
Remember you're doing it for the children.
It is solely concerned with the rights of lawful combatants. It does not address the rights of illegal combatants in any way.
You are simply wrong about this. Read the Conventions before you pretend to comment on them.
Freder Frederson said...
It is solely concerned with the rights of lawful combatants. It does not address the rights of illegal combatants in any way.
You are simply wrong about this. Read the Conventions before you pretend to comment on them.
Yes! Damnit! Wars have rules!!!
Robert Cook:
"War, by it's nature, is immoral."
Which is why it's criminal to start a war, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, (and unofficially in how many other countries in the mid-east, now?).
Given the innate immorality of war, one can be justified in going to war only to defend against an imminent (or already launched) attack by an enemy force that presents an existential danger.
In the whole of at least the last century, only WWII can fit that description.
-----
Some of us believe there are worse things than war. Genocide and tyranny come to mind for me. Many many Iraqi's were genuinely happy we were there and sad to see us go. It is the oppressed that benefit most from us being there. Many Women do not leave their walled compounds in Afghanistan. Ever.
You can wring your hands all you want about the horrible things that happen in war. But outside of Protestant Christianity no force in history has brought more peace and freedom and decent treatment of women than the conquering and occupying US army. Look at almost all of the decent places to live in the world with some degree of freedom and they have one of two things in common. They were either English colonies or occupied at some point by the US army.
machine said...
And just because you say it doesn't make it so...
Hysterical.
When presented with facts that don't fit your silly, ignorant worldview, just pretend they aren't real.
After all, pretending is what you silly people do.
It does not address the rights of illegal combatants in any way.
Yes it does -- they have the right to a cigarette and a blindfold.
Watching Ritty the Retard do the whole "I'm against torture and so are the Democrats, therefore I'm good and so are the Democrats" routine is comical.
And pathetic.
Freder Frederson said...You are simply wrong about this. Read the Conventions before you pretend to comment on them.
Oh? I haven't read them?
Then you can quote the relevant text that supports your claim that:
"While the Convention doesn't ban the death penalty, it does not permit the torture of anyone, regardless of their status."
Put up or shut up.
In the whole of at least the last century, only WWII can fit that description.
No it can't. The Japanese attacked a United States possession not the United States.
By your previous definition that does not justify war.
Germany declaring war on the United States and then attacking our peaceful shipping would justify war, but not Germany attacking our shipping to supply arms to Germanys enemies. It certainly doesn't justify our attacking Algeria or our military occupation of Great Britain.
By your definition.
War is shit, comrade Bob. So don't act all outraged when shitty stuff happens.
Besides what are you complaining about? Your a pacifist. Somebody else is going to serve in your place.
Okay, Rusty boy, you've convinced me. Even WWII does not meet the definition necessary for us to have gone to war. Therefore, our participation in WWII was also a war crime.
Achilles said:
Some of us believe there are worse things than war. Genocide and tyranny come to mind for me. Many many Iraqi's were genuinely happy we were there and sad to see us go. It is the oppressed that benefit most from us being there."
Achilles, we did not go to war against Iraq because of any ties they had to Al Qaeda (as falsely alleged by the Bush administration); or because of any WMD in their possession, (as falsely alleged by the Bush administration); or because they were any sort of threat to the USA, (as laughably alleged by the Bush administration); and certainly not to "free" the Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny. We don't give a shit about the tyranny suffered by peoples in other lands...if the tyrants are friends of ours, if they play ball with us, if they do as we tell them. Once they dare oppose us or become an impediment to our global strategic aims, then we crush them, and the justification can then be put forth that we wanted to "free the oppressed."
We invaded Iraq because we wanted to obtain a strategic foothold in the area...because of the oil fields under Iraq and surrounding countries. That's all. After all the death and destruction and misery we wreaked in their land, I'm sure many Iraqis, even those who may have welcomed us, were more than happy to see us ultimately defeated and told to go.
Robert Cook said...
Okay, Rusty boy, you've convinced me. Even WWII does not meet the definition necessary for us to have gone to war. Therefore, our participation in WWII was also a war crime.
What's the matter , Comrade Bob? Just using your own criteria.
Robert Cook said...
Achilles said:
Some of us believe there are worse things than war. Genocide and tyranny come to mind for me. Many many Iraqi's were genuinely happy we were there and sad to see us go. It is the oppressed that benefit most from us being there."
Achilles, we did not go to war against Iraq because of any ties they had to Al Qaeda (as falsely alleged by the Bush administration); or because of any WMD in their possession, (as falsely alleged by the Bush administration); The Hose Resolution authorizing our pre-emptive intervention was because Saddam Hussein was amssing the materials that would allow him to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. or because they were any sort of threat to the USA, (as laughably alleged by the Bush administration); and certainly not to "free" the Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny. We don't give a shit about the tyranny suffered by peoples in other lands... The second point in the House resolution that would allow us to intervene in Iraqif the tyrants are friends of ours, if they play ball with us, if they do as we tell them. Once they dare oppose us or become an impediment to our global strategic aims, then we crush them, and the justification can then be put forth that we wanted to "free the oppressed." So it's wrong to free the oppressed?
We invaded Iraq because we wanted to obtain a strategic foothold in the area...because of the oil fields under Iraq and surrounding countries. If it were true we would be importing all our oil from Iraq. The fact is we import very little oil from Iraq if any at all, That's all. After all the death and destruction and misery we wreaked in their land, I'm sure many Iraqis, even those who may have welcomed us, were more than happy to see us ultimately defeated and told to go.
Ask them.
Comrade Bob. You are a foolish little man.
"Comrade Bob. You are a foolish little man."
I know you are but what am I?
"We invaded Iraq because we wanted to obtain a strategic foothold in the area...because of the oil fields under Iraq and surrounding countries. That's all. After all the death and destruction and misery we wreaked in their land, I'm sure many Iraqis, even those who may have welcomed us, were more than happy to see us ultimately defeated and told to go."
I had a leftist friend who made the same bogus "war for oil" claim. I pointed out to her that, when the Iraqi oil contracts were first offered for bidding after our invasion and takeover, not one of the contracts went to an American company. Not one. She immediately changed her tune and said that we should get all the oil because it was our military that freed them.
For her, like so many other leftists, the driving force behind their thoughts and values was opposition to whatever Bush did. Thus, when confronted with Bush doing something that squared with her worldview, she immediately had to change her worldview.
Robert Cook said...
"Comrade Bob. You are a foolish little man."
I know you are but what am I?
I rest my case.
No, Rusty, you had no case. I gave you the answer your comments warranted. When you put in your rhetorical "So it's wrong to free the oppressed?" it was apparent you were not arguing honestly.
Post a Comment