CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Well Jarod in the other thread when you claimed that the information was not gleaned through waterboarding I gave you the benefit of doubt and said 'assume for a moment that is true'. It looks like the moment is over. 
Maybe they can run waterboarding for President in 2012? It would probably beat the current crop of GOP hopefuls out there....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I understand that Democratards will never except that waterboarding is not torture but what happened to all the supposed libertarians that went on and on claiming that it was torture? Where are they now?
I understand that Democratards will never except that waterboarding is not torture but what happened to all the supposed libertarians that went on and on claiming that it was torture? Where are they now?
What happened that suddenly made it "not torture"?
Well Jarod in the other thread when you claimed that the information was not gleaned through waterboarding I gave you the benefit of doubt and said 'assume for a moment that is true'. It looks like the moment is over.
I never said its true, I said I dont care if it did.... That is different, study some reading comprehension.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Unlike your gullible self, I want to see the chain of evidence, link by link, that proves waterboarding KSM 183 times led directly to Osama's killing.
That torture happened in 2003, eight years ago. So fill in the blanks, bonehead, I'm waiting with bated breath.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It never was, still ain't.
I would disagree with that. But your post seemed to imply that something happened that would make Libertarians change their mind now. I figured that you had just not spoken correcty, because that would be a pretty dumb thing to say or imply...
christiefan915
Catalyst
I wouldn't say outright that he's lying but I'd like to see the evidence for his comments. Panetta wasn't even working in government when KSM was being tortured, he was in private life from 1997 until 2009.
Has been director since 1997 of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, an leadership non-profit based at California State University in Monterey Bay, Calif. He has also taught public policy courses through the Institute and at Santa Clara University.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869817,00.html#ixzz1LOaesEUQ
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
as SAFE as possible for its citizens, yet not to the point of relinquishing ourselves to insane 'security' that does little to actually make us secure (see... TSA)
Yes, IMO the question isn't whether it is effective, it is whether we should do it, whether it is what we as US Citizens think should be done in our name.
I'd prefer to be slightly less safe and to not make steps in the totalitarian direction, the slippery slope works both ways.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think it comes down to psychological vs. physical distress. Note, before I go further, this is just my opinion. Waterboarding receives a lot of attention because it sits on the line between the two. It seems far more psychological than physical, but because of how the mind causes the body to react it seems far more physical. So which is it? Should it ever be used? Obviously both very debatable.
The debate of what is or is not torture is obviously extremely subjective, at least for the psychological techniques. The physical is a bit more clear cut. The UN convention against torture says torture is "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental". The subjective word of course is 'severe'. If it is just a short stint of 'panic' that does not result in bodily harm... should it be allowed?
I have gone round and round on this myself, seeing both sides of the argument. Definitely one I want to absorb more outside opinions on before being concrete one way or another.
I disagree that we as regular citizens know how and when to make that call. There is a difference between specific tactical decisions and turning over airport security to a bunch of morons on a power trip. Note that there were only 3 terrorist's subjected to the harsher interrogation technique.; whereas every American and non American is subjected to the inane airport security idiocy.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
fair enough...at this point it is a"hearsay"....do you think it is possible as CIA director he has access to information about how the intel was gathered? i would think he would.
Good post. I have also been fairly conflicted on it, though I have never really felt like it wasn't torture. Is it a milder form of torture than most? I would agree with that.
When I see it & read about it, it doesn't strike me as what we're about as a country, or what we should be about. One thing that has always struck me as interesting about the debate is that often, it is not centered around the torture/not torture question; it's centered around effectiveness & if it yields good intel. O'Reilly in particular always tends to focus on the ends, and not the means.
Rumsfeld last night May 3rd
HANNITY: -- that they kind of have to do this.
Let me ask you this. I think it is pretty clear now that discovering who this courier was, through strong interrogation techniques, that were employed during the Bush administration, without which this day would never have occurred. So, can't we -- it seems to me we need to reignite this debate about enhancement interrogation techniques in this country. Is that a good idea?
RUMSFELD: I think it's certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that the CIA Director Panetta today indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded?
HANNITY: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUMSFELD: Is that correct?
HANNITY: Yes.
RUMSFELD: Well, that's my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let's be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn't facing the truth. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. He looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded.
HANNITY: Yes. Well, there were only three people.
RUMSFELD: Right.
HANNITY: And that led to the information of the nickname of the courier. And this by way -- we've had this for years and this was being pursued during the Bush years. The courier's name was found, he was eventually identified, and through eavesdropping, we were able to locate him and then locate bin Laden.
But that brings up the issue of black sites, enhanced interrogation, rendition, all the things we've discussed, we would not have had this success. And these are the very policies, I praised the president yesterday, I think it was a gutsy move that he decided to go in and get him, so we could have identification. But if he had his way and Democrats had its way, we wouldn't have had this intelligence, sir.
RUMSFELD: You are exactly right. I also agree that he made the right decision. And rather than using cruise missiles or drones to attack the facility, I think using the SEAL teams and going in there and actually getting him physically, identifying him, knowing that's what has happened and being certain about it was exactly the right call.
I'm told there was some confusion today on some programs, even one on Fox, I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one was who was waterboarded at Guantanamo, provided any information on this. That's just not true. What I said was, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA, away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo. And in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.
HANNITY: Last question, does George W. Bush, President Bush deserve as much credit for what happened Sunday as President Obama?
RUMSFELD: Well, the current administration would not have had the kinds of intelligence that was critically important, nor would they have had the Special Forces in the numbers, with the equipment, with the training, with the authorities and with the experience. We increased their budget I think fourfold during the time I was in the Pentagon. We increased the numbers in the special operations people, I believe by about 50 percent. Their equipment has been improved.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...layed-major-role-al-qaeda-intel#ixzz1LOksDybB
HANNITY: -- that they kind of have to do this.
Let me ask you this. I think it is pretty clear now that discovering who this courier was, through strong interrogation techniques, that were employed during the Bush administration, without which this day would never have occurred. So, can't we -- it seems to me we need to reignite this debate about enhancement interrogation techniques in this country. Is that a good idea?
RUMSFELD: I think it's certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that the CIA Director Panetta today indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded?
HANNITY: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUMSFELD: Is that correct?
HANNITY: Yes.
RUMSFELD: Well, that's my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let's be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn't facing the truth. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. He looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded.
HANNITY: Yes. Well, there were only three people.
RUMSFELD: Right.
HANNITY: And that led to the information of the nickname of the courier. And this by way -- we've had this for years and this was being pursued during the Bush years. The courier's name was found, he was eventually identified, and through eavesdropping, we were able to locate him and then locate bin Laden.
But that brings up the issue of black sites, enhanced interrogation, rendition, all the things we've discussed, we would not have had this success. And these are the very policies, I praised the president yesterday, I think it was a gutsy move that he decided to go in and get him, so we could have identification. But if he had his way and Democrats had its way, we wouldn't have had this intelligence, sir.
RUMSFELD: You are exactly right. I also agree that he made the right decision. And rather than using cruise missiles or drones to attack the facility, I think using the SEAL teams and going in there and actually getting him physically, identifying him, knowing that's what has happened and being certain about it was exactly the right call.
I'm told there was some confusion today on some programs, even one on Fox, I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one was who was waterboarded at Guantanamo, provided any information on this. That's just not true. What I said was, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA, away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo. And in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.
HANNITY: Last question, does George W. Bush, President Bush deserve as much credit for what happened Sunday as President Obama?
RUMSFELD: Well, the current administration would not have had the kinds of intelligence that was critically important, nor would they have had the Special Forces in the numbers, with the equipment, with the training, with the authorities and with the experience. We increased their budget I think fourfold during the time I was in the Pentagon. We increased the numbers in the special operations people, I believe by about 50 percent. Their equipment has been improved.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...layed-major-role-al-qaeda-intel#ixzz1LOksDybB
Which is also true. I am far more concerned with TSA than I am with what is now a former technique we used to question a minimal amount of people.