That's not torture, it's just a good swift kick in the pants.

Designed to make someone "move", not "talk".

The tape was made via a CIA decision to make the tape.....for purposes of documenting the information the guys it was used on gave up. It was an internal decision both ways. And the reason they decided to destroy the tape...AFTER it's use to them had been fulfilled----was so that it couldn't eventually get out into the public and endanger the lives of those CIA agents. At least two top Senate Intelligence Committee members were notified about the tape and it's plans to destroy it.

Say----what about that anyway? I thought Demos were very much into keeping the identity of CIA agents secret???? Apparently that's ONLY if it's a "get Bush" scenario.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

So----you don't agree with our CIA making terrorists talk, eh? What do you bleeding hearts think the CIA is...and has always been??? It's a SECRET agency, for heaven's sakes.

This is EXACTLY the problem we'll have if a Democrat takes over as President. They are weak----very weak----on national security. And they are SOFT on terrorists and terrorism. Oh....they talked a good game right after 9/11. Then it was...."Get 'em Bush; do whatever it takes to get the guys who did this to our fellow Americans." But now, they've forgotten all about that.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Yep. I'm down with that.

I'd do that in a heartbeat, if I thought it was the "right" thing to do.

I mean, really, when it comes right down to it, "screw the law". You know, I try to respect it, and be a good upstanding citizen and all that, but at the end of the day, the law is just a mechanism, and an imperfect one at that. There's nothing "holy" about it, and the only "boundary" that's there, is the one of the consequences I'll have to face if I transgress, so....

I mean, yeah. The simple scenario: if someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, I'm gonna shoot first and ask questions later. And I won't care what the law says - heck, I probably won't even know, right? I'm just gonna do whatever's necessary to protect my kids and my wife, and I mean, no court and no judge in the United States is gonna throw me in jail for doing that, if I'm fearing for the mortal safety of my family. The freakin' invader might be able to sue me in civil court, "after the fact", but I mean, we got ways of dealing with that too (and I'll give you a hint, it involves some people I know with Italian first names)....

See, but 12th, you gotta realize here, that in this domain of PF, we're talking about politics, right? I mean, mostly, we're talking about elections, and campaigns, and national policy, and stuff like that. What you're talking about now, and what I'm starting to talk about, is getting into the domain of "real" politics, which is almost very close to "interpersonal psychology" -

I mean, the difference is, how do you respond to a murder in a "theoretical" sense, like, if you're thinking about the law or something, like, you know, you're trying to decide if twenty years to life is the appropriate penalty for a capital murder, something like that -

But I mean, there's also the piece of politics that has to do with "getting along with your neighbors", and how you do that - so, I mean, there's nothing "theoretical" about that, right? You know, if Joe next door thinks you're the one that stole his car last night, even if he's wrong, you might have to deal with him being the one breaking into your house and threatening your family, and then you might be seein' some blood "up close and personal", so I mean.... you know, "different from" a theoretical "legal" scenario, right?

The questions in that latter case are gonna be more like, "how quick can I get to my shotgun", and "is it loaded or where did I put the (*)(*)(*)(*) cartridges", and "honey put the kids under the bed" and "here catch, here's the cell phone call 911", you know.... I mean, I don't think you'd have the time to consider the "consequences", or think about the "twenty years to life" bit, right?

So I mean, once again - "operational" is king. If you have a useful set of operational models, you're gonna be able to deal with situations like that.

If you're falling down in that space, then all you're gonna be able to do is complain about it "after the fact".

Kinda like the way we're complaining about Bushie..... (and same deal, right? It's like, "too late" to impeach the guy.... )

Because there's a huge difference in blowing oneself up to become a marytr. First of all, it's over in an instant. And while the harsh waterboarding treatment didn't kill anybody nor last very long.....it made them THINK they were going to die and was quite uncomfortable and scary. And unlike the citizens trapped above the 85th floor of the WTC towers as it burned.....KSM an the other two were able to signal they wanted to talk and wanted their discomfort to stop. And our citizens had done nothing to deserve what happened to them; KSM had.


[quote="Mack";p="419639"]Do you think the CIA is going to say they didn't get any useful info? Or are they going to claim that the did get some intel to save their own asses?

It wasn't said to save their asses. We've known for a long time now what information KSM and the other two gave up and how it led to other named terrorists who were then captured or killed. OR......did you PREFER the beheadings of our military guys and Iraqi's to continue???

Which appalled you worse? I have no problem answering that. But I wonder if you do. People like KSM and the other two are not people who can be reasoned with. Unfortunately, our CIA had now lost a very valuable tool.....one used very infrequently; but one available to us. All this proving once again...the bleeding hearts and the Dems are WEAK on security and national security. They empathize too much with people like KSM.

BTW, did you see any of the tape of Danny Pearl right before KSM cut his head off? Just wondering....

"I decapitated with blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed said in a written declaration submitted to a military tribunal at Guantanamo last weekend."

"For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Iternet holding his head," KSM said in his statement.

US officials had told ABC News that identifying marks on the hand of the masked man holding Pearl's head matched those of KSM." So, for all of you bleeding hearts who will undoubtedly say he signed the confession just to get the harsh treatment to stop....here's additional proof. He also gave up other names of terrorists; their positions which led to their capture.

Now. Consider Danny Pearl and the others..... beheaded by KSM and al Zarqawi .....with their hands tied behind their back.....slaughtered like pigs.....was YOUR Dad, YOUR Son, YOUR brother. Think about it.

So, Mack-----you're watching on tv your son with his hands tied behind his back having his head cut off by KSM standing behind him. And you're going to tell us you wouldn't be supportive of a 2 1/2 minute harsh treatement on KSM to get him to talk in order to spare some other father that same fate. Is that what you're saying????

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Gotta love this stuff.

Your answer is: only the accumulated evidence from three thousand years of recorded military history.

"Just" that.

And I mean, I don't really have the time to review it all for you, but you can Google for it if you wish.

You might, start with Senator McCain. I'm sure his web site is McCain.org or something like that. Last I heard, he was willing to explain to you in great detail, exactly why torture is a counter-productive practice.

I mean, that would be a starting place, right? I'll just bet there's something in Dr. Mengele's journals about that piece, too.... I dunno if you can find those onlhe, though....

Let's just toss out your pre-discussion aversion to TPM and look at who the actual person doing the talking is: A SERE instructor/20 year military Interrogation Specialist.

You'll need to read the link.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004659.php#more

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

I didn't say that.

I just said, I didn't want torture to be "official US national policy", which is what it is right now, under George W Bush.

Yeah, so secret they're telling us about the torture they're doing....

Kinda makes you wonder, don't it?

I dunno about that piece. Admiral James Woolsey was certainly no slouch. He was Clinton's CIA guy, during much of his tenure. He was "very good", certainly one of the best intelligence guys in the US at that time.

And I mean, of Bushie's people, there's a huge difference between the guy he's got now, Hayden, who's basically one of the most brilliant Poindexters in the whole entire military (he's probably right up there with Admiral Poindexter himself, in terms of sheer mental capability) - Hayden is the complete opposite of a guy like Tenet, who's just basically a useless bureaucratic hack and a gutless yes-man without any semblance of a moral spine - you know, the epitome of a "political" appointee.

So I mean, you know, maybe Bushie is slowly but surely learning his lessons, 'cause I mean, I'd 10,000 times rather see a guy like Hayden in CIA, 'cause a guy like that, I have confidence that he's gonna be "honest" when he's talking to the President. But a guy like Tenet, I have zero confidence in that regard - that kinda guy, I get the gestalt that he's gonna say whatever he thinks will score him the most points at any given moment, and a guy like that, is exactly what I don't want in charge of the most super-secret and super-capable spy agency in the world.

Same with his new nominee Mukasey, that guy appears to be a completely different animal from that weasel Gonzales. I have no doubt that Bushie is still gonna make him do his bidding, but at least it appears Mukasey has more of a legal "spine" than that jellyfish Speedy G.

But I mean, we had to wait six years for Bushie to get his on-the-job traning and make all the mistakes, right? You know, picking Petraeus was the very last thing he did, and it should have been the first. Oh well.....

But yeah, I'm a lot happier with the way things are going now, even though I can't really forget about what happened these last six years......

Nope McCain offers no support. So this appears to be just speculation that is regularly spouted as fact.

No it's not.

It's only because the libbies best friends....the NYTimes.....was doing a story on it in a few days. Looks like the libbies best friend has a friend in the CIA or perhaps sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[quote="nonsqtr";p="419775"]Kinda makes you wonder, don't it?

I dunno about that piece. Admiral James Woolsey was certainly no slouch. He was Clinton's CIA guy, during much of his tenure. He was "very good", certainly one of the best intelligence guys in the US at that time.
[quote] And you have no idea if he ever authorized "harsh" treatment either, do you? AFter all, the liberal press isn't so interested in this kind of stuff when a Dem is at the helm.

Bill Clinton named Tenet as CIA Director. Bush made the mistake of keeping him on......in part because many Congress and Senate members asked him to. They thought it would be better for the continuity regarding terrorism. Apparently Bush agreed.

Yeah. Your 20/20 hindsight vision is absolutely GREAT. AFTER you have the privilege of knowing how something turns out, you're pretty much the all-knowing....right?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007