Can 9/11 Commission Info Derived from Torture Be Trusted?

[RedIbis]

Since torture is not a reliable way of getting accurate information because the subject is likely to say anything to make the torture stop, can we trust the interrogations the Commission based its findings on planning and execution?

9/11 Commission controversy
Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:50 PM PT
By Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco

The 9/11 Commission suspected that critical information it used in its landmark report was the product of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida operatives - interrogations that many critics have labeled torture. Yet, commission staffers never questioned the agency about the interrogation techniques and in fact ordered a second round of interrogations specifically to ask additional questions of the same operatives, NBC News has learned
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx

 

[gumboot]

Personally I'd say no, anything derived exclusively from torture is not reliable. However I would dispute the claim that any of the 9/11 Commission's "critical information" was derived from torture.

It's worth pointing out that the 9/11 Commission's primary task was investigating US government efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, and then how US government agencies responded to the attacks.

I'm not aware of any evidence that members of the FBI, CIA, NORAD, FAA, FDNY, NYPD and so forth were tortured during the 9/11 Commission investigation.

 

[stateofgrace]

Since torture is not a reliable way of getting accurate information because the subject is likely to say anything to make the torture stop, can we trust the interrogations the Commission based its findings on planning and execution?

9/11 Commission controversy
Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:50 PM PT
By Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco

The 9/11 Commission suspected that critical information it used in its landmark report was the product of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida operatives - interrogations that many critics have labeled torture. Yet, commission staffers never questioned the agency about the interrogation techniques and in fact ordered a second round of interrogations specifically to ask additional questions of the same operatives, NBC News has learned
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx

No torture is never an accurate way of gaining information.

So who got tortured for the commission to find out about the pre warnings of an Al Qaeda attack?

 

[RedIbis]

No torture is never an accurate way of gaining information.

So who got tortured for the commission to find out about the pre warnings of an Al Qaeda attack?

Obviously no one since that info has turned out to be correct.

 

[DavidJames]

Red is poisoning the well. He's referring to the allegation that the CIA destroyed video's of torture being used during interrogation as background for the report.

Red is playing more gotcha, trying to accumulate CTist points. He's playing games. He should tighten his hoodie, cross his arms and scowl.

 

[stateofgrace]

Obviously no one since that info has turned out to be correct.

Really ?

So Al Qeada really did carry out the Sept 11th attacks?

 

[WildCat]

All the witnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon, who found the parts of AA77, who collected and identified the body parts from AA77, who found and decoded the FDR's from AA77 must have been tortured.

Right Red?

 

[RedIbis]

Really ?

So Al Qeada really did carry out the Sept 11th attacks?

Did I say that? What I will certainly say is that there were many warnings of such an attack. Something tells me you won't catch this subtlety.

 

[MetalliSociety]

Since torture is not a reliable way of getting accurate information because the subject is likely to say anything to make the torture stop, can we trust the interrogations the Commission based its findings on planning and execution?

9/11 Commission controversy
Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:50 PM PT
By Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco

The 9/11 Commission suspected that critical information it used in its landmark report was the product of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida operatives - interrogations that many critics have labeled torture. Yet, commission staffers never questioned the agency about the interrogation techniques and in fact ordered a second round of interrogations specifically to ask additional questions of the same operatives, NBC News has learned
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx

I thought you were one of those people that either A. Think al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11, or B. Think al-Qaeda doesn't even exist.

In either case it makes this topic to you insignificant.

 

[stateofgrace]

Did I say that? What I will certainly say is that there were many warnings of such an attack. Something tells me you won't catch this subtlety.

Yes you did, you said the warning of an Al qaeda attack were proved to be correct. Stop back peddling and answer my question.

Did Al Qaeda carry out this attack , yes or no?

 

[beachnut]

Did I say that? What I will certainly say is that there were many warnings of such an attack. Something tells me you won't catch this subtlety.

UBL and 19 terrorist did it. If you have information otherwise you are a liar. And since you do not have information otherwise you have nothing to add to 9/11. If you do not know what happen on 9/11 you are not able to understand evidence and lack the ability to connect the dots.

Torture does work as much as anything else, you have to check your information.

OOPS they did when the could! wow, i could be in charge of stuff maybe, (oops i think i have)

"We were not aware, but we guessed, that things like that were going on," Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director, told NBC News. "We were wary…we tried to find different sources to enhance our credibility."

Why are all the answers to truther's stuff in the stuff they cite? Why?

See, 9/11 truth does not check its information! It is all false!

 

[RedIbis]

Yes you did, you said the warning of an Al qaeda attack were proved to be correct. Stop back peddling and answer my question.

Did Al Qaeda carry out this attack , yes or no?

False dichotomy. You figure out the other options, if you can.

 

[stateofgrace]

False dichotomy. You figure out the other options, if you can.

Stop back peddling, you said the warnings were proved to be correct, do you now deny this ?

 

[WildCat]

False dichotomy. You figure out the other options, if you can.

What's the other option? The CIA tortured other CIA agents pretending to be al Qaeda?

 

[pomeroo]

Did I say that? What I will certainly say is that there were many warnings of such an attack. Something tells me you won't catch this subtlety.

Something tells me you're incapable of subtlety.

 

[RedIbis]

Something tells me you're incapable of subtlety.

Well then you'd be wrong. A very high level of bifurcated thinking must be maintained to support the official story. In reality it's not that simple.

 

[stateofgrace]

Well then you'd be wrong. A very high level of bifurcated thinking must be maintained to support the official story. In reality it's not that simple.

But it takes nothing to maintain your claims.

You said the prewarnings of an Al Qaeda attack proved to be correct. Do you stand by this claim, yes or no?

 

[RedIbis]

But it takes nothing to maintain your claims.

You said the prewarnings of an Al Qaeda attack proved to be correct. Do you stand by this claim, yes or no?

The only claim I'm making is that warnings of an AQ attack were widespread.

 

[stateofgrace]

The only claim I'm making is that warnings of an AQ attack were widespread.

No you are not,you said the warnings of an Al Qaeda attack proved to be correct, now answer my question.

Do you stand by your claim that the warnings were correct and Al Qaeda carried out this attack? yes or no?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What's the other option? The CIA tortured other CIA agents pretending to be al Qaeda?

He's thinking about the Jews, but he won't come out and say it, because he wants to take the high ground. He implies other possibilities, we offer some, he denies that those are what he had in mind, implying that we're lesser humans for trying to put words into his mouth. He'll forever be vague and non-committal.

It's a game. Don't fall for it, people.