• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

Here is an interesting fact that bears on this discussion.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

April 25, 2009

... snip ...

... snip ... A recent Pew poll showed that 71% of Americans believe that there are circumstances under which torture (not just enhanced interrogations, but actual torture) is justifiable to get information from captured terrorists.
Click to expand...

Guess I and the few other defending waterboarding on this thread aren't alone. :D

But more important ... for all those who claim there is no evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques work ... read this from the same link:

... snip ... Fran Townsend, the Bush administration’s homeland-security adviser, told reporters in a February 2006 press briefing that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was arrested February of 2002. This, Noah points out, is before KSM came into CIA custody and underwent enhanced interrogation. He also notes Townsend said that after the cell leader’s capture other cell members “believed” that the plot was not going forward.

I hate to break it to Noah, but this does not refute the fact that KSM’s interrogation disrupted the West Coast plot.

It is true that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was detained in February 2002. According press accounts, his name was Marsan bin Arshad. What is also demonstrably true is that the captured terrorist did not lead us to the members of the cell tasked with carrying out the West Coast plot. Indeed, when KSM was captured 13 months later — in March of 2003 — almost all of the key operatives in the plot were still at large and operating with impunity.

This is what happened next:

- In March of 2003, the CIA captured another key operative in the West Coast plot — a terrorist named Majid Khan.

- When KSM was captured later that same month, he knew that Khan was in CIA custody — and assumed that Khan had given us the details of the West Coast plot.

- KSM refused to provide any information about active plots, telling his interrogators: “Soon you will find out.”

- After undergoing enhanced-interrogation techniques, KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a terrorist named Hambali — the leader of al-Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate Jemmah Islamiyah and KSM’s partner in developing the West Coast plot.

- CIA officers then confronted Khan with this information from KSM. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair. He provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative — which led to the capture of Zubair in June 2003.

- Zubair then provided information that led to the capture of Hambali in August 2003, along with another key operative, a JI terrorist named Bashir bin Lep (aka “Lillie”).

- Told of Hambali's capture, KSM then identified Hambali's younger brother Rusman Gunawan (aka "Gun Gun") as Hambali's conduit for communications with al-Qaeda, and the leader of the JI cell that was to carry out the West Coast plot. This information led to the capture of “Gun Gun” in September 2003 in Pakistan.

- Hambali's brother then gave us information that led to a cell of 17 JI operatives — the Guraba Cell — that was going to carry out the West Coast plot.

All of these operatives were captured because of information gained from the interrogation of KSM using enhanced interrogation techniques.

... snip ...

But put aside the West Coast plot off for a moment. What about all the other plots that were stopped as a result of enhanced interrogations?

Here are some facts: On Fox News last weekend, General Hayden declared that after enhanced interrogation techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah “he gave up … information that led to the arrest of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh.” Bin al-Shibh was KSM’s right-hand-man, and a key 9/11 plotter. At the time of his arrest, Bin al-Shibh was in the midst of planning a 9/11-style attack on Britain, in which al-Qaeda operatives would hijack planes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport. According his CIA biography, “as of his capture, Bin al-Shibh had identified four operatives for the operation.”

Enhanced interrogations also helped us capture an al-Qaeda terrorist named Ammar al-Baluchi. Ammar had prepared Jose Padilla for his plot to blow up apartment buildings in America (which was foiled thanks to information from Abu Zubaydah), and was the one who had sent Majid Khan to deliver the $50,000 to Zubair for the West Coast plot. According to Ammar’s CIA biography, “From late 2002, Ammar began plotting to carry out simultaneous attacks in Karachi against the U.S. Consulate, Western residences, and Westerners at the local airport…. He was within days of completing preparations for the Karachi plot when he was captured.”

These are just a few of the plots that were broken up because of information gained from CIA interrogations. According to the intelligence community, terrorists held in CIA custody also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti using an explosive laden water tanker. They provided information the helped us uncover al-Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States. And according to the memos released by the Obama administration “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.”

...snip ...

Former CIA Director George Tenet has said, “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.”

And even Obama’s director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, said in a letter to the intelligence community on April 16, 2009: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.”
Click to expand...

I think the above demolishes the claims of those on this thread that there is no evidence that waterboarding (or the other procedures they are whining about) have worked. Either that statement is true, or all of the above bolded facts are untrue and the quoted people must be liars. And the couple FBI agents that posters on this thread cited are the only ones telling the truth. I don't think the latter likely, but in any case, only Obama can prove it either way.

If the FBI agents and Obama's minions are right, then Obama should release the documents and supporting information and prove it so that we can know that all the people named in the above article lied and punish them according (for the good of the country). I can think of no good reason why he wouldn't.

But if Obama won't release the information, the only logical conclusion we can reach is that the above piece is accurate and and releasing the information would destroy the reputation of Obama's minions and those couple FBI agents they've paraded in front of us (who would then have to have been LYING about what transpired). If Obama won't release the information to find out either way who is right, the only logical explanation is because doing so would prove that Obama has dismantled a program that saved many American lives and he's still Stuck on Stupid.
 
BeAChooser said:
There were about 30 million poor in the US in the early 1960s. Forty-five years later, after spending about 10 trillion dollars on programs aimed at bringing people out of poverty, there are about 30 million poor in the US. And in fact, the poverty rate was dropping just as fast before the WOP began as it did at any time after the WOP began. In fact, once WOP spending (call it encouraged dependency) kicked in, the rate at which the poverty rate was decreasing slowed and finally leveled off entirely. So clearly you either don't know what you are talking about ... again ... or you are a liar as to what my own figures proved.
Click to expand...
You are lying about what your figures proved.

You are meant to be lying about torture.
 
BeAChooser said:
If the FBI agents and Obama's minions are right, then Obama should release the documents and supporting information and prove it so that we can know that all the people named in the above article lied and punish them according (for the good of the country). I can think of no good reason why he wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, people who are capable of thought have done your thinking for you.

If you are still bewildered by your inability to grasp the obvious, you should consult my post of the subject.

But if Obama won't release the information, the only logical conclusion we can reach is that the above piece is accurate and and releasing the information would destroy the reputation of Obama's minions and those couple FBI agents they've paraded in front of us (who would then have to have been LYING about what transpired). If Obama won't release the information to find out either way who is right, the only logical explanation is because doing so would prove that Obama has dismantled a program that saved many American lives and he's still Stuck on Stupid.
Click to expand...
Why do you describe as a "logical conclusion" a bunch of driveling nonsense, and why do you say that "we" can reach this "conclusion" when your delusions are so distinctly peculiar to yourself?
 
Luke T. said:
Waterboarding is torture, and it is criminal.

Period.
Click to expand...

But I'm curious Luke. If you could save 100,000 innocent lives by waterboarding (causing some pain and discomfort) one person to extract some information, what would make that criminal other than a judgment that causing pain and discomfort is worse than allowing 100,000 to be murdered? Do you believe it is? :D
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
I'm a veteran and I think it is wrong and that we shouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

But which is more wrong? Waterboarding (causing some temporary pain and discomfort) one person under the sort of circumstances that were defined as allowable or allowing large numbers of people to die because you didn't learn information that the prisoner knew about mass casualty terrorist plots? Seems to me you are suggesting that causing some temporary pain is worse than allowing mass murder to occur. Which is ridiculous. :rolleyes:
 
boloboffin said:
Torture is still evil and wrong.
Click to expand...

But is waterboarding (causing some temporary pain and discomfort) more evil and wrong than allowing a 1000 people to be killed because you won't waterboard someone you suspect has information about such plots? I don't think so. I think the person who would allow the deaths to occur is more evil and wrong than the person who would waterboard under those circumstances.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Fortunately, people who are capable of thought have done your thinking for you.

If you are still bewildered by your inability to grasp the obvious, you should consult my post of the subject.

Why do you describe as a "logical conclusion" a bunch of driveling nonsense, and why do you say that "we" can reach this "conclusion" when your delusions are so distinctly peculiar to yourself?
Click to expand...

Congratulations, DA. You just went in lefty's basket because you successfully demonstrated you are incapable of honest, logical debate. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
But is waterboarding (causing some temporary pain and discomfort) more evil and wrong than allowing a 1000 people to be killed because you won't waterboard someone you suspect has information about such plots? I don't think so. I think the person who would allow the deaths to occur is more evil and wrong than the person who would waterboard under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think the person/people who actually caused the deaths to occur/s shares a bit of the blame for the deaths.
 
BeAChooser said:
But which is more wrong? Waterboarding (causing some temporary pain and discomfort) one person under the sort of circumstances that were defined as allowable or allowing large numbers of people to die because you didn't learn information that the prisoner knew about mass casualty terrorist plots? Seems to me you are suggesting that causing some temporary pain is worse than allowing mass murder to occur. Which is ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


if you could save 100,000 people? sigh.....why not make it a million? How about 10 million.

If you could prevent the moon from being knocked out of orbit and crashed into the earth by a Giant lazer would you allow a mind probe on Evil emperor varg???


Even in the land of the free you still seem to get a proportion of torture merchants......
 
BeAChooser said:
So how ironic that you folks are using your emotions rather than rational thought when you mandate that there is no circumstances where applying even temporary pain and discomfort to elicit information is justified.
Click to expand...

delete
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Congratulations, DA. You just went in lefty's basket because you successfully demonstrated you are incapable of honest, logical debate. :D
Click to expand...

Keep up the ignoring and soon you will have banned your self from the forum by default.

Your version of debate seems to be throwing up a scarecrow of an argument and then when someone responds calling them names.
 
tsig said:
Keep up the ignoring and soon you will have banned your self from the forum by default.

Your version of debate seems to be throwing up a scarecrow of an argument and then when someone responds calling them names.
Click to expand...

So we learned that:
Toture is acceptable because it can save millions of people for a short time from some future catastrophe.

Taking a rich person's money to save millions of lives from starvation for a short time is wrong because it'd robbery.
 
joobz said:
So we learned that:
Toture is acceptable because it can save millions of people for a short time from some future catastrophe.

Taking a rich person's money to save millions of lives from starvation for a short time is wrong because it'd robbery.
Click to expand...

Funny how it's so B&W in one situation but all kinds of grey in the other.

BAC never seems to think that he might be the one who has the info.

He reminds me of a friend of mine who said "There's nothing wrong with a pair of jackboots as long as you're wearing them".

In both cases there's a total lack of empathy.
 
joobz said:
So we learned that:
Toture is acceptable because it can save millions of people for a short time from some future catastrophe.

Taking a rich person's money to save millions of lives from starvation for a short time is wrong because it'd robbery.
Click to expand...
Syntactically, the arguments are identical. They are false dichotomies coupled with a loaded question pitting some principle against the value of human life (itself another principle). Only the principle involved is different.

Answer "yes" and you are admitting that the principle is not something worth adhering to. Answer "no" and you are willing to let people die for a principle. Whichever way a person answers, questioner has a straw man argument to throw.

BAC's poisoning the well ("Says the guy who would allow thousands of people die!") is just a "bonus".

From start to finish, BAC major thrust in this thread has been a string of argumentative and logical fallacies.
 
Upchurch said:
Syntactically, the arguments are identical. They are false dichotomies coupled with a loaded question pitting some principle against the value of human life (itself another principle). Only the principle involved is different.

Answer "yes" and you are admitting that the principle is not something worth adhering to. Answer "no" and you are willing to let people die for a principle. Whichever way a person answers, questioner has a straw man argument to throw.

BAC's poisoning the well ("Says the guy who would allow thousands of people die!") is just a "bonus".

From start to finish, BAC major thrust in this thread has been a string of argumentative and logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's amusing watching a person get hoisted by thier own petard.

And Yes, I'm saying BAC's argument is petarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom