I didn't say we were more civilized than some other countries. In fact, I've been to several countries that could arguably be described as more "civilized" than we are. I didn't deny our flaws and have pointed them out here innumerable times. Just ask around. Where I disagree with you is describing this country as NOT civilized. We are. We may not be the best at it, we may be flawed, but we're a damned sight better at it than most of the world. That's not a boast. It's not meant to be. It's simply a fact. If you've traveled as much as you say you have, then you know this to be true. We are no angels, but by the lights of this age, we are civilized.
umm I just got back from there and don't feel better. I do seem to remember seeing bodies splatted on the ground from jumpers on 9/11 and enough gore to last a lifetime seeing the twin towers replayed over and over and over that day. It was like getting stabbed in the heart. What do we owe the most vile wanted man of our time that satisfaction. I want to see the dead in his eyes. This is about closure and reality. We did not kill bin laden with pillows this was a serious crime, and a serious result. We can't sweep that reality under the rug , and the sooner we show the photo, and each of us find our own peace with it when we see it, then the wound will always be open. If a GOP or congressman or anyone else makes this their platform to get the photo released I will vote for them. Obama saw it, and now he is our dad and tells us whether we can stay up at night or when to go night night? This is ridiculous.
You're right. Your post is ridiculous. Just when I think I can't possibly read a post in D&D that could be any more ludicrous than the last ludicrous post, someone surprises me. "If a GOP or congressman or anyone else makes this their platform to get the photo released I will vote for them." Brilliant. By all means, base your vote for "a GOP or congressman or anyone else on them making the release of this image a part of their platform." The logic is breathtaking. Congratulations.
your spelling is rockets red iculous. politicians make platforms on anything you **** show the photo joto
Yes, that one individual poster clearly embodies the whole american society's mentality in a nutshell. You have ended the argument. Good job.
Golly. I put an e where I should have put an i. By all means, reason to dismiss the rest of my post. Perhaps, one of these decades, you may grow up a tad, but don't hold your breath waiting for the light to come on in your head. Might pass out, kid. He's one of those people I scan right past, most of the time, but thanks for the tip. Maybe I should expand my ignore list.
People actually think waterboarding didn't work when the head of the CIA, a guy who is against torture, just admitted it did??? http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ Don't get why people don't want to face the truth. Is torture wrong? Maybe. But morality aside, it did help us get OBL. That's the fact, unless the director of the CIA was lying. Also, why the heck should we release a picture? The nut-jobs who are skeptical will jsut think its fake anyway. I mean, this is Birther 2. Give it up. We put a man on the moon, 9/11 was not an inside job, and we just killed OBL. Live with it!
If I'd read that article I would believe Panetta admitted it as well. However having watched the video, and read the transcripts here, the article is taking liberty and jumping to conclusions about what Panetta actually said. Watch the interview or read one of the transcripts here. The head of the intelligence committee said that enhanced interrogation techniques did not provide the information.
I read the transcript and he clearly stated that he would not deny that the use of waterboarding. He said enhanced interrogation techniques were used, and when Williams asked if that included waterboarding, he said, "correct" It's obvious it was used and it was successful. That's about as open of admission you get from someone in his position.
We all know that KSM and others were waterboarded. I guess you think the head of the Senate Intel committee is a liar. Because she said that the useful stuff came after waterboarding. Using that context what Panetta said was correct. The suspects were waterboared, and they did give us useful information. He didn't say it happened at the same time, or that the waterboarding was the cause of it. You are correct he didn't deny it, and if it was his statement alone, I would probably buy into it that waterboarding did provide useful information. However, Panetta's wishy washy non-admission put together with the definitive statement of the head of the intelligence committee, and the time line involved would lead me to believe that it didn't produce valuable information. I'm puzzled that you and some others are so willing to claim that the head of the intel committee is liar, but oh well. I guess we just read the evidence in different ways.
She said no "actionable" intelligence. What does that mean? Nothing was given that they could act on right then? Sure that seems obvious. Information that was obtained that led them down a path to find Osama isn't necessarily "actionable" and therefore doesn't make her a liar.
She had two easy out politician escape phrases with her statement. "To the best of our knowledge, based on a look, " also you do realize that even if some of the info came from waterboarding it does not 1. Justify the process 2. Prove water boarding would have been only means to get that info Right?
Yes I do. Which is why I'm willing to look at all the evidence. Even if it did produce valuable intel to the mission, it would never be justified in my opinion. Also you are right about her qualifying statements except that they were also able to mention when KSM did start giving up valuable information as well and it was after waterboarding stopped. Panetta's words seemed like he was trying to make sure nobody accused him of covering up the fact that waterboarding had been used rather than stating flat out that it was that technique that got them the valuable information. Like I said, I guess people will just look at the same evidence and derive different conclusions.
Actionable means certain enough to lead to action which would include following up enough to pursue that lead for several years. I think that people who are waterboarded say all kinds of stuff which is one of the reasons it's so ineffective. The interrogators end up following all kinds of bogus info which may also be sprinkled in with some true information. Manpower and resources are wasted on that, and lead to nothing, and may let valid leads go unchecked. While I don't agree that Panetta's statement is more definitive than the head of the Intel committee's or better evidence, I will say that I at least understand why other people could view it as such after you've explained your thinking.
You keep saying valuable information. This whole thing cam from extremely small pieces of info being slowly put together. you are also focused on KSM. Hassan Ghul, who also got enhanced interrogation, was a MAJOR part of the puzzle.
