Obama: It may be harder to get info w/o Bush tactics

The piece leaves out a few words and a lot of context. Here's the full transcript...

Again, torture fetishists and Repub apologists (is there a difference these days?) want us to think that because some info came out of Americans torturing people that torturing people is the best and only way to get info. It's obvious that Obama thinks this is BS for a number of sane, rational reasons... none of which involve childhood Daddy issues. And if you heard him say that last comment, then you realize the transcript doesn't do it justice... it was definitely a dripping with contempt (as much as is possible with Obama) response to Cheney.

 

^Waterboarding was invented right after Al Gore invented the interwebs.

Video of the press conference:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMiEJofOu-Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMiEJofOu-Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I love watching the truth strike a defensive nerve with the liberals.

 

I think the significant point to come out is that

1. The argument that enhanced interrogation doesn't work is just false. It does provide quality actionable intelligence.

2. The waterboading sessions were not done with the intent of punishment but to obtain information.

The arguments can go from there, but those two should be off of the table at this point.

 

Number 1 has not been proven, at all.

Number 2 doesn't matter. The aim of the act doesn't change the fact that it's illegal (not to mention immoral).

 

I take Obama's word that he read documents showing information gathered from the techniques.

#2 does matter. If we really would have had 180 something sessions of questioning that is obviously just a punishment or not a true attempt to gain info to save lives. Morality can be argued either way, and I guess it is based on how you personaly judge if something is right or wrong.

 

hmm

Someone's still bitter.

Relative peace hits the nail on the head though. Where's Osama, for f***"s sake.

 

Relative peace, what a great term. We're in the middle of two wars, but we have relative peace, thanks to Bush, no doubt, in Basso's mind. Nevermind the fact that when W took over, we had actual peace...

 

And McCain. And General Petraeus.

 

The POTUS and his NSA have both come out and said useful information came out of torture, and neither of them said there was more effective means.

The argument that torture doesn't work or is not as effective has other means, simply does not hold water at this point. Let's move beyond the political one-upmanship on this board. I know people have an axe to grind with some guys here for good reasons, but from a practical standpoint, new evidence certainly leads credence to the idea that torture can be an effective tool.

That argument for being against torture isn't as strong now.

So it's purely a moralistic one. That's fine. I can respect people diagreeing on those grounds, even though the people being tortured have intent to kill the very people who defend not to use it against them. They dont realize that if the positions were reversed, these thugs wouldn't torture them, they'd cut off their head while video taping it and send it all over the world.

 

No it's not. Both McCain and Petraeus have come out and directly said that torture has caused extensive long-term damage to the US, and more specifically, that it has served as the #1 recruiting tool for Al Qaeda In Iraq.

That has to do with whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks - nothing about morals or ethics.

 

Cliff May makes some stupid arguments. Number one he only is talking about the military part of the Geneva conventions. There are also Geneva conventions which apply to everyone military or not. They also forbid torture.

Cliff May also presents the false hypothetical that you can either torture, or do nothing at all. There is a HUGE area of in-between that most people are able to see.

In fact that huge area of in-between has shown to be more effective than waterboarding and it works.

Furthermore you don't make laws based on hypotheticals. The idea that we might one day have the one person who knows of a plot, that we can't find out about any other possible way except through torture, and we know for a fact that torture is sure to bring accurate intelligence, so we should pass a law now in case that happens one day in the future is insane.

Passing that law and putting it into practice now based on an unrealistic hypothetical is not the way our criminal justice system has ever worked... at least until Bush.

 

Actually what Obama said was that because useful information was gained through torture doesn't mean that it couldn't have been retrieved another way.

We also do know for a fact that other techniques worked, and that waterboarding actually stopped the flow of useful intelligence, wasted resources, and was ineffective.

Furthermore we know that American lives have been lost as a result of waterboarding and other torture carried out by the U.S.

What Obama also said is that America is safer now that we've stopped torturing as a result of not torturing. Isn't that the bottom line?

 

That is based on zero facts, and just your made up summary of what happened.

We know that because of W's decision to torture, American troops have died, and violence and attacks on Americans in Iraq increased.

You've ignored this fact over and over, you are the one who is ungrateful to our troops and would prefer to put them in danger.

You are pathetic.

basso - I'm looking at you.

 

Don't forget legality. We prosecuted and hanged Japanese officers for waterboarding US soldiers.

 

actually, considering that his view is supported by every single credible authority on this issue and years and years of historical experience (Military, Law Enforcement, Intelligence, both domestic and foreign,....etc etc etc

And yours is supported by:

Armchair f-knut morons like yourself who wank it to 24 reruns and have to lie to make a point

I think it's convincing

 

But in this case he's as right as right can be.

 

Bush saw many laws and traditions and walked all over them.