AZ shut down and stopped giving useful intel. It's all here black and white. AZ gave useful intel when torture wasn't used, and shut down when Cheney's torture methods were used. Soufan calls the Bush whitehouse claims half truths. Graham uses CIA testimony(the BS claim about AZ breaking in 35 seconds) which was retracted. The agent who made the claim initially retracted it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104092457 What amazing testimony today. Cheney's BS and all the BS we've heard about torture working has taken a serious blow.
some more from Senator Graham today... About 3:30 minutes into the video. Speaking on torture, Graham says that the Bush administration "saw the law as a nicety we could not afford." <object width="365" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/cspanPlayer.swf?pid=286307-1&clipStart=511.57&clipStop=1145.21&autoplay=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/cspanPlayer.swf?pid=286307-1&clipStart=511.57&clipStop=1145.21&autoplay=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="365" height="340"></embed></object>
Who is Kerry? Any return to truth and transparency is excellent news for America. Any turn away from torture and the tactics of barbarians is excellent news for America. I congratulate our nation on its resilience and its ability to self-correct.
If all the evidence suggests that not torturing and using the by the book interrogation methods are far more useful for gaining important intel, would you still support torture? What's more important, preventing future attacks and saving American lives or causing pain to captured terrorists?
We'll see if the Obama Administration has the integrity to release the CIA memos that Cheney is requesting -- the ones that demonstrate the effectiveness of waterboarding...
they're probably right next to the evidence suggesting hussein was involved with 9/11 and that iraq was producing wmd. cheney has not one iota of credibility.
Unless those memos were based on the RETRACTED testimony of a CIA official. Of course even if you get the same evidence not using torture, then why use torture? Using torture is still against the law even if you get useful intel. It doesn't change the law. Of course this is proof that not waterboarding is more beneficial than waterboarding. Too bad you don't want America to succeed and would rather use the less beneficial way of interrogation.
Yeah, Graham was on fire. Another funny thing was that he called the hearing a political stunt after he was the guy who tried to use already discredited evidence from a CIA officer who retracted his statement.
Hey genius don’t you think if those memos would have shut libpigs up, deadeye would have released them when he had the power to do so? But he couldn’t have done that could he? That would have admitted that we were torturing people. Aren’t you pissed that you were suckered so badly by that criminal administration?
Why are you assuming that I "support torture"? I'm pro-choice on it, but my silly post had nothing to do with that.
a Dagger Through the Heart of FB and Markie's posts: [rquoter]There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do. So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the foxhole, it’s a very different deal.[/rquoter]
lol, I love how the best "dagger" that these idiots can comes up with is in their own words "hypothetical"* *Hypotheticals are situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real. (wikipedia) "sure, I'm totally and completely wrong, BUT WHAT IF HYPOTHETICALLY I WAS RIGHT! HOW DO YA LIKE DEM HYPO APPLES BABY!" Embarrassing.
Well since you asked... The difference is that Bush/Cheney were unwilling to publicize the the methods of interrogation to the world (and the enemy) because they prioritized America's security over political gain. Obviously, the same can not be said about the new administration... They released these selected memos (the ones that they thought would help) to stir up negative press against Republicans, all the while, endangering our country and weakening our defense against terror. Can't you see it's all a big manipulation? How gullible does that make you feel?
because after the election, it was clear that obama needed to stir up negative press against the southern regional party of american politics.
That's a dagger through your own heart, and that of Shumer. WE DON'T MAKE LAWS TO ENACT RIGHT NOW BASED ON HYPOTHETICALS THAT CAN'T EVER HAPPEN. First of all Chuck Shumer is not the FBI interrogator who gets called in when there are high level al-Qaeda suspects in custody. So his musings about things that could NEVER HAPPEN, don't really matter at all. Secondly, The stupid ticking time bomb scenario is ridiculous. Let's look at it with at least some degree of realism. There is only one person who would have knowledge of how to stop that nuclear attack? What an idiotic assumption. That's almost impossible to be able to plan out an a nuclear attack with only person. Thirdly - Our own experts and military couldn't stop it without the suspect in custody? Maybe, but by no means a definite. Fourth - We have testimony that the harsh interrogation tactics take LONGER to perform. If we are trying to stop a ticking time bombe we should use the quickest way to get the info that could stop it. Fifth - Why would the suspect tell the truth about the upcoming nuclear attack. He could just lie. The torture would stop, and the bomb would go off as planned. Sixth - Torture doesn't work. Waterboarding stopped the high level al-Qaeda operative from giving useful intel. We found out about KSM and all the other useful intel when we didn't use waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Read mc mark's article and look at these reasons, and understand that your little hypothetical that you, and other torture supporters like to throw out is impossible. It isn't realistic. Add to that the point that you don't make laws to enact now, based on someone's fantasy that may never happen in the future.
I'd say you are... if you think mint juleps and truffles are going to get hardened terrorists to provide good information. I'd also say you are being exceptionally naive if you think that the CIA would purposefully take an approach that they didn't think would work at a critical juncture... I'd also say you are being naive by making a judgment based on the hand-picked, selected memos that the no-integrity Obama has released. It's all about political calculus with him -- the country's safety takes a back seat. Shameful.
