CIA Waterboarded Mohammed 183X in 1 Month, Zubaydah 83X in 1 month

[bustybbwlover]

article title 'Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed' from 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
article title 'Bin Laden Labels Saddam an Infidel - Jazeera TV' 2003
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

 

[Boothbabe]

I understand what I am talking about. The 9-11 attacks happened because of the laxist Clinton administration that did nothing when the first WTC bombing happened in 1993, when the bombing of the American Ambassy in Nairobi happened in 1997 and when the bombing of the USS Cole happened in 1999.

Actually, the attacks happened because a group of sick idiots carried them out. Don't place the blame where it doesn't belong.

My main problem is left wing governments in general who think that diplomacy will always work especially with rogue states when it doesn't.

They just don't like resorting to violence the first chance they get

Left wing governements are the worst that can be, they have rarely patriotism and no pride for their own country.

That's a matter of opinion. I see right wing governments as narrow minded and unable to look beyond what they know.

Ask yourself what to do when you have a group of people with a record filled of criminal activities.

you prosecute them in a court of law

Don't bring the innocent till proven guilty argument because I have heard it more than enough from Friday on my mind's mouth.

Why not? Over 500 people were captured by the Bush administration and help captive for years without charges ever being filed or any explenation ever being given just because they were Arab men (the fact they were released should tell you something). Don't you believe in the rule of law or do you think you should be able to bend the law whenever it suits you?

Saddam was anti american and was a sympathetizer of Ben Laden that is all I know.

Saddam was indeed anti American but saying he was a sympathizer of Bin Laden is just plain wrong. Research by the Pentagon of more than 600.000 Iraqi documents wich were obtained after the war was launched has shown there's no evidence of the Saddam regime having operational ties with Osama's terrorist group. In fact, Osama has stated Saddam is an infidel (and thus his enemy).

To be honest with you, I like an America where there is zero degree of socialism, zero social assisted parasites and to finish an America that treats criminals and prosecute them how they be prosecuted and treated as well. I liked America the most during Reagan's presidency but disliked it during Clinton's presidency. I am not liking a president who is kissing the UN's ass and who is far to strive for the interests of his nation.

If you want to be America's bitch so badly why do you continue to live in France?

 

[Philbert]

Actually, the attacks happened because a group of sick idiots carried them out. Don't place the blame where it doesn't belong.



They just don't like resorting to violence the first chance they get



That's a matter of opinion. I see right wing governments as narrow minded and unable to look beyond what they know.



you prosecute them in a court of law



Why not? Over 500 people were captured by the Bush administration and help captive for years without charges ever being filed or any explenation ever being given just because they were Arab men (the fact they were released should tell you something). Don't you believe in the rule of law or do you think you should be able to bend the law whenever it suits you?



Saddam was indeed anti American but saying he was a sympathizer of Bin Laden is just plain wrong. Research by the Pentagon of more than 600.000 Iraqi documents wich were obtained after the war was launched has shown there's no evidence of the Saddam regime having operational ties with Osama's terrorist group. In fact, Osama has stated Saddam is an infidel (and thus his enemy).



If you want to be America's bitch so badly why do you continue to live in France?

Run out of rational arguments already, huh, Boothbabe?

'Cause maybe he wants to? Is that too complicated a reason?
Typical Lefty intolerance...

 

[AnonV]

Right. We cannot speak our minds about the torture because what.. there's a chance that those muslims imprisoned illegally by the US may one day use guns against US troops? Then why not round up all the able bodied men from across Middle East because any one of them can use arms against US and its allies? And to lecture us about having morals is laughable. Without morals we'd be no better than the enemies we fight against.

I'll tell you kid, Thier "Morals" are an offspring of their piece of shit religion... I'm all for abortion and I think you are a perfect inspiration for it.

I'm totally anti-religion, All for abortion or not (People should have the choice.. Dont affect me either way, Why should I give a fuck ? The kid inside them is just a shell until it's born anyway.. Not like it can feel or any of that shit.)

The only difference between "Right" and "Wrong" Is a clusterfuck of opinion... And the world is too fucking biased.

 

[bodie54]

Re: torturingdemocracy

In the past, we had the 4 big leftist posters: Brino, Starman, Nightfly, and Mc Rocket

As I mentioned, all of those (except McRocket) were before my time (I've never seen starman post). Did any of them advocate the repeal of the second amendment?

The main reason I bring this up is this: I'm a moderate Democrat. I know, either well or casually, dozens upon dozens of other Democrats, from the very moderate to the hard core. If all of those Democrats (and I believe they're a representative slice of Democrats as a whole) were given the option to vote on the repeal of the second amendment, the vote would be overwhelmingly against doing so. I mean, it wouldn't even be remotely close. So where the intense paranoia on this issue comes from I frankly don't understand.

As far as Fox goes, you have to understand that virtually all of us other "leftists" saw him as way out there on the fringe. He was a very bright guy, but unfortunately that usually didn't translate to dispassionate reason.

They all hated the former governement and ciriticized the Republican administrations like whining little children

Well if that was the case, then by all appearances it seems to be the right's turn to whine like little children, yes?

 

[NavyBlue]

I'll tell you kid, Thier "Morals" are an offspring of their piece of shit religion... I'm all for abortion and I think you are a perfect inspiration for it.

I'm totally anti-religion, All for abortion or not (People should have the choice.. Dont affect me either way, Why should I give a fuck ? The kid inside them is just a shell until it's born anyway.. Not like it can feel or any of that shit.)

The only difference between "Right" and "Wrong" Is a clusterfuck of opinion... And the world is too fucking biased.

You are totally not making sense here. I am talking about us having morals, not the Muslims, and to change the topic from torture to abortion.. wtf? I just don't think you are equipped to defend your opinion in the first place. Quit this thread before you confuse us even more.

 

[georges]

Re: torturingdemocracy

As I mentioned, all of those (except McRocket) were before my time (I've never seen starman post). Did any of them advocate the repeal of the second amendment?
The main reason I bring this up is this: I'm a moderate Democrat. I know, either well or casually, dozens upon dozens of other Democrats, from the very moderate to the hard core. If all of those Democrats (and I believe they're a representative slice of Democrats as a whole) were given the option to vote on the repeal of the second amendment, the vote would be overwhelmingly against doing so. I mean, it wouldn't even be remotely close. So where the intense paranoia on this issue comes from I frankly don't understand.
As far as Fox goes, you have to understand that virtually all of us other "leftists" saw him as way out there on the fringe. He was a very bright guy, but unfortunately that usually didn't translate to dispassionate reason.
Well if that was the case, then by all appearances it seems to be the right's turn to whine like little children, yes?

All of tehse posters were in favor of banning the 2nd amendment definitively. The fact of hearing constantly that owning semi autos rifles or 50bmg rifles is dangerous is senseless. When you are a responsible gun owner, I don't see the problem of owning a semi auto or a class III gun. I wonder how many people here would consider fox as a bright guy, especially long time board members and people who had a far more realistic approach to life than him. He was spouting facts and some times insulted members that were more credible than him and that had and still have more life experience than him. I will be honest with you, I don't like people like Fox and in general people who whine when they are accepted by a foreign country as part of its citizens.
Gratefulness and recognition seem to be two values that are slowly disappearing.

 

[georges]

a) Actually, the attacks happened because a group of sick idiots carried them out. Don't place the blame where it doesn't belong.

b) They just don't like resorting to violence the first chance they get

c) That's a matter of opinion. I see right wing governments as narrow minded and unable to look beyond what they know.

d) you prosecute them in a court of law

e) Why not? Over 500 people were captured by the Bush administration and help captive for years without charges ever being filed or any explenation ever being given just because they were Arab men (the fact they were released should tell you something). Don't you believe in the rule of law or do you think you should be able to bend the law whenever it suits you?

f) Saddam was indeed anti American but saying he was a sympathizer of Bin Laden is just plain wrong. Research by the Pentagon of more than 600.000 Iraqi documents wich were obtained after the war was launched has shown there's no evidence of the Saddam regime having operational ties with Osama's terrorist group. In fact, Osama has stated Saddam is an infidel (and thus his enemy).

g) If you want to be America's bitch so badly why do you continue to live in France?

a) Fact is that this group of sick idiots hated America enough to make 9-11. I put the blame where it belongs. Laxist liberal governement means no preemptive strategy to counter terrorist and kill them. Under Clinton's presidency, there were three attacks 1st wtc bombing in 1993, bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi in 1997 and bombing of the USS Cole in 1999, yet Clinton did nothing to catch Osama and co when he had an opportunity to do it.
b) This has nothing to do with violence :nono: It has a lot to do with preemptive counter terrorism strategy something you never heard about probably.
c) Look at the Netherlands, many of the Dutch are leaving Amsterdam recently because they think it became filled of not so good new arriving inhabitants. I am pretty sure you caught who I was talking about . Socialism is screwing things up economally, culturally and morally.
d) Yes and that is normal, I don't want my town nor my country to be filled with social assited parasites, potential criminals, pimps or drug dealers.
e) I believe in laws protecting that are in the interest of my nation and that protect its born and bread citizens, I hope I am clear.
f) Oh really Link me a to a link proving your claim
g) I am not anyone's bitch and I trust this is very clear. I have a good job in France. But a big part of my family is in the USA, so it is normal that I get preoccupied by what happens there.

 

[Boothbabe]

Oh really Link me a to a link proving your claim

Here you go georges :tongue:
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/mar/gjeltenexecutivesummary.pdf

 

[Hot Mega]

a) Fact is that this group of sick idiots hated America enough to make 9-11. I put the blame where it belongs. Laxist liberal governement means no preemptive strategy to counter terrorist and kill them. Under Clinton's presidency, there were three attacks 1st wtc bombing in 1993, bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi in 1997 and bombing of the USS Cole in 1999, yet Clinton did nothing to catch Osama and co when he had an opportunity to do it.
b) This has nothing to do with violence :nono: It has a lot to do with preemptive counter terrorism strategy something you never heard about probably.
c) Look at the Netherlands, many of the Dutch are leaving Amsterdam recently because they think it became filled of not so good new arriving inhabitants. I am pretty sure you caught who I was talking about . Socialism is screwing things up economally, culturally and morally.
d) Yes and that is normal, I don't want my town nor my country to be filled with social assited parasites, potential criminals, pimps or drug dealers.
e) I believe in laws protecting that are in the interest of my nation and that protect its born and bread citizens, I hope I am clear.
f) Oh really Link me a to a link proving your claim
g) I am not anyone's bitch and I trust this is very clear. I have a good job in France. But a big part of my family is in the USA, so it is normal that I get preoccupied by what happens there.

Okay "mr preemption", I guess here's the question you've boxed yourself into in bring up what you perceive as Clinton's lack of response. If Clinton was supposed to do what GWB did, why did it take 9/11 for GWB to take action?

If you believe the appropriate response to those attacks was to militarily invade Afghanistan and overthrow their government like GWB did then why wasn't that GWB's first action when he took office prior to 9/11??

Let me save you some keystrokes, you're going to say the American people wouldn't have supported that in that context. And you would be right. So the fucking point emerges, Clinton wouldn't have been able to justify that action in response to those attacks. That's why Clinton didn't do what GWB did and that's why GWB did what he did only after 9/11.

As it stood, GOPers were accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" every time he DID try to do something since they were apparently more concerned with whether or not a married man lied about getting his dick sucked by another woman than finding OBL.

But since you're into keeping score, there have only been 2 Islamo-inspired attacks on the CONUS in US history; 1 was a month after Clinton took office and the other was 8 months after Bush took office.

But if you're going to count the USS Cole and the US Embassy in Kenya as attacks on US territory (which those attacks technically were) then every attack on every military base, camp and fort we have in Afghanistan and in Iraq counts too.

And in that case, the attacks on the US have been uncountable under GWB.

But I don't expect you'll see the consistency in this.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

If being pro American means blindly accepting the misdeeds of a group of war criminals (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and the war council) than I'd rather be a leftist socialist brainless tool. For the first time in history an administration has said it will disregard the Geneva convention and they delibirately corrupted the law to serve their agenda and to escape prosecution but you think they're the dogs kahuna's. You can try to twist and wriggle your way out of it any way you want but that makes you a pro war crime person.

How do you know that you AREN'T a leftist socialist brainless tool? Without any qualifiers?

One of the biggest arguments out there is that the Geneva Conventions don't cover enemy combatants, or how they are to be handled.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

If they're a member of a terrorist cell, then try them and convict them in a court of law (Remember, the USA is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men), rather than storing them and torturing them without a trial.

I love how 95% of the time, the pro-torture people just operate on the blind assumption that if someone's locked up in one of these places (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) then they're automatically a terrorist. That's

Who's been waterboarded, known members of terrorist Cells, like Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, or the innocent 20 year old Pakistani Lad with British passport who's been picked up by the American military during a raid on a terrorist training camp?

I believe it's KSM and his friends.

I'd also like to ask you how we're going to do crime scene prevention on an active battlefield where many of these people are picked up or in extremely dangerous cities in Pakistan where we can't stay long enough to collect enough evidence? Isn't that what the military tribunals were for? When we have enough evidence to believe they are terrorists, but not enough to convict them in civilian courts?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

It's too bad that so many people on the anti-"torture" side treat this like it's a classroom exercise, rather than life or death situations for Americans, both here in the U.S. and those tasked with missions abroad.

 

[Hot Mega]

It's too bad that so many people on the anti-"torture" side treat this like it's a classroom exercise, rather than life or death situations for Americans, both here in the U.S. and those tasked with missions abroad.

It's pretty simple and what some people don't seem to understand is all of this shit has been argued and debated before and that's why we concluded we would enjoin other nations in a compact to not torture.

Water boarding is torture, torture is illegal. No matter how many spin meisters and legal wordsmiths you line to try and say what does and doesn't do.

The position your side argues is that it's necessary to engage in these methods. While I and most other knowledgeable individuals on the subject disagree, let's assume for a second that's true.

What needs to happen? At minimum what should have been done is we need to resign as a signatory to the Geneva Convention among other things. Not merely create loopholes and carve-outs by fiat.

When you enlist others in a plan to engage in illegal activity that's called a criminal conspiracy. It doesn't matter if it's done by La Cosa Nostra or government officials in our Executive Branch.

 

[Hot Mega]

Ex-FBI interrogator says harsh methods didn't work

Torture' Architects Were Unqualified

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 13, 5:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON – A former FBI interrogator who questioned al-Qaida prisoners testified Wednesday that the Bush administration falsely boasted of success from extreme techniques like waterboarding, when those methods were slow, unreliable and made an important witness stop talking.

Ali Soufan, testifying to a Senate panel behind a screen to hide his identity, said his team's non-threatening interrogation approach elicited crucial information from al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, including intelligence on "dirty bomb" terrorist Jose Padilla.

Soufan said his team had to step aside when CIA contractors took over. They began using harsh methods that caused Zubaydah to "shut down," Soufan said, and his team had to be recalled the get the prisoner talking again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_co/us_harsh_interrogations

 

[miles123]

It's war.....

In one, both parties do terrible things. I dare you to find one war in the history of the world were BOTH sides were not doing shit like this.

I'm not suprised. I'm not proud.

Unfortunately, that is just the way things are.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_co/us_harsh_interrogations

I wouldn't trust a muslim-american who now does consulting work for CAIR. His testimony on CSPAN focused very little on the techniques. It was all of that stuff about moral standing. He also didn't mention that his team was removed from the interrogation of abu zubaydah because they were moving too slow, and that they thought Abu Zubaydah was GAMING Soufan.


I've been hearing this same argument out of the mouths of muslim-americans who are mad that foreign muslims have been mistreated. The same chick at my school used the mission statement from Soufan's website in her presentation on the "abuse" of muslims at Gitmo of all places. She looked like ass when I asked her what her motivations were. She wouldn't answer then I informed the class that this same chick was thrown out of a dorm party, and when she was thrown out everyone down the hall at a study session could hear her ranting about "the U.S. needs to get the Fuck out of Afghanistan" fucking American soldiers are butchers. Apparently she got into an argument with a veteran at this dorm party, and she had a little too much wine. I wish more of these folks would get inebriated so we could hear their real motivations.


One thing that was interesting was his assessment that our 'enhanced techniques would be ineffective against trained Al Qaeda operatives because they would be trained to resist Torture by dictators that would be much more brutal. "Zubaydah and others would call out bluff knowing that what we considered the glass ceiling of interrogation techniques was in fact quite tame."

I look at that and think it hurts the overall theme of his testimony as much as it helps it.

 

[Hot Mega]

I wouldn't trust an muslim-american who now does consulting work for CAIR. His testimony on CSPAN focused very little on the techniques. It was all of that stuff about moral standing. He also didn't mention that his team was removed from the interrogation of abu zubaydah because they were moving too slow, and that they thought Abu Zubaydah was GAMING Soufan.

That's what you heard from whomever might have wanted that to be the consideration.

It has been stated on several different occasions that FBI refrained from involvement in these interogations once certain techniques were employed by CIA and/or their contractors to avoid legal jeopardy.

I don't think we can have an intelligent debate on this issue if I refer to every inflammatory suggestion and statement made or you do the same.

I posted a thread when Roxana Saberi was freed from Iranian prison. To that there was the response, "when do we start carpet bombing Tehran?"

Certainly Muslim Americans are not the only Americans who want the US military out of the affairs of other countries. How come she couldn't just be a regular peace-nik??

Here's a recent quote from Ron Paul (and as far as I know he hasn't converted to Islam).

"But I do think that we’re less safe today, but I think we’re less safe because we haven’t changed our foreign policy. We still have a foreign policy of massive intervention over in the Middle East and as long as we continue with troops in Iraq, occupying and killing people in Afghanistan, and now spreading this war and chasing the Taliban over into Pakistan, there are going to be a lot of people involved that want to do us harm, so yes, I do feel less secure."

You were beginning to convince you had ideological principles in your beliefs, which while my personal experience, common sense and good judgment would have me disagree with, I could at least respect them. But now you're beginning to sound like allot of the other "us against them" airheads who don't stand for anything but situational ethics.

 

[skechers]

So? When you are through singing maybe You Might actually make some kind of point...

I find it sad that you couldn't see the point for yourself, friend.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

That's what you heard from whomever might have wanted that to be the consideration.

It has been stated on several different occasions that FBI refrained from involvement in these interogations once certain techniques were employed by CIA and/or their contractors to avoid legal jeopardy.

I don't think we can have an intelligent debate on this issue if I refer to every inflammatory suggestion and statement made or you do the same.

I posted a thread when Roxana Saberi was freed from Iranian prison. To that there was the response, "when do we start carpet bombing Tehran?"

Certainly Muslim Americans are not the only Americans who want the US military out of the affairs of other countries. How come she couldn't just be a regular peace-nik??

Here's a recent quote from Ron Paul (and as far as I know he hasn't converted to Islam).



You were beginning to convince you had ideological principles in your beliefs, which while my personal experience, common sense and good judgment would have me disagree with, I could at least respect them. But now you're beginning to sound like allot of the other "us against them" airheads who don't stand for anything but situational ethics.

I'm glad you are aware of "us against them" airheads, because your side is being used by some folks who Do NOT have loyalty to the U.S. at heart. All it takes is getting them out of their proper headspace and timing for their true motivations to come out. Taqfiris won't tell you the truth, it always warms my blackheart when someone slips up and lets everyone know what they are really all about.