HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...
Holy fuckballs. drumpf was more important than 58,220 others who fought and died for their country.
Jeez Us.
No, I'm just listening to the 3 former CIA directors like Tenet and Hayden and the hundreds of former and current CIA employees who say it does work and they wouldn't have caught OBL without it.
Former CIA director Hayden:Hundreds of former and current CIA employees huh?
Show me.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-darkFor example, critics say the Democratic staff never interviewed current or former CIA officials and relied instead on the prodigious trove of classified documents made available.
"Why were they afraid to talk to me, George, Jose, John and others?” Hayden asked, referring to Jose Rodriguez, who ran the program, in addition to Tenet and Rizzo. “What were they afraid of?” At the end of the day, Hayden said, he understood why there was a difference of opinion on some issues, but he refuted the idea that he or other CIA officials deliberately lied about the efficacy of the CIA interrogation program.
"All of us told the truth as we knew it. If they want to quibble on fact A, fact B, frankly I would argue with those points, but I would understand it,” Hayden said. “But the idea that three directors and three deputy directors and hundreds of CIA officers conspired to mislead the president, the Congress and the American people beggars the imagination."
Former CIA director Hayden:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark
All of the directors/deputy directors and hundreds of former and current employees created and continue to back ciasavedlives.com. Their mission statement makes it clear that EITs (including waterboarding) worked.Looks like you took something out of context, leading to you conflating two different issues.
You said : "I'm just listening to the 3 former CIA directors like Tenet and Hayden and the hundreds of former and current CIA employees who say it does work and they wouldn't have caught OBL without it."
Hayden said: “But the idea that three directors and three deputy directors and hundreds of CIA officers conspired to mislead the president, the Congress and the American people beggars the imagination."
His statement in no way supports the contention I asked you show me.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.or...savedlivescom-to-defend-interrogation-programWe, as former senior officers of the Central Intelligence Agency, created this website [ciasavedlives.com] to present documents that conclusively demonstrate that the program was: authorized by the President, overseen by the National Security Council, and deemed legal by the Attorney General of the United States on multiple occasions. None of those officials were interviewed either. None. CIA relied on their policy and legal judgments. We deceived no one. You will not find this truth in the Majority Report.
Absent from the report is any discussion of the context the United States faced after 9/11. This was a time we had solid evidence that al Qaida was planning a second wave of attacks against the U.S.; we had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons; we had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City; and we had hard evidence that al Qaida was trying to manufacture anthrax. It felt like a "ticking time bomb" every single day.
In this atmosphere, time was of the essence. We had a deep responsibility to do everything within the law to stop another attack. We clearly understood that, even with legal and policy approvals, our decisions would be questioned years later. But we also understood that we would be morally culpable for the deaths of fellow citizens if we failed to gain information that could stop the next attacks.
The report defies credulity by saying that the interrogation program did not produce any intelligence value. In fact, the program led to the capture of senior al Qaida leaders, including helping to find Usama bin Ladin, and resulted in operations that led to the disruption of terrorist plots that saved thousands of American and allied lives. ...
Our views are shared by the current CIA and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Republican Minority, both of which have released rebuttals to the Majority's report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments which challenge the Majority's contention in a nonpartisan way.
All of the directors/deputy directors and hundreds of former and current employees created and continue to back ciasavedlives.com. Their mission statement makes it clear that EITs (including waterboarding) worked.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.or...savedlivescom-to-defend-interrogation-program
It was all over the news in 2014 and yes even people that still work at the CIA support it because EITs worked when they employed them during the Bush admin. Whether there is a method that works better is not something we can quantify, yes it may exist. But we have solid testimony that EITs worked in finding bin laden.
All of the directors/deputy directors and hundreds of former and current employees created and continue to back ciasavedlives.com. Their mission statement makes it clear that EITs (including waterboarding) worked.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.or...savedlivescom-to-defend-interrogation-program
It was all over the news in 2014 and yes even people that still work at the CIA support it because EITs worked when they employed them during the Bush admin. Whether there is a method that works better is not something we can quantify, yes it may exist. But we have solid testimony that EITs worked in finding bin laden.
The most high-profile detainee linked to the bin Laden investigation was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused Sept. 11 mastermind who was waterboarded 183 times. Mohammed, intelligence officials have noted, confirmed after his 2003 capture that he knew an important al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.
The Senate report concludes such information wasn't critical, according to the aides. Mohammed only discussed al-Kuwaiti months after being waterboarded, while he was under standard interrogation, they said. And Mohammed neither acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's significance nor provided interrogators with the courier's real name.
All of the directors/deputy directors and hundreds of former and current employees created and continue to back ciasavedlives.com. Their mission statement makes it clear that EITs (including waterboarding) worked.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.or...savedlivescom-to-defend-interrogation-program
It was all over the news in 2014 and yes even people that still work at the CIA support it because EITs worked when they employed them during the Bush admin. Whether there is a method that works better is not something we can quantify, yes it may exist. But we have solid testimony that EITs worked in finding bin laden.
Yes, I agree with you on post #152. EITs is a mixed bag, what will work on one may not work on another. However, that doesn't mean that waterboarding didn't work. It didn't work on some people. Also, how can we say waterboarding is more cruel than sleep deprivation (still in the Army Field Manual as a technique) or extended solitary confinement (also still in the manual). Both can be viewed just as "torturous" physically/mentally as waterboarding. In fact, many prisons do consider it torture/mistreatment of a prisoner:Not sure what I think about that source, but I noticed now you are stressing EITs instead of waterboarding. Can you see how this response might be no news at all for the guy who made post #152?
“It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.”
The CIA said it worked on al-Baluchi, not KSM. lolA bipartisan investigation by the senate intelligence committee disagrees:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/31/senate-report-cia-torture/7140143/
Now current and former CIA employees who want to protect professional reputations and avoid prosecution certainly have a motive to say waterboarding worked. If this was only Democratic senators I could see a political motive the other way but it wasn't. It was a bipartisan group.
Certainly you can see the huge conflict of interest in taking the CIA's word for this.
The CIA said it worked on al-Baluchi, not KSM. lol
No, the CIA claimed both and a whole lot more on top of that. For a rundown of a number of the claims by the CIA that appear false now read this:
http://www.dailynews.com/social-aff...-claims-made-by-cia-on-tortures-effectiveness
It appears that the CIA has lied an awful lot about the effectiveness of these techniques, no? On top of their disputed claims they have a very clear incentive to lie. Why would you accept their assurances uncritically considering this blatant conflict of interest?
False, they have zero incentive to lie. None of them are getting prosecuted. EIT's were effective and most of them are even being used today.No, the CIA claimed both and a whole lot more on top of that. For a rundown of a number of the claims by the CIA that appear false now read this:
http://www.dailynews.com/social-aff...-claims-made-by-cia-on-tortures-effectiveness
It appears that the CIA has lied an awful lot about the effectiveness of these techniques, no? On top of their disputed claims they have a very clear incentive to lie. Why would you accept their assurances uncritically considering this blatant conflict of interest?
No, the CIA claimed both and a whole lot more on top of that. For a rundown of a number of the claims by the CIA that appear false now read this:
http://www.dailynews.com/social-aff...-claims-made-by-cia-on-tortures-effectiveness
It appears that the CIA has lied an awful lot about the effectiveness of these techniques, no? On top of their disputed claims they have a very clear incentive to lie. Why would you accept their assurances uncritically considering this blatant conflict of interest?
False, they have zero incentive to lie. None of them are getting prosecuted. EIT's were effective and most of them are even being used today.
Like what? Their reputation? Most of them are rich and retired and have zero fucks given.That's astoundingly lame. The perps, including GWB, have every reason to lie to preserve false integrity both now & in the future.
False, they have zero incentive to lie. None of them are getting prosecuted. EIT's were effective and most of them are even being used today.
Like what? Their reputation? Most of them are rich and retired and have zero fucks given.
Hundreds of former and current CIA employees huh?
Show me.
I agree with this, I've dated spooks before - especially from the analysis side of things. You can guess how that turned out when I asked them to make me dinner and try to learn how to cook. It ended up with her literally sitting and spinning and then (later) me telling her to figuratively sit and spin. Total basket case + a raging alcoholic to boot. :biggrin:Wow, he's under the impression that there's group think in that organization. Just like the real world there are conservatives and liberals that work for the CIA. The analysis community tends to be liberal, the operative side tends to be conservative. That's still really a generalization.
From a family with 2 generations that have worked there. My uncle was liberal and my dad was conservative. They voted differently. My uncle had a PHD my dad had none.
Tired of hearing about his former colleagues.
I agree with this, I've dated spooks before - especially from the analysis side of things. You can guess how that turned out when I asked them to make me dinner and try to learn how to cook. It ended up with her literally sitting and spinning and then (later) me telling her to figuratively sit and spin. Total basket case + a raging alcoholic to boot. :biggrin:
I know more about the organization than you think. Hayden said the CIA would probably never assume that role again because too many current employees that still work there were left with a bad taste from Congress backing them and then the same people turned on them when our country got overly PC.
The conclusion of the story is that Trump could add waterboarding back to the other EITs like sleep dep/solitary confinement with a simple executive order. There is nothing legally that can stop him, only insubordination at levels you and I would never know about at the time anyway.
I'm still waiting for these "other regulations" that cannot be Trumped by an executive order. Feel free to provide them any time.That is simply inaccurate. As already mentioned, the CIA is governed by the latest Defense Authorization Act that I quoted before. The FBI and other agencies are prohibited from torturing people under other regulations.