Obama releasing the CIA interogation memos

L

larry5

New Member
I thought this was a bad move. It really hurts America's fight in the war on terror. With this decision it seems he is more concerned about the safety of the terrorists than he is about our American military ! I liked this analysis. They gave him an F on this and so do I:
http://www.thebarackobamawatch.com/TERRORISM.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
larry5 said:
I thought this was a bad move. It really hurts America's fight in the war on terror. With this decision it seems he is more concerned about the safety of the terrorists than he is about our American military ! I liked this analysis. They gave him an F on this and so do I:
http://www.thebarackobamawatch.com/TERRORISM.html
Click to expand...
I think you've got the cart before the horse.

What really hurts Americas fight against terrorism is being caught out like a naughty kid with his hand in the biscuit barrel, using tactics no better than the terrorists and then trying (very unsuccessfully) to hide the fact.

We're supposed to be "The Good Guys" remember??? Unprofessional.....
 
Last edited:
Not to mention we just had a man run for president who successfully resisted interrogation methods like the ones we're using; they don't work that well.
 
larry5 said:
I thought this was a bad move. It really hurts America's fight in the war on terror. With this decision it seems he is more concerned about the safety of the terrorists than he is about our American military ! I liked this analysis. They gave him an F on this and so do I:
http://www.thebarackobamawatch.com/TERRORISM.html
Click to expand...

Do you know at the end of WWII. The US military tried, convicted and executed Japanese war criminals who used waterboarding to interogate American POWs. The Japanese sadistically called it "The Water Cure".

If we could hang the Japanese for using the exact same techniques doesnt that make us look abit hypocritical when we say its OK?

Oh and using a "bash-obama'' website as a source is not what I'd call reliable information.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, M. We have no right doing what we have punished others for in the past and the present. And going to a bash Obama site for reliable info on Obama is like asking the KKK for their opinion on Morris Dees. It just doesn't work.
 
I would like to see ONE instance where US troops broke bones, tore off fingernails, used drills into kneecaps, or hacked off ANYONE's head, terrorist or no, in this Global War on Islamist Terror. Had we done so, THEN someone could claim "using tactics no better than the terrorists and then trying (very unsuccessfully) to hide the fact."

Until that point is proven, then claiming we are acting as bad as the scum we were interrogating is sophistry and moral equivalency of a shoddy nature. Not trying to pick a fight here, but we WERE interrogating hardbitten fanatics who probably faced worse treatment than they received at the hands of US personnel in their own terrorist training camps.

And, trying to claim that our "waterboarding" techniques were the same as the Japanese water torture in WWII is another complete mischaracterization.

Frankly, Obama showing to the world what kid gloves we used on these lunatics makes the bad guys LESS afraid of us than before.

There is a huge reason that the violence in Iraq is escalating again: Weakness in the White House. When facing down murderers, puppy dog motivational posters are NOT the way to win.
 
Bropous stated:

I would like to see ONE instance where US troops broke bones, tore off fingernails, used drills into kneecaps, or hacked off ANYONE's head, terrorist or no, in this Global War on Islamist Terror. Had we done so, THEN someone could claim "using tactics no better than the terrorists and then trying (very unsuccessfully) to hide the fact."

So because we dont use the tactics you listed above we dont torture? Thats a very silly arguement. You didnt list the Bolivian Telephone or the Chinese Water Treatment, do you not think those arent methods of torture? Lets be honest here, you wouldnt last 10 seconds if you were being waterboarded. Everybody I have read about who has undergone the treatment says unequivilably that it IS torture, including a sitting Republican US Senator.

Until that point is proven, then claiming we are acting as bad as the scum we were interrogating is sophistry and moral equivalency of a shoddy nature. Not trying to pick a fight here, but we WERE interrogating hardbitten fanatics who probably faced worse treatment than they received at the hands of US personnel in their own terrorist training camps.

And, trying to claim that our "waterboarding" techniques were the same as the Japanese water torture in WWII is another complete mischaracterization.

Oh really? Please explain this in detail.

Frankly, Obama showing to the world what kid gloves we used on these lunatics makes the bad guys LESS afraid of us than before.

Obama has been in power about 4 months and you have already written him off? Doesnt sound like you were very objective to begin with. And lets not forget, who it was that got us into the mess in Iraq in the first place...it wasnt Obama.

There is a huge reason that the violence in Iraq is escalating again: Weakness in the White House. When facing down murderers, puppy dog motivational posters are NOT the way to win.

Oh because the reckless aggression, bravado, shoot first think later, cowboy wannabee tactics worked so well previously right?
 
Last edited:
mmarsh, sorry, won't get me to shed a tear that Khalid Sheik Mohammed got his face wet. And you are absolutely correct, I would not last ten seconds under ANY of these interrogation methods, but then again, I never did anything to cause me to be interrogated, Sir.

As for Obama, you bet your boots I NEVER gave him a chance. I have strong political convictions, and I have seen what Democrats have done to our nation each time they have been handed the White House in the time I have been alive. I saw Obama as a hard Left fundamentalist America-hating disciple of the Jeremiah Wright version of American geopolitics, which cannot be more diametrically opposed to my world view if he tried. So, no, I'm not one of these types who moisten their finger, hold it up to the wind, and see if the new political winds are to my liking a particular day: Obama is WRONG on EVERY issue, and he has proven so every day he has been in office, as wrong as I knew he would be, and actually, on Iran, even MORE wrong than I anticipated.

Again, I find the claim that US personnel commited actual torture on captives patently absurd, whether I would enjoy being treated in that manner or not. You want torture? Look to Abu Ghraib under Sadam Husayn, look to the Lubyanka, look to Castro's Cuba, look to any Chicom prison. But to call what US personnel did in interrogations of these Islamist savages is NOT "torture", and I for one am GLAD that these methods were used, because they saved American and allied lives, and the lives of countless innocent civilians. Obama just wanted to embarass the Bush Administration and his revelation of personnel's names and faces who carried out LAWFUL orders puts those personnel up as targets for retaliation. THAT, my friend, is TREASON, no matter who does it.

Torture is what the enemies of the west do, Sir. What was done at Abu Ghraib under Coalition control and Gitmo were NOT torture, no matter how many times you say it. I said I did not like what happened with folks who were shipped to Morocco, that WAS torture.

There is a BIG difference.
 
These tactics don't even work that well! Take waterboarding, for example. I've heard reports that they waterboarded some suspects as many as 200 times. At what point do you think the prisoners figured out that we weren't actually going to drown them and just shut up? Why not do what's worked so well for the past hundred or so years?

I have seen what the Democrats have done each time they have been handed the White House as well. There was a big economic boom in the 1990s, followed by a recession in the 2000s. And what is wrong with negotiating with our enemies? Had we not negotiated during the Cuban Missile Crisis, none of us would be here having this conversation right now.

Yes, you can look at the bad guys. But we're not the bad guys; America is the good guys, and as the good guys we can not use harsh methods to interrogate, whether you call it torture or not! I ask you to name one way that these methods have helped keep America safer. And the roundup of so called "inferior types" was legal in German controlled areas during WWII; in fact it was ordered by the head of state. Does that make it right?

And by your definition, THIS is not torture (viewer discretion advised): http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abuse_of_iraqis/abughraib2dog.jpg
 
"I've heard reports that they waterboarded some suspects as many as 200 times."

I heard that, too, then I heard the correction:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ts-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/

"A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment.

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds.

"The memos describe the controversial process: a detainee is strapped to a gurney with his head lowered and a cloth placed on his face. Interrogators pour water onto the cloth, which cuts off air flow to the mouth and nostrils, tripping his gag reflex, causing panic and giving him the sensation that he is drowning.

"At that point the cloth would be removed, the gurney rotated upright and the detainee would be allowed to breathe. The technique could be repeated a few times during a waterboarding session; Zubaydah said it was generally used once or twice, but he said he was waterboarded three times during one session.

The Justice Department memos described the maximum allowed use of the waterboard on any detainee, based on tactical training given to U.S. troops to resist interrogations:
-- Five days of use in one month, with no more than two "sessions" in a day;
-- Up to six applications (something like a dunk) lasting more than 10 seconds but less than 40 seconds per session;
-- 12 minutes of total "water application" in a 24-hour period"

And gee, I wonder, what does the "Al-Qaeda Interrogation Manual" allow, and how often has the IRC and Amnesty International visited the Taliban POW Camps?

Bueller? Bueller?

*cue crickets chirping*
 
Last edited:
bropous said:
mmarsh, sorry, won't get me to shed a tear that Khalid Sheik Mohammed got his face wet. And you are absolutely correct, I would not last ten seconds under ANY of these interrogation methods, but then again, I never did anything to cause me to be interrogated, Sir.

As for Obama, you bet your boots I NEVER gave him a chance. I have strong political convictions, and I have seen what Democrats have done to our nation each time they have been handed the White House in the time I have been alive. I saw Obama as a hard Left fundamentalist America-hating disciple of the Jeremiah Wright version of American geopolitics, which cannot be more diametrically opposed to my world view if he tried. So, no, I'm not one of these types who moisten their finger, hold it up to the wind, and see if the new political winds are to my liking a particular day: Obama is WRONG on EVERY issue, and he has proven so every day he has been in office, as wrong as I knew he would be, and actually, on Iran, even MORE wrong than I anticipated.

Again, I find the claim that US personnel commited actual torture on captives patently absurd, whether I would enjoy being treated in that manner or not. You want torture? Look to Abu Ghraib under Sadam Husayn, look to the Lubyanka, look to Castro's Cuba, look to any Chicom prison. But to call what US personnel did in interrogations of these Islamist savages is NOT "torture", and I for one am GLAD that these methods were used, because they saved American and allied lives, and the lives of countless innocent civilians. Obama just wanted to embarass the Bush Administration and his revelation of personnel's names and faces who carried out LAWFUL orders puts those personnel up as targets for retaliation. THAT, my friend, is TREASON, no matter who does it.

Torture is what the enemies of the west do, Sir. What was done at Abu Ghraib under Coalition control and Gitmo were NOT torture, no matter how many times you say it. I said I did not like what happened with folks who were shipped to Morocco, that WAS torture.

There is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Funny you should bring up Khalid Sheik Muhummad, because thats a very interesting case. After 2 years of letting the Pakistanis torture him (in which we got very little usable info) his handlers decided to try and flip him and the best information he gave volentarily without coercion. Which proves time and time again that information obtained under duress is of little use. You have had all the experts say the same thing for years now, a man screaming for his suffering to end will say absolutely anything in order for it to stop. Not a very accurate tool for extradicting information, espicially when there are far more easier and effective ways.

I never liked Bush but I gave him a full year (thats 25% of his first term) before I made up my mind. If you admit you never gave Obama a chance (even before he was president perhaps?) then your opinion of him cannot be held with any real serious merit. Being Critical is one thing, being obtuse is another. Your arguement is typical of the rightwing, oppose Obama on everything, and offer no alternative but the tactics than have repeatively failed in the past. Better to have Obama fail and the country with him than have to admit that he did something right. Well let me tell you, this is exactly why conservative popularity is lower than stomach flu, and until you put the country first instead of partisan politics you are going to lose election after election. You are already speeding toward another disaster in 2010.

Getting back to torture, do you honestly think torturing people made America safer, thats extremely ignorant comment, and I mean no insult but you are living in a divorced-from-reality sheltered enviroment if you believe that. Let me tell you something I have been around the world quite abit and let me tell you that Abu Garib/Gitmo was the biggest advertisement for Terrorist recruitment you could ever imagine. I can tell you as a fact that Abu Garib was used a recruitment tool for just about every Islamic Lunatic out there. Dont you get it? thats why people everywhere wanted Gitmo closed? It was doing far more bad than good in the global war against terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Well, KSM or ANY al-Qaeda experiencing nothing more than momentary discomfort at the hands of US personnel intent upon (and legally constrained to) doing no lasting physical harm STILL won't get my eyes moist.

"I never liked Bush but I gave him a full year (thats 25% of his first term) before I made up my mind."

Not my fault you have no core political convictions. I do. I AM a conservative, and you can chortle all you like at the problems within the Republican Party, which tells me that I will have the same opinion of your position as you of mine. Fair enough, it's a free country, for at least a LITTLE while longer...

Again, you claim that I state that torturing people made America safer. That is a LIE. I do NOT accept the claim that US personnel tortured ANYONE. As far as inducements for terrorist recruitment, I would state instead it was the constant parade of panty-waisted liberal handwringing that convinced the Islamofascists that if they applied just a little more pressure, the gutless liberals in the US would undercut the war effort, and America would run home with her tail between her legs. THAT is what led the terrorists to hit us in the first place, WEAKNESS, and it is WEAKNESS under a weak-kneed, Islamofascistic sympathizing administration that is causing the uptick in Islamofascism once again.

What the "Muslim Street" respects is strength, and we were showing it for a while after 9/11, til the Code Pink Kumbayah "let's just treat them nice and they will leave us alone" chorus and Democrat elected officials felt it was safe to drop their FAKE patriotism and show their true colors (YELLOW) once again. Obama has a yellow streak as wide as a highway all the way down his back, and he has shown it every single day of his maladministration.

I don't apologize for my pro-America, pro-western, pro-Israeli, conservative values because I know they are right. Those who can't even make up their minds what side of the political divide they come down on (and oh, yes, there IS a difference, a person either stands for VICTORY for the West in this existential struggle against Jihadic savages or they stand for capitulation and Realpolitik) aren't really ones I care whether they understand. However, I do think there are PLENTY of veterans who understand exactly my points made in this thread.

Think as you will, that is your right. But I know that a lot more veterans see this war like I do than agree with your perspective. A lot of vets really dislike the way the home front undercut, under-reported, and ignored their successes in the field, and don't buy this crap that somehow because the bad guys got nothing more than their feelings hurt that it somehow makes our people as bad as the enemy.
 
larry5 said:
It really hurts America's fight in the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Look, when I went to serve, I did this *inspired* by the US that had beat my fathers generation for what was wrong then, and deservedly so.

In CW, we were standing there in Germany (not really expecting to fight anytime or, if so, being anihilated within 24 hours not only as forces but also as nation and people...) on the outmost border of the *free* West (and *free* at this time meant something to us, the values that we Westerners all share, what then was called "moral supremacy": *WE* DO NOT TORUTRE !!! Ever!! And, we do not kill civilians, we spare religious monuments, we try to reduce collateral damage, we do not use human shields, and we just slug it out between us and the bad guys. Adapt!).

With the war in Iraq (*not* Afghanistan!) US lost that insprirational power, with Obama it seems they are gainig it back.

Now, tell someone joining today that he has to torture in the WaT, and you will really just get the wackos to sign up, analphabetic trash that would not know a value from a valve... You follow tat line like GWB jr did, and you can safely forget about moral supremacy or whatever along that line, whcih IMHO still is the major force multiplier.

Seriously, where do you see the damage to WaT if you root out your wackos (and be they the top brass) and repeat that *we* are the good ones?

Rattler
 
Last edited:
The main beef the "Muslim Street" has with the US is that we talk down to them and periodically invade them in a show of strength. It's the main reason they show us no respect; we don't show them any.

By the way, I support the war in Afghanistan. There is a need to destroy governments that support terrorist organizations. But Iraq was not one of those governments. And how has Obama shown a "yellow streak" as you call it in any way? Because he doesn't feel the need to make his problems go away by invading them?

And I don't accept your non-apolgy because I know you are wrong. Those who insist that there are only two extreme variables and no middle ground are more of the ones I'm worried about because they often belong to one of those extremes and cause my country more problems then they're worth. As for veterans who share your sentiments? I could just as easily come up with a large list of vets who disagree with you.
 
I certainly think that invading Iraq, removing a bloodthirsty dictator, and ensuring a REAL future for their people has done more, and freed more Muslims from a brutal dictator, than the entire Muslim world has done for their own in a century.

I have YET to see ANY Muslim nation act to free another.
 
They've been trying to free themselves from the oppression of the Western World for thousands of years. And in removing that dictator we allowed Iran to get out of check and successfully destabilized the entire region.

And what about that picture link I posted on the last page? By your definition, am I understanding, you do not consider that torture?
 
bropous said:
I would like to see ONE instance where US troops broke bones, tore off fingernails, used drills into kneecaps, or hacked off ANYONE's head, terrorist or no, in this Global War on Islamist Terror. Had we done so, THEN someone could claim "using tactics no better than the terrorists and then trying (very unsuccessfully) to hide the fact."
Click to expand...
there are many things we did not do, but they are not the point of the discussion, what this thread is about is what we were caught doing. We didn't commit the rape of Nanking either, but that in no way lessens our guilt for what we did do.


And, trying to claim that our "waterboarding" techniques were the same as the Japanese water torture in WWII is another complete mischaracterization.
Click to expand...
If it is a not 100% correct it is still closer to the truth than your interpretation. So the Japanese did not use cloth but merely poured a constant stream of water on a restrained prisoners up turned face. The sensation and possibility of drowning are the same. You are just using semantics to try worm (unsuccessfully) around the truth.
Frankly, Obama showing to the world what kid gloves we used on these lunatics makes the bad guys LESS afraid of us than before.
Click to expand...
You overestimate our influence, the fact of the matter is that they are not even vaguely afraid of the coalition. They are individuals who are quite willing to die just to take out one of our troops. Stupid?,... maybe, afraid?,... Naaahhh,... not even vaguely. You read too many comic books. You have broken the first rule of successful warfare, "NEVER underestimate your opponent"

There is a huge reason that the violence in Iraq is escalating again: Weakness in the White House. When facing down murderers, puppy dog motivational posters are NOT the way to win.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that your understanding of our enemies psyche and motivation make you a pretty poor judge to be making statements like that. From reading your posts I'd say your primary motivation is based more on US party politics rather than what's really going on in Iraq.

bropous said:
"I've heard reports that they waterboarded some suspects as many as 200 times."

I heard that, too, then I heard the correction:
Click to expand...
Correction??? The correct words are "cover up" as one set of figures was from those given by the torturers to appease their bosses, the other was given to appease their detractors. So it all comes down to which liar do you believe. I believe that in view of past evidence, the first is nearest to the truth. e.g. the story of Moazzam Beg the totally innocent taxi driver who was beaten to death whist undergoing preliminary "softening up" prior to interrogation. If we kill them during softening up, what must the interrogation be like.

Yet you rabbit on, about we are not using torture, where do you read this rubbish, or do you just make it up because it suits your own views?
 
Last edited:
bropous said:
I have YET to see ANY Muslim nation act to free another.
Click to expand...

I'd say you missed or slept through the 1st Gulf War then. I recall troops from several Arab/Islamic countries as part of the coalition that liberated Kuwait, from Iraq...........................Just sayin.
 
bropous said:
I certainly think that invading Iraq, removing a bloodthirsty dictator, and ensuring a REAL future for their people has done more, and freed more Muslims from a brutal dictator, than the entire Muslim world has done for their own in a century.

I have YET to see ANY Muslim nation act to free another.
Click to expand...

I am sorry Bropous, I have a hard time understanding all you say... But what do you expect of none-native speakers eh? I try to follow your reasoning on some of the statements when I came across this one. Can you tell me why the US picked Iraq to invade. Did they have nothing better to do? And if so why not invade most African nations and some in Southeast Asia too. I mean, they have bloodthirsty dictators too. So why limit your urge of spreading real futures to Iraq alone?

Kind regards,
Ted from Holland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top