PDA

View Full Version : AP sources: Report shows CIA interrogation methods



Roger Perry
08-22-2009, 12:32 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the Justice Department considers whether to investigate alleged harsh interrogation practices sanctioned by the Bush administration, sources say a soon-to-be-released report by the CIA's inspector general reveals that agency interrogators conducted mock executions of terror suspects.

Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CIA_INTERROGATIONS?SITE=FLPAP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-08-22-09-16-13

subroc
08-22-2009, 12:42 PM
sounds good.

Raymond Little
08-22-2009, 12:51 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the Justice Department considers whether to investigate alleged harsh interrogation practices sanctioned by the Bush administration, sources say a soon-to-be-released report by the CIA's inspector general reveals that agency interrogators conducted mock executions of terror suspects.

Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CIA_INTERROGATIONS?SITE=FLPAP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-08-22-09-16-13

They didn't killem did they?? WORKS FOR ME.

Bob Gutermuth
08-22-2009, 01:08 PM
They should have let me at those terrorists, waterboarding and such would have seemed tame. When they enlisted in Terror Inc, they gave CIA license to interrogate them as necessary. Terrorists deserve NO RIGHTS.

AmiableLabs
08-22-2009, 01:38 PM
Is my family safer or more in danger?

I think I know the answer.

badbullgator
08-22-2009, 03:03 PM
As I have siad many times, I don't care what they do to them, Pull fingernails off, beat them, I don't care, Good for the CIA and the Bush admin for doing what it takes

YardleyLabs
08-22-2009, 04:34 PM
As I have siad many times, I don't care what they do to them, Pull fingernails off, beat them, I don't care, Good for the CIA and the Bush admin for doing what it takes
Is that what you believe the law should permit or what you believe should be done even when it is explicitly illegal?

subroc
08-22-2009, 04:39 PM
anyone know what the range of punishment allowed by the statute for anyone that breaks that particualr law?

TXduckdog
08-22-2009, 05:59 PM
Is that what you believe the law should permit or what you believe should be done even when it is explicitly illegal?

In some instances, for national security for instance, suspension of the law is a necessary evil.

When you speak of "explicitly illegal", there's morally, a big difference, miles and miles actually between murder and mayhem and interrogation techniques that do no physical harm but do produce enough psychological discomfort to get valued information that will prevent further m/m.

Folks here in the US have to understand that these people are not just mere combatants, but inflamed sociopaths with serious political agendas. Agendas that include death to the infidels....anyone that doesn't hold to their value system.....they commit execution style murder on relatively innocent people, like women who have affairs or will flog in public a young woman not wearing a burka or wearing pants.

Psychological intimidation seems a little tame in comparison to behaviour like that. Laws like that were put in place by people who want the US to lose. These people need to understand that if they were somehow to be over-run by the extremists, their support of these laws would not mean a thing, violence would be visited on them right along with any other infidel.

Roger Perry
08-22-2009, 06:16 PM
Is my family safer or more in danger?

I think I know the answer.

Really, I have an elephant no tresspassing sign elephants will be shot on sight in my front yard. And wouldn't you know I have not had one elephant show up in my yard?

JDogger
08-22-2009, 06:21 PM
In some instances, for national security for instance, suspension of the law is a necessary evil.

When you speak of "explicitly illegal", there's morally, a big difference, miles and miles actually between murder and mayhem and interrogation techniques that do no physical harm but do produce enough psychological discomfort to get valued information that will prevent further m/m.


Folks here in the US have to understand that these people are not just mere combatants, but inflamed sociopaths with serious political agendas. Agendas that include death to the infidels....anyone that doesn't hold to their value system.....they commit execution style murder on relatively innocent people, like women who have affairs or will flog in public a young woman not wearing a burka or wearing pants.

Psychological intimidation seems a little tame in comparison to behaviour like that. Laws like that were put in place by people who want the US to lose. These people need to understand that if they were somehow to be over-run by the extremists, their support of these laws would not mean a thing, violence would be visited on them right along with any other infidel.

You don't find anything contradictory in your statements do you?

For example, is an Iraqi national who detonates an IED directed at an occupying foreign army, that invaded under a false pretext, yet remains under yet another false pretext, acting in the perception of his 'national security' or is he just another garden variety terrorist?

K G
08-22-2009, 06:26 PM
Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.

There is something oxymoronic about this....a "threat" of death against an enemy combatant is "illegal." :rolleyes: Now, HE and his fellow jihadists can capture an American, show him to the world via videotape, threaten HIM with death lest he admit to committing atrocities against Iraq/Afghanistan...and that's okay....:confused:

To quote Chris Cooper in "American Beauty:" "This world is going straight to hell."

kg

Sundown49 aka Otey B
08-22-2009, 06:32 PM
Well I can say just one thing ........WHY DID THEY JUST THREATEN THEM? The terrorists don't stop with ours. They don't just threaten they KILL ours.

AmiableLabs
08-22-2009, 06:50 PM
Really, I have an elephant no tresspassing sign elephants will be shot on sight in my front yard. And wouldn't you know I have not had one elephant show up in my yard?
Nice try, but that is not a valid analogy.

Try again. This time you might try symbolic logic.

YardleyLabs
08-22-2009, 06:51 PM
There is something oxymoronic about this....a "threat" of death against an enemy combatant is "illegal." :rolleyes: Now, HE and his fellow jihadists can capture an American, show him to the world via videotape, threaten HIM with death lest he admit to committing atrocities against Iraq/Afghanistan...and that's okay....:confused:

To quote Chris Cooper in "American Beauty:" "This world is going straight to hell."

kg
If we follow their rules, how are we better? It still seems to me that there is a difference between endorsing a change in the laws to make torture legal or to make certain types of torture legal under certain circumstances, vs. engaging in behavior that is explicitly against our laws. If we are going to say that laws may be suspended at times for "national defense", we still need to define the legal framework within which that will be done.accepting that, for now, Obama could be the one making that determination.

Otey, in my mind, the day we begin to behave like al Quaeda, we are al Quaeda and deserve the same contempt.

K G
08-22-2009, 08:42 PM
Jeff, you REALLY don't want to go there.

al Qaeda flies planes into buildings....they have no shame for killing thousands of innocents all over the world....and show no signs of stopping.

Please don't make the comparison that if we THREATEN a prisoner, we are the same as they are....that's left-wing logic beyond the pale.

I'm good with the "closing Guantanamo" thing, although I think it's less and less likely (and "we can't handle the truth")....Abu Ghraib could have been a WHOLE lot worse (think Dachau or Buchenwald)....but rules in war that only one side has to follow?....what a joke regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Sundown49 aka Otey B
08-22-2009, 08:52 PM
Yardley, when I was in command of troops in the military I did what it took to keep men in my command SAFE. My men felt safe because they knew that. Obama is the Commander in Chief I don't feel safe now because of the dumb ideas this old mean world is Utopia. He has the village idiots as his advisors and the agenda they have for the USA sure isn't my way of thinking. If you believe all the stuff that is being spouted by the government you must believe the nursery rhyme "THE SKY IS FALLING". The ones needing waterboarding is our Congress as they have sold out the American people to the special interest groups. I have lost all trust in our government.A housecleaning and reform needs to take place but will never happen because of the money that changes hands in our government. I have a friend that is an FBI agent. He did 6 months undercover on corruption in our Congress. Had a UHAUL truck full of evidence and the Justice Department QUASHED it. Funny business to me. Change YEAH we need it . Clean out the CROOKS>

dnf777
08-22-2009, 09:26 PM
Clean out the CROOKS>

We did. Except we replaced them with more crooks.

JDogger
08-22-2009, 10:02 PM
Jeff, you REALLY don't want to go there.

al Qaeda flies planes into buildings....they have no shame for killing thousands of innocents all over the world....and show no signs of stopping.

Please don't make the comparison that if we THREATEN a prisoner, we are the same as they are....that's left-wing logic beyond the pale.

I'm good with the "closing Guantanamo" thing, although I think it's less and less likely (and "we can't handle the truth")....Abu Ghraib could have been a WHOLE lot worse (think Dachau or Buchenwald)....but rules in war that only one side has to follow?....what a joke regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Yeah, KG. Let's set the standard at the lowest common denominator. Lets have 'them' set the standard for 'us'. Good choice.

JD

Pat G
08-22-2009, 11:45 PM
JD are you condoning the planting of IED's by your EXAMPLE? I bet your standards would change after your son or nephew or neighbor gets shreaded by IED, maybe you can invite the SOB's to your home and apoligize. You should stick to posting your redneck links!
Pat

dnf777
08-23-2009, 06:42 AM
JD are you condoning the planting of IED's by your EXAMPLE? I bet your standards would change after your son or nephew or neighbor gets shreaded by IED, maybe you can invite the SOB's to your home and apoligize. You should stick to posting your redneck links!
Pat

That is extremely out of context, mean, and offensive. Nobody on this list would condone IEDs and YOU KNOW IT. If someone has a different point of view, the typical response is to twist words into making someone condone killing of our boys and girls? (men and women I should say, I'm just getting old)

And referring to Yardley as a "redneck" is insulting to us true rednecks! Hell, I bet he's never even carried a gun to a presidential rally!!

YardleyLabs
08-23-2009, 07:51 AM
Jeff, you REALLY don't want to go there.

al Qaeda flies planes into buildings....they have no shame for killing thousands of innocents all over the world....and show no signs of stopping.

Please don't make the comparison that if we THREATEN a prisoner, we are the same as they are....that's left-wing logic beyond the pale.

I'm good with the "closing Guantanamo" thing, although I think it's less and less likely (and "we can't handle the truth")....Abu Ghraib could have been a WHOLE lot worse (think Dachau or Buchenwald)....but rules in war that only one side has to follow?....what a joke regards, :rolleyes:

kg
Keith,

If you read my post, I think you will find I did no such thing. I said that if we begin to act like al Quaeda we are no better than they are. That means if we begin to execute prisoners in interrogation, as Otey seemed to suggest, then we deserve to be held in the same contempt as those who behead prisoners on TV.

My comment about the threats to kill have to do with whether or not you are condoning an interrogation technique that all agree is illegal under US law. Personally I would not like the law to be changed to make such a technique legal. You seem to be saying that either it should be legal, which I would understand, or that we should all agree that the law doesn't matter in cases of national security. That surprised me based on your normal respect for rules and laws and I was wondering if you actually believe that or if you simply don't want to deal with the fact that the law that exists was apparently broken.

Pete
08-23-2009, 08:29 AM
Holding mock executions on a jihadist is like offering a child a piece of candy and not giving it to them


You know,,,,just a senerio----if we ever had a civil war in this country left against right I would spend most of my time trying to get captured. The liberals make everything seem like a vacation.

Totally brutal

Pete

DSO
08-23-2009, 09:35 AM
Really, I have an elephant no trespassing sign elephants will be shot on sight in my front yard. And wouldn't you know I have not had one elephant show up in my yard?


Really... And this worked after the elephants flew commercial jet liners into two sky scrapers in your yard and killed a bunch of people...? Damn! Why didn't the Dubya administration think of it. Just put up terrorist no trespassing signs. While your at it, throw something on the signs for the illegal immigrants so they know to stay out as well. Lets get these signs up ASAP! Please pass this info on to the current administration and all will be right with the world.

"Here's your sign" regards... Danny

code3retrievers
08-23-2009, 11:16 AM
Obama just shifted the war on terrorists to the war on taxpayers!

TXduckdog
08-23-2009, 12:05 PM
You don't find anything contradictory in your statements do you?

For example, is an Iraqi national who detonates an IED directed at an occupying foreign army, that invaded under a false pretext, yet remains under yet another false pretext, acting in the perception of his 'national security' or is he just another garden variety terrorist?


Well for one....we're not at war with Iraq or Iraqi nationals that are in anyway supported by the Iraqi government. If Iraqi nationals have joined Al Queda, then absolutely they are just another garden variety terrorist that needs to be helped expeditiously along to his virgins.

Secondly, Your judgements about an occupying foreign army and false pretexts don't wash here and more importantly over there, just ask the hundreds of thousands Iraqi 'nationals' with ink stained fingers.

Thirdly, a terrorist with a perception of 'national security'? Puh-leeze.

Roger Perry
08-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Really... And this worked after the elephants flew commercial jet liners into two sky scrapers in your yard and killed a bunch of people...? Damn! Why didn't the Dubya administration think of it. Just put up terrorist no trespassing signs. While your at it, throw something on the signs for the illegal immigrants so they know to stay out as well. Lets get these signs up ASAP! Please pass this info on to the current administration and all will be right with the world.

"Here's your sign" regards... Danny

Here is an example how Bush was "protecting our country against terrorists" after 9/11.

MIAMI - Seven people were arrested Thursday in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago’s Sears Tower and other buildings in the U.S., federal law-enforcement sources told NBC News.
FBI agents swarmed over a warehouse in Miami's Liberty City area, using a blowtorch to take off its metal door. Neighbors said the suspects said they were Muslim and had tried to recruit young people to join their group, which seemed militaristic.

Now, these "terrorists" were probably sitting around smoking crack fantasizing about blowing up a building as I used to do as a child should we be invaded by Russians.

DSO
08-23-2009, 12:43 PM
Here is an example how Bush was "protecting our country against terrorists" after 9/11.

MIAMI - Seven people were arrested Thursday in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago’s Sears Tower and other buildings in the U.S., federal law-enforcement sources told NBC News.
FBI agents swarmed over a warehouse in Miami's Liberty City area, using a blowtorch to take off its metal door. Neighbors said the suspects said they were Muslim and had tried to recruit young people to join their group, which seemed militaristic.

Now, these "terrorists" were probably sitting around smoking crack fantasizing about blowing up a building as I used to do as a child should we be invaded by Russians.

Pink elephants possibly...? :rolleyes:

K G
08-23-2009, 05:18 PM
Keith,

If you read my post, I think you will find I did no such thing. I said that if we begin to act like al Quaeda we are no better than they are. That means if we begin to execute prisoners in interrogation, as Otey seemed to suggest, then we deserve to be held in the same contempt as those who behead prisoners on TV.

Well, you didn't include "if" in your post...and the question is whether or not we can THREATEN a prisoner (our method, our ILLEGAL method...:rolleyes:) as opposed to their "parade them around on al Jazeera TV, make them sound like cowards, and do it all to build support for our admittedly terrorist organization"....oh, and then kill them if we so choose "style." Apples to apples, right? :confused:


My comment about the threats to kill have to do with whether or not you are condoning an interrogation technique that all agree is illegal under US law. Personally I would not like the law to be changed to make such a technique legal. You seem to be saying that either it should be legal, which I would understand, or that we should all agree that the law doesn't matter in cases of national security. That surprised me based on your normal respect for rules and laws and I was wondering if you actually believe that or if you simply don't want to deal with the fact that the law that exists was apparently broken.

My opinion is NOT going to set US policy on the matter...nor is yours. Yes, I DO think it should be legal...this is war and war is barbaric, ESPECIALLY when you are fighting a combatant that has displayed ZERO regard for human life, innocent bystander or not. THAT breaks the "rules," Jeff....THAT makes all "humane treatment of captives" clauses null and void in my book, much less "theatening" them. Does the Geneva Convention (or its current title) matter to al Qaeda? THEY WILL KILL THEIR OWN PEOPLE, Jeff. You don't/can't "reason" with animals like that. They KNOW what our "laws" are and they will exploit them to their advantage. They WANT us to waste our time worrying about 3 detainees at Guantanamo being waterboarded...they WANT us to spend time prosecuting some grunts over putting a detainee on a leash and taking a picture of him naked. WE have the problem here, Jeff....WE are trying to make war HUMANE...and theres no such thing....no such thing.

kg

subroc
08-23-2009, 06:17 PM
Jeff

I searched for the punishment allowed by statute for such a heinous crime as threatening to kill a prisoner. I also asked above. The article didn't mention it and I couldn’t find it.

How does your liberal sensibility weigh such a heinous deed? Is it a day of with pay and a reprimand, the equivalent of a traffic ticket for speeding (some type of fine), dishonorable discharge, some jail time or a felony of the highest order worthy of the highest punishment our society can hand out and disgrace of his/her military or civilian (cia) career for the individual performing the act?

Lets assume there is no lower limit and the upper limit is 10 years in a federal prison.

Just want to know where you stand

JDogger
08-23-2009, 06:46 PM
Well for one....we're not at war with Iraq, Oh really? or Iraqi nationals that are in anyway supported by the Iraqi government. an installed puppet government If Iraqi nationals have joined Al Queda, then absolutely they are just another garden variety terrorist that needs to be helped expeditiously along to his virgins. What was the Al Queda presence in Iraq previous to our presense, do tell?

Secondly, Your judgements about an occupying foreign army and false pretexts don't wash here and more importantly over there, just ask the hundreds of thousands Iraqi 'nationals' with ink stained fingers.
OK, lets play 'what if ?' So Texas does indeed decide to secede. The feds do not want that to happen and send in troops to maintain control. The more militant secessionists, members of para-military right -wing militias, not supported by the rebelious Texas government, plant and detonate an IED that kills federal troops. Garden variety terrorists? Or freedom fighters resisting the occupation?

Thirdly, a terrorist with a perception of 'national security'? Puh-leeze. I didn't say terrorist, I said Iraqi national. You changed my words to suit you own view.

But thank you, you answered my question. You do not see the contradiction....

JD

YardleyLabs
08-23-2009, 07:32 PM
Jeff

I searched for the punishment allowed by statute for such a heinous crime as threatening to kill a prisoner. I also asked above. The article didn't mention it and I couldn’t find it.

How does your liberal sensibility weigh such a heinous deed? Is it a day of with pay and a reprimand, the equivalent of a traffic ticket for speeding (some type of fine), dishonorable discharge, some jail time or a felony of the highest order worthy of the highest punishment our society can hand out and disgrace of his/her military or civilian (cia) career for the individual performing the act?

Lets assume there is no lower limit and the upper limit is 10 years in a federal prison.

Just want to know where you stand

I also searched unsuccessfully for the penalty information. I think my reaction would depend on the circumstances.

My views on anti-torture laws are complex.

First, I believe that if a law exists, then it should be followed by those acting for our government. I can understand how, in the heat of the battlefield, some lines might be crossed. However, when a person is completely under our control far behind the lines and we are not looking at the clock ticking on the bomb with five minutes to go (which pretty well describes all of the interrogations where we have had issues), I see no special justification for us to torture prisoners.

I believe we are defined solely by our actions, not by who we are or how we justify what we do. I'm not prepared to have my morality defined by the immorality of al Quaeda or any other idiots thinking that they are doing God's work. I do not believe that evil justifies evil. Ultimately I believe we are engaged in a war about morality and we cannot win by adopting the morals of our opponents.

Having said that, I am also my father's son. My father taught me that anyone who started a fight against a weaker opponent was a bully and that bullies are bad. As a consequence, I learned to only pick fights with people who could easily beat me up.

After losing a lot of fights, a few teeth, and having a few stitches, I learned that the secret to fighting a bigger, stronger opponent was to fight dirty and fight to win (a lesson that makes me slow to judge "terrorists" including our own revolutionary ancestors). The difference is that I never asked anyone to pretend my methods were good because of the circumstances. I was perfectly happy to accept the consequences of my actions.

In my mind, if the circumstances of the moment are such that a CIA interrogator believes that it is important to violate our laws on behavior, he should not complain if he is then prosecuted. I'll thank him for his services even as I lock the door to his cell. What I would not do is give him a free pass. If, by some miracle, his action actually saved thousands of innocent lives, I would probably bend a few lines. However, I would be pretty sceptical about such claims.

subroc
08-23-2009, 08:11 PM
Well, no one can pin you down.

I really didn't want to bring all the extraneous stuff into this particular question just an answer to how much punishment does this warrant.

Since you did though, is this, in your view, torture?

TXduckdog
08-23-2009, 08:24 PM
Well for one....we're not at war with Iraq, Oh really? or Iraqi nationals that are in anyway supported by the Iraqi government. an installed puppet government If Iraqi nationals have joined Al Queda, then absolutely they are just another garden variety terrorist that needs to be helped expeditiously along to his virgins. What was the Al Queda presence in Iraq previous to our presense, do tell?

Secondly, Your judgements about an occupying foreign army and false pretexts don't wash here and more importantly over there, just ask the hundreds of thousands Iraqi 'nationals' with ink stained fingers.
OK, lets play 'what if ?' So Texas does indeed decide to secede. The feds do not want that to happen and send in troops to maintain control. The more militant secessionists, members of para-military right -wing militias, not supported by the rebelious Texas government, plant and detonate an IED that kills federal troops. Garden variety terrorists? Or freedom fighters resisting the occupation?

Thirdly, a terrorist with a perception of 'national security'? Puh-leeze. I didn't say terrorist, I said Iraqi national. You changed my words to suit you own view.

But thank you, you answered my question. You do not see the contradiction....

JD

By and large we're at war with "insurgents" who are members of or are backed by terrorist parties, primarily Al Queda.

Hard to say what extent the presence of Al Queda prior to our involvement in overthrowing the Hussein regime. Certainly being financed and trained. They very quickly filled the vaccum left by the regime and have become the predominant threat.

The Texas right wing militia killing federal troops.....terrorists.

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 06:28 AM
Well, no one can pin you down.

I really didn't want to bring all the extraneous stuff into this particular question just an answer to how much punishment does this warrant.

Since you did though, is this, in your view, torture?
By this, I assume you mean simulated executions. If so, yes. With respect to penalites, I was not trying to be evasive. I think penalties have to fit the crime. If, for example, a "subject" died durind "harsh interrogation" or simulated execution, I believe the interrogator should face manslaughter charges with penalties in the 5-20 range depending on the specifics. If an interrogator implied a threat of possible death, had a gun fired in another room and said they had just executed another "subject", I would probably go with loss of job and all pension rights.

Roger Perry
08-25-2009, 07:30 AM
Report: CIA used ‘inhumane’ tactics

AG appoints prosecutor to look into claims of detainee abuses NBC News and news services


updated 1:35 a.m. ET, Tues., Aug 25, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation Monday into harsh questioning of detainees during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, revealing CIA interrogators' threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.

The report also suggested some questioners knew they were crossing a line. "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this (but) it has to be done," one unidentified CIA officer said in the report, predicting that interrogators would someday have to appear in court to answer for such tactics.

Pete
08-25-2009, 08:37 AM
The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation Monday into harsh questioning of detainees during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, revealing CIA interrogators' threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted

If this is true there is a reason we have gotten to this point.
We are not allowed to water board or offer sweet and sour pork to prisnors
Pete

Bob Gutermuth
08-25-2009, 08:58 AM
Next they will want OJ's dream team to defend those scumbags. Course the judges will throw the cases out since nobody mirandized them on the battlefield.

K G
08-25-2009, 08:58 AM
Report: CIA used ‘inhumane’ tactics

AG appoints prosecutor to look into claims of detainee abuses NBC News and news services


updated 1:35 a.m. ET, Tues., Aug 25, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation Monday into harsh questioning of detainees during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, revealing CIA interrogators' threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.

The report also suggested some questioners knew they were crossing a line. "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this (but) it has to be done," one unidentified CIA officer said in the report, predicting that interrogators would someday have to appear in court to answer for such tactics.


This was after BHO had stated earlier this year that there would be NO criminal investigations. He's got to divert attention from his Health Care debacle and the Cap and Trade morass to follow....business as usual in Washington....

kg

Henry V
08-25-2009, 09:10 AM
Yeah, but please keep in mind that torture is so darn effective and that interrogation experts agree that there really are no other more effective options. Not to mention the fact that it is not at all beneath the principles of this great nation. :(

I mean come on, Abu Zabuydah only had to be water boarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Muhammad only 183 times and every bit of information that they gave was factual and probably did not lead to any wasted investigations.

K G
08-25-2009, 09:36 AM
And those are the methods we KNOW about....;-)

I wonder what would have happened if all we offered to feed them every day was pork...would that have been considered "too tough" for them psychologically???

"The horror...." regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Roger Perry
08-25-2009, 09:45 AM
This was after BHO had stated earlier this year that there would be NO criminal investigations. He's got to divert attention from his Health Care debacle and the Cap and Trade morass to follow....business as usual in Washington....

kg

From the same article:

Despite the announcement of the criminal investigation, several Obama spokesmen declared anew — as the president has repeatedly — that on the subject of detainee interrogation he "wants to look forward, not back" at Bush tactics. They took pains to say decisions on any prosecutions would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder, not the White House.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32538742/ns/politics-more_politics/

K G
08-25-2009, 11:42 AM
Oh...yeah....that's MUCH better....Holder is BHO's pick for the office...you think he wants to give up HIS job? PLEASE tell me you're not THAT naive, Roger...."took pains"....I LOVE that...it makes feel all warm inside....:rolleyes:

kg

Hew
08-25-2009, 11:53 AM
I wonder if these people are as upset about the waterboarding of AQ terrorists as the house liberals here? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GwDYFxb8piY/RuVv2YIHNaI/AAAAAAAAAxo/XUO_PSVhEv8/s1600-h/9_11_jumpers.jpg

subroc
08-28-2009, 09:25 AM
Pat Buchanan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/28/the_rough_men_at_the_cia.html

Gerry Clinchy
08-28-2009, 10:39 AM
Despite the announcement of the criminal investigation, several Obama spokesmen declared anew — as the president has repeatedly — that on the subject of detainee interrogation he "wants to look forward, not back" at Bush tactics. They took pains to say decisions on any prosecutions would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder, not the White House.

BHO and the AG are both attorneys. Right? BHO chose Holder for his job. Right? They disagree on this pretty high-profile issue? Would not have Holder and BHO discussed this issue at some point? So, BHO made a very public statement regarding the issue. Now Holder has changed his mind?

Has Holder got nothing better to do?

What does this do to help the CIA in cooperating with other countries' intelligence networks? Somehow I believe that there are a lot of other countries, both friends and enemies, that are either shaking their heads in disbelief or chuckling.

Since BHO is one for taking a personal hand in stuff, why not just reprimand, demote or otherwise exercise his clout so that this situation doesn't happen again. Quick, easy, and a heckuva lot cheaper than what this investigation will cost us taxpayers.

dback
08-28-2009, 10:54 AM
I wonder if these people are as upset about the waterboarding of AQ terrorists as the house liberals here? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GwDYFxb8piY/RuVv2YIHNaI/AAAAAAAAAxo/XUO_PSVhEv8/s1600-h/9_11_jumpers.jpg

Or maybe these three dudes www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeAG-jq8VvA

Roger Perry
08-28-2009, 01:26 PM
Since BHO is one for taking a personal hand in stuff, why not just reprimand, demote or otherwise exercise his clout so that this situation doesn't happen again. Quick, easy, and a heckuva lot cheaper than what this investigation will cost us taxpayers.

How much did the Republicians cost the tax payers in the investigation of Bill Clinton and Monica? Which by the way, was minor compared to laws Bush broke while in office.

K G
08-28-2009, 01:35 PM
Clinton played us for fools, Roger. You good with that? Probably so, since the economy was cookin' when he was Prez....we'll forgive people for a LOT as long as we's a gettin' ours.....:rolleyes:

kg

Gerry Clinchy
08-28-2009, 01:42 PM
How much did the Republicians cost the tax payers in the investigation of Bill Clinton and Monica? Which by the way, was minor compared to laws Bush broke while in office.

And Ford was criticized for pardoning Nixon and avoiding the taxpayer-funded circus that would have resulted from not pardoning him. Never liked Nixon, yet, I believe it was the right thing to do for the country.

We keep getting back to two wrongs making a right. Perhaps that is why the politicians have become so ineffective, because they are focusing more on getting their tit for tat than they are on the best interests of the constituents.

According to the NY Times article I just read, this is also a distraction for Obama with all the other things that need his attention. The article also cited that action had been taken at the CIA to discipline the parties involved in those interrogations. It appears that they want to go after the lawyers who gave the legal advice that allowed the methods to be used.

What really surprises me is that Iron-Fist Rahm was not able to prevent this divisiveness in the ranks. They say Rahm is known for his "colorful" language. He must be spitting rainbows now.

Roger Perry
08-28-2009, 01:51 PM
Clinton played us for fools, Roger. You good with that? Probably so, since the economy was cookin' when he was Prez....we'll forgive people for a LOT as long as we's a gettin' ours.....:rolleyes:

kg

I do not have a problem with people that own up to their mistakes. I do however have a problem with people that blame their mistakes on others.

Former Republican

Regards

Gerry Clinchy
08-28-2009, 02:03 PM
I do not have a problem with people that own up to their mistakes.

I always got the distinct impression that Slick Willy would never have owned up unless he had no other choice.

Roger Perry
08-28-2009, 02:11 PM
I always got the distinct impression that Slick Willy would never have owned up unless he had no other choice.

You are probably right.

former republican

regards

subroc
08-29-2009, 08:00 AM
A short article titled: "Demonizing the defenders"

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/29/demonizing-the-defenders/print/

Gerry Clinchy
08-29-2009, 01:58 PM
It will be a watershed in American history if lawyers from the current administration prosecute lawyers from the previous administration because they disagree with their legal opinions. In America, it used to be sufficient for one party to defeat the other at the polls. Jailing political opponents was regarded as excessive.


I think this quote from the article deserves thought.

K G
08-29-2009, 02:06 PM
It would be in step with our current socialistic leaning....

kg

ducknwork
08-29-2009, 02:57 PM
I do however have a problem with people that blame their mistakes on others.



Not a big fan of the Obama administration? After all, he inherited this entire mess:rolleyes:. How do we know that? Because he has reminded us umpteen dozen times...

"BUSH DID IT!"
________
Zoloft Side Effect (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

TXduckdog
08-30-2009, 08:55 AM
It would be in step with our current socialistic leaning....

kg



More like Fascism, of which a key component is punishing/destroying political opposition.

A reading of the definition of Fascism in Websters is very enlightening. It's a scary word and we associate it with WWII, Hitler and Mussolini.

But it fit's exactly what's going on in this country with the current congress and administration.

Roger Perry
08-30-2009, 02:12 PM
Not a big fan of the Obama administration? After all, he inherited this entire mess:rolleyes:. How do we know that? Because he has reminded us umpteen dozen times...

"BUSH DID IT!"

I'm glad we finally agree on something.Bush was President for 8 years and Obama has been President for only 7 months. Do you really feel Bush's failed economic policy, the Iraq and Afghanastan war, failed banks, people out of work, and foreclosures are all Obama's fault?

Gerry Clinchy
08-30-2009, 06:41 PM
Do you really feel Bush's failed economic policy, the Iraq and Afghanastan war, failed banks, people out of work, and foreclosures are all Obama's fault?

As has been mentioned by many before, all the issues you mention took time to "brew". They pre-date even Bush. Nobody paid attention while they were getting their own piece of the pie.

O was well aware of what he was taking on when he decided to run for President. He will have to take responsibility for what he does to remedy these issues.

I do fault him for populating his administration with Clinton re-treads; paying off Hillary with the Sec of State position; and failing to vet his appointees well; trying to push through the health care bill without anybody being able to fully understand it; and not at all giving the impression of "transparency" which was central to his campaign of change.

I wonder if those guys actually have paid their income taxes yet.

tpaschal30
08-30-2009, 07:27 PM
I'm glad we finally agree on something.Bush was President for 8 years and Obama has been President for only 7 months. Do you really feel Bush's failed economic policy, the Iraq and Afghanastan war, failed banks, people out of work, and foreclosures are all Obama's fault?

Failure in the economy came from too much control and not enough market forces. Control is a socialist(see Obama) idea. It has proven well in the former USSR, not to mention socialist Euro's who's economies on their best days is near 10%. Which could be our best if we continue down this road.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2009, 07:31 PM
Failure in the economy came from too much control and not enough market forces. Control is a socialist(see Obama) idea. It has proven well in the former USSR, not to mention socialist Euro's who's economies on their best days is near 10%. Which could be our best if we continue down this road.
That sounds like Economics 00BumperSticker. For six years Bush had virtually complete control over the governments involvement with the economy. He chose to bankrupt it.

K G
08-30-2009, 07:46 PM
Let's assume for a moment that all you "Bush Blamers" are right...I know you think you are, so we'll go with that for the sake of this argument....

Do you feel that, today, the initiatives that BHO has instituted (not information regurgitated New York Times articles or blogs authored by leftist liberals, but REAL initiatives) have begun to "undo" what Bush 43 "did?" Don't wax philosophic or give him credit for the natural progression of downturns and upturns...TALK FACTS...and if you want to be credible, include both the good and the bad.

The "floor" is yours....

kg

tpaschal30
08-30-2009, 07:50 PM
That sounds like Economics 00BumperSticker. For six years Bush had virtually complete control over the governments involvement with the economy. He chose to bankrupt it.

Who stopped the investigation of Freddy Mac and Fanny May in 2005? Democrats.
Who ran FM an FMay? Democrats(Remember Raines)

Who kept interest rates too low that made the derivatives attractive investments? The Fed

Who spent too much money on the Farm Bill and Medacare Bills? The House(who does all appropriations) and Bush signed it.

What were the specific policies Bush implemented that ruined the economy?

YardleyLabs
08-31-2009, 08:27 AM
Who stopped the investigation of Freddy Mac and Fanny May in 2005? Democrats.
Who ran FM an FMay? Democrats(Remember Raines)

Who kept interest rates too low that made the derivatives attractive investments? The Fed

Who spent too much money on the Farm Bill and Medacare Bills? The House(who does all appropriations) and Bush signed it.

What were the specific policies Bush implemented that ruined the economy?
Without even addressing your specifics, which evidence more than a little cherry picking, who controlled the White house from January 2001 until January 2009? Who controlled the House from January 1995 until January 2007? Who controlled the Senate until they managed to chase out one of their own party members rather than reach any compromises to preserve a majority? Who managed to use their congressional control to push through every issue of importance to the President from 2001 until 2006? Who appointed every key member of the Fed Board that chose to reduce interest rates and encouraged a policy of easy credit? Who during his 2004 campaign took credit for increasing home ownership among low and moderate income families and promised legislation to promote minority home ownership by adopting no down payment loans with Federal guarantees to add 5.5 million new home owners (hint: It wasn't Kerry)? Who is now ready to say that every problem that grew into a disaster over a period of eight years is now solely the fault of Obama?

The move to deregulate financial markets began under Reagan, continued under Clinton, and continued further under Bush. Even the disastrous collapse of the savings and loan industry and the collapse of many pension funds under Reagan was not enough to deter financial market deregulation. Some of that deregulation was desirable. Things can and did go too far. The structure of our markets rewards short term gain while largely ignoring long term risk. We have proven repeatedly over the last 70+ years that regulations are needed to force financial markets to manage long term risks more appropriately.