Just for a change of pace

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042002818.html

Oh by the way the techniques worked....

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042002818.html

Oh by the way the techniques worked....

Not to be confrontational on this exact note either, but I can't just take that for what this former Bush speechwriter says they are. That's like asking me to take Cheney's word for it.

Now, before you go say "well it's in the memos," let's also point out that given my serious, very serious, issues with that administration's honesty and given the fact that the memos justifying torture are being ripped apart by scholars all over because they use pathetic reasoning to justify it, sorry if I don't immediately freak out in celebration that this actually provided actionable intelligence on specific threats.

Sure the LA Tower threat. But on the flip side, a Polish friend of mine got mad at me the other day and put his hands around my neck. To get him to stop, I sang like a bird about my plan to overthrow the government of Poland and turn it into a permanent gay vacation destination, a Polish gayDisney, if you will.

Now, because I was so foolish in succumbing, the Polish government has "actionable intelligence" to foil that threat of mine. Damnit!!!

See, it's all in who's telling you what. So, sorry if I'm not quick to jump on the former Bush speechwriter's claim that this was all on the up-and-up and that it was effective. Can't think of any other reasons he would do that, outside of a penchant for being honest about everything, right?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not to be confrontational on this exact note either, but I can't just take that for what this former Bush speechwriter says they are. That's like asking me to take Cheney's word for it.

Now, before you go say "well it's in the memos," let's also point out that given my serious, very serious, issues with that administration's honesty and given the fact that the memos justifying torture are being ripped apart by scholars all over because they use pathetic reasoning to justify it, sorry if I don't immediately freak out in celebration that this actually provided actionable intelligence on specific threats.

Sure the LA Tower threat. But on the flip side, a Polish friend of mine got mad at me the other day and put his hands around my neck. To get him to stop, I sang like a bird about my plan to overthrow the government of Poland and turn it into a permanent gay vacation destination, a Polish gayDisney, if you will.

Now, because I was so foolish in succumbing, the Polish government has "actionable intelligence" to foil that threat of mine. Damnit!!!

See, it's all in who's telling you what. So, sorry if I'm not quick to jump on the former Bush speechwriter's claim that this was all on the up-and-up and that it was effective. Can't think of any other reasons he would do that, outside of a penchant for being honest about everything, right?

that is a horrible comparison. If you had already succeeded in turing another country into a gay disney.. than it would be a more honest comparison. This man who gave up the info after waterboarding also succeeded in bringing down the World Trade Centers, if you remember. Any intelligence that was gathered at helped foil a plan to bring down the Liberty Tower should be celebrated. Somehow the liberals in this country can make claims about how that is a bad thing (like you just did with your analogy).

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that is a horrible comparison. If you had already succeeded in turing another country into a gay disney.. than it would be a more honest comparison. This man who gave up the info after waterboarding also succeeded in bringing down the World Trade Centers, if you remember. Any intelligence that was gathered at helped foil a plan to bring down the Liberty Tower should be celebrated. Somehow the liberals in this country can make claims about how that is a bad thing (like you just did with your analogy).

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

lol I want nothing to do with Muslim dicks and that is not what a was refering to with my post before. I want American rapists and child molesters to have their dicks chopped off.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

By the way, with your viewpoint... you MUST be pro life and against the death penalty also, correct?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

By the way, with your viewpoint... you MUST be pro life and against the death penalty also, correct?

This is a nice try, but no, since only killing actual , aware people bothers me.

So, I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is a nice try, but no, since only killing actual , aware people bothers me.

So, I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

So Gacy should still be around?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is a nice try, but no, since only killing actual , aware people bothers me.

So, I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

Conservatives and liberals seem very hypocritical on these issues.

If conservatives believe all life is sacred... than putting the worst of the worst criminals to death should be a no no.

Of course it should be the opposite case with liberals.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

sence you have no idea how many interdictions have been stopped .how can you say what is credible and what is not.but you are a dt staff member..i think the bob fox stuff on atr is worse than waterboarding..but thats just me

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??

Already cleared this up.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Already cleared this up.

true

[brianwspencer]

Though, he also said "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

Implicit in that statement is that we may have jumped right to it, straight to torture, without even trying anything else.

What happened happened, but it doesn't mean we have to keep doing it. If it was all so sweet and wonderful, why is it that interrogation tapes were intentionally destroyed? If it was so wonderful and productive, shouldn't those tapes have made great training material...since they were legal techniques being used and all?

That's admittedly mild conjecture on my part, but it's not really that tough to logically connect the dots. If everything was legal, then there'd be nothing to hide. And if it was both legal and productive, you KNOW they'd have been singing it from the rooftops and using it to teach other people how to do it.

Just thinking out loud. Can't know everything, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion, and it doesn't take a "typical liberal," either. Just some common sense that people don't destroy things like that if there's nothing to hide.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not to be confrontational on this exact note either, but I can't just take that for what this former Bush speechwriter says they are. That's like asking me to take Cheney's word for it.

Now, before you go say "well it's in the memos," let's also point out that given my serious, very serious, issues with that administration's honesty and given the fact that the memos justifying torture are being ripped apart by scholars all over because they use pathetic reasoning to justify it, sorry if I don't immediately freak out in celebration that this actually provided actionable intelligence on specific threats.

Sure the LA Tower threat. But on the flip side, a Polish friend of mine got mad at me the other day and put his hands around my neck. To get him to stop, I sang like a bird about my plan to overthrow the government of Poland and turn it into a permanent gay vacation destination, a Polish gayDisney, if you will.

Now, because I was so foolish in succumbing, the Polish government has "actionable intelligence" to foil that threat of mine. Damnit!!!

See, it's all in who's telling you what. So, sorry if I'm not quick to jump on the former Bush speechwriter's claim that this was all on the up-and-up and that it was effective. Can't think of any other reasons he would do that, outside of a penchant for being honest about everything, right?

Which is exactly the problem with this issue. You dont believe the source because of a relationship with the administration yet who else is there to know if the info is correct? Therefore regarding the whole issue it is impossible to reach a true and valid conclusion. The gray areas far outweigh the black and white.