PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Obama White House v. CIA; Panetta Threatened to Quit


petegz28
08-24-2009, 10:43 AM
A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.

Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials.

"You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year," a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com.

Since 9/11, the CIA has had five directors or acting directors.

A White House spokesperson, Denis McDonough, said reports that Panetta had threatened to quit and that the White House was seeking a replacement were "inaccurate."

According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed "torture."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8398902

RINGLEADER
08-24-2009, 10:52 AM
This is what happens when you govern with your ideology...

KC native
08-24-2009, 10:55 AM
This is what happens when you govern with your ideology...

:spock: If they broke the law then they broke the law. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 10:56 AM
See, the administration has bent over backwards to do SOMETHING about torture under the CIA, while not upsetting the CIA.

Are we going to investigate the folks who prescribed torture? No.

Are we going to investigate the folks at the top who allowed this to become active policy? No.

Are we going to investigate the low-level stiffs who may have gone past the torture they were permitted to execute? Yes.

And the CIA is still bitching. They literally want no consequences.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 10:58 AM
:spock: If they broke the law then they broke the law. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

Horseshit.

KC native
08-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Horseshit.

Awesome, another reasoned and intelligent post from pete the I bitch about everything b/c I'm a miserable prick moderate. Good job buddy. :thumb:

wild1
08-24-2009, 11:20 AM
Not even their hand-picked ideologues will stand for the publicity stunts they are trying to pull.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 11:48 AM
Awesome, another reasoned and intelligent post from pete the I bitch about everything b/c I'm a miserable prick moderate. Good job buddy. :thumb:

You should focus more on your La Raza talking points....

Brock
08-24-2009, 11:50 AM
Panetta should quit, he's not qualified for the job to begin with.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 11:50 AM
Panetta should quit, he's not qualified for the job to begin with.

This, I agree with 100%. He was just another re-hash from the Clinton Admin.

RINGLEADER
08-24-2009, 11:51 AM
:spock: If they broke the law then they broke the law. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

Wasn't speaking to the legalities.

KC native
08-24-2009, 11:59 AM
You should focus more on your La Raza talking points....

So you going to go all failpass and just start using slurs or just keep up with your usual bitch assnes?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:11 PM
So you going to go all failpass and just start using slurs or just keep up with your usual bitch assnes?

Nah, I am jut going all KC Native where I just come out of the gate calling people names even though they never called me anything....you crusty, douche bag.

And I''' return your neg rep shortly, little girl.

stevieray
08-24-2009, 12:12 PM
bitch assnes?

...burn your HS Diploma.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:15 PM
Nah, I am jut going all KC Native where I just come out of the gate calling people names even though they never called me anything....you crusty, douche bag.

And I''' return your neg rep shortly, little girl.

LMAO You never called me names? I love how the wingers out here love to call names and then when it gets thrown back in their face they start whining about name calling.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:16 PM
...burn your HS Diploma.

LMAO at least I got one unlike you dress up suzie.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:17 PM
LMAO You never called me names? I love how the wingers out here love to call names and then when it gets thrown back in their face they start whining about name calling.

You don't support La Raza?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:18 PM
LMAO You never called me names? I love how the wingers out here love to call names and then when it gets thrown back in their face they start whining about name calling.

Show me where in this thread I called you anything at all until you started in on me? Go on, Alice, I am waiting ....sissy, cum guzzler.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:19 PM
You don't support La Raza?

The ****ing pussy neg repped me because I said "horseshit" to his post. That's it. That was all I said. His panties got all wadded up like a 9 yr old who lost her prissy-polly-pees doll. That is how sensative he is. Like a little girl.......LMAO


He is a class A douche bag.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:20 PM
You don't support La Raza?

Does it matter? I was unaware that La Raza had a talking point on the CIA. Last time I checked they were focused on Latino community issues.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:20 PM
Does it matter? I was unaware that La Raza had a talking point on the CIA. Last time I checked they were focused on Latino community issues.

Well, yeah, sure. I presume that was what you were responding to, no?

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:21 PM
Show me where in this thread I called you anything at all until you started in on me? Go on, Alice, I am waiting ....sissy, cum guzzler.

Why does it have to be limited to this thread? You fuckers call names all over and then get upset because it wasn't done in this thread. That's pretty fucking childish if you ask me.

stevieray
08-24-2009, 12:21 PM
LMAO at least I got one

no dumbass left behind.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:22 PM
The ****ing pussy neg repped me because I said "horseshit" to his post. That's it. That was all I said. His panties got all wadded up like a 9 yr old who lost her prissy-polly-pees doll. That is how sensative he is. Like a little girl.......LMAO


He is a class A douche bag.

Ah, another conservative cry baby obsessed with rep. BTW I neg repped because of your lazy response not because you disagreed with me.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:23 PM
Well, yeah, sure. I presume that was what you were responding to, no?

I was responding to pete's dumbassery. He's the one that mentioned La Raza not me. Are you done distracting from the topic of the thread now?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:23 PM
Why does it have to be limited to this thread? You ****ers call names all over and then get upset because it wasn't done in this thread. That's pretty ****ing childish if you ask me.

In other words you came out of the gate being a little girl about everything. :deevee: he didn't agree with me :deevee: he called my post horsehit :deevee: I'm gonna neg rep him cause I am a little wee-wee. ROFL

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:24 PM
I was responding to pete's dumbassery. He's the one that mentioned La Raza not me. Are you done distracting from the topic of the thread now?

Yea, it is such dumbassery yet you support La Raza....just like I said.....go change your panties...

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:24 PM
Ah, another conservative cry baby obsessed with rep. BTW I neg repped because of your lazy response not because you disagreed with me.

You're a fucking liar. You're a little girl with her panties all wadded up.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:25 PM
no dumbass left behind.

LMAO

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:25 PM
I was responding to pete's dumbassery. He's the one that mentioned La Raza not me. Are you done distracting from the topic of the thread now?

Well, you mentioned "slur" in response to his post. So, I'm trying to ascertain what you were referring to when you wrote that.

Pretty simple stuff.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:26 PM
In other words you came out of the gate being a little girl about everything. :deevee: he didn't agree with me :deevee: he called my post horsehit :deevee: I'm gonna neg rep him cause I am a little wee-wee. ROFL

Yea, it is such dumbassery yet you support La Raza....just like I said.....go change your panties...

You're a ****ing liar. You're a little girl with her panties all wadded up.

Seems like someone is a little upset today. You need a tissue? I'm sure some of the armchair psychiatrists out here could help you with your anger issues petey.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Well, you mentioned "slur" in response to his post. So, I'm trying to ascertain what you were referring to when you wrote that.

Pretty simple stuff.

Obviously it isn't for some...

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:27 PM
Seems like someone is a little upset today. You need a tissue? I'm sure some of the armchair psychiatrists out here could help you with your anger issues petey.

Seems like you don't like being treated the way you treat people there, La Raza

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:27 PM
Well, you mentioned "slur" in response to his post. So, I'm trying to ascertain what you were referring to when you wrote that.

Pretty simple stuff.

I think the post is pretty clear. Go back and reread it if you were confused.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:28 PM
Seems like you don't like being treated the way you treat people there, La Raza

Pete, WTF makes you think I'm upset? I think you are fucking hilarious as I thought I was a pretty pessimistic person but you blow me the fuck away. You are an excellent waste of time when I have nothing to do at work.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:29 PM
I think the post is pretty clear. Go back and reread it if you were confused.

I don't need to re-read it. What slur were you referring to?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:30 PM
Pete, WTF makes you think I'm upset? I think you are ****ing hilarious as I thought I was a pretty pessimistic person but you blow me the **** away. You are an excellent waste of time when I have nothing to do at work.

Probably the way you came out slinging insults and neg reps beacuase I said "horseshit" to your post? One word set you off like a little, stuck up girl. LMAO


You obviously do little at your job.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:30 PM
I don't need to re-read it. What slur were you referring to?

Apparently you do because I was asking him if he was going to continue the path with his statement and go failpass. I never said he used a slur.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:31 PM
Probably the way you came out slinging insults and neg reps beacuase I said "horseshit" to your post? One word set you off like a little, stuck up girl. LMAO


You obviously do little at your job.

Did I hurt your feelings petey? Did the neg rep make you feel inadequate?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:32 PM
Did I hurt your feelings petey? Did the neg rep make you feel inadequate?

Not at all...it just shows what a little girl you are to get so pissy about the word horseshit. LMAO

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:32 PM
Apparently you do because I was asking him if he was going to continue the path with his statement and go failpass. I never said he used a slur.

I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other, but I understand that you are a little sensitive when it comes to that issue.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:33 PM
I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other, but I understand that you are a little sensitive when it comes to that issue.

He is obviously just sensative, period. Perhaps he is a metro-sexual and today is a skirt day? :hmmm:

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:35 PM
Not at all...it just shows what a little girl you are to get so pissy about the word horseshit. LMAO

Pete, in the comment for the neg rep I wrote "for laziness". I meant it. If you disagreed with what I wrote then state why. A simple "horseshit" post is something I would expect out of stevie"i like to dress up"ray.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:36 PM
Pete, in the comment for the neg rep I wrote "for laziness". I meant it. If you disagreed with what I wrote then state why. A simple "horseshit" post is something I would expect out of stevie"i like to dress up"ray.

K..whatever you need to tell yourself, now go fight for more illegalst to rape our system

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:36 PM
Pete, in the comment for the neg rep I wrote "for laziness". I meant it. If you disagreed with what I wrote then state why. A simple "horseshit" post is something I would expect out of stevie"i like to dress up"ray.

A socialist who doesn't like laziness?

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:36 PM
I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other, but I understand that you are a little sensitive when it comes to that issue.

:rolleyes: Yea because slurs and racism directed toward Hispanics never happens out here in DC.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:37 PM
:rolleyes: Yea because slurs and racism directed toward Hispanics never happens out here in DC.

Ah. Projection and the future possibility of racism. Got it.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:38 PM
A socialist who doesn't like laziness?

I'm not a socialist. I thought the labeling shtick was BEP's. Can we expect more baseless labeling out of you now?

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm not a socialist. I thought the labeling shtick was BEP's. Can we expect more baseless labeling out of you now?

How about "Jr. Socialist In Training?"

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:40 PM
Ah. Projection and the future possibility of racism. Got it.

You're quite dense huh? I was fucking with him for making a nonsensical reference to La Raza. That might have some relevance in a thread about immigration but in a thread about the CIA it is out place.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:41 PM
How about "Jr. Socialist In Training?"

LMAO You must have a new hero. You going to start making up history and definitions to fit your ridiculous theories?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:41 PM
You're quite dense huh? I was ****ing with him for making a nonsensical reference to La Raza. That might have some relevance in a thread about immigration but in a thread about the CIA it is out place.

I told you to stick with what you do best.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:43 PM
You're quite dense huh? I was ****ing with him for making a nonsensical reference to La Raza. That might have some relevance in a thread about immigration but in a thread about the CIA it is out place.

I think it's time to move the chip before scoliosis kicks in.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:44 PM
I think it's time to move the chip before scoliosis kicks in.

He was whining about laws being broken yet he supports an organization that encourages law breaking. Go figure.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:45 PM
He was whining about laws being broken yet he supports an organization that encourages law breaking. Go figure.

He hasn't said that he supports La Raza.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:46 PM
He hasn't said that he supports La Raza.

From what I undertand, he does. He has yet to say he doesn't.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 12:47 PM
Can somebody answer my post?

How is this not the CIA bitching because they want zero accountability?

For setting the policy, for permitting the policy, and for even going past what the policy permitted.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:49 PM
He was whining about laws being broken yet he supports an organization that encourages law breaking. Go figure.

So, where does La Raza encourage law breaking? You know they have a website where you can actually check their positions before you spout off with unsubstantiated claims.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:49 PM
Can somebody answer my post?

How is this not the CIA bitching because they want zero accountability?

For setting the policy, for permitting the policy, and for even going past what the policy permitted.

Gee, you know what, why don't we just disarm, turn over all our military secrets to every country that "doesn't like us" and offer the world a great big hug?

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:49 PM
Can somebody answer my post?

How is this not the CIA bitching because they want zero accountability?

For setting the policy, for permitting the policy, and for even going past what the policy permitted.

No they can't. They'd rather distract from the thread.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:50 PM
Can somebody answer my post?

How is this not the CIA bitching because they want zero accountability?

For setting the policy, for permitting the policy, and for even going past what the policy permitted.

Actually, it sounds like Panetta is doing the bitching. Read the linked article.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:51 PM
So, where does La Raza encourage law breaking? You know they have a website where you can actually check their positions before you spout off with unsubstantiated claims.

3. Undocumented Workers and Taxes
All immigrants, regardless of their legal status,
pay taxes in various forms.
Like other Americans, undocumented immigrants
pay sales tax on their purchases and property tax
on their homes. The majority of undocumented
immigrants also pay income tax using Individual
Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) or false
Social Security numbers. These documents put
workers “on the books,” which means their
employers must make required deductions from
their pay. An estimated three-quarters of
undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes.17
Each year, taxpayers who use incorrect or false
Social Security numbers (the majority of them
undocumented immigrants18) contribute
approximately $7 billion to Social Security and
$1.5 billion to Medicare.19 Immigrants’
contributions to these programs are collected by
the federal government to help meet its goals.20
Even though undocumented workers contribute to
tax revenues on the local, state, and national
levels, these individuals are ineligible for most
government benefits.21 Especially notable is the
fact that while these workers were educated in
their countries of origin rather than in the U.S.,
the U.S. economy reaps the rewards of their work.
On average, all immigrants will pay $80,000 more
in taxes per capita than they use in government
benefits over their lifetime (in 1996 dollars).22
These facts led the President’s Council of
Economic Advisers to declare in June 2007 that
“the long-run impact of immigration on public
budgets is likely to be positive.”23
Undocumented immigration also produces a net
benefit at the state level. For example,
approximately 13.9% of the nation’s undocumented
immigrants live in Texas. In 2006, the Texas
Comptroller reported that undocumented immigrants
paid about $424.7 million more in state revenues –
including sales tax and school property tax – than
they used in state services, including education and
health care

http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/50720


What were you saying, dumbass? I guess crying because someone who is breaking the law by using a fake SSN and not getting their benefits is what?

STFU

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:52 PM
What were you saying, dumbass? I guess crying because someone who is breaking the law by using a fake SSN and not getting their benefits is what?

STFU

So where in there does it say they encourage people to immigrate here illegally?

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Gee, you know what, why don't we just disarm, turn over all our military secrets to every country that "doesn't like us" and offer the world a great big hug?

How about we not torture people.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:53 PM
So where in there does it say they encourage people to immigrate here illegally?

Well gee, ...if they are going to fight for illegals to get benefitsI guess that would deter illegals from wanting to enter the country illegaly, heh?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 12:55 PM
How about we not torture people.

Ok, this is thr problem I have with your use of the word "torture". Torture is for punishment or amusement. We interigate. There is a difference in ends. Do the means justify the ends with what we do? Sometimes.

KC native
08-24-2009, 01:03 PM
Well gee, ...if they are going to fight for illegals to get benefitsI guess that would deter illegals from wanting to enter the country illegaly, heh?

Um, they advocate fixing the immigration system to assimilate these people so they can properly contribute and receive benefits for their contributions. They are not telling people to cross the border so they can fight for them.

Chief Henry
08-24-2009, 01:05 PM
Not even their hand-picked ideologues will stand for the publicity stunts they are trying to pull.

this

petegz28
08-24-2009, 01:18 PM
Um, they advocate fixing the immigration system to assimilate these people so they can properly contribute and receive benefits for their contributions. They are not telling people to cross the border so they can fight for them.

K....

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:32 PM
Heh. Holder and Obama are going to appoint a prosecutor to investigate CIA terror interrogations.

vailpass
08-24-2009, 01:58 PM
So you going to go all failpass and just start using slurs or just keep up with your usual bitch assnes?

Senor Bullsheet loves to play the racist card, complain about people calling him names, then finish off by calling people names.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 02:06 PM
This is what happens when you govern with your ideology...

No shit. Cleaning up these ideologically driven, disasterous Bush-era messes have been a nightmare politcally for Obama. Credit to him for doing yeoman's work.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 02:09 PM
No shit. Cleaning up these ideologically driven, disasterous Bush-era messes have been a nightmare politcally for Obama. Credit to him for doing yeoman's work.

LMAO...does your wife know that Obama gives you wood?

Brock
08-24-2009, 02:10 PM
This is what the people are crying out for!

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2009, 02:43 PM
I don't believe this for 1 second, Panetta is very much against torture and i believe an upstanding man. Obama is the one who wants to look the other way.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 06:29 PM
Ok, this is thr problem I have with your use of the word "torture". Torture is for punishment or amusement. We interigate. There is a difference in ends. Do the means justify the ends with what we do? Sometimes.

I have argued with a truckload of pro-torture people on this website, but I have never had somebody make the bone-headed argument you're making. Not even Donger has given me such ridiculous reasoning.

"If we do it for good reasons, it's not torture!" The Orwellian game you're trying to play would be spooky if it weren't so damn ridiculous.

I can't imagine why I'd have to explain this to you, but torturing somebody is still torture no matter why you do it.

mikey23545
08-24-2009, 06:35 PM
How about we not torture people.

How about "people" not fly airliners into skyscrapers?

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 07:36 PM
How about "people" not fly airliners into skyscrapers?

I'd say both of our ideas are great. Wouldn't you?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 07:56 PM
I have argued with a truckload of pro-torture people on this website, but I have never had somebody make the bone-headed argument you're making. Not even Donger has given me such ridiculous reasoning.

"If we do it for good reasons, it's not torture!" The Orwellian game you're trying to play would be spooky if it weren't so damn ridiculous.

I can't imagine why I'd have to explain this to you, but torturing somebody is still torture no matter why you do it.

Pro-torture? JFC, you people are off the fucking reservation. You don't even get the entire premise of torture. And no, agressivley interogating somebody to save lives of millions of others is a possible path to take when one chooses not to forfeit information willingly.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 08:35 PM
You don't even get the entire premise of torture. And no, agressivley interogating somebody to save lives of millions of others is a possible path to take when one chooses not to forfeit information willingly.

Tortue becomes "aggressively interrogating" when we're doing it for "good" reasons?

What exactly is the entire premise of torture that I'm not "getting"?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 08:43 PM
Tortue becomes "aggressively interrogating" when we're doing it for "good" reasons?

What exactly is the entire premise of torture that I'm not "getting"?

Torture is what someone like Sadaam did. The person being tortured had no factor in whether he was tortured or not, for how long, etc, etc. Because it was done for amusement, for the most part.

That is not why we do it. I still contend, as simple as it sounds, tell us what we want to know and no one will get hurt. I have argued this too much to get back into it. I have no problems with sleep deprivation, climate control methods, loud music, posture or other uncomfortable arrangments, truth syrum, whatever. Life isn't as always as nice and peachy-keen as we want it to be and maybe as it should be. But that is life. I have no interest in sending our kids into combat while we fight a war with kid gloves or with our hands tied behind our backs.

Like I said, we can blow people up, we just can't splash water on their face.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 08:49 PM
I have no problems with sleep deprivation, climate control methods, loud music, posture or other uncomfortable arrangments, truth syrum, whatever.

You also have no problems with us threatening detainees' families and waterboarding, or placing people in coffin-sized boxes or mock executions, or sensory deprivation until they slowly start losing their minds, or putting people in stress positions that take advantage of wounds they've suffered in battle, or rubbing feces all over their faces, or slamming their bodies into walls in such a way that would give them whiplash if they weren't wearing neckgear, or etc etc etc.

I assume you have no problem with all of these things, and this is just shit we know about.

It just cracks me up that properly interrogating people is considered kid gloves. That this stuff is believed to be necessary (or else Americans will die!) is some pretty assinine shit.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 08:51 PM
You also have no problems with us threatening detainees' families and waterboarding, or placing people in coffin-sized boxes or mock executions, or sensory deprivation until they slowly start losing their minds, or putting people in stress positions that take advantage of wounds they've suffered in battle, or rubbing feces all over their faces, or slamming their bodies into walls in such a way that would give them whiplash if they weren't wearing neckgear, or etc etc etc.

I assume you have no problem with all of these things, and this is just shit we know about.

It just cracks me up that properly interrogating people is considered kid gloves. That this stuff is believed to be necessary (or else Americans will die!) is some pretty assinine shit.

Like I said before, dirk, I am just as happy with putting a bullet in their head and moving on with the war with a kill all\take no prisoners policy.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 08:52 PM
Like I said before, dirk, I am just as happy with putting a bullet in their head and moving on with the war with a kill all\take no prisoners policy.

You could kill somebody innocent.

By the way, whatever happened to "getting information"? How much information are we going to get when they're dead?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 08:54 PM
You could kill somebody innocent.

Really? You mean like when Obama slams hellfire missles into buildings from unmanned aircraft at "suspected" terrorists?


I guess that is ok though, heh?


Like I said...you want to fight a war of perfection and I am here to tell you, pal, ain't no such thing. Never has been, never will be.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 08:56 PM
You could kill somebody innocent.

By the way, whatever happened to "getting information"? How much information are we going to get when they're dead?

BTW...seems it doesn't matter when we kill them, only splash water in their face.


That being the case, you just kill em' all and remove the threat by total elimination. It's called killing the headache by cutting off the head. The bad part is, you cut off the head. The good part is, you never have to worry about another headache.

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:04 PM
You also have no problems with us threatening detainees' families and waterboarding, or placing people in coffin-sized boxes or mock executions, or sensory deprivation until they slowly start losing their minds, or putting people in stress positions that take advantage of wounds they've suffered in battle, or rubbing feces all over their faces, or slamming their bodies into walls in such a way that would give them whiplash if they weren't wearing neckgear, or etc etc etc.

I assume you have no problem with all of these things, and this is just shit we know about.

It just cracks me up that properly interrogating people is considered kid gloves. That this stuff is believed to be necessary (or else Americans will die!) is some pretty assinine shit.

I'll tell you what...If I lose sleep over this tonight, I'll come on here and post about it at 3:00 in the morning.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:08 PM
I'll tell you what...If I lose sleep over this tonight, I'll come on here and post about it at 3:00 in the morning.

Direchshun is so fucke dup on this. He supports Obama sending more troops into Afghanistan to blow people up but yet it is assinine, in his opinion, to think the information we need to get from the people we capture will save American lives.

So if it is so asinine, why do we have kids over there dying every day? What the fuck for??


See how idiotic his argument is?

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:11 PM
Direchshun is so ****e dup on this. He supports Obama sending more troops into Afghanistan to blow people up but yet it is assinine, in his opinion, to think the information we need to get from the people we capture will save American lives.

So if it is so asinine, why do we have kids over there dying every day? What the **** for??


See how idiotic his argument is?
Obama ended the wars and closed Gitmo. I know this because I haven't seen anything about these issues on the news in weeks.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:13 PM
Really? You mean like when Obama slams hellfire missles into buildings from unmanned aircraft at "suspected" terrorists?

I guess that is ok though, heh?

Ho boy. There's a difference between the battlefield and people we take off the battlefield.

But you don't really give a shit, I know.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:14 PM
Direchshun is so ****e dup on this. He supports Obama sending more troops into Afghanistan to blow people up but yet it is assinine, in his opinion, to think the information we need to get from the people we capture will save American lives.

Swing and a miss.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:17 PM
Swing and a miss.

So you don't think we should be in Afghanistan?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:18 PM
Ho boy. There's a difference between the battlefield and people we take off the battlefield.

But you don't really give a shit, I know.

What's the difference? We can kill them but not splash water in there face. That is the difference I see you whining about.

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:19 PM
Ho boy. There's a difference between the battlefield and people we take off the battlefield.

But you don't really give a shit, I know.

Dead is dead. Maimed is maimed. Dead/maimed is not has a wet face.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:22 PM
What's the difference? We can kill them but not splash water in there face. That is the difference I see you whining about.

Dead is dead. Maimed is maimed. Dead/maimed is not has a wet face.

There are reasons why every single organization and nation on earth has completely different standards for acceptable procedures on the battlefield and procedures when you have a detainee removed from the battlefield, or in this case what you believe to be the battlefield.

It is because the dynamic in both situations are so completely different, they are not comparable.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:23 PM
So you don't think we should be in Afghanistan?

What on earth would lead you to that conclusion?

Seriously, pete. I notice you have a few typos tonight, too. Are you drunk right now?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:24 PM
There are reasons why every single organization and nation on earth has completely different standards for acceptable procedures on the battlefield and procedures when you have a detainee removed from the battlefield, or in this case what you believe to be the battlefield.

It is because the dynamic in both situations are so completely different, they are not comparable.

So it isn't a battlefield now? Next you will be telling use the dead soldiers that come back in wooden boxes aren't really dead and weren't really killed with real bullets and bombs.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:25 PM
What on earth would lead you to that conclusion?

Seriously, pete. I notice you have a few typos tonight, too. Are you drunk right now?

Your "swing and a miss comment" and your "what you believe to be the battlefield" comment.

You are all over the joint. Care to clarify your position on the war?

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:26 PM
So it isn't a battlefield now?

No, pete. When you have a detainee in a prison cell, you're not on the battlefield anymore. You've removed them from the battlefield. And thus a completely different set of standards kicks in. You might be the first person I've ever had to explain that to.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:27 PM
No, pete. When you have a detainee in a prison cell, you're not on the battlefield anymore. You've removed them from the battlefield. And thus a completely different set of standards kicks in. You might be the first person I've ever had to explain that to.

LMAO...says you.

I'd argue the "captives" have done more damage to us from their cells than they have on what you claim is the only battlefield.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:28 PM
Care to clarify your position on the war?

I support it. It's very well documented everywhere I've posted on the subject.

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:29 PM
There are reasons why every single organization and nation on earth has completely different standards for acceptable procedures on the battlefield and procedures when you have a detainee removed from the battlefield, or in this case what you believe to be the battlefield.

It is because the dynamic in both situations are so completely different, they are not comparable.

Are our soldiers allowed to intentionally torture the enemy on the battlefield if it serves no purpose?

The location is not relevant. What matters is whether or not it is a life and death situation. If the prisoner has information that could mean the difference between life and death for our soldiers or citizens, pass the pliers. If he doesn't, let's be a little more civilized.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:29 PM
I support it. It's very well documented everywhere I've posted on the subject.

So you are talking in circles then. Are you ok with blowing up "suspected" terrorists from unmanned aircraft?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:30 PM
Are our soldiers allowed to intentionally torture the enemy on the battlefield if it serves no purpose?

The location is not relevant. What matters is whether or not it is a life and death situation. If the prisoner has information that could mean the difference between life and death for our soldiers or citizens, pass the pliers. If he doesn't, let's be a little more civilized.

Couldn't agree more.

Saul Good
08-24-2009, 09:31 PM
So you are talking in circles then. Are you ok with blowing up "suspected" terrorists from unmanned aircraft?

Can you clarify something about this scenario for me? Is it possible that the missile could fail to hit it's target and fall into a pool of water, thus creating a splash and getting the terrorists wet? If so, I am against it.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:33 PM
LMAO...says you.

I'd argue the "captives" have done more damage to us from their cells than they have on what you claim is the only battlefield.

I don't know which of these two sentences is more astonishing. I'll stick with the first to stay somewhere remotely near the topic at hand.

Yes, says me. Says also international law, American law, laws across Western civilization, and laws across the modern planet. The battlefield does not extend to the prison cells we keep detainees in, that's why they get a completely different set of laws.

There is no set of laws on the modern planet that agrees with you on this subject. Detainees are afforded much different rights because they are designated to be off the battlefield.

Now please explain to me how you are right and the planet is wrong.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:36 PM
Are our soldiers allowed to intentionally torture the enemy on the battlefield if it serves no purpose?

The location is not relevant. What matters is whether or not it is a life and death situation. If the prisoner has information that could mean the difference between life and death for our soldiers or citizens, pass the pliers. If he doesn't, let's be a little more civilized.

In what position would you be torturing somebody on the battlefield? I'm talking about the ability to control someone. If you are torturing somebody, 99.999% of the time it is because you have complete control over them. If that is the case, their status has gone from enemy on the battlefield to prisoner.

You're right, physical location makes no difference -- I never said it did, I use "battlefield" metaphorically. What makes a difference is the status of your enemy and what degree of control you have over him.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:38 PM
So you are talking in circles then. Are you ok with blowing up "suspected" terrorists from unmanned aircraft?

I'm mostly against it because it's turning the Pakistanis against us even more than usual, when we need their help in the region.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:40 PM
I'm mostly against it because it's turning the Pakistanis against us even more than usual, when we need their help in the region.

Irrelevant where it happens. I will take it as you are ok with blowing up "suspected" terrorists after you gave me your reply of "that could kill innocents" when I said to just kill em all and move on.

Again, you are trying to fight a war of prefection based on politically correct ideals.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't know which of these two sentences is more astonishing. I'll stick with the first to stay somewhere remotely near the topic at hand.

Yes, says me. Says also international law, American law, laws across Western civilization, and laws across the modern planet. The battlefield does not extend to the prison cells we keep detainees in, that's why they get a completely different set of laws.

There is no set of laws on the modern planet that agrees with you on this subject. Detainees are afforded much different rights because they are designated to be off the battlefield.

Now please explain to me how you are right and the planet is wrong.

You know what I say about international law? :whackit:

This is war. You want to play nice or win the war? When other countries and I don't mean just the UK and Australia, I mean the ones that want to sit up on their high horse and preach international law to us, send their kids over their to die then I might start to give half a fuck about their law.

In the meantime, I really can give a fuck about law. War is not complicated until you start trying to have one side play by a bunch of rules that do nothing but get more people killed.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:45 PM
Irrelevant where it happens. I will take it as you are ok with blowing up "suspected" terrorists after you gave me your reply of "that could kill innocents" when I said to just kill em all and move on.

Again, you are trying to fight a war of prefection based on politically correct ideals.

No, I'm saying there are different standards for a detainee you hold than on the battlefield.

That's not just politically correct, it's common ****ing sense. That's why the planet agrees with me on the subject, and disagrees with you.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:47 PM
No, I'm saying there are different standards for a detainee you hold than on the battlefield.

That's not just politically correct, it's common ****ing sense. That's why the planet agrees with me on the subject, and disagrees with you.

Everyone agrees with you? Link?

And yes, it is politically correct. You're asking me to give a fuck about people who hide behind the innocent women and children one day and purposley target the next. Sorry, that ship ain't sailing this way.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:48 PM
In the meantime, I really can give a **** about law. War is not complicated until you start trying to have one side play by a bunch of rules that do nothing but get more people killed.

And this pretty much says everything.

You could have saved us a lot of time if you had just posted this to begin with.

1. You don't care about existing detainee law in this country, or anywhere.

2. You believe wars are not complicated until we actually try to regulate how we behave in them.

3. You think these are preferable things.

That's it. That pretty much ends the discussion.

You enjoy all that.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:49 PM
Everyone agrees with you? Link?

Do you agree or disagree that American law and all laws in the Western world and modern society treat detainees with a completely different set of standards than they do enemies on the battlefield?

Agree or disagree, pete?

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:50 PM
And this pretty much says everything.

You could have saved us a lot of time if you had just posted this to begin with.

1. You don't care about existing detainee law in this country, or anywhere.

2. You believe wars are not complicated until we actually try to regulate how we behave in them.

3. You think these are preferable things.

That's it. That pretty much ends the discussion.

You enjoy all that.

Yep, that's right. I care about few things but they are a precious few..

1. Winning the war as quick as possible
2. Getting as many of our kids home alive and in one piece, as soon as possible

I'll worry about being liked after 1 and 2 are completed.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:51 PM
Do you agree or disagree that American law and all laws in the Western world and modern society treat detainees with a completely different set of standards than they do enemies on the battlefield?

Agree or disagree, pete?

I agree that they are different for uniformed soldiers who themselves obide by the Geneva Convention.

When it comes to scum who hide behind the women and children they kill, I can give a fuck less what we do to them.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:52 PM
Yep, that's right. I care about few things but they are a precious few..

1. Winning the war as quick as possible
2. Getting as many of our kids home alive and in one piece, as soon as possible

I'll worry about being liked after 1 and 2 are completed.

I hear windchimes.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:53 PM
I hear windchimes.

Yea? I'm real fucking proud of ya.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:53 PM
I agree that they are different for uniformed soldiers who themselves obide by the Geneva Convention.

I thought you didn't care about international law?

Not that you're even remotely quoting it correctly.

petegz28
08-24-2009, 09:55 PM
I thought you didn't care about international law?

Not that you're even remotely quoting it correctly.

You asked me if there were laws about it. The fact I can give a **** about those laws are a separate issue. Keep reaching, pal.

Y4es there are laws. No, I don't give a flying fuck about said laws when it comes to war.

Direckshun
08-24-2009, 09:57 PM
You asked me if there were laws about it.

I asked you if ALL the laws agreed with me about it. That you treat people differently on the battlefield than you do in possession of them.

Truth is, you do. Everybody does. You're supposed to.

I don't even know why you'd think about contesting that, other than the fact that I said it and "fuck it, Direckshun's wrong about everything."

petegz28
08-24-2009, 10:01 PM
I asked you if ALL the laws agreed with me about it. That you treat people differently on the battlefield than you do in possession of them.

Truth is, you do. Everybody does. You're supposed to.

I don't even know why you'd think about contesting that, other than the fact that I said it and "**** it, Direckshun's wrong about everything."

Yea well, that isn't true, direkshun. Perhaps the beheadings of some innocent civilians, let alone mutilation of captured soldiers that is done at the hands of our enemy puts too much of a dent in your argument of "everybody"??

Obviously, "everybody" doesn't. So yea, you're fucking wrong. Everybody doesn't see it your way and everybody doesn't play by the laws you want them too.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 08:58 AM
Can somebody answer my post?

How is this not the CIA bitching because they want zero accountability?

For setting the policy, for permitting the policy, and for even going past what the policy permitted.

These events were already dealt with by the previous administration.

What good does it do our country or our CIA to have an issue like this re-hashed and second-guessed by a second administration? Even if the appointed prosecutor comes to a different conclusion than the Bush DoJ did, what makes the second prosecutor's discretion more valid than that of the Bush administration? The Obama administration would be serving our country by looking forward. They're serving only their political base by looking back.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 09:06 AM
I have argued with a truckload of pro-torture people on this website, but I have never had somebody make the bone-headed argument you're making. Not even Donger has given me such ridiculous reasoning.

"If we do it for good reasons, it's not torture!" The Orwellian game you're trying to play would be spooky if it weren't so damn ridiculous.

I can't imagine why I'd have to explain this to you, but torturing somebody is still torture no matter why you do it.

petegz28 is right though. Under US law, there is a pretty specific mental state element required to prove torture so the intent of the interrogators is critical. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons the Obama administration gave for not going after the top level Bush administration officials for their harsh techniques program.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 09:18 AM
Can you clarify something about this scenario for me? Is it possible that the missile could fail to hit it's target and fall into a pool of water, thus creating a splash and getting the terrorists wet? If so, I am against it.

LMAO

Inspector
08-25-2009, 10:56 AM
In reading this thread it made me think of a scenario that I find sort of interesting.

I imagined....What if some horrible act of war took place against our country and the United States was attacked again. And what if during that attack the person or persons most important in my life (wife, kids, grandkids) were murdered by our enemies...Pretty horrible thought.

Now, what if someone came up to me with a special way to go back just far enough in the past to change that outcome. But, and here's the catch, the only way the outcome could be changed is by splashing water in the face of captured enemies so that they spill the beans about it and enable our country to take action that prevents them from attacking thus saving the lives of my loved ones.

Would I be OK with that action? Splashing the water?

It was an interesting thought. Something to ponder.

KC native
08-25-2009, 10:59 AM
In reading this thread it made me think of a scenario that I find sort of interesting.

I imagined....What if some horrible act of war took place against our country and the United States was attacked again. And what if during that attack the person or persons most important in my life (wife, kids, grandkids) were murdered by our enemies...Pretty horrible thought.

Now, what if someone came up to me with a special way to go back just far enough in the past to change that outcome. But, and here's the catch, the only way the outcome could be changed is by splashing water in the face of captured enemies so that they spill the beans about it and enable our country to take action that prevents them from attacking thus saving the lives of my loved ones.

Would I be OK with that action? Splashing the water?

It was an interesting thought. Something to ponder.

It's not splashing water. It is simulated drowning which is torture. Beyond that, our own intelligence agencies say torture doesn't work because people willl say anything to make the torture stop.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 11:05 AM
It's not splashing water. It is simulated drowning which is torture. Beyond that, our own intelligence agencies say torture doesn't work because people willl say anything to make the torture stop.

This is a myth. It's not a myth that some of them say it, it's a myth that it's true.

If you want to prevent your rank and file soldiers from using harsh techniques in an ineffective manner, and if you want to present an image to the world of a nation that doesn't do anything dirty, you repeat the myth as often as possible. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that torture (or harsh techniques that fall short of actual torture) can be effective in the right circumstances.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:10 AM
It is up to others (courts) to decide if waterboarding is torture or not. But this silly notion that it is just splashing water is well stupid. Why don't any one of you go try it and let us know what happens. I hear Mancow is still having nightmares over it.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:11 AM
This is a myth. It's not a myth that some of them say it, it's a myth that it's true.

If you want to prevent your rank and file soldiers from using harsh techniques in an ineffective manner, and if you want to present an image to the world of a nation that doesn't do anything dirty, you repeat the myth as often as possible. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that torture (or harsh techniques that fall short of actual torture) can be effective in the right circumstances.

It's not a myth. It has come directly from the mouths of our experts on these issues. You can believe it or you can make up your own little fantasy world.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 11:22 AM
It's not a myth. It has come directly from the mouths of our experts on these issues. You can believe it or you can make up your own little fantasy world.

That's a case of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy and it's particularly non-persuasive when those authorities have an obvious motive for lying (as I described in my previous post).

The fantasy world is the one in which people convince themselves that harsh techniques can never work so they don't have to confront the difficult tradeoffs involved in developing an interrogation policy.

You show me a guy who knows the combination to a safe in the interrogation room and I'll show you a guy who will eventually give up that combination under harsh interrogation. The "experts" are allowing you to believe what you want to believe.

Donger
08-25-2009, 11:23 AM
That reminds me: did Obama ever authorize the release of the results of the EITs?

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:27 AM
That's a case of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy and it's particularly non-persuasive when those authorities have an obvious motive for lying (as I described in my previous post).

The fantasy world is the one in which people convince themselves that harsh techniques can never work so they don't have to confront the difficult tradeoffs involved in developing an interrogation policy.

You show me a guy who knows the combination to a safe in the interrogation room and I'll show you a guy who will eventually give up that combination under harsh interrogation. The "experts" are allowing you to believe what you want to believe.

And you could torture him until he told you who started the Great Chicago Fire but that doesn't make it true.

Duck Dog
08-25-2009, 11:32 AM
It's not splashing water. It is simulated drowning which is torture. Beyond that, our own intelligence agencies say torture doesn't work because people willl say anything to make the torture stop.

If our intelligence community doesn't think waterboarding works, then why is there even an argument over it's use?

Inspector
08-25-2009, 11:34 AM
OK, what if..instead of "splashing water" they had to torture the enemy but it saved my loved ones lives.....

Interesting thought.

I mean, interesting to me. They're my family so I guess it makes it interesting to me. Probably nobody else would be interested and that's OK. Heck, I'd understand that.

Also makes me wonder how others would reacte / feel in that same situation.

Would I be willing to see lots of people die, even my own family members to save an enemy from being tortured??

I'll have to think about that one........Hmmmmm....

patteeu
08-25-2009, 11:36 AM
And you could torture him until he told you who started the Great Chicago Fire but that doesn't make it true.

If the lock on the safe opens to the combination he gave you, it makes it true.

Donger
08-25-2009, 11:42 AM
That reminds me: did Obama ever authorize the release of the results of the EITs?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/cia-ksm-docs08242009.pdf

Looks like we have an answer.

Garcia Bronco
08-25-2009, 11:46 AM
Seriously...why is this even in the media? This is how we know we have a dumbshit President, monkey administration, and a retard CIA. This shit should never be in the press. Ever.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:48 AM
OK, what if..instead of "splashing water" they had to torture the enemy but it saved my loved ones lives.....

Interesting thought.

I mean, interesting to me. They're my family so I guess it makes it interesting to me. Probably nobody else would be interested and that's OK. Heck, I'd understand that.

Also makes me wonder how others would reacte / feel in that same situation.

Would I be willing to see lots of people die, even my own family members to save an enemy from being tortured??

I'll have to think about that one........Hmmmmm....

It is legit question and I wasn't trying to bust your balls I have seen other people on here say the same thing.

I think anyone in this scenario would probably authorize torture or enhanced interrogation techniques to get the info. Why? Because like alot of things it is personal. Just like the Terry Schiavo case where all the conservatives were trying to save her but when it came time to do the same for their own family they had no problem pulling the plug.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:49 AM
If the lock on the safe opens to the combination he gave you, it makes it true.

and what if it doesn't?

Inspector
08-25-2009, 11:56 AM
It is legit question and I wasn't trying to bust your balls I have seen other people on here say the same thing.

I think anyone in this scenario would probably authorize torture or enhanced interrogation techniques to get the info. Why? Because like alot of things it is personal. Just like the Terry Schiavo case where all the conservatives were trying to save her but when it came time to do the same for their own family they had no problem pulling the plug.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's not an easy subject for sure.

Thanks for your response!

patteeu
08-25-2009, 11:58 AM
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/cia-ksm-docs08242009.pdf

Looks like we have an answer.

Dick Cheney by way of the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cheney_statement_on_cia_docume.asp):

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.

Donger
08-25-2009, 12:02 PM
Dick Cheney by way of the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cheney_statement_on_cia_docume.asp):

But, KC native just told me that EITs don't work.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 12:03 PM
and what if it doesn't?

The whole theory of your asinine myth is that people will say anything to make the torture end and that what they say is, therefore, unreliable. If the first combination that the person gives you is false, you will find out soon enough and resume your interrogation, perhaps with even greater intensity. How many times do you think he'll give you a false number before he realizes that only the right number will earn him the reprieve he desperately wants?

patteeu
08-25-2009, 12:04 PM
But, KC native just told me that EITs don't work.

Yeah, it's become an article of faith for him, but he's worshipping a false god.

Side note: Interestingly, my browser spell check spells "worshipping" with only one "p", but when I checked the spelling at dictionary.com it gave me a 2 "p" spelling. Are they both right or is one of them wrong?

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:05 PM
The whole theory of your asinine myth is that people will say anything to make the torture end and that what they say is, therefore, unreliable. If the first combination that the person gives you is false, you will find out soon enough and resume your interrogation, perhaps with even greater intensity. How many times do you think he'll give you a false number before he realizes that only the right number will earn him the reprieve he desperately wants?

What happens if he really doesn't know the combination for the safe?

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:06 PM
Dick Cheney by way of the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cheney_statement_on_cia_docume.asp):

ROFL Are you really trying to hold up Cheney as a reputable source on this? Chickenhawk Cheney? ROFL

Donger
08-25-2009, 12:07 PM
ROFL Are you really trying to hold up Cheney as a reputable source on this? Chickenhawk Cheney? ROFL

You could always peruse the CIA report, linked above.

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:08 PM
You could always peruse the CIA report, linked above.

You are aware that the FBI guy that interrogated him said we had much of this information before the EIT's started right?

Donger
08-25-2009, 12:10 PM
You are aware that the FBI guy that interrogated him said we had much of this information before the EIT's started right?

Much, but not all?

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:12 PM
Much, but not all?

Well, considering he was pulled out of the interrogations because the FBI questioned what the CIA was planning to do, we'll never know if he could have gotten all of it.

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:12 PM
What happens if he really doesn't know the combination for the safe?

So am I going to get an answer for this?

patteeu
08-25-2009, 12:13 PM
What happens if he really doesn't know the combination for the safe?

He does. See post 131.

In the alternative scenario that you are talking about, no technique can be effective at getting the combo. Not tea and crumpets, not good cop bad cop, not Army Field Manual, not EIT, and not torture. That has nothing to do with the question about whether torture works or not. Like any tool, torture will work when it is used for the right application but it's not a silver bullet or a magic wand.

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:13 PM
He does. See post 131.

In the alternative scenario that you are talking about, no technique can be effective at getting the combo. Not tea and crumpets, not good cop bad cop, not Army Field Manual, not EIT, and not torture. That has nothing to do with the question about whether torture works or not. Like any tool, torture will work when it is used for the right application but it's not a silver bullet or a magic wand.

So how do you know if he really knows the combination? Torture him to find out?

patteeu
08-25-2009, 12:14 PM
ROFL Are you really trying to hold up Cheney as a reputable source on this? Chickenhawk Cheney? ROFL

He's not a source. The .pdf document that Donger posted was the source. This was Cheney's comment.

Donger
08-25-2009, 12:15 PM
Well, considering he was pulled out of the interrogations because the FBI questioned what the CIA was planning to do, we'll never know if he could have gotten all of it.

Well, let's stick to what we do know. It seems clear that the EITs did, in fact, provide valuable intel.

I presume you would agree with that assessment?

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:19 PM
Well, let's stick to what we do know. It seems clear that the EITs did, in fact, provide valuable intel.

I presume you would agree with that assessment?

Not at all. If most of the valuable intel was gathered using traditional means and then the EIT's were started then you can't credit the EIT's as providing the info when the traditional measures were already working.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 12:20 PM
So how do you know if he really knows the combination? Torture him to find out?

It's a given in my scenario which was specifically designed to destroy your dearly held myth, not through an appeal to authority or any other fallacy but through the use of logic. If you need a backstory to make the scenario more "real" to you we can assume that we've observed him opening the safe in the past or we can assume that he bragged to his captors that he knew the combo but that nothing they could do to him could get the combo out of him because he's heard interrogation experts say that torture doesn't work.

If you can agree that we've disposed of the myth, we can change the subject to some of the practical difficulties we might run into when applying torture or any other harsh technique.

Donger
08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
Not at all. If most of the valuable intel was gathered using traditional means and then the EIT's were started then you can't credit the EIT's as providing the info when the traditional measures were already working.

If what you state as fact is accurate, why did the interrogators change methods if they were working?

patteeu
08-25-2009, 12:24 PM
Not at all. If most of the valuable intel was gathered using traditional means and then the EIT's were started then you can't credit the EIT's as providing the info when the traditional measures were already working.

Are you going to argue that harsh techniques don't work or are you going to argue that harsh techniques work but are unnecessary because some of the intel we've gained from harsh techniques were also obtained with other techniques?

Can I hear you admit that harsh techniques actually do work before we move on to other topics?

Donger
08-25-2009, 12:28 PM
Are you going to argue that harsh techniques don't work or are you going to argue that harsh techniques work but are unnecessary because some of the intel we've gained from harsh techniques were also obtained with other techniques?

Can I hear you admit that harsh techniques actually do work before we move on to other topics?

The CIA report linked above certainly does not support this assertion:

"Beyond that, our own intelligence agencies say torture doesn't work because people willl say anything to make the torture stop."

In fact, it seems to directly contradict it. But, I'm sure that KC native will continue to live in "fantasy world."

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:49 PM
The CIA report linked above certainly does not support this assertion:

"Beyond that, our own intelligence agencies say torture doesn't work because people willl say anything to make the torture stop."

In fact, it seems to directly contradict it. But, I'm sure that KC native will continue to live in "fantasy world."

I read through that pdf and it doesn't state anything about waterboarding or how successful it was or wasn't

Am I missing something?

Donger
08-25-2009, 01:04 PM
I read through that pdf and it doesn't state anything about waterboarding or how successful it was or wasn't

Am I missing something?

It discusses the results of the interrogations used on HVDs like MSM, whom we know was "tortured." I wouldn't expect a point-by-point/"We waterboarded him and he told us this" type report.

KC native
08-25-2009, 01:34 PM
If what you state as fact is accurate, why did the interrogators change methods if they were working?

Ask the CIA and the Bush Admin about that. Again you and patty act like there isn't a firsthand account of what went on there. Did you guys happen to forget about this article?

Op-Ed Contributor
My Tortured Decision

By ALI SOUFAN
Published: April 22, 2009

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights. Just as important, releasing these memos enables us to begin the tricky process of finally bringing these terrorists to justice.

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

As we move forward, it’s important to not allow the torture issue to harm the reputation, and thus the effectiveness, of the C.I.A. The agency is essential to our national security. We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. We’re making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites). Just as important, we need to ensure that no new mistakes are made in the process of moving forward — a real danger right now.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 01:37 PM
It discusses the results of the interrogations used on HVDs like MSM, whom we know was "tortured." I wouldn't expect a point-by-point/"We waterboarded him and he told us this" type report.

Well that is disappointing because that is what I expected.

Donger
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Ask the CIA and the Bush Admin about that. Again you and patty act like there isn't a firsthand account of what went on there. Did you guys happen to forget about this article?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

In case you hadn't heard, the FBI and CIA don't particularly like each other.

Donger
08-25-2009, 01:55 PM
Well that is disappointing because that is what I expected.

I don't believe that meeting your expectations was a factor in the reason for generating this report.

KC native
08-25-2009, 02:06 PM
In case you hadn't heard, the FBI and CIA don't particularly like each other.

and your point is...?

Donger
08-25-2009, 02:15 PM
and your point is...?

That I'm not surprised that an FBI agent was critical of CIA techniques.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 02:16 PM
I don't believe that meeting your expectations was a factor in the reason for generating this report.

It should have been I voted for him and donated money to his campaign :)

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:32 PM
That I'm not surprised that an FBI agent was critical of CIA techniques.

Ah, so you're going to ignore the content of what he wrote? Color me not surprised.

Donger
08-25-2009, 03:43 PM
Ah, so you're going to ignore the content of what he wrote? Color me not surprised.

Not at all. It doesn't surprise me at all that an FBI agent was critical of CIA's interrogation techniques.

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:46 PM
Not at all. It doesn't surprise me at all that an FBI agent was critical of CIA's interrogation techniques.

And about his success with obtaining info without torture? You're just ignoring that huh?

Donger
08-25-2009, 03:47 PM
And about his success with obtaining info without torture? You're just ignoring that huh?

No, I'm not. Surely you don't think that "torture" is required to get any and all information, right?

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:04 PM
No, I'm not. Surely you don't think that "torture" is required to get any and all information, right?

I'm done with this. We've already had this discussion. You are perfectly fine with torture being carried out in your name even if it isn't necessary or efficacious. I, on the other hand, am not fine with my country torturing people when it isn't necessary or efficacious.

Donger
08-25-2009, 04:08 PM
I'm done with this. We've already had this discussion. You are perfectly fine with torture being carried out in your name even if it isn't necessary or efficacious. I, on the other hand, am not fine with my country torturing people when it isn't necessary or efficacious.

Bluntly, I don't believe that you are in possession of the requisite facts to make such an assessment.

In other words, you don't know what was necessary and what was not. But, please do continue to vilify your fellow Americans in order to satiate your ideological needs.

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:10 PM
Bluntly, I don't believe that you are in possession of the requisite facts to make such an assessment.

In other words, you don't know what was necessary and what was not. But, please do continue to vilify your fellow Americans in order to satiate your ideological needs.

I'm in possession of the same facts you are. It's just that you apparently have a smaller moral compass than I do.

Donger
08-25-2009, 04:13 PM
I'm in possession of the same facts you are. It's just that you apparently have a smaller moral compass than I do.

You made the claim that these EITs were not necessary, did you not? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

Direckshun
08-25-2009, 08:22 PM
Yea well, that isn't true, direkshun. Perhaps the beheadings of some innocent civilians, let alone mutilation of captured soldiers that is done at the hands of our enemy puts too much of a dent in your argument of "everybody"??

Obviously, "everybody" doesn't. So yea, you're ****ing wrong. Everybody doesn't see it your way and everybody doesn't play by the laws you want them too.

So what you're saying, pete, is that the only organizations on the planet that agree with you -- that believe that prisoners you take on the battlefield should be treated as though they are still on the battlefield, and not afforded a special set of rights -- are TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

You're done.

***SPRAYER
08-25-2009, 08:24 PM
That I'm not surprised that an FBI agent was critical of CIA techniques.

ROFL

KC's an asshole.

Direckshun
08-25-2009, 08:24 PM
These events were already dealt with by the previous administration.

What good does it do our country or our CIA to have an issue like this re-hashed and second-guessed by a second administration? Even if the appointed prosecutor comes to a different conclusion than the Bush DoJ did, what makes the second prosecutor's discretion more valid than that of the Bush administration? The Obama administration would be serving our country by looking forward. They're serving only their political base by looking back.

Holy shit, we're back on topic. :)

I do have to ask how, exactly, the previous administration dealt with the issue, other than essentially granting immunity to everybody involved.

Direckshun
08-25-2009, 08:34 PM
petegz28 is right though. Under US law, there is a pretty specific mental state element required to prove torture so the intent of the interrogators is critical. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons the Obama administration gave for not going after the top level Bush administration officials for their harsh techniques program.

You don't have to explain Obama's publicly stated reasoning to me. The real reason, if you ask me, is because there's very little you can do to prosecute them.

You have to prove that the legal scholars atop the OLC who approved torture did so in bad faith, rather than good faith. And there's virtually no evidence for bad faith -- these guys really did believe torture was the best measure. They had public speeches going years before the Bush administration where they argued such.

But as you know, pat, hell as we both know, good faith does not necessarily mean it's good policy. Or legal policy. Or humane policy.

So I'm to the left, I guess you could say, of Obama on this issue. I think you can "go after" these guys, but not because of bad faith. I think you go after these guys to send a message to the rest of the developed planet: there are lines that humanity in its decency does not cross, and anybody who spits on that line deserves punishment. It does not matter who you are. It does not matter what side you're on. It does not matter if you truly believe you are right.

We do not torture. And those who do, including those among us, face punishment.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 08:47 PM
You don't have to explain Obama's publicly stated reasoning to me. The real reason, if you ask me, is because there's very little you can do to prosecute them.

You have to prove that the legal scholars atop the OLC who approved torture did so in bad faith, rather than good faith. And there's virtually no evidence for bad faith -- these guys really did believe torture was the best measure. They had public speeches going years before the Bush administration where they argued such.

But as you know, pat, hell as we both know, good faith does not necessarily mean it's good policy. Or legal policy. Or humane policy.

So I'm to the left, I guess you could say, of Obama on this issue. I think you can "go after" these guys, but not because of bad faith. I think you go after these guys to send a message to the rest of the developed planet: there are lines that humanity in its decency does not cross, and anybody who spits on that line deserves punishment. It does not matter who you are. It does not matter what side you're on. It does not matter if you truly believe you are right.

We do not torture. And those who do, including those among us, face punishment.


WTF? You support a party who governs and gets away with bullshit left and right because they did it in "good faith" or they had "good intentions", but have bad results.

Saul Good
08-25-2009, 08:56 PM
You don't have to explain Obama's publicly stated reasoning to me. The real reason, if you ask me, is because there's very little you can do to prosecute them.At least you acknowledge that he is not above lying to the public.

Direckshun
08-25-2009, 09:19 PM
At least you acknowledge that he is not above lying to the public.

I'm a believer, but I'm not a sap.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 09:21 PM
Ask the CIA and the Bush Admin about that. Again you and patty act like there isn't a firsthand account of what went on there. Did you guys happen to forget about this article?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

What Ali Soufan doesn't disclose is that harsh techniques were already being used on Zubaydah before and during his participation in the terrorist's interrogations. The specific harsh interrogation program authorized by the Bush White House which included waterboarding didn't start until August 2002, but prior to that Zubaydah was experiencing many precursors to that program including sleep deprivation, being stripped and held in an icy room, earsplittingly loud music, etc. This isn't the only thing that calls Soufan's version of events into question as Tom Maguire (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/levels-of-enhancement.html) describes in detail.

Direckshun
08-25-2009, 09:21 PM
WTF? You support a party who governs and gets away with bullshit left and right because they did it in "good faith" or they had "good intentions", but have bad results.
Not going to respond to my reply, eh?

I don't blame you:

So what you're saying, pete, is that the only organizations on the planet that agree with you -- that believe that prisoners you take on the battlefield should be treated as though they are still on the battlefield, and not afforded a special set of rights -- are TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

You're done.

patteeu
08-25-2009, 09:34 PM
Holy shit, we're back on topic. :)

I do have to ask how, exactly, the previous administration dealt with the issue, other than essentially granting immunity to everybody involved.

It's been reported that the events that Holder is planning to have a prosecutor review had been reviewed previously by the Bush DoJ. I don't know anything about the specific cases or the results of the previous investigations. From Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26396.html#ixzz0PFhEL9TG):

Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to examine alleged CIA interrogation abuses — a move that could lead to the criminal prosecution of CIA officers and contractors and is sure rekindle the debate over how far the United States should go to get information from terror suspects.

Holder’s decision to assign the inquiry to a seasoned career prosecutor, John Durham of Connecticut, comes after the Justice Department’s ethics office recommended reopening about a dozen cases of prisoner abuse....

patteeu
08-25-2009, 09:37 PM
You don't have to explain Obama's publicly stated reasoning to me. The real reason, if you ask me, is because there's very little you can do to prosecute them.

You have to prove that the legal scholars atop the OLC who approved torture did so in bad faith, rather than good faith. And there's virtually no evidence for bad faith -- these guys really did believe torture was the best measure. They had public speeches going years before the Bush administration where they argued such.

But as you know, pat, hell as we both know, good faith does not necessarily mean it's good policy. Or legal policy. Or humane policy.

So I'm to the left, I guess you could say, of Obama on this issue. I think you can "go after" these guys, but not because of bad faith. I think you go after these guys to send a message to the rest of the developed planet: there are lines that humanity in its decency does not cross, and anybody who spits on that line deserves punishment. It does not matter who you are. It does not matter what side you're on. It does not matter if you truly believe you are right.

We do not torture. And those who do, including those among us, face punishment.

That sounds like a pretty thuggish approach. I prefer the "if you didn't break the law, I'm not going to prosecute you even if I don't like what you did" approach. And I endorse the "if it's already been cleared by a previous administration I'm not going to revisit it for political reasons" standard.

Direckshun
08-25-2009, 10:13 PM
That sounds like a pretty thuggish approach. I prefer the "if you didn't break the law, I'm not going to prosecute you even if I don't like what you did" approach. And I endorse the "if it's already been cleared by a previous administration I'm not going to revisit it for political reasons" standard.

Well so does Obama, unfortunately. I hope he reconsiders.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 10:51 PM
It's been reported that the events that Holder is planning to have a prosecutor review had been reviewed previously by the Bush DoJ. I don't know anything about the specific cases or the results of the previous investigations. From Politico (http://Attorney%20General%20Eric%20Holder%20has%20named%20a%20federal%20prosecutor%20to%20examine%20alleged %20CIA%20interrogation%20abuses%20%E2%80%94%20a%20move%20that%20could%20lead%20to%20the%20criminal%2 0prosecution%20of%20CIA%20officers%20and%20contractors%20and%20is%20sure%20rekindle%20the%20debate%2 0over%20how%20far%20the%20United%20States%20should%20go%20to%20get%20information%20from%20terror%20s uspects.Holder%E2%80%99s%20decision%20to%20assign%20the%20inquiry%20to%20a%20seasoned%20career%20pro secutor,%20John%20Durham%20of%20Connecticut,%20comes%20after%20the%20Justice%20Department%E2%80%99s% 20ethics%20office%20recommended%20reopening%20about%20a%20dozen%20cases%20of%20prisoner%20abuse.Read %20more:%20http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26396.html#ixzz0PFhEL9TG):

So according to Politico the Justice Department Ethics office recommended reopening these cases?

Who and why would the Ethics office do such a thing? Hmmmm..... Maybe it is because the Ethics department investigates its own attorneys and determined that some of these cases weren't investigated properly or maybe swept under the rug? Also it appears the Office of Professional Responsibility was involved as well. That only means one thing. There was misconduct by some of the attorneys.

Direckshun
08-26-2009, 12:40 AM
It's been reported that the events that Holder is planning to have a prosecutor review had been reviewed previously by the Bush DoJ. I don't know anything about the specific cases or the results of the previous investigations. From Politico (Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to examine alleged CIA interrogation abuses — a move that could lead to the criminal prosecution of CIA officers and contractors and is sure rekindle the debate over how far the United States should go to get information from terror suspects. Holder’s decision to assign the inquiry to a seasoned career prosecutor, John Durham of Connecticut, comes after the Justice Department’s ethics office recommended reopening about a dozen cases of prisoner abuse. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26396.html#ixzz0PFhEL9TG):

There's zippo that's controversial about future administrations reconsidering rulings made by previous administrations. That's kind of how society moves forward.

patteeu
08-26-2009, 06:51 AM
So according to Politico the Justice Department Ethics office recommended reopening these cases?

Who and why would the Ethics office do such a thing? Hmmmm..... Maybe it is because the Ethics department investigates its own attorneys and determined that some of these cases weren't investigated properly or maybe swept under the rug? Also it appears the Office of Professional Responsibility was involved as well. That only means one thing. There was misconduct by some of the attorneys.

You're pretty naive.

patteeu
08-26-2009, 06:55 AM
There's zippo that's controversial about future administrations reconsidering rulings made by previous administrations. That's kind of how society moves forward.

Nonsense. Not this kind of ruling. This is what banana republics do. Your guys are incompetent.

dirk digler
08-26-2009, 08:02 AM
You're pretty naive.

You are not very smart maybe you should take up some reading classes

patteeu
08-26-2009, 10:48 AM
You are not very smart maybe you should take up some reading classes

What gives you any confidence that the Obama DoJ Ethics Office is any less politicized than the overall department? It's time to set aside the blind faith, dirk.

dirk digler
08-26-2009, 11:28 AM
What gives you any confidence that the Obama DoJ Ethics Office is any less politicized than the overall department? It's time to set aside the blind faith, dirk.

Something in those 13 cases threw up a red flag for the OPR office and their main job is to investigate misconduct. So Holder appointed a special prosecutor to look over those cases again to see what the problem is and if any laws were broken. This isn't some kind of witch hunt at least not yet.

Also the same guy has been the head of the OPR since 98 so it can't be said he is political.

The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports directly to the Attorney General, is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when they are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR.

The objective of OPR is to ensure that Department of Justice attorneys continue to perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the Nation's principal law enforcement agency.

The Office is headed by the Counsel for Professional Responsibility. Under the Counsel's direction, OPR reviews allegations of attorney misconduct involving violation of any standard imposed by law, applicable rules of professional conduct, or Departmental policy.

When warranted, OPR conducts full investigations of such allegations, and reports its findings and conclusions to the Attorney General and other appropriate Departmental officials.

patteeu
08-26-2009, 12:08 PM
Something in those 13 cases threw up a red flag for the OPR office and their main job is to investigate misconduct. So Holder appointed a special prosecutor to look over those cases again to see what the problem is and if any laws were broken. This isn't some kind of witch hunt at least not yet.

Also the same guy has been the head of the OPR since 98 so it can't be said he is political.

That's not true. Holder replaced the guy who was there since 98 with his own gal, Mary Patrice Brown (with whom Holder has worked closely in the past). Notice, Bush left a holdover from the Clinton administration but was criticized for politicizing the department while Obama's AG hand picks a new OPR head and you give him a pass.

It's time to set aside the blind faith, dirk.

dirk digler
08-26-2009, 12:35 PM
That's not true. Holder replaced the guy who was there since 98 with his own gal, Mary Patrice Brown (with whom Holder has worked closely in the past). Notice, Bush left a holdover from the Clinton administration but was criticized for politicizing the department while Obama's AG hand picks a new OPR head and you give him a pass.

It's time to set aside the blind faith, dirk.

I got my information from wikipedia.

Since 1998 the OPR has been headed by H. Marshall Jarrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Marshall_Jarrett).Someone needs to update that because I see she was appointed in April 2009.

The speculation is he got reassigned because of how the OPR handled the Ted Stevens case and since they had to drop all charges because of prosecutorial misconduct in the Bush DOJ. Wow that is shocking. :rolleyes:

CoMoChief
08-26-2009, 12:41 PM
LMAO at least I got one unlike you dress up suzie.

LMAO

CoMoChief
08-26-2009, 12:52 PM
The people that we are torturing are the people that plot terrorist attacks, strap bombs to their chest and walk into buildings blowing up lots of people.


But let's not torture them because that wouldn't be the right thing to do. Let's try them all in the american court system and get them some of the best lawyers money can buy.

patteeu
08-26-2009, 03:06 PM
I got my information from wikipedia.

Someone needs to update that because I see she was appointed in April 2009.

The speculation is he got reassigned because of how the OPR handled the Ted Stevens case and since they had to drop all charges because of prosecutorial misconduct in the Bush DOJ. Wow that is shocking. :rolleyes:

So you agree that there's a chance that the OPR has been politicized and that this re-investigation is motivated by politics, right?