Thread: Does this bother anyone?

To me, the more the merrier .... (but I"m sure the left wingers, libs, and the Obama flock will gloat over this and try to create havoc.)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... n-tactics/

I never thought I would say this, but it doesn't bother me. Guess I have seen too much of what they are capable of. After seeing them behead people, this seems like a rap on the knuckles I used to get from the Nuns when I was in grade school. Obviously 3 out of 4 commenters feel the same!

WASHINGTON -- CIA interrogators waterboarded an Al Qaeda prisoner 183 times, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memo, and another prisoner 83 times, the New York Times reported on Monday.

Quoting the CIA inspector general in a 2004 investigation, the memo from May 30, 2005 says interrogators used the waterboard at least 83 times during August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda and close associate of Usama bin Laden, the Times said.

In March 2003, the controlled method of simulated drowning was used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, 183 times.

The Times said some copies of the memos appeared to have the number of waterboardings redacted while others did not.

More than 100 harsh interrogation methods were used on Mohammed, causing some CIA officers to question if the legal limit had been crossed, the Times previously reported in 2007.

President Obama has banned the use of waterboarding, overturning a Bush administration policy that it did not constitute torture.

Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

Obama last week authorized the release of a series of memos detailing the methods approved under President George W. Bush. In an accompanying statement, he said "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice, that they will not be subject to prosecution." He did not specifically address the policymakers.

Asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" about the fate of those officials, Emanuel said the president believes they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go."

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the idea of "criminalizing legal advice after one administration is out of the office is a very bad precedent. ... I think it would be disaster to go back and try to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice that you disagreed with to a former president."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said, "I don't think we want to look in the rearview mirror." But McCaskill, also on the Armed Services Committee, said there probably was a need to ask more questions. "How do you get lawyers at the top levels of the Justice Department that could give this kind of advice?"

The decision not to seek charges against the interrogators has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union and called a violation of international law by the U.N.'s top torture investigator.

In his statement last week, the president said: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Republican lawmakers and others contend that national security was undermined by the release of the memos. On Sunday, Obama administration officials pushed back vigorously against that claim.

"We are absolutely confident that we have the tools necessary to get the information we need to keep this country safe," senior presidential adviser David Axelrod said on Face the Nation" on CBS. "And we don't believe and the president of the United States does not believe that this is a contest between our values and our security. He thinks we can honor both and execute both. And that's what he's going to do."

Michael Hayden, who led the CIA under Bush, said the public release of the memos will make it harder to get useful information from suspected terrorists being detained by the United States.

"I think that teaching our enemies our outer limits, by taking techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine, more difficult for CIA officers to defend the nation," Hayden said on "Fox News Sunday."

Administration officials said information in the memos already was in the public realm and that releasing details about interrogation techniques gave no new edge to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

"The notion that somehow this all of a sudden is a game changer doesn't take cognizance of the fact that it's already in the system and in the public domain," Emanuel said.

As a result of Obama's decision, he said, "we've enhanced America's image abroad. These were tools used by terrorists, propaganda tools, to recruit new terrorists. And the fact is, having changed America's image does have an impact on our security and safety and makes us stronger."

But Hayden said many who oppose the harsh techniques used by interrogations "want to be able to say, 'I don't want my nation doing this,' which is a purely honorable position, 'and they didn't work anyway.' That back half of the sentence isn't true. The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work."

Several bloggers have noted one memo that said Al Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, while suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

Hayden declined to talk about those figures.

He said he believes the government was just beginning to look into the policies.

"There will be more revelations. There will be more commissions. There will be more investigations," he said. "And this to an agency, again, I repeat, that is at war and is on the front lines defending America."

Graham and McCaskill also appeared on FOX.

The Assocaited Press contributed to this report.


by zalexad[Apr 20, 2009 5:08:16 AM]
Do it some more!!! If you are upset about it you really need to take a look in the mirror. This people took almost 3000 lives and stood there laughing with great pleasure as it was being done. There were mommys and daddys, grandparents, children, aunts and uncle killed while choking to death on fumes or being burned. How about we put those pictures back up of people jumping out of windows, or better yet let the children who were left without a parent be interviewed to tell how awful that day was. Most of the people who died lived out their last moments in fear of what was happening.....why not put a little fear in the people who caused it!! We are a sorry nation if we believe this non-citizen, anti-american, terriorist have rights. God help us all!!





by daveinater2000[Apr 20, 2009 5:05:16 AM]
Good if we have all the information from these admitted terrorists they should be put to death. If the death penalty was good enough for Timothy Mcvay (American terrorist) why are these a_ _ holes still alive? Actually why are we reading about them. They should have suddenly dissappeared in 2002 never to be heard from again. After all how much sympathy did our people get on 911? If we don't watch it sympathy for these monsters will be our downfall.





by redinocnentCalifornia[Apr 20, 2009 4:37:13 AM]
183 times isn't enough. It should be once for each person that was killed in 9-11: 2 819. Better yet all the Al-Qaeda prisoners should have been executed the day they were of no further informational use. What is wrong with this country?! When did we start putting the rights of terrorists before the safety of our own citizens? Oh, wait! I know!!! On January 20, 2009.


by skygizmoCalifornia[Apr 20, 2009 4:31:33 AM]
First of all, how effective could a process be if it was necessary to do it 183 times. This is after being held sleepless for 11 days, threatened with killing insects and other horrors. We should be proud of ourselves.

I have good reason to believe that 9/11 was an inside job so the Al Qaeda operatives that took responsibility for the actions were not really guilty. They wanted the press and notoriety to bring attention to their cause. And they got it. I don’t think they should have been detained, let alone, water boarded, for the crime because they didn’t commit it.


About Water boarding I am not sure what to think about it. I wonder if torture yields the desired results?

CIA interrogators waterboarded an Al Qaeda prisoner 183 times, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memo, and another prisoner 83 times, the New York Times reported on Monday.

All I have to say is ... if you've done it 183 times, or even just 83 times, perhaps it's time to find a new method. This sounds more like someone's fetish taking over than information-gathering. And I'm a conservative Republican!

Ele,

Do you really believe what you wrote?

"I have good reason to believe that 9/11 was an inside job so the Al Qaeda operatives that took responsibility for the actions were not really guilty. They wanted the press and notoriety to bring attention to their cause. And they got it. I don’t think they should have been detained, let alone, water boarded, for the crime because they didn’t commit it."

The track history of interior enforcement of our immigration laws make me wonder if we have traitors in our elected government.

Ya think?

Originally Posted by USAFVeteran

Ele,

Do you really believe what you wrote?

"I have good reason to believe that 9/11 was an inside job so the Al Qaeda operatives that took responsibility for the actions were not really guilty. They wanted the press and notoriety to bring attention to their cause. And they got it. I don’t think they should have been detained, let alone, water boarded, for the crime because they didn’t commit it."

I believe what ELE is saying. How many warnings did the Bush administration get? Bush didn't want to hear about terrorism. So with all of the evidence that shows that our government had war in mind with Iraq but had no excuse, 9/11 gave them that excuse and they LET IT HAPPEN. The ONLY reason we went to Afghanistan was for show, and Hallibuton could build a gas pipeline, and we could put our own leader in. There is MORE proof that the government was more responsible than Al-Queda.

If I saw a tornado coming to my house, but I sat there and didn't get my family to safety and my family dies as a result, doesn't that make me responsible? Bush and his cronies KNEW what was coming, and they killed Americans for their own profit. This is not a conspiracy theory.

Since when has our government EVER done any preemptive strike before 9-11? I don't blame the government for causing the disaster, I do blame them for not doing enough to prevent it! But really regardless, are we any safer now! They are more concerned with social issues that damage our way of life instead of securing our borders and keeping us safe and not dependent on other country's resources! But that is the globalist plan and we are expendable.

jshhmr,

I couldn't disagree with you more. It sounds like you believe in the 9-11 conspiracy. But, I won't call you racist, prejuduce, a bigot, or any other derogatory term that the left puts out. We are all free to agree or disagree on this forum without name calling (that is so common on other discussion boards)