The So-Called "Torture Memos"...Why Democrats Suck On National Security

Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing.

That's how Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair describes the interrogation techniques authorized in the so-called "Torture Memos". Well, count me among the undisturbed.

After reading news reports and the so-called 'Bybee Memo', I'm am simply amazed at the delicacy, planning and angst that went into authorized such 'tortuous' techniques as an open palm (and fingers) face slap, an attention grab (grabbing a detainee by the shirt and pulling him closer to the interrogator), sleep deprivation*, stress positions, small area confinement (with fuzzy insects**) and pushing a detainee against a wall (a fake wall meant to give way to avoid injury and using proper neck protection). The only borderline procedure was water-boarding and to paraphrase Rhett Butler, frankly I don't give damn.

Each application of these techniques was closely monitored by medical and psychological staff experienced in their use at military SERE training courses (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training air crews and other military members go through).

Yes ladies and gentlemen, we "tortured" these killers as much as we "torture" our own service members. Again, color me undisturbed.

Robert Gibbs, That Pantywaist in Chief's spokesman says there's no damage to US security from releasing the memos or giving up these techniques.

"I don't think and the president doesn't believe it's the existence of enhanced interrogation techniques in memos that has made us less safe," Gibbs said. "It's the use of those techniques in the view of the world that has made us less safe. And that's precisely why the president moved swiftly to end"

Emphasis mine.

The John Kerry Global Test survives! Hey Gibby, let Obama know that US national security is not a popularity contest, it's about cold hard choices and accepting that there are bad people in the world who wish us harm no matter who is President.

As for the argument that this techniques are ineffective, a former AG (who as far as I know doesn't think you are a coward by the way) and a Director of CIA beg to differ.

Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don't work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal. This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who organized the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, among others, and who has boasted of having beheaded Daniel Pearl, could eventually have felt pressed to provide a false confession. But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation.

You really should read Mukasey and Hayden's piece in full. It's devastating to the Obama administration.

Now the left will simply ignore their arguments since those two men were part of the Bushitler Regime, so let me try a little math for the Terrorist Supporting Community....

The number of terrorist attacks (that's a "man-made disaster" for any monitors from DHS who might keeping an eye on us extremists) on US soil that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic dislocation before use of these techniques...1.

The number of attacks on US soil that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic dislocation after use of these techniques began...0.

1>0.

Democrats don't get this. That's why they suck on national security.

*I forgot to include that in the original list.

**I also forgot to include the fuzzy insects (caterpillars). Below the fold, you'll finally understand why Andrew Sullivan is so sympathetic to the plight of the detainees.

Bugs!

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:33 AM

Comments

1 Andros, it's best if you don't try funny. You don't do funny well.

Plus, it's time to let Bush go, dude. I know he was your go-to boy for incoherent hate for a long time, but it's over.

Posted by: MICHAEL HAYDEN at April 17, 2009 10:42 AM (k39jK)

2 Yawn. I'm sure the CIA just put in an order for a truckload of the dreaded comfy chairs, so they can really crack down during interrogations.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 17, 2009 10:45 AM (ysoZG)

"It's the use of those techniques in the view of the world that has made us less safe"

I'd like to see some proof of this. What makes us less safe in my view is the Obama Doctrine; "Walk softly, apologize often, and carry no stick".

Posted by: exceller at April 17, 2009 10:46 AM (jx2Td)

4 I'm imagining the howls of laughter from Al Qaeda.

"So they fit you with a cushioning neck brace and then "surprise" you by pushing you into a bouncy wall? What's next? Sumo suit wrestling?"

Posted by: skinbad at April 17, 2009 10:46 AM (dd7Yw)

5 If the time should come when Obama reinstitutes a military draft, I shall buy my sons some bell-bottomed jeans, some sandals, some tiedyed shirts and bid them a fond farewell on their journey north.

Posted by: Dave at April 17, 2009 10:48 AM (Xm1aB)

6 Yeah, you don't take a hint really well, do you?

Bye, andros. And honesty? The same email in every sockpuppet message you post? That's some seriously weak troll-fu you've got there, dumbass.

Posted by: MICHAEL HAYDEN at April 17, 2009 10:48 AM (k39jK)

7 Thanks for the head's up, Obama.

So, basically we can pretty much blow up any shit we want, make any plans we want, kill as many people as we want, and the worst we can expect is 3 hots and a cot?

Awesome!

Oh, yeah, uh, that sure makes us not want to commit any, uh, man-made disasters and shit cause we really respect you now.

Seriously.

Respect.........yeah.

Posted by: Terrorists at April 17, 2009 10:49 AM (oEAm5)

8 Not....the comfy chair!

Posted by: kefka at April 17, 2009 10:49 AM (fKivs)

9 I, for one, am relieved that due to this disclosure, the Swiss will no longer conspire to attack the U.S.

Posted by: Master Shake at April 17, 2009 10:50 AM (VmtE9)

10 Dhimmitude.

Posted by: Dang Straights at April 17, 2009 10:51 AM (Haq+B)

11 The Democrats in charge are going to get a bunch of people killed. The only thing I can affect at this point is "will I be one of them". No more big city visits for me, lest I be in the wrong place when the bombs go off.

Posted by: SGT Dan at April 17, 2009 10:53 AM (/KqGF)

12 Hell week in my fraternity was worse than this shit. Try being kept awake for 72 hours including the last 4 hours blindfolded, sitting indian style with incoherent noise blasted from a stereo while people are keeping you awake by whacking you with foam sticks. I guess our pledge masters were war criminals, lol. But two things I know for certain are that by the end we were so disoriented and clueless that we would have given up anything that was asked of us and that after we finally had the chance to sleep we looked back on the experience as hilarious. The idea that you can't push people to their breaking point and successfully extract information with abusive techniques (that are not really physically dangerous) is ludicrous.

Posted by: Abe Froman at April 17, 2009 10:55 AM (fkgyi)

13 OT: Susan Roesgen tried twice to get a job with Fox News. Link is to Gawker - http://tinyurl.com/cr258n

Posted by: rori at April 17, 2009 10:55 AM (2e4Y0)

14 What an absolute fucking disgrace.

Posted by: Bobaloo at April 17, 2009 10:57 AM (CoOYX)

Funny how you don't mention the real brutal stuff. I heard that sometimes the agents would grab the elastic in the suspects' underwear, and YANK it up really hard so the undewear went up their cracks. The agents would use cruel psycological torture, by saying such things as "infidelsayswhat" very quickly, then laughing when the suspect says "what?". And possibly the worst of all, the agents would pinch the suspect's nose, then pull it away, placing their very own thumb between their fingers & pretending they pulled off the suspects's nose, at which time they'd taunt the suspect with "Got your nose!!". This usually broke the suspect, because they were in cuffs and couldn't reach up to verify that their nose was still indeed on their face.

Posted by: yinzer at April 17, 2009 10:57 AM (/Mla1)

16 And I keep telling people, most cities that would be a terrorist priority voted Democrat anyway, so they get to eat a steaming plate of karma. They wanted weak national security and to try to "be liked by the world"? Great. Let me know how that shit works out for you. I'm going to be hiding from the Islamics down here in the former Confederate States of America with as much firepower as I can legally pack around.

Posted by: SGT Dan at April 17, 2009 10:58 AM (/KqGF)

17 Look at the bright side! All those man-made disasters will need to be cleaned up, so maybe Obam...uhhh... will let us out of the Right-wing Extremist Interment Camps to help dig through rubble.

Posted by: Master Shake at April 17, 2009 10:59 AM (VmtE9)

Don't these idiots remember what happened when they released the Abu Ghrab pictures?

Wait, they do, and they want the same results.

Posted by: The other coyote at April 17, 2009 11:02 AM (IDFhb)

19 My TV is not really a scratch and sniff model. Those were out of my price range. But I swear to golldurnit that every time I see O on my TV, I smell tuna. Kind of a rancid ass-smellin' tuna, but none the less......tuna. I can't figure it out.

Posted by: pendejo grande at April 17, 2009 11:03 AM (PXZI9)

These memos were released in order to get some more �Bush Bashing� in and get people�s minds off the El Duce failures. Dana Perino just took down some Commiecrap scrunt on Fox over these memos and she called it �get all those Demo talking points out there�. I kep waiting for the real killer but she did not get it out:

The Dems NEVER pass up a chance to play politics with national security because they could care less about it as long as they can get reelected.

Posted by: Vic at April 17, 2009 11:04 AM (f6os6)

21 Please, let us not forget that Obama is still OK with rendition. Funny, now that the Won is in office, "Human Rights" groups are on board with it also.

Another thing to remember, Obama's DOJ is using the same arguments as the Bush administration in an effort to keep Bagram open. See the world was mad about the US holding these "people who are the authors of man-caused disasters" in Cuba, not that they were being kept. See the EU and how they are jumping all over themselves to house these guys.

Posted by: sears poncho at April 17, 2009 11:04 AM (uj/0b)

They should be required to release the official report on the Daniel Pearl beheading and video and the video of people jumping out of the WTC along with these interrogation memos. Oh but that would be inflammatory and prejudicial to the terrorist's rights.

Polyhulk want to smash.

Posted by: polynikes at April 17, 2009 11:08 AM (m2CN7)

23 As a proud graduate of SERE training I wish to say that everything mentioned in these memo's as torture

"open palm (and fingers) face slap, an attention grab (grabbing a detainee by the shirt and pulling him closer to the interrogator), sleep deprivation*, stress positions, small area confinement and pushing a detainee against a wall (a fake wall meant to give way to avoid injury and using proper neck protection)"

I have experienced first hand with the only exceptions being my slaps were frequently not open handed and I somehow missed out on the neck protection. Additionally I went through in December so being hosed down naked must be something they felt was too rough for real terrorists.

If it was good enough for me to save my life and those of my crew mates why not to save thousands of lives of those civilians we swore to defend?

Posted by: Mike Wright at April 17, 2009 11:09 AM (rnCpO)

Sleep deprivation is totrure?

I gotta have a talk with my supervisor.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 17, 2009 11:12 AM (5KNeJ)

Some of the memo's were blacked out to prevent a few secrets from being released. But if you look close enough on some of them - you can read through the black marker and see what was censored. Here's an example ...

"We've been informed that you wish to take the subject and elevate him with bound hands in a room approximately 12 feet in height. Such elevation would be accomplished by using elastic, terry cloth "stirrups" looped around the subjects wrists to prevent extreme discomfort and scarring of the wrists and hands. The procedure you are requesing then states you wish to ask the subject in a very calm voice ... "Where are the Nuclear Suitcases?" and that this question will be repeated several times with a very calm voice.

If the subject refuses to answer - or provides an erroneous answer to the questioning ... you further request to gently remove the subjects clothing ... light a Propane Torch from Ace Hardware - and apply the blue (only the blue) portion of the flame to the subject's left scrotum until a correct answer is produced by the subject.

In our view ... said treatment does NOT constitute Torture. You have our permission now to FRY THIS MOTHERFUCKER."

GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH!!

Posted by: HondaV65 at April 17, 2009 11:13 AM (8X9tr)

26 Dramatis Personae:
Congressperson Dorotea F. Hatch-Lollar-Phukue-Klimmt - (D) CA
Congressperson Sledge J. Hammar - (R) TX
(Other congresscritters are unnamed)
CIA Operative Monty

Location:
A closed-to-the-public hearing

Dorotea HLPK: Monty, would you care to make an opening statement before we begin our questions?
Monty: Sure. You know what I like? Waffles. And pancakes. But I don't like cake. Isn't that weird? 'Cause they're kind of made of the same stuff when you think about it--
Dorotea HLPK: Monty, I meant did you have a statement about torturing terrorists.
Monty: Oh. Well, it wasn't clear from the way you said it.
Dorotea HLPK: (Irritated) Can be press on, please?
Sledge Hammar: I would like to say that I'm quite fond of pancakes myself.
Dorotea HLPK: Can we please just forget about pancakes!
Sledge Hammar: How can you not like pancakes? Everybody likes pancakes!
Monty: Everyone I know likes pancakes.
Dorotea HLPK: (Exasperated) I do like pancakes! But we are not here to discuss pancakes! We are here to discuss the torturing of innocent men!
Sledge Hammar: "Innocent" is the issue at stake here, Congresswoman.
Dorotea HLPK: (A venomous glance at Congressman Hammar.) That's Congressperson, if you please.
Monty: Um...do I need to be here for this? You guys seem to have a lot to talk about, and I kind of need to pee, so....
Dorotea HLPK: Please remain where you are, Monty. We have some questions to ask of you.
Monty: Whatevs. I'm just saying that I drank like three big cups of Jamaican Roast before I came here today, and I can feel the floodgates starting to bulge out. If you know what I mean.
Dorotea HLPK: (Sighing) You may be excused to the lavatory.
Monty: The what?
Dorotea HLPK: The lavatory. The bathroom. The toilet.
Monty: Oh. Is that like a Latin word for shitter or something? Oh, sorry for the cussing -- I meant crapper.
Dorotea HLPK: (Rubbing her forehead with one hand.) Do you need to go to the toilet or not, Monty?
Monty: Nah, I guess I can bottle it up.
Dorotea HLPK: You do realize that you are under oath, yes?
Monty: Oh, sure. I used to play D&D all the time, and this one time I had to take an oath of fealty to King Pirhalt the Magnificent in the Forest of Gloom, and--
Dorotea HLPK: Monty! Please! We must stay focused!
Monty: Sure, sure. Just sayin', is all. You seem kind of on edge, by the way. Are you having gas pains or something? 'Cause I've got some Tums in my pocket if you want one. Plus you don't want to be lofting some air-biscuits all over your buds up there, am I right?
Sledge Hammar: (Guffawing) Too late, homes! The air has been polluted already. Eggs and cabbage!
Dorotea HLPK: (Nearly screaming) Can we please move on! Now, Monty, about this torture--
Monty: Are you talking about the head-farting thing, the indian-burns, or the Thermodynamic Wedgie Drop?
Dorotea HLPK: (Confused as well as angry; red-faced; sweating a little.) The...what did you call them? (Shuffles some paper.) I don't see-- Your terminology--
Monty: Yeah, the NSA guys probably dolled the language up a little bit. Basically, I just treated the hajis like I did my cousin back in the day. They'd be in the cell watching cartoons, and I'd come in, make fun of them, then wrestle them to the ground and fart on their head. And I mean nasty-gassers, you know what I'm saying? Sure you do! Then they start crying and I tell them that I won't let the other hajis know about it if they cop to a few secrets. It works almost every time. Some guys even puked! It was hilarious.
Sledge Hammar: (Laughing) You guys do that too?
Dorotea HLPK: (Outraged) How...how dare you! How dare you treat other human beings like this! This is disgusting!
Monty: Hey, I did it to my cousin for years and years and he turned out okay. He sells cars or something now. And I used to date this chick--
Dorotea HLPK: This is unacceptable! How can you torture people this way?
Monty: Well, first you have to surprise them. If they see you coming they whine for the guard or hide behind the couch. Second, you have to make sure you've got a good fart cooked up: boiled eggs, cabbage, eat some really rank shit a few hours beforehand. Then, when you wrestle them down, remember to get your butt about three inches directly above the nose so they can actually feel the blast as well as smell it! Then say something cool like, "That used to be in my ass and now it's in your brain!"
Dorotea HLPK: I don't mean how do you do it, I mean-- Oh, never mind! This is repugnant! You are a horrible person, Monty! You deserve to be in jail!
Monty: (Hurt) What? It'll butch those fuckin' sissymaries up a little bit!
Sledge Hammar: Monty, I think we're done here. You are free to go.
Monty: See ya, dude.

Posted by: Monty at April 17, 2009 11:14 AM (/0a60)

If I have this right, when islamic terrorist attack again, maybe this time killing 100,000 people or more, Obama can say..."we are sorry for the loss of life, but we can sleep tight tonight because we didn't slap a terrorist across their chops" What the fuck? Has dinglebarry ever been in a fight, any kind of fight, as a kid, teen, or adult? Raise the fuckin white flag over the white house, we have already surrendered.

Posted by: Sparky at April 17, 2009 11:15 AM (J1f2W)

28 These memos are devastating to the previous administration. They put insects in boxes with people. Do you realize how horrible it was? For the insects, I mean.

Posted by: huerfano at April 17, 2009 11:16 AM (knHvu)

29 I'm being tortured even now.

Posted by: virus infected servers kept me up all night at April 17, 2009 11:16 AM (PD1tk)

30 I'm genuinely curious; how exactly does the left propose we successfully "interrogate" terrorists? Asking nicely? Apologizing for our sins profusely? They go into seizures of chagrin over calling a suspect's mother a whore, but how do they intend to replace that?

Posted by: Beantown at April 17, 2009 11:20 AM (rWiXO)

31 "And next ... the thumb wresting. That's right, you detainee you, and if you're not inclined to answer our questions then, you will be shown picture of twigs, brigs, wigs, and rigs, and other things that rhyme with that animal we would be torturing you if we mentioned."

Posted by: Loren Heal at April 17, 2009 11:21 AM (uiKEv)

32 i'm a limp wristed fag

Posted by: Obama at April 17, 2009 11:28 AM (DFDtC)

33 I heard on the radio that one of the techniques used was putting them in a room full of caterpillars!!! OH the HUMANITY!!

Barry's technique will use Butterfly's!! That will work so much better...Yea right!

Posted by: Paladin at April 17, 2009 11:28 AM (XZu3c)

34 #23 As a proud graduate of SERE training

I was War Criminal 69 (please hold the jokes, I heard them all afterwards). I was told that my blond hair and blue eyes made me pretty and that I would be "given to the Black One" This guy was huge and did the wall throw, which was corrugated tin, so it made a lot of noise. Kind of fun, actually. I didn't get the waterboard, but I did get the box. The box freaked some people out, I found it to be a relief from the constant harrassment and took a nap. One thing I learned was that different things freaked out different people. I was glad to not get waterboarded because it probably would have bothered me.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 11:29 AM (n1yDn)

#30

We'll all find out the answers to your questions when we get to the re-education camps. That whole icky about torture thing doesn't apply to us domestic terrorist types. It's open market time baby.

Posted by: pendejo grande at April 17, 2009 11:32 AM (PXZI9)

I'd like to see some proof of this. What makes us less safe in my view is the Obama Doctrine; "Walk softly, apologize often, and carry no stick". with a big stick up your ass and apolgize often.

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: RB at April 17, 2009 11:36 AM (ewXBY)

37 One of the things that pisses me off the most is that even though the techniques these leftard pussies are apoplectic about are child's play, putting it out there gives these jihadist fuckers a clear sense of what our limits are. Even if you're opposed the real torture why for fuck's sake would you want these loons to not be wondering if they're gonna get the business end a power drill to the nutsack if they don't cooperate? The only rational explanation is that they are frivolous people who really don't give a shit about protecting Americans.

Posted by: Abe Froman at April 17, 2009 11:45 AM (fkgyi)

38 No more big city visits for me, lest I be in the wrong place when the bombs go off.

I've consciously avoided large population centers and large "events" for years. Mostly because I'm an anti-social dick, but I'm willing to claim its due to caution.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 17, 2009 11:45 AM (ysoZG)

39 "It's the use of those techniques in the view of the world that has made us less safe"

See, I would have gone with "It's the PUBLICATION of the fact that we use these techniques, as well as the fact that we were listening in on phone calls to and from suspected terrorists to those is terrorist-supporting countries, and subsequent elimination of those programs and techniques to mollify the fucking pansies-assed leftist fucktards in this country, that has made us less safe, .

But that's just me.

Posted by: wiserbud at April 17, 2009 11:47 AM (wWwJR)

40 Sparky: "...Has dinglebarry ever been in a fight, any kind of fight, as a kid, teen, or adult? Raise the fuckin white flag over the white house, we have already surrendered."

To the former, I doubt it. Probably not a stretch to say that in every conflict he engaged, there was a wall of protection in the guise of a security detail of the "torturing type" that shielded him. Such is the case with Beltway tough guys. Big mouths, lots of talk, no balls except for the ones they borrow from "lesser," better men. And now dinglebarry would hamstring them for his own fucking ego and to smear our past protectors.

To the latter, sad but apparently true... except for the radical-right extremists and domestic terrorists who might have an association with the military, tax protesters, opinionated grandmothers, and sundry DHS-tagged freaks. They get the bamboo shoots under the fingernail and Margaret Cho's greatest hits treatment.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 17, 2009 11:48 AM (swuwV)

It wasn't just wedgies. It was skyhooks.

In full view of the world.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at April 17, 2009 11:49 AM (w41GQ)

42 putting it out there gives these jihadist fuckers a clear sense of what our limits are.

We already know that terrorists are getting training on the limits of US interrogation in the Afghan and Paki camps. I suspect that if the need arises, Obama will hypocritically restart rendition and secret prisons. This time we won't be told because there won't be any leaks. The Dems/press won't rat out their own guy and the Repubs won't compromise national security.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 11:52 AM (n1yDn)

43 Justice releases memos to take heat off DHS memo.

Posted by: davod at April 17, 2009 11:52 AM (GUZAT)

It's the use of those techniques in the view of the world that has made us less safe.

Welcome, folks, to 1984.

Those techniques kept CONUS safe from another attack.

Period. End of discussion.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 11:55 AM (/ZX77)

45 I got the waterboard twice. It's was very uncomfortable to me, and for some, absolutely terrifying. The important thing to focus on is the fantastic amount of "stimulus" available for cleaning up a nuclear attack.

Posted by: dan in michigan at April 17, 2009 11:55 AM (88w67)

46 Cant slap them. Cant have them near insects. Might be better to send them to US prisions where Bubba can pork them up the ass and shive them in the gym. Thats not torture ?

Posted by: Rick at April 17, 2009 11:58 AM (SdqPA)

I suspect that if the need arises, Obama will hypocritically restart rendition and secret prisons. This time we won't be told because there won't be any leaks. The Dems/press won't rat out their own guy and the Repubs won't compromise national security.

You're assuming Obama would have the intestinal fortitude to order or allow such treatment. This is a guy who barely had the sack to take out 3 Somalis who were ACTIVELY holding an American against his will under thread of murder.

Posted by: yinzer at April 17, 2009 11:59 AM (/Mla1)

48 Damn you Monty now I really really really want pancakes.

Posted by: alexthechick at April 17, 2009 11:59 AM (SHHaV)

49 You're assuming Obama...

You're right, its an assumption. Allow me my delusions, they help me to sleep at night.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 12:03 PM (n1yDn)

Let's not forget here ...

Grabbing a KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERER by the collar ... is offensive to Obama.

But throwing a child who's survived an abortion into a garbage can ... bothers him naught.

There's special places in hell for guys like him.

Posted by: HondaV65 at April 17, 2009 12:07 PM (8NiWI)

51
Who top of the food chain now, bitches?

That's right.

Booga-booga.

Posted by: Caterpillar at April 17, 2009 12:08 PM (oEAm5)

52 Do they honestly believe the world is upset by our techniques?

Do they really believe that?

Do they really have no clue that the world sees us as the best place to be detained without a close 2nd?

Do they really thing that people who behead journalists and strive to kill as many human beings as possible find these techniques an outrage?

There is obviously much more going on here than people honestly offended by these techniques. This is political and nothing more. It's simply a political weapon to manipulate opinion.

The whole thing leaves me honestly dumbstruck.

Posted by: Tommy V at April 17, 2009 12:10 PM (/PwQS)

53 I believe that yinzer and Monty should be henceforth retained as CIA "interrogation specialists" and I further recommend that that Robert Gibbs fellow looks a bit shifty and I think there's something he's not telling us, something that perhaps yinzer and Monty will be able to get out of him...

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at April 17, 2009 12:10 PM (AJ4xq)

54 Thanks for reading and giving the synopsis, DrewM. Color me undisturbed, too. These are people who tried to inflict harm on innocent Americans and the dems are worried about so called "torture?" I don't know how we're going to survive the next four years with these clowns.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2009 12:11 PM (gnevw)

55 shouldn't Obumbles follow this up with a bow to a Muslim leader or an apology for the US actions of the past or a white flag or something.

Posted by: Jim King at April 17, 2009 12:15 PM (GBXCy)

56 Thanks for reading and giving the synopsis, DrewM. Color me undisturbed, too. These are people who tried to inflict harm on incenerated over 3000 innocent Americans and the dems are worried about so called "torture?" I don't know how we're going to survive the next four years with these clowns.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2009 12:11 PM (gnevw)

FYFY

Posted by: Roadking at April 17, 2009 12:19 PM (5IERf)

57 Damn you Monty now I really really really want pancakes.

Come to me, my pretty. I shall feed you pancakes.

Posted by: Monty at April 17, 2009 12:19 PM (/0a60)

58 ParanoidGirlInSeattle. I've already worked as a CIA operative, I was fired when the new admistration took over. Apparently somebody leaked one of my tactics. I used to sit directly next to the terror suspect, with nobody else in the room. I'd reach my arm around the suspect and tap him on the opposite shoulder, and when they'd turn to look there'd be nobody there. I would then tell them that it was Allah telling them to provide intel. Worked every time, but apparently it was some kind of violation of their civil liberties.

Posted by: yinzer at April 17, 2009 12:21 PM (/Mla1)

59 The left continues to invest all its energy into its great contribution to the Global War on Terror, The Terrorist Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Aubrey at April 17, 2009 12:22 PM (/bTI4)

60 shouldn't Obumbles follow this up with a bow to a Muslim leader or an apology for the US actions of the past or a white flag or something.

He's saving that for his next Memorial Day address.

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." - Barack Obama, Sooper Jenius

Posted by: wiserbud at April 17, 2009 12:22 PM (IHbof)

Do they honestly believe the world is upset by our techniques?

You have to understand the code. By "the world" they mean the Fwench and maybe the Belgians and some assorted Luxembourgains. You know the important people.

I just can't seem to shake this tuna smell. It's driving me crazy.

Posted by: pendejo grande at April 17, 2009 12:35 PM (PXZI9)

62 I'm wondering if these are bathouse records from San Fran, and not leaked memos. Coz, see, they sound like the kinda "services" certain people out there pay good money for. And sometimes they don't quite follow-through. Unless you pay more, I mean. And when you complain, I mean when someone complains, then they act all high and mighty like "what do you expect for twenty dollars?" Then you realize you are out twenty dollars and still didn't get a happy ending.

I mean, someone realizes they are out twenty dollars.

I wonder how much they charge at Guantanamo? I still got travel miles I could use. I mean people could use their travel miles. If they wanted to.

Posted by: Anderson Cooper at April 17, 2009 12:38 PM (lWSMb)

63 I think caterpillars would be the perfect way to extract information. First put the naked prisoner in the box. Then let a line of Buckmoth Caterpillars walk in to join him. Lots of Buckmoth caterpillars. Afterwards use a D-9 Caterpillar to squeeze out anything he has left.

Posted by: Glenmore at April 17, 2009 12:40 PM (xVNZx)

64 The O knows that only a terror disaster could prove him wrong on this, but only years later when the truth of its cause might be known for sure, and by then he will be retired in best seller splendor. Even then his supporters will claim Bush did it. Ninety percent of the dems and their press serfs support this guy and will continue to do so as long as the Federal Reserve presses are rolling for the dems, and the prospect of prime time calamity exists to produce big ratings for the serfs. Bush, who had the character to resist public opinion for the greater good, was very successful in his approach to terror, and Barry is riding that success all the way. Hypocritical and unfair, but these are the times.

Posted by: mytralman at April 17, 2009 12:45 PM (26p91)

Posted by: Roadking at April 17, 2009 12:19 PM (5IERf)

Oh, I know. I agree with you. Don't know what I was typing there.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2009 12:52 PM (13T2s)

Oh, I know. I agree with you. Don't know what I was typing there.

Figured that, you being a fellow Texan with a Palin Blog and all.

Posted by: Roadking at April 17, 2009 12:56 PM (5IERf)

I was War Criminal 69 (please hold the jokes, I heard them all afterwards).

I was War Criminal 6.

My response: "I am not a number, I am a free man!"

Instructors had NO idea WTF I was talking about.

Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at April 17, 2009 01:31 PM (LL8fk)

68 Some time during the endless 2008 campaign, Brit Hume was one of the panelists on a Fox News show, and he said something that's just God's truth:

"There's a reason that Democrats are often perceived as soft on national security; it's because THEY ARE."

Posted by: tsj017 at April 17, 2009 01:33 PM (TBwnU)

I find myself impressed when two of the GREATEST LEGAL MINDS OF OUR TIME, Lord Zero, and his AG, Eric "You Whiteys Are All Cowards" Holder decide that there is nothing wrong with publishing legal memoranda prepared with the specific purpose to advise a client, POTUS and his administration. If I did that with an opinon prepared for a client, I would likely be disbarred.

Festering, stinking assnuggets. I'm so very happy that I get to question their patriotism and intellect EVERY.SINGLE.DAY.

Posted by: Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere at April 17, 2009 01:35 PM (xN01c)

After a series of overtures by U.S. President Barack Obama, Castro said Thursday that he is ready to talk with the U.S. and put "everything" on the table, even questions of human rights and political prisoners.

So Barry's panties are in a bunch over Gitmo but he has no problems with the political prisoners in Cuba.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at April 17, 2009 01:36 PM (1Jaio)

Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing.

Read on a bright, sunny day in September 2001 they do not appear graphic and disturbing. And today is a beautiful bright and sunny day.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at April 17, 2009 01:44 PM (O9Cc8)

72 I was War Criminal 6

The sound recordings were really weird. "...boots...Boots...BOOTS!" and the baby crying. Bizarre. I would fall asleep in that lotus position they made you sit in. I kept dreaming about pepperoni pizza. 5 days with no food will do that. I think the worst part was when standing in line in filthy underwear and the guy behind me accidentally bumped into me. The contents of my urine can spilled all over me. It was not a happy day. The sickest thing was the guy with his Rabbit Be Cool Stick. I can still remember the rabbit's squeal as his head was bashed in. It didn't stop me from eating my little portion of the stew. That was the point, I guess.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 01:46 PM (n1yDn)

73 Are these all of the memos, or just some of them? Honestly, I was expecting [b/c of the Dem's language] to see that we did more to these scumbags.

I really don't see how any of these actions constitute torture. Also, I'm all for playing mind games with these guys; trouble is, now, that they know how we operate. Is there no such thing as a state secret anymore?

Posted by: '80sBaby at April 17, 2009 01:46 PM (zmiSr)

74 War Criminal 23 here. After 5 days in the field, I'd have slurped down those caterpillars as fast as I could grab them. Torture? That's a damn snack!

Posted by: J-Rod at April 17, 2009 01:57 PM (JC+x3)

75 Strange, but everybody I've talked to always remembers their War Criminal number, no matter how much time goes by.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 02:01 PM (n1yDn)

76 Some things you just don't forget. Best training I ever went through.

Posted by: J-Rod at April 17, 2009 02:02 PM (JC+x3)

AnonymousDrivel*

I spent 4 years in military and 33 years in the fire service. Fire is terror. We would do anything and everything humanly possible to protect the citizens we serve from this terror. We knew that if we didn't kill it (fire), it would kill us. I want a president that will do anything and everything possible to protect men, women and children from these monsterous animals that would torture a 7 year old child and then chop their head off. I don't need to know any details about how they (our government) prevented this kind of sick slaughter of human beings, I just want to know they are up to the task at hand. My dad served in WWII, he's still alive. He just shakes his head and tells me if the dems and obama were in charge back then, we would all be nazis today.

Posted by: Sparky at April 17, 2009 02:04 PM (J1f2W)

One last point....

I would gouge out an eyball with an ice pick, pull out a tongue with a rusty pair of pliers, or jackhammer a pair of balls if it meant saving my family from being blown up, tortured, beheaded or any of the vicious acts the ilamic terrorists enjoy doing. I would do it and sleep good afterwards.

Posted by: Sparky at April 17, 2009 02:31 PM (J1f2W)

79 My dad served in WWII, he's still alive. He just shakes his head and tells me if the dems and obama were in charge back then, we would all be nazis today.
Posted by: Sparky at April 17, 2009 02:04 PM (J1f2W)

In fairness, the Dems were in charge back then. Unfortunately, they were different kinds of Dems.

Obama is simply Roosevelt without the ruthless foreign policy. In other words, the worst of all possible combinations.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 17, 2009 02:44 PM (hlYel)

The number of attacks on US soil that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic dislocation after use of these techniques began...0.

Is that supposed to be a serious argument? Those techniques could have been used, produced no or false information (as most experts say they that's all they accomplish), and the terror attacks could still have occurred. And not using those techniques can result in better information resulting in zero terror attacks afterwards (see the book How To Break A Terrorist, written by an interrigator who should know). Simple conflation of correlation with cause.

And the chance of extracting false information which leaves us far worse off is not hypothetical. We left a captive (Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi) in the hands of Egyptians who tortured him and got him to "confess" to a Saddam-Al Queda connection that did not exist. The Bush administration used that "information" to bolster its case for war with Iraq. Care to count the costs of that one in American blood and money?

Number of unnecessary wars we got into through the use of those techniques: 1. And 1 > 0. And this time, there is a causal connection.

Moreover, I suspect the author of this blog would consider it torture if any of these things were done to him. To pooh-pooh what happened ignores the fact that a few people actually died. It's not a huge jump to assume that if some died, the way others were treated was clearly torture.

By the way, the fact that service members volunteered to be tortured for training purposes doesn't mean what we did wasn't torture--another error in simple logic.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 02:46 PM (FR2CN)

81 What it boils down to for me is this: Do we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the terrorists we claim moral superiority over? If the answer is yes, then we should not be torturing anyone. Yes, terrorists are the scum of the fucking earth and deserve to die a thousand fiery deaths. But when we torture them, we have become no better.

Now, if you're asking me whether or not during a "ticking time bomb" scenario we should be able to take a drill to someone's knee cap, that's another issue altogether. But that is not what was discussed in this memo. This was systematic, ritualized torture of hundreds of detainees, many who turned out to have no information of value whatsoever. The fact that we have lowered our nation to the terrorists level of moral repugnance is shameful. By acting in the same way as our enemies, we have done nothing but justify their actions. And NO, I am not saying that stopping torture will make terrorism disappear. But if this is truly a battle of "Good vs. Evil" as George Bush was fond of describing it, how does adopting the techniques of Evil accomplish our goals?

Posted by: Cameron at April 17, 2009 02:48 PM (5+UZK)

82 Why don't we stick mini-cameras on everyone's head so we can track where everyone is and what everyone is doing. Then we can write statements like:

Number of murders before we put little cameras on everyone's head and started monitoring what everyone was doing: 505,456,456,478,973,121,254

Number of murders after we put little cameras on everyone's head and started monitoring what everyone was doing: potentially 0

Posted by: Roman at April 17, 2009 02:50 PM (D9U+W)

Moreover, I suspect the author of this blog would consider it torture if any of these things were done to him

You are a dumb fuck and full of shit. When our people start sawing the heads off of people they pull in off the street maybe you�ll have room to talk. Until then you can kindly STFU and crawl back in your basement.

Posted by: Vic at April 17, 2009 02:56 PM (f6os6)

84 Tye same goes for the next post

Posted by: Vic at April 17, 2009 02:57 PM (f6os6)

If someone put me in a room with a caterpillar...nope, not torure. Next.

Posted by: Luca Brasi at April 17, 2009 03:00 PM (YmPwQ)

86 Once again, I .Could.Care.Less. about the fuckign prisoners and their "torture". The only people being tiortured at Gitmo are the Marine guards, who have to kowtow these the scumbag prisoners whiel literally being shat upon. Put down your fucking Democrat script and try, just try, to be real for once.

Posted by: Luca Brasi at April 17, 2009 03:02 PM (YmPwQ)

87 Obama has saved or created hundreds of lives by releasing these memos.

Praise be to the Lightworker!

Posted by: Jeremiadbullfrog at April 17, 2009 03:12 PM (EB+oY)

88 <i> If someone put me in a room with a caterpillar...nope, not torure. Next. </i>

How about if we put you in a dark coffin stuffed with a thousand caterpillars?

Posted by: Liberal Roman at April 17, 2009 03:19 PM (D9U+W)

89 Sparky: "I would gouge out an eyball with an ice pick, pull out a tongue with a rusty pair of pliers, or jackhammer a pair of balls if it meant saving my family from being blown up, tortured, beheaded or any of the vicious acts the ilamic terrorists enjoy doing. I would do it and sleep good afterwards."

You and me both, brother. It's not like you do backflips over it because you're a sadist which is how such "torture" is portrayed. It's done because it has to be done. And it has to be done by serious people.

In a previous life, I did what would be considered bad things. I didn't enjoy it but understood, as a professional, that such work was necessary. People around the world in this life and the next will benefit from the fruits (however trivial or substantial) of my and my peers' labor. However, many if not all, while demonizing the work, would not have the lives they have and surely would not be willing to stop that which they so publicly "abhor" if the abandonment of such actions meant giving up that to which they have become accustomed.

Obviously, I won't disclose my actions or the industry publicly, and it probably isn't what one might think it to be; however, the principle remains. Difficult work is done by real, sincere, thoughtful people and the human race, on the whole, benefits. Life is actually extended. And yet we still have Everest-sized hypocrites demanding that the would-be impossible be done with some imaginary tool set that only exists in the minds of the insane or irrational.

The insane and irrational now run the White House. A subset within - let's stick with calling 'em the hypocrites - will still continue with Bushitler's tactics when necessary behind the scenes and with a media protectorate giving selective cover. Useful idiots will front for the administration when called, so while they'll perpetuate foolishness in public policy, "torture" of some sort will continue though it may yet be a further-diluted version of what we know. And this country will be less safe because of it all.

Thanks, Barack!

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 17, 2009 03:24 PM (swuwV)

90 The number of attacks on US soil that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic dislocation after use of these techniques began...0. Easy to make the point if it's qualified by points that exclude nearly every terrorist attack since then. I'm sure the folks in Iraq, London, Madrid and Bombay feel reassured. If you look up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_War_on_Terrorism there's been plenty of attacks since 2001, and the trend seems to be on the increase. That article, of course, doesn't include the many attacks on US targets outside the US. Really, you think torture is going to deter people who are willing to commit suicide attacks? Number of right wing terrorist attacks since April 19, 1995?

Posted by: TioNed at April 17, 2009 03:28 PM (U1BOT)

91 <i>When our people start sawing the heads off of people they pull in off the street maybe you�ll have room to talk. Until then you can kindly STFU and crawl back in your basement.</i>

Amazing that people continue to ignore the statements by just about all experts (including interrogators) that torture doesn't work, it just gets people to say what they think you want to hear. And that there is a specific example of someone doing just that which helped us get into a war (Iraq) on false information (a "confession" that Saddam was connected with al Qaeda).

Plus the fact that our failure to live up to our own stated standards only confirms what those who oppose us are saying about us and becomes a recruiting tool for more extremists.

This isn't some namby pamby analysis. We harmed ourselves and created greater dangers by doing what we did. Vengeance may make people feel better, but it doesn't solve the problem if it's not in our long-term interest. And torture simply isn't in that category because there's no evidence that it works (and plenty of evidence that it doesn't) and using it drives people to the other side. It's just dumb policy, regardless of how good it makes some people feel.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 03:32 PM (FR2CN)

It's funny - we defeated the mighty British Empire without resorting to torture. We defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan without resorting to torture. We defeated Spain and Mexico without resorting to torture. We came through a Civil War without resorting to torture. And yet, when faced with a rag-tag little group of terrorists, we have to shred Constitutional protections and go back on our most sacred principles in order to defeat them? Former generations would have seen us as the paranoid wimps we are.

Do you think there wasn't the possibility that some Japanese or German captive during WW2 might have had some valuable intelligence that could have saved lives? That none of the Confederate POWs might have had information on troup movements that could have ended the war earlier? That British soldiers captured during the Revolutionary War might have provided life saving information? Are you saying it was a mistake to live up to our principles in all these cases? You guys aren't the patriots you think you are. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or FDR never would have done what George Bush and Dick Cheney did because they all believed in the Bill of Rights and human dignity. You can mock and minimize the cruelty of these techniques all you want but in the end you are cheering the destruction of the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Mark at April 17, 2009 03:34 PM (pSYWf)

93 If someone put me in a room with a caterpillar...nope, not torure. Next.

Haven't read "1984," have you? If your greatest fear, the one that gets you vomiting and losing control of your mind is rats, then being in a room with a rat is torture. And that's what our folks did: find their greatest fear, then use it. And if it were used on you, it would be torture. And they used it regardless of whether such techniques get good information, which just about everyone says they don't.

Read 1984, then get back to me on the whole caterpillar thing.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 03:41 PM (FR2CN)

94 Do you think there wasn't the possibility that some Japanese or German captive during WW2 might have had some valuable intelligence that could have saved lives?

Actually, I've heard leading people in the military say that our refusal to torture saved American lives in WW2. Germans were more likely to surrender than fight to the death because they knew they would not be tortured by Americans when taken into captivity.

Again, this is not some namby-pamby analysis. It's what's in our own best interests.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 03:44 PM (FR2CN)

95 Count me among the undisturbed as well. I read the news and gaped in disbelief. These were the so-called "torture" memos? That's not torture!

I will be the first to stand up and say we shouldn't torture people. I believe that's wrong, and that it hurts us, and that under real torture, people will make up things just to get the pain to end.

That said, the techniques described in these memos aren't torture! Boohoo, and open slap on the abdomen? Sleep deprivation for 7 and a half days? I sleep-deprived myself for 8 and a half days during my senior year of high school, just to finish everything!

Cry me a frickin' river. Why move to end these? Because we have a spineless terrorist-loving ignorant POTUS...

Posted by: Amy at April 17, 2009 04:01 PM (WOIRU)

96 Amazing that people continue to ignore the statements by just about all experts (including interrogators) that torture doesn't work,

Um, "waterboarding" is not "torture"

Thus, you have no point.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:04 PM (iy1Xt)

97 DHS ALERT! I must confess, there are days, watching Gibbs wander around a question without ever answering it, I'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WATERBOARD HIM!

Posted by: GarandFan at April 17, 2009 04:05 PM (C3okI)

98 We defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan without resorting to torture.

Hysterical.

Yes, I guess you are ok with the Firebombing of Dresden and dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima then?

Where do you imbeciles come from?

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:05 PM (iy1Xt)

99 The Bush administration used that "information" to bolster its case for war with Iraq. Care to count the costs of that one in American blood and money?

Um, the problem for you is that WMD was the cause belli for the war in Iraq.

Keep flailing.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:08 PM (iy1Xt)

100 nd yet, when faced with a rag-tag little group of terrorists, we have to shred Constitutional protections and go back on our most sacred principles in order to defeat them?

The problem for you is that you are redefining the term "torture" to make these idiotic and false statements.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:10 PM (iy1Xt)

101 Jay@96,

But don't you see? You haven't read 1984 or you, as knuckledragger, don't understand it. You see, torture is in the eye of the beholder. If a caterpillar is your personal demon, then a caterpillar is verboten... because of the inhumane distress.

No ethical society can look at itself with pride if selectively-applied discomfort is used to protect its population. It's in some handbook for humanity somewhere since all "torture" is torture. They're indistinguishable by definition.

Boy you rightwingnuts are silly.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 17, 2009 04:12 PM (swuwV)

102 There are three kinds of people in this world -

- the ignorant, who can learn
- the dumb, who cannot learn
- the stupid, who can learn but refuse to.

Those who believe that " just about all experts (including interrogators) say that torture doesn't work" belong in the third category.

Posted by: Druid at April 17, 2009 04:16 PM (nFeDb)

103 DSimon, et al

You are missing the point of this post and its comments. This stuff that you are calling torture is not torture. It was done to me and others here who went through SERE as part of our training and I do not consider it torture. Read our comments. Since I actually experienced it and you did not, I win the debate. Don't be such a sissy.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 04:17 PM (n1yDn)

104 Sorry, 99 should say "Casus belli"

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:19 PM (iy1Xt)

105 Amazing that people continue to ignore the statements by just about all experts (including interrogators) that torture doesn't work, it just gets people to say what they think you want to hear
Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 03:32 PM (FR2CN)

Perhaps you can explain this to me then....

High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa�ida organization that was attacking this country

I didn't say that. Bush didn't say that. You know who said that? Dennis Blair, Obama's DNI. He said it yesterday in response to the release of these memos.

Sorry but you fail and will not be receiving any parting gifts, lovely or otherwise.

Unless of course you are conceding that these methods aren't torture, in which case welcome to the light.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 17, 2009 04:21 PM (hlYel)

106

Inducing hypothermia and beating people to death is torture. We executed Germans for war crimes for doing exactly the same things that are descibed in these memos. We called water boarding torture when the Khmer Rouge did it. When the Soviet Union used sleep deprivation, stress positions, and cold cells we called it torture.

I have no problem with bombing places - we were at war, and they were doing the same. Bombing Dresden and Hiroshima shortened the War, so at least served some purpose. We can torture prisoners all we want and it's not going to shorten the war on terror. What is the purpose of it? They're no threat once they are in custody and all torture does is induce them to give us false information. On top of that the Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment. I'm not the one redefining torture - these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are the same ones the United States defined as torture during WWII and the Cold War. You all are the ones changing the definitions.

Posted by: Mark at April 17, 2009 04:24 PM (pSYWf)

107 "They're no threat once they are in custody..."

The knowledge some retain does remain a threat to us as it's a gameplan to future killing or a shield for past ones.

"...and all torture does is induce them to give us false information."

Except when it doesn't as others have repeated tirelessly, previously.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 17, 2009 04:31 PM (swuwV)

108 You all are the ones changing the definitions.

No, I am saying that putting someone in a cold room is not the same as "inducing hypothermia". I am saying that an open handed slap or a wall slam is not the same as "beating people to death". Again, listen to what is being said. The stuff in that memo is straight out of SERE school. It wasn't torture when it was done to me and it wasn't torture when it was done to the Club Gitmo members.

Posted by: oLD gUY at April 17, 2009 04:31 PM (n1yDn)

109 We called water boarding torture when the Khmer Rouge did it.

No we didn't.

Bombing Dresden and Hiroshima shortened the War, so at least served some purpose

Laugh out loud funny.

Yes, because I'm quite certain if the US had nuked Kandahār after 9/11, you would have cheered it on.

Again, where do you idiots come from?

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:33 PM (iy1Xt)

110 hese "enhanced interrogation techniques" are the same ones the United States defined as torture during WWII and the Cold War.

No, they did not.

And you can't present any actual facts to the contrary.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:34 PM (iy1Xt)

111 Jay@96,

But don't you see? You haven't read 1984 or you, as knuckledragger, don't understand it. You see, torture is in the eye of the beholder.

Right! Silly me!

Lost on them is that reading their idiotic assertions constitutes torture...

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:35 PM (iy1Xt)

112 They're no threat once they are in custody

I'm glad that you're are in favor of indefinite detention without trials!

Happy to hear that!

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:36 PM (iy1Xt)

113 We called water boarding torture when the Khmer Rouge - let me get this straight, YOU personally remember U.S. concern with Khmer Rouge"torturing" people by water boarding them?

Fascinating - please elaborate, time-frames, what news program, how did the US respond? Please do not provide a link - I really want to hear your personal recollections.

Thank You Very Much

Posted by: Druid at April 17, 2009 04:41 PM (nFeDb)

114 Again, where do you idiots come from?
Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:33 PM (iy1Xt)

Andrew Sullivan linked to this post. That's where they are coming from (at least in the interets sense).

Posted by: DrewM. at April 17, 2009 04:42 PM (hlYel)

115 DrewM,
thanks. Now I see.

By the way, this article outlines some of the "torture"

One May 2005 memo detailed 12 techniques and concluded that none of them constituted torture, while describing how they would result in minimal damage to a detainee.

On dietary manipulation, through which suspects are fed liquid diets, the memo said all detainees would be weighed weekly -- and the restricted diet would be ceased if a detainee loses more than 10 percent of his body weight. On "walling," through which a suspect is slammed into a "flexible, false wall," the memo said the technique is not intended to "inflict any injury or cause severe pain."

Other methods included slapping and placing a prisoner in "stress positions" -- methods the memo said also are not intended to inflict long-term or significant pain.

Oh the humanity!!!

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 04:47 PM (iy1Xt)

116 The leftys in here are a riot. About the time 4 or 5 radical islamic terrorists were to capture you, and video you, all the while threatening to chop your leftist spewing mellon off..you would be praying that some intelligence agent was doing anything to get information about your location and come rescue you. It's a laugh if you think during WWII we didn't use various techniques to get information from our enemies, to save American GI's. Are you people nuts? I bet you would apologize and say I'm sorry if my face hurt your hand, if you got a good backhand across your jibbs.

Posted by: Sparky at April 17, 2009 05:46 PM (J1f2W)

117 Um, "waterboarding" is not "torture"

Thus, you have no point.

Everyone else says waterboarding is torture. Even we prosecuted others for waterboarding as torture during WW2. Apparently, it was torture until we started doing it, when it magically became non-torture.

Waterboarding has been considered torture for a long, long time, even by us. We tortured. Period.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 08:57 PM (FR2CN)

118 This stuff that you are calling torture is not torture. It was done to me and others here who went through SERE as part of our training and I do not consider it torture.

Waterboarding is definitely torture. And considering that some of the stuff we did actually led to death, I'd be pretty sure that a lot of the other stuff that didn't quite kill people is also torture.

Torture is not defined by your personal subjective experience, and whether you volunteered for it is irrelevent as to a legal definition of the term.

Read the memos. They're an embarrassment. To justify waterboarding as not torture, they say "well, the mental pain was severe but it wasn't long enough." So making someone feel like they're about to die, repeatedly, is fine as long as it's brief?

The memos allow just about anything that doesn't lead to severe organ failure or a mental breakdown. But surely there are lots of things that most of us would consider torture that don't go nearly that far. That's the point/

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 09:05 PM (FR2CN)

119 Um, the problem for you is that WMD was the cause belli for the war in Iraq.

Not for me; the Bush administration kept changing the justification. First it was WMD, then it was the al Qaeda connection, then it was bringing democracy to Iraq and transforming the Middle East....

In any case, people seem to assume that torture gets us information that wouldn't have been obtained any other way, an assertion that many experts in the field dispute. But one also has to consider the false information obtained that we act on to our own detriment (since we're predisposed to believe it anyway, otherwise we wouldn't be torturing the person to get it).

For the al-Libi example, see the Dec. 9 New York Times article "Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied To Coercion Claim":
"The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons."

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 09:26 PM (FR2CN)

120 Even we prosecuted others for waterboarding as torture during WW2

Um, "we" did no such thing.

And you can't present a single fact to the contrary.

Waterboarding has been considered torture for a long, long time, even by us.

No, it has not.

And you can't present a single fact to the contrary.

the Bush administration kept changing the justification. First it was WMD, then it was the al Qaeda connection, then it was bringing democracy to Iraq and transforming the Middle East....

Yet another lie.

Notice the theme here?

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:34 PM (iy1Xt)

121 I love this. This, is "fact" for the left:

he new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out

Alternatively, it may not have.

Again, where do you idiots come from?

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:35 PM (iy1Xt)

122 "The number of terrorist attacks (that's a "man-made disaster" for any monitors from DHS who might keeping an eye on us extremists) on US soil that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic dislocation before use of these techniques...1.

The number of attacks on US soil that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic dislocation after use of these techniques began...0."

Post hoc propter hoc logical, anyone?

You guys need to figure out which line of BS you want to stick to. Either these are harmless fraternity stunts (such as the sleep deprivation that left Jose Padilla a shambling twitching psychological wreck) that do nothing or they are absolutely essential to the WOT. You can't have it both ways.

I'd also remind you that the way we got Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was *not* through torture but through interrogation techniques described in the army field manual -- in that case, "ego up".

Posted by: Mike at April 17, 2009 09:37 PM (w6v0U)

123 the Bush administration kept changing the justification

You asserting this and it being true are 2 different things.

This, is what the AUMF, you know, the one more Democrats supported than the one authorizing Operation Desert Storm:

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 199, Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Don't worry, you don't know what it all means and to you, your idiotic and false assertions constitute "fact"

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:37 PM (iy1Xt)

124 Torture is not defined by your personal subjective experience,

Torture is not defined by what you say it is.

I love the fact that the irony of your postings is lost on you.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:39 PM (iy1Xt)

125 Everyone else says waterboarding is torture

Um, no, they don't.

Again, your posts are parody.

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:40 PM (iy1Xt)

126 Read the memos. They're an embarrassment

The only embarrassment is your continued postings on this topic.

I did, however, enjoy this:

Yet long before �waterboarding� entered the public discourse, the C.I.A. gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter.

And note that,
Even today, with sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president, waterboarding is not specifically prohibited as torture under the criminal law.

Don't worry you leftists can't comment on that...

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:46 PM (iy1Xt)

127 Oh, and this is for you dsimon,

Most prominent among those briefed on waterboarding was Nancy Pelosi. According to the Post�s interviews, members of the Congressional oversight committees understood that they had to weigh the limits of inhumane treatment of people known to have Al Qaeda connections against the threat of new attacks. They believed that these techniques struck the right balance in the circumstances. Yet I haven�t heard of any serious call for prosecuting Speaker Pelosi or any of her colleagues for complicity in torture.

Note that 'accountability' is something ignorant people like you only shout at elected Republicans...

Posted by: Jay at April 17, 2009 09:48 PM (iy1Xt)

128 Even we prosecuted others for waterboarding as torture during WW2

Um, "we" did no such thing.

And you can't present a single fact to the contrary.

From the Washington Post,"Waterboarding Used To Be A Crime," Nov. 4 2007: "After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: 'I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.' He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. 'Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death.'"

From the Wikipedia entry on waterboarding: "McCain later reiterated his opinion in an interview with 60 minutes on March 9, 2008, shortly after becoming the presumptive 2008 Republican presidential nominee, that waterboarding was torture and that the U.S. Government had tortured detained prisoners by using this technique. Scott Pelley asked if water boarding is torture, McCain said, "Sure. Yes. Without a doubt". Pelley then asked "So the United States has been torturing POWs?" Pelley asked. "Yes. Scott, we prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II. And one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they water-boarded Americans", McCain said.^[116]"

The Google is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime!

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 09:58 PM (FR2CN)

129 Note that 'accountability' is something ignorant people like you only shout at elected Republicans...

I'm happy to hold all accountable, regardless of party affiliation. Are you?

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 10:00 PM (FR2CN)

130 "And note that,
Even today, with sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president, waterboarding is not specifically prohibited as torture under the criminal law."

I believe Obama has issued an executive order banning it. And I don't see Congress in a hurry to reverse that order because right now it's not allowed. So the fact that it isn't specifically prohibited right now isn't particularly relelvant. Plus you have no idea if legislation is in the works; have you seen Congress in "action"?

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 10:04 PM (FR2CN)

131 This, is what the AUMF, you know, the one more Democrats supported than the one authorizing Operation Desert Storm

Yes, that's what the AUMF said. But the NY Times article clearly states that the Bush administration also raised the al-Qaeda-Iraq connection. Just because it wasn't in the AUMF doesn't mean the administration didn't say it.

And Jayu, the article is clear that they did say it: "The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons." They used bad information to bolster its claim that war was necessary.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 10:10 PM (FR2CN)

132 dsimon-

Just wondering but are you going to address my question in number 105 and explain how you and so many experts know that these techniques don't work, yet Obama's own DNI said on Thursday that they produced "high value information".

Perhaps you don't think Admiral Blair qualifies as an expert.

Looking forward to your answer.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 17, 2009 10:36 PM (hlYel)

133 Just wondering but are you going to address my question in number 105 and explain how you and so many experts know that these techniques don't work, yet Obama's own DNI said on Thursday that they produced "high value information".

Perhaps you don't think Admiral Blair qualifies as an expert.

I could just as easily ask you how to explain why so many people say torture doesn't work. What about all the experts that say torture is counterproductive? Doesn't responsibility run both ways?

First, the possibility that torture produced "high value information" does not mean that we would not have gotten the same information without torture.

Second, we have to weigh the downside of getting bad information from torture that we either have to expend resources verifying or that we act upon to our own detriment. It's a fallacy to conclude that just because we get some "high value information" that the entire process is a net plus. The possibility that it works occasionally doesn't mean it's a good idea as a general rule. It's like saying "I'm using this swing because I hit the ball sometimes" when another swing would do better on average.

Third, I'd like to see what constitutes this "high value information." Is there nothing they can tell us without having to have to kill us? Only if there is disclosure can we make a real assessment. I was ready to believe the administration's WMD arguments if they had just shown us something. But they said they couldn't show us a single piece of paper. I'm ready for Blair too, but I'd like to know what they're talking about.

Finally, I don't think perfect security is the ultimate goal of our society. Principles count. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the like could have lived with fine security under the British. But they put their lives on the line because there were principles that they thought were worth making sacrifices for. If perfect security had been their primary concern, this nation would never have gotten off the ground. What principles are we willing to put something on the line for today? I'm not going to coddle those that want to harm us. But if avoiding torture puts my life at a marginally greater risk, I'm willing to do that because that's one thing that makes me different from them. I fear, though, that that position may be a minority view on this board.

Now maybe you can answer my question as to why so many people in the interrogation field oppose the use of torture.

Posted by: dsimon at April 17, 2009 11:40 PM (FR2CN)

134 Fuck Andrew Sullivan for linking to this and bringing the fucking lefty retards out of the woodwork.

Listen, I am personally morally cool with crucifying a significant portion of the adult male population of Afghanistan on the road between Kandahar and Kabul. That goes double for any of the foreign fighters captured there. And after what the locals in Yusifiyah did to three guys from my brigade (Tucker, Menchaca, and Babineau), I'd be happy to see a radioactive lake on the site.

The reason there was a pretty low number of "atrocities" on the Western Front in both World Wars is you're looking at a national dispute between fairly similar cultures. And we covered up a lot of our sins of WWII in a lot of "Good War" rhetoric. You look at what went on on the Eastern Front, and it was such a different ball game it was a different sport.

I personally don't give a fuck about the so-called "moral supremacy" of the United States. With the gang of fucking idiots we have in charge right now, I'm a hell of a lot more worried about our continued survival, and I'll support just about anything to ensure that happens. If we accidentally waterboard the wrong Islamic asshole to keep an American city from vanishing in a nuclear fireball, boo fucking hoo.

Posted by: SGT Dan at April 18, 2009 12:06 AM (gFvSq)

135 First, the possibility that torture produced "high value information" does not mean that we would not have gotten the same information without torture.

Irrelevant to your contention that "torture doesn't work".

Second, we have to weigh the downside of getting bad information from torture that we either have to expend resources verifying or that we act upon to our own detriment.

Are you really saying that information gained through other sources doesn't have to be verified or that no misinformation is ever included in that take? The same scrutiny has to be applied to information gained from non-enhanced methods as from enhanced.

We'll never know if we could have gotten the information in another way, just as we'll never know if using these techniques prevented an attack. We don't have the luxury of consulting alternate timeliness. All we know is what was done and what happened and didn't happen. You think you know but you don't. You are simply willing to deny any credit to the people who used these techniques because they offend you.

Third, I'd like to see what constitutes this "high value information." Is there nothing they can tell us without having to have to kill us?

So you think Blair is overstating the value of the intelligence in order to protect the Bush administration? Yeah, I'm going to have to say, that's not likely.

But if avoiding torture puts my life at a marginally greater risk, I'm willing to do that because that's one thing that makes me different from them.

Bully for you but people actually responsible for protecting this country don't have that luxury. You are more than welcome to put your life at risk however you see fit. You may not put the lives of others at risk to satisfy your personal need to preen.

As for your question...my guess is because different people have different opinions. This isn't science, there's no guarantees that individuals will react the same way to the same set of interrogation methods.

You make it seem like Bush and Cheney grabbed Zubayah and waterboarded him with in the first 3 minutes. Did you miss the part where interrogators said they had hit a wall with him and the guys given the methods they were allowed to use?

I think it's ridiculous to think these techniques are something Bush and Cheney dreamed up. They were well known and apparently professionals within CIA and other intelligence agencies felt they were necessary. You seem to ignore the evidence that plenty of people, including Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders knew about this and wanted to make sure we were doing everything possible.

Here's the thingg, none of of your points actually address the core issue, which is your statement that "torture doesn't work" is directly contradicted by the statement of Adm. Blair. Want to try again?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 18, 2009 12:09 AM (hlYel)

136 @15: Don't forget the interrogators holding the tips of their index fingers mere millimeters above the subject's skin and taunting him with chants of "I'm not touching the jihadist! I'm not touching the jihadist!"_{Seriously, that shit is hardcore.}

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 18, 2009 03:57 AM (8MuSQ)

137 First, the possibility that torture produced "high value information" does not mean that we would not have gotten the same information without torture.

Irrelevant to your contention that "torture doesn't work".

Of course it's relevant, in the sense that other techniques can get us a greater amount and more reliable information. If you have a better technique and a worse one, why choose the worse one? Or would rephrasing my statement as "doesn't work as well as other techniques" resolve your complaint?

We'll never know if we could have gotten the information in another way, just as we'll never know if using these techniques prevented an attack. We don't have the luxury of consulting alternate timeliness. All we know is what was done and what happened and didn't happen. You think you know but you don't.

And you do know? If we don't have the alternative of constructing alternative timelines, that would seem to me to be just as devastating to your arguement as it is to mine. I'm at least going by what I've read most people, including those in the interrogation field, have said.

So you think Blair is overstating the value of the intelligence in order to protect the Bush administration? Yeah, I'm going to have to say, that's not likely.

What I said is that I'd like to see what they mean by the term. You don't? I thought conservatives were supposed to be skeptical of government. And bureaucracies have a well-known tendency to protect and expand their own turf. Blair may really believe what he says. But people who are in certain fields can get into bubbles too. Since when did the American people get in the habit of saying "well, if the government says it's true, then it's no business of mine"? Really, there's absolutely nothing they can show us that would not endanger national security? We went down that road with WMDs, and now we're willing to do so again?

You make it seem like Bush and Cheney grabbed Zubayah and waterboarded him with in the first 3 minutes.

I do? I made no such assertion. (And for all the claims of a "ticking time bomb" scenario, not one has actually been claimed.) I'm not claiming the administration acted in bad faith, I'm claiming they lost perspective and believed their own hype (as they did with their WMD claims, as they simply rejected evidence that conflicted with their pre-set world view).

people actually responsible for protecting this country don't have that luxury. You are more than welcome to put your life at risk however you see fit. You may not put the lives of others at risk to satisfy your personal need to preen.

Ah, I said I am willing to put my life at risk for principles. And I did say that others apparently are not willing to do the same. If I'm out-voted, that's democracy. But I think that would be a sad outcome, because it means that we stand for "anything goes to assure that I'm absolutely safe," an attitude that goes against everything that got this nation started in the first place. If that's what we've become, then that's what we've become. But I wouldn't be proud of it.

Just wondering: what are you willing to put on the line? And for what?

Here's the thingg, none of of your points actually address the core issue, which is your statement that "torture doesn't work" is directly contradicted by the statement of Adm. Blair. Want to try again?

First, the "core" issue is the integrity of the torture memos. I'll get back to that below. Second, I think I addressed your points above: there are plenty of people who say that we can get more and better information without torture, that assuming that it "works" fails to take into account the costs of all the times that it doesn't "work" (same with "preventative war": even if we get it right once, there are huge costs to the many times we'll get it wrong and so engage in unnecessary wars), and we have no idea what Blair means by "high value intelligence" (you're not interested in what he means by that term?).

In the meantime, you're relying on one person's statement. Unless you have more to go on, why should I decide that Blair's "expert" opinion is any more or less valid than all the other "expert" opinions to the contrary? You seem to agree that the experts disagree, so why prefer one over the other? Would you like to come up with something more to hang your hat on?

You seem to ignore the evidence that plenty of people, including Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders knew about this and wanted to make sure we were doing everything possible.

As I wrote above, I am perfectly willing to hold people accountable regardless of party affiliation.

As for the torture memos, some on this board seem to think that their point is made by showing that some of the approved techniques are not torture. That logic is false. The critique of the memos is that they were used as cover to justify anything the administration wanted to do. If they were just cover, that doesn't mean everything they wanted to constituted torture, it means that at least one or more of the techniques they wanted to use constituted torture. The waterboarding example is clearly one, and there are others. So mocking by saying that "well, THAT certainly isn't torture" doesn't negate the point that other things certainly were, and were approved by lawyers who were more interested in giving a green light to the administration than in an honest appraisal of the law.

Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 06:01 AM (FR2CN)

138 Yes, that's what the AUMF said. But the NY Times article clearly states that the Bush administration also raised the al-Qaeda-Iraq connection. Just because it wasn't in the AUMF doesn't mean the administration didn't say it.

Huh?

The AUMF said specifically that,
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

You do understand those words, don't you?
You can grasp this concept that the President and Congress agreed that Iraq had WMD; was connected to al Qaeda; and a Democratic Iraq was not only in the best policy interests of the United States but was codified already, right?

You can see that those facts mean nobody 'changed' any rationale for operation Iraqi Freedom, right?

Posted by: Jay at April 18, 2009 07:31 AM (iy1Xt)

139 From the Washington Post,"Waterboarding Used To Be A Crime," Nov. 4 2007:

Oh good grief.

You do understand it also did not used to be a crime as well?

President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged."

And,
The British used it against both Arabs and Jews in occupied Palestine in the 1930s.

As to your Washington Post article, it is worth noting that "Waterboarding actually refers to two different interrogation techniques." and of course what happened in Japan is exactly what is happening today.

I also can find no other references to that information other than the prosecution of a Japanese officer for waterboarding a civilian.

Posted by: Jay at April 18, 2009 07:40 AM (iy1Xt)

140 Oh good grief.

I also can find no other references to that information other than the prosecution of a Japanese officer for waterboarding a civilian.

So your claim that if a technique is done to a civilian, then it can be torture, but if it's done to a military person or a combatant, then it's not torture?

Torture is what is done to a person. It doesn't depend on the status of who it's done to. Good grief indeed.

And why isn't the Washington Post piece enough for you? Why is the fact that the procedures may differ in the details (surely each act of waterboarding will differ in some respect) enough to convince you that our version isn't torture? Or is it torture when they do it, but not when we do it?

President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged."

And,
The British used it against both Arabs and Jews in occupied Palestine in the 1930s.

I see. And the Spanish used it in the Inquisition. Because it was used before, we don't consider it torture today. Is that your reasoning? If so, then is anything that was done before now allowed? Or is it possible that it was torture before, even though others approved of it? What's your standard? Is there one?

Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 08:10 AM (FR2CN)

141 Jay, you're really missing the main point: that the administration used bad information likely produced by torture to bolster its case for going into Iraq. Do you dispute that? (I'd like to have more details about the al-Libi case, but of course that information is hard to obtain because of "national security.") The ticking time bomb scenario is hypothetical, but acting on bad information seems far more real.

You can see that those facts mean nobody 'changed' any rationale for operation Iraqi Freedom, right?

Jay, the rationale changed all the time, and I'm not going to look up the cites for you because I remember it well and I'm sure you're capable of doing it on your own this time.

In a foreign press conference before the war, Bush was asked what it would take to avoid armed intervention. He replied "Full disarmament." The drumbeat was "Saddam must disarm or we will disarm him," not "Saddam must free his people or we will free them for him." If the escapade had really been framed as a humanitarian mission, I would be very interested to have seen what the vote in Congress would would have been.

But afterward, Bush said he would have gone into Iraq even if he had known the truth about the absence of WMDs (though, remember, he claimed we had found them even though we hadn't). So would "full disarmament" really been enough to avoid an invasion or not? Both statements can't be true.

The debate in Congress and with the public was focused on the growing threat posed by Saddam's WMDs (remember the prospect of a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud?). Then we got not just intimations that al-Qaeda was "in" Iraq but that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, despite the absence of any evidence to support the claim. (Even as late as 2005, 64% of the public thought Saddam had strong ties with al-Qaeda, 47% thought Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and 44% thought several of the hijackers were Iraqi.) And then we got the argument that even though we were wrong on WMDs and wrong on the al-Qaeda connection, the world was better off without Saddam. We can argue about the last claim, but it was not the primary rationale for going to war.

Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 08:25 AM (FR2CN)

142 Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 06:01 AM (FR2CN)

You have gone far a field from my original question (how do you square your statement that these techniques don't work in the face of Blair's statement that they do), I don't have time to run through all of what you wrote but let me take a whack at a few of your points.

Of course it's relevant, in the sense that other techniques can get us a greater amount and more reliable information. If you have a better technique and a worse one, why choose the worse one?

You're rather dense. The CIA asked for permission to use these 'enhanced techniques' precisely because the type of techniques you are so fond of weren't working anymore. The fact that you continue to ignore that doesn't change that's what happened. These methods weren't a first resort, they were last.

And you do know?

Yes, I do know that there have been no more attacks on the US. I can't tell you what part that played but I do know that when you are batting a thousand you don't say, gee, I wish I could have changed something so I could have done better.

You are arguing that in hindsight we might have done as well without these techniques and you wish we had tried your imaginary way. That's hope v. fact. I'll take fact. BTW-the CIA experts who felt they needed these techniques to get valuable information disagree with you. And they were right, they needed these techniques to get what Blair once again called "high value information". Information they tired to get but couldn't using the techniques you would have limited them to.

First, the "core" issue is the integrity of the torture memos.

No, the core issue is you made a claim that many experts say "torture doesn't work". I'm saying your unnamed experts are contradicted by the man President Obama thinks is the most important voice on intelligence in the government. Tell me why Blair and the CIA agents in charge of interrogating these high value detainees are wrong and your so-called experts are right.

The critique of the memos is that they were used as cover to justify anything the administration wanted to do.

That's bullshit. This is the kind of statement that makes me think you harbor images of Bush and Cheney dreaming up stuff to fulfill the S&M fantasies. The professionals at CIA said they hit a wall in their questioning of these high value guys. They presented a briefing saying they wanted to do x, y, and z and wanted Justice to rule on if it was okay. The administration then gave their legal opinion.

Again, you throw around the idea of all these 'experts' who don't like these techniques. Why exactly do you give zero credence to case officers who were charged with getting the information? Do you think they just wanted to rough someone up or did they have a good faith belief in the efficacy of what they requested? History has clearly shown they were right and your 'experts' were wrong.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 18, 2009 10:33 AM (hlYel)

143 You are arguing that in hindsight we might have done as well without these techniques and you wish we had tried your imaginary way. That's hope v. fact.

You might want to look at the front page of today's NY Times if you want fact. The article says that Abu Zubaydah had already told interrogators all of his most valuable information before the CIA came in and used more "enhanced" techniques. So it's not imaginary. The techniques I am "so fond of" weren't "working" because there wasn't anything else of importance to give--because they worked, at least in this case.

I don't attribute evil motives to the CIA. I understand the sense that if this guy gave us valuable information, then he must have more that we're not getting. And those cases may exist from time to time. But the most outrageous actions can be carried out with the best of motives. That's why there have to be rules. It seems to me that we are poor predictors of who has that vital information and who doesn't, so what are we going to do: torture everyone?

And it seems to me that you continue to discount the fact that our behavior matters. There are ample reports from those who we captured during the Iraq insurgency that many of them joined out of outrage over our actions at Abu Ghraib. Our standards there likely cost American lives (not to mention the money from extending the insurgency). What we do, and how we conduct ourselves, can lead to more terrorists or fewer. Personally, I'd prefer fewer.

So not torturing leaves us better off for two reasons. First, as I've argued, it does not make us safer because it rarely elicits important, reliable information that would not have been obtained otherwise; it can elicit bad information that we act upon to our own detriment; and giving up our standards provides propaganda to the opposition resulting in more people who want to harm us and thereby increases the likelihood that we will be harmed. I believe that outweighs any good information we'd get from a pure cost-benefit analysis.

But second, even if it didn't make us safer, that's a cost I think we should be willing to bear because our values are what makes this country worth defending in the first place. If we wanted ultimate security, we'd live in a police state. We choose not to do so. That comes with a cost. But I'd rather live with some risk in a country that stands for something than live with no risk in a country that stands for nothing. I admit that may be a minority view today (or perahps on this board).

By the way, I live in NYC. You'd think if there'd be a groundswell for "enhanced" techniques, it would be here. But there isn't. It's not that we don't recognize the risk. It's that we refuse to live in fear.

They presented a briefing saying they wanted to do x, y, and z and wanted Justice to rule on if it was okay. The administration then gave their legal opinion.

Except that the "legal" option was a "tortured" reading of the law. Those memos were withdrawn even during the Bush administration because they were so lacking in legal justification. And three out of the four memos were from 2005, so the "heat of the moment" can't be an excuse.

I'm saying your unnamed experts are contradicted by the man President Obama thinks is the most important voice on intelligence in the government. Tell me why Blair and the CIA agents in charge of interrogating these high value detainees are wrong and your so-called experts are right.

I think I did explain on several points, though you may not be satisfied. In the meantime, I can say your sources are contradicted by many in the field, which you could easily look up if you chose to do so. But you haven't responded to my challenge to justify your position other than relying on those two sources. I suggest "How To Break A Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, To Take Down The Deadliest Man In Iraq" by Matthew Alexander.

Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 11:01 AM (FR2CN)

144 There are ample reports from those who we captured during the Iraq insurgency that many of them joined out of outrage over our actions at Abu Ghraib. Our standards there likely cost American lives (not to mention the money

Spare me Abu Ghraib. The actions of those guards were not authorized (that's why they are in jail you know). I know Sullivan and others argue about 'importing Gitmo tactics and mindsets' but those ass clowns were not interogating anyone. That requires skill and experience, those guards were sadistic fucks who no business doing what they were doing. I am glad they all rot in hell. There were no orders or authorization from anyone in the chain of command, let alone the AG, Sec Def or President for that crap.

What hurt our image was the NY Times and others running that every day for almost 3 months as if it were the worst crime in the history of mankind. It wasn't even close but at that point the media was simply doing anti-American propeganda.

Let me ask you this...did anything in those photos approach what happened on a daily basis when Saddam was still in power or what still happens in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc?

It was bad but the left lost all sense of proportion and fanned those flames with glee.

If you want to trade reading lists, I'd suggest you read The Interegators .
It's about the early days in Afghanistan and how laughable it was to try and use the approved field manual techniques to get information.

FTR- I don't think the military should be using the 'enahnce interogation techniques' (and they didn't). The military has to play by the rules. I also think they should be used only against high value leader types, not every jackass that gets caught. Again, that's what happened. How many people have been waterboarded? 6? That's just not that big of a deal.

The reason any country has a clendestine service is for cases where you need to break the rules. You may wish that wasn't the case but the reality is otherwise.

As for your NY Times article you are conlflating two discussions, the Bybee memo and Blair's statment. Even if no furhter information was gaine from Zubaydah, that doesn't negate Blair's statement that these techniques provided "high value information".

Posted by: DrewM. at April 18, 2009 01:03 PM (hlYel)

145 Spare me Abu Ghraib. The actions of those guards were not authorized (that's why they are in jail you know)

I don't think you're addressing my point. The argument is that our actions matter, and what we do can--and actually did--create more terrorists instead of fewer. Whether they were "authorized" is irrelevant; they occurred. I don't see how it matters that it's inhumane treatment at Abu Ghraib or torture at Gitmo and elsewhere.

It wasn't even close but at that point the media was simply doing anti-American propeganda.

Some of us see it as standing up for basic American values. You know, the ones that I think make this country worth preserving. I think this view deserves some acknowledgment, even if you disagree with it, not mere dismissal.

Let me ask you this...did anything in those photos approach what happened on a daily basis when Saddam was still in power or what still happens in Iran, Egypt, Syria

Of course not. But are those countries now our standard? Is the argument that if they're bad, then we can be bad too?

I also think they should be used only against high value leader types, not every jackass that gets caught.

And I wrote that we seem to be doing a bad job telling one from the other. You seem to think that we can know who has the goods ahead of time.

How many people have been waterboarded? 6?

I'd like to know. But isn't secrecy important to you? By the way, since when does the infrequency of a harmful activity mean that the activity is OK?

I'd suggest you read The Interegators .
It's about the early days in Afghanistan and how laughable it was to try and use the approved field manual techniques to get information.

I never claimed that the Army Field Manual was necessarily the appropriate guide. But I've seen little to suggest that torture has done any better when its costs are taken into account.

The reason any country has a clendestine service is for cases where you need to break the rules.

No, the reason for a clandestine service is to keep information away from those who you want to keep it from. It does not necessarily mean giving up the basic principles of our society.

Even if no furhter information was gaine from Zubaydah, that doesn't negate Blair's statement that these techniques provided "high value information".

And we still have no idea what he means by that claim, do we? Have they released any information? Aren't you curious to find out? The Bush administration said they had "slam dunk" evidence of WMD, but wouldn't let us evaluate it for ourselves. We all, both in and out of government, are predisposed to beleive what we want to believe; that's why it's hard to judge Blair's claims absent any kind of disclosure. On the other hand, there are concrete instances of the negative effects of torture (Abu Ghraib fallout, acting on bad information).

And you still haven't told me why we should take Blair's word over all the other words that say torture is a net loss for us. Even if some information was gleaned, could we have gotten it anyway eventually? Did it outweigh the bad information we got from others (al-Libi)? How many people who were tortured gave us no useful informaton at all? Did our practice of torture drive others to join the cause against us? You can't just say "It got us some useful stuff on occasion." It has to be balanced against all the times it didn't work and all the negative effects steming from its use to conclude wheter it "works" or not.

That's why the claim that there haven't been any further US attacks to justify those techniques is a canard (which goes back to the original post). There may have been no attacks if we hadn't used those techniques; perhaps we would have had better and more reliable intel in the long run. There probably would have been fewer insurgents after our troops in Iraq. Without al-Libi, the case for going into Iraq would have been weaker--perhaps not enough to make a difference in the end, but at least we would have been acting on better information.

We will never eliminate risk. We can try to minimize it. It seems to me that torture makes things worse, not better.

Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 01:42 PM (FR2CN)

146 The argument is that our actions matter, and what we do can--and actually did--create more terrorists instead of fewer.

Ever wonder why the Muslim world and the left are so outraged by the stupidity of a handful of soldiers (who have been punished and disavowed) and yet no so annoyed at suicide bombers and decapitators? Funny that.

You may note that there were several high profile terror attacks long before Gitmo was ever needed. In fact, iirc, Gitmo was opened in response to a terrorist attack.

So, we create terrorists when we don't fight back (Somalia, the 1st WTC attack) and we create terrorist when we do fight back. Pretty nifty, huh?

But are those countries now our standard? Is the argument that if they're bad, then we can be bad too?

Did you miss the part when I praised their punishment? My point is the outrage of the Muslim world, Andrew Sullivan and The NY Times is rather selective and simply has no sense of proportion. Sullivan and the Times and the rest spent a lot more time bemoaning a few rogue soldiers in Abu Ghraib than they ever did the pathologies of the Muslim world. Blowing up people in market places, beheading reporters and killing girls who want to go to school stirkes me as far worse than a naked dog pile. Maybe that's just me.

No, the reason for a clandestine service is to keep information away from those who you want to keep it from.

No, that's counter espinoge. Direct action is very different and every serious country in the history of the wold has used it. I'm sory if that offends your delicate sensibilites.

And you still haven't told me why we should take Blair's word over all the other words that say torture is a net loss for us.

I also pointed to Mukasey and Hayden's piece in the WSJ. Look you don't like these techniques and you are hding behing 'all' these experts. The people who are responsible say otherwise. I guess you've answered my question....you don't care what Blair or others say. You've got your belief and 'all' your experts and nothing else, including the fact that there haven't been any more attacks in the US matters.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 18, 2009 01:59 PM (hlYel)

147 I guess you've answered my question....you don't care what Blair or others say.

And you don't seem to care what all the others actively involved in interrogation say. We're at an impasse. And I've said (repeatedly) that those in charge may be in a bubble, as were those who were so convinced about WMDs. And I've said (repeatedly) that the information extracted may have been available through other means without the negative effects that come from our use of torture. And you still don't seem interested in finding out exactly what they found out so that we can evaluate it independently. Or do you think it's a "slam dunk" so we don't have to look at it?

Ever wonder why the Muslim world and the left are so outraged by the stupidity of a handful of soldiers (who have been punished and disavowed) and yet no so annoyed at suicide bombers and decapitators? Funny that.

Yes, it's terrible that they don't hold themselves to the same standards that the hold us to. But what does that imply? That we are justified in doing the same?

The fact is that what we do matters. Or do you dispute that? I talked with an Iraq vet who was running for Congress, and he told us about how Iraqis looked at him and his fellow troops differently after Abu Ghraib. It really cost us untold credibility among ordinary Iraqis. I think torture does too, because a lot of them want to think we're better than that. Or do you think there are no costs to torture? Why don't you address the ones that I've (repeatedly) described?

In fact, iirc, Gitmo was opened in response to a terrorist attack.

Yes, it was. And I think it created more terrorists by giving the opposition a recruiting tool when we violated our own standards (in addition to violating the fundamental principles of our own governance--indefinite detention without trial--if anyone else did that to any US citizen, do you think we'd sit back and say "fine, hold these folks for as long as you want, we'll take your word for it"?).

So, we create terrorists when we don't fight back (Somalia, the 1st WTC attack) and we create terrorist when we do fight back. Pretty nifty, huh?

Who talked about not fighting back? I advocate fighting back in a way that creates fewer terrorists. We got all of the most important information from Abu Zubaydah without it. I argue that torture creates more terrorists. But disavowing torture doesn't mean not fighting back. Come on, I know you have better sense than that.

Blowing up people in market places, beheading reporters and killing girls who want to go to school stirkes me as far worse than a naked dog pile.

I agree. But again, what's the relevance? What does that have to do with whether torture is in our own best interests or not? Or whether it violates the principles that I an others believe make this nation worth defending? Or is mere existence now our only and highest priority?

Direct action is very different and every serious country in the history of the wold has used it. I'm sory if that offends your delicate sensibilites.

It's not about delicate sensibilities. It's about values and principles. I don't think it's OK to break the rules when the going gets tough. If you adhere to principles only when it's easy, they're not principles, they're hobbies. (Free speech is easy when it's speech you like; it matters only regarding speech you don't like.) If most of us say that rules should not be broken, and then the government sets up a service that breaks the rules, I'd say that's a violation of the most fundamental principle of democracy: that we make the rules, not a small group of people acting on their own. Or do you think democracy shouldn't matter with regard to such things?

Posted by: dsimon at April 18, 2009 09:32 PM (FR2CN)

148 And why isn't the Washington Post piece enough for you?

Um, because it is an opinion piece mentioning something in the historical record I can't find referenced anywhere else.

Jay, the rationale changed all the time,

No, it did not.

And the Congressional Record easily proves you incorrect.

In a foreign press conference before the war, Bush was asked what it would take to avoid armed intervention. He replied "Full disarmament."

And, to the UN, prior to the war, Bush also said this:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a
great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

Bush, a month before boots on the ground:
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of
freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.

You must have missed the 2003 State of the Union address, where Bush said:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.
We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America�s gift to the world; it is God�s gift to humanity.

Again, you're simply wrong. You are bitterly clinging to a meme.

Posted by: Jay at April 19, 2009 07:59 AM (iy1Xt)

149 Um, because it is an opinion piece mentioning something in the historical record I can't find referenced anywhere else.

You think Judge Wallach was making stuff his reference? Also, one can always look harder. From the Encarta entry on waterboarding: "Following World War II (1939-1945) American prosecutors convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding Allied prisoners of war. The soldiers were tried as part of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also known as the Tokyo War Crimes Trials."
(That took me about three minutes.) It's of course possible that everyone is referencing the same fictional source, but one would think that if it were a hoax that those on the other side of the issue would have sussed it out by now, no?

And the Congressional Record easily proves you incorrect.

Jay, what was the floor debate on AUMF about? Did our elected representatives talk about freeing Iraqis, or did they focus on the need to avoid the threat of WMDs for our own safety? What did Powell go to the UN about, "liberty" or anthrax? Sure, Bush mentioned other reasons, but the main push was WMDs, with a side of al-Qaeda, and a smattering of "Saddam is evil." As one justifcation fell apart on the facts, the emphasis shifted to the others.

And if the other justifications were so important, why would "full disarmament" have been sufficient to call off the whole thing? Was Bush lying then or was he lying afterwards when he said he would have gone in even if he knew the truth about WMDs?

It sure would have been a more interesting vote if the debate really had been about the liberation of Iraqis rather than WMDs. I don't claim to know which way it would have gone, but it would have been more interesting.

Posted by: dsimon at April 19, 2009 09:28 AM (FR2CN)

Posted by: a7tajk at April 19, 2009 12:52 PM (qVrNq)

151

�� Auto Run ��

��

�� - ��

��

�� 2 �� 2009

��

��

��

�� - ��

��

��

�� 2009

��

��

��

��

��

�� 2009

�� - ��

��

��

��

��

�� SpeedTouch

��

��

��

��

�� n82

�� ActiveFile v 1.25 ��

�� , �� , ��

Posted by: a7tajk at April 19, 2009 12:52 PM (qVrNq)

152 A few more points for DrewM.

Yes, I agree that it's disappointing not to see Islamic moderates protesting against the killing of innocents by extremists. But the lack of protests doesn't mean those people don't exist. Most in the Muslim community are moderates. They're not engaged in a war against us. I too wish their opposition to the destructive behavior of their fringe movements was more vocal, but I think it's wrong to attribute the actions of a few to the whole, though more activism on this issue from the moderates would be helpful.

As far as clandestine operations go, aside from the "rule-breaking" aspect, one also has to consider a more pragmatic question: have they "worked"? I'm not going to implicate past operations to today's--eventually the statute of limitations expires on older events--but it seems to me that the history of such operations, or at least the ones we know about, is neither a proud one or one that worked ultimately to our benefit. Our covert interventions in Central and South America don't seem to have turned out terribly well. When such operations are taken outside of our own oversight process, there seems to be an overestimation of the risks posed by others and an underestimation of the consequences of our intervention. So just as with torture, one can't just look at an instance where it might have been successful to conclude it "works"; one has to look at all the failures and the costs of those failures too.

Finally, I wonder what most people would permit our government to do in our name. If doing terrible things to other people would result in only a tiny increase in our overall security, does that mean anything goes? Or is there a point when we decide that no, there are things more important than a slight increase in security, and we refuse to have such things done in our name because we decide those values are more important than being ever-so-slightly safer? I hope the latter, since perfect safety is an illusion, and we'd better recognize it. If we don't, I'm not sure why what we do to others wouldn't also be applied by us to ourselves; after all, dangers can be domestic as well as foreign. If others can be put in indefinite confinement without charge, without access to process, basically on one person's say-so, then I don't see why American citizens couldn't be subjected to the same. Is that where we're going in our quest for a mythical state of security?

Posted by: dsimon at April 19, 2009 02:54 PM (FR2CN)

153 dsimon:

You're "dissapointed" that the other side doesn't object to mass-murder and daily lethal brutality, and you wish they'd be more vocal, but there's no reason to smear them all with that association.

On the other hand, should us representatives slap people or pour water on their head, it's an unforgivable sin that shames us all and illegitimizes all our efforts and justifies war against us. (You said they use it to justify their actions, but about the 14th time you use that argument it stops being about them and starts being about you.)

Which makes you about the biggest fucking hypocrite in the history of bullshit.

I'll stick with the nation that scores a 95% on the ethics scale and not waste my time excusing all the ones that score about 5%.

I don't expect my friends to be perfect, I don't excuse my enemies because they're not perfectly evil.

I'd suggest you spend a little time listening to Evan Sayet and re-examine the assumptions you carry when you read, but I suspect the former has been suggested before and the latter simply is not going to happen.

Posted by: Merovign at April 19, 2009 04:01 PM (or0jG)

154 So your claim that if a technique is done to a civilian, then it can be torture, but if it's done to a military person or a combatant, then it's not torture?

No, my point was, unlike many of those left-wing regimes that actually torture civilians, the US makes distinctions. The US is not to be equivocated with Muslim fanatics or anyone else. Yet you continue to do so.

And why isn't the Washington Post piece enough for you?

Because it doesn't make waterboarding "torture"

The "argument" that something used to be illegal - for example, so did gay may sex, you want that banned, right? - isn't all that persuasive.

Posted by: Jay at April 19, 2009 04:41 PM (iy1Xt)

155 On the other hand, should us representatives slap people or pour water on their head, it's an unforgivable sin that shames us all and illegitimizes all our efforts and justifies war against us. (You said they use it to justify their actions, but about the 14th time you use that argument it stops being about them and starts being about you.)

Once again, the main point goes unaddressed: that our behavior matters. Isn't the point not retribution but to get as much information as possible while creating as few terrorists as possible? If we're creating more terrorists, then why use the technique, especially when there is plenty of evidence that we don't have to do so to get the information we want? This isn't "24."

Which makes you about the biggest fucking hypocrite in the history of bullshit.

No, it makes me a raw cost-benefit analysis number-cruncher.

I'll stick with the nation that scores a 95% on the ethics scale and not waste my time excusing all the ones that score about 5%.

If that 5% harms us more than it helps us, I think it may make sense to pay attention to that 5%.

I don't expect my friends to be perfect, I don't excuse my enemies because they're not perfectly evil.

First, most Muslims are not our enemies. Second, I'm not excusing anyone. I'm just suggesting that torture isn't the way to fight them because it hurts us more than it helps us--both on a simple cost-benefit analysis, and what it does to the principles (if we still have them) that makes this nation worth defending in the first place.

Posted by: dsimon at April 19, 2009 11:08 PM (FR2CN)

156 No, my point was, unlike many of those left-wing regimes that actually torture civilians, the US makes distinctions.

But it still means we torture. And it still means that it can hurt us more than it helps us. See my arguments above, which have gone unaddressed.

And why isn't the Washington Post piece enough for you?

Because it doesn't make waterboarding "torture"

As I recall, your claim was that there was no evidence that we had prosecuted others for waterboarding. I found some. Then I found some more. Judge Walker could be mistaken, but it's hard to believe that the Washington Post didn't fact-check it or that others didn't disprove it. It's hard to me to see why that's so hard to accept.

Yes, the legal status of some actions can change over time. But that doesn't resolve the question. The most recent status we had, until the 2002 and 2005 memos that were later withdrawn due to their paucity of legal justification, was that the US considered waterboarding to be torture. And all of our peer nations consider it to be torture.

Is there anything you would consider NOT torture, as long as it managed to elicit information that you thought was important? Because if that's the definition, then maybe there is no such thing as torture.

Posted by: dsimon at April 19, 2009 11:18 PM (FR2CN)

157 Nike Store

Posted by: aaabs at April 20, 2009 05:06 AM (TOS8X)

158 MOD Converter

Posted by: nyanrenq at May 12, 2009 09:00 PM (85HLz)

159 Give please. How we treasure (and admire) the people who acknowledge us! Help me! Need information about: security exterior window coverings. I found only this - grommet panel window Coverings. Insulated patio door drapes benefits and availability at general interest?said ?. Window treatments for your french doors. With best wishes :mad:, Romaine from Scotland.

Posted by: Romaine at August 08, 2009 09:55 AM (c3vOU)

160

Posted by: dany at October 06, 2009 02:31 PM (FNMMS)

Posted by: retailike111 at October 17, 2009 01:33 AM (S+pgv)

162 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 10:35 AM (9oMrs)

163 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 08:56 AM (8kvkz)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 10:45 AM (pgfU2)

165 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 12:42 PM (c6EK2)

166 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 02:38 PM (LHCCE)

167 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 09:03 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 02:10 AM (IeIJx)

169 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 01:25 AM (APB+g)

170 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 04:57 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 02:35 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 09:53 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 01:10 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 04:30 AM (C/zDM)

175 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 19, 2009 08:47 AM (n0jE1)

176 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 23, 2009 03:01 AM (bNNim)

177 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

Posted by: reviewups at November 27, 2009 01:49 AM (xUZwC)

178 Iklan Baris Gratis Iklan Baris Gratis Panti Asuhan Panti Asuhan Kaos Kaos | Oes Tsetnoc Oes Tsetnoc Situs Murah Situs Murah Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Informasi Pendidikan Indonesia Informasi Pendidikan Indonesia Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita Cahbagus Cahbagus Team Sukses Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Team Sukses Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa febry riyanto febry riyanto Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa

Posted by: Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa at November 27, 2009 09:06 AM (CKpbL)

179 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

Posted by: nike air max at December 01, 2009 08:56 PM (OKj2x)

180 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what��s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

Posted by: reviewups at December 03, 2009 05:41 AM (OKj2x)

181 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

Posted by: ugg boots sale at December 09, 2009 04:39 PM (I3/dZ)

182 astaga.com lifestyle on the net astaga.com lifestyle on the net � astaga.com lifestyle on the net astaga.com lifestyle on the net � Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa � belajar blog jasa seo jasa seo belajar blog seobelajar blog seo voip phones phone systems hosted voip Website Murah Website Murah � http://do-property.blogspot.com Real Estate Listings � Real Estate Loans � tutor blogspot � artis hot � pembuatan web murah � http://iwan.yehia.org belajar blog � Kaos � Phone systems jasa seo == � astaga.com lifestyle on the net � by team 1 � by team 2 � by team 3 � by team 4 � by team 5 � by team 6 � by team 7 � voip phones � voip phones � dobloger development � jual link � jual link � jual link � jual link � jual link � jual link � hot 3D Link Building � Link Building � Link Building � Gilang � Gilang � Wan Link Building � Tangerang Link Building � Pembuatan Web Murah � blogging reviews � link 1 � link 2 � link 3 � link 4 � link 5 � link 6 � blogging reviews � copas11 �hot keyword � by team online � blogging reviews � Jasa SEO � Phone Center � Download Mp3 � Sahabat Belajar Blog � Bisnis Ciputat � SEO Nekad

Posted by: iwan at December 09, 2009 09:33 PM (B/h80)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 12, 2009 05:34 PM (/3s/N)

184 Your article very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article
Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa
Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa
Web Design Murah
Febry Riyanto

Posted by: Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa at December 14, 2009 08:51 AM (CKpbL)

185 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

Posted by: gfdg at December 14, 2009 05:15 PM (iV/dV)

186 Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa astaga.com lifestyle on the net astaga.com lifestyle on the net � astaga.com lifestyle on the net astaga.com lifestyle on the net astaga.com lifestyle on the net astaga.com lifestyle on the net by team 1
� by team 2 � by team 3 � by team 4 � by team 5 � by team 6 � by team 7 � wan dibsd � Tangerang Info � gilang � gilangku � gilangmu � hot comluv � Link Building � Link Building � link 1 � link 2 � link 3 � link 4 � link 5 � link 6 � Faster 1 � Faster 2 � Faster 3 � Fast Team 1 � Fast Team 2 � Fast Team 3 � Team Fast 1 � Team Fast 2 � Team Fast 3 � Riyani 1 � Riyani 2 � Riyani 3 � Sulistyo 1 � Sulistyo 2 � Sulistyo 3 � Plasa 1 � Plasa 2 � Plasa 3 � Xtra 1 � Xtra 2 � Xtra 3 �
Just 1 � Just 2 � Just 3 � � 3D Hot � 3D dobloger � blogging reviews � Gilang Blogging Reviews � copas11 � Iwan Wordpress � Iwan Wordpress 2 � Gilang Bliblog � Doblogger.Vox � Your article very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, astaga.com lifestyle on the net I have to thank you such an article voip phones

Posted by: dobloger at December 19, 2009 07:05 PM (TkP3+)

187 Shopping for a Rolex watch online can tag heuer make the job Rolex Watches easier but you Replica Watches also have to be patek philippe wary about the reputation of the dealer Chanel Watches and the brand of Breitling Watches watch you are audemars piguet getting. The more mont blanc watches considerable you are, the less danger you would come to armani watches when buying a Omega Watches gold watch online.

Posted by: rolex at December 20, 2009 09:49 AM (/pchr)

188 Buy rolex Fake Watches and Replica Watches brands,rolex watches rolex watches, Replica rolex watches, replica rolex: replica rolex,replica rolex: replica breitling watches,replica tag heuer: replica tag heuer,replica cartier watches: replica cartier watches,replica omega watches: replica omega watches,replica panerai watches: replica panerai watches,replica armani watches: replica armani watches,replica audemars piguet: replica audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: replica bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: replica chanel watches,replica gucci watches: replica gucci watches,replica movado watches: replica movado watches,replica montblanc watches: replica montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: replica patek philippe on sale.

Posted by: fake watches at December 20, 2009 09:56 AM (/pchr)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 21, 2009 09:57 AM (1dySH)

190 nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93

Posted by: nike air max 360 shoes at December 22, 2009 04:28 PM (xnxK1)

191 Replica rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica rolex watches,replica watches replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet watches replica montblanc watches for men and women.

Posted by: tag heuer at December 24, 2009 08:07 PM (Bp0xg)

192 Replica fake watches and replica watches brands,rolex watches rolex watches, replica rolex: replica rolex,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: replica panerai watches,replica armani watches: replica armani watches,replica audemars piguet: replica audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: replica bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: replica chanel watches,replica gucci watches: replica gucci watches,replica movado watches: replica movado watches,replica montblanc watches: replica montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: replica patek philippe sale.Replica rolex watches and tag heuer watches, rolex watches,Replica Watches replica watches,patek philippe patek philippe Watches,audemars piguet audemars piguet,Omega Watches: omega watches,replica Cartier Watches cartier watches,Breitling Watches breitling watches,Chanel Watches: chanel watches,armani watches: armani watches,iwc watches iwc watches,mont blanc watches montblanc watches.

Posted by: rolex at December 25, 2009 11:54 AM (nRNCD)

193 We sell rolex and tag heuer watch, rolex watches,Rolex replica watches,replica patek philippe Watches,replica audemars piguet,Omega Watches omega watches,replica Cartier cartier watches,Breitling breitling watches,replica chanel watches,armani watches: armani watches,iwc watches iwc watches,montblanc montblanc watches Replica.Cheap fake watches and replica watches on sale,rolex watches rolex watches, watches replica rolex,replica breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: replica panerai watches,replica armani watches: replica armani watches,replica audemars piguet: replica audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: replica bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: replica chanel watches,replica gucci watches: replica gucci watches,replica movado watches: replica movado watches,replica montblanc watches: replica montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: replica patek philippe sale for people.

Posted by: replica watches at December 27, 2009 10:01 AM (52U6J)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 28, 2009 02:32 AM (1dySH)

195 Cheap replica rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.

Posted by: tag heuer at January 01, 2010 01:37 PM (nUnK8)

196 Buy rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet> replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches watches replica montblanc watches.Rolex fake watches and replica watches brands,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer, replica rolex: replica rolex replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: panerai watches,replica armani watches: armani watches,replica audemars piguet: audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: chanel watches,replica gucci watches: gucci watches,replica movado watches: movado watches,replica montblanc watches: montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: patek philippe on sale.replica watches and replica watches.

Posted by: rolex at January 10, 2010 10:57 PM (OO9Jx)

Posted by: AZZ at January 18, 2010 02:21 AM (Aemi7)

198 Good replica watches and buy replica watches and replica rolex replica replica tag heuer watches,buy replica replica omega watches and breitling watches replica breitling watches sale at lowest prices.

Posted by: replica watches at January 23, 2010 09:22 PM (ioa0w)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 28, 2010 03:04 AM (JOSIc)

200 Buy rolex replica watches and replica watches replica replica watches and replica rolex watches patek philippe watches and fake watches and breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches at lowest prices.

Posted by: replica rolex at January 29, 2010 11:42 AM (h+uyA)

Posted by: airmax at January 31, 2010 01:06 PM (3vSvS)

202 It seems replica watches that the watch brand Porsche Design is good at creating sporty classic watches. Many of the Replica watches from it are such watches. They are especially designed for men. Some of the products manufactured today by Porsche Design range from luggage, eye-glasses, replica watches wristwatches pens, wallets and so on, all this products being best-selling items. What makes the replica watches products of this brand so popular? That is not only because of the famous reputation of the brand, but because they display the most elegant and posh replica watches fappearance, for those who appreciate style and prestige. If you have enough knowledge of products from replica watches this brand, you would understand these reasons. Defined by modern appearance and functional mechanisms, the replica watches Porsche Design brand has remained true to its intentions as to create timepieces that would meet the expectations of our modern trends and contemporary times. People nowadays seek watches with amazing designs, but at the same time, to provide many functions and to be highly reliable. In a world of speed replica watche and dynamism, Porsche Design proposes sporty watches that managed to impress with their unpretentious designs and the amazing variety of technical functions provided.

Posted by: replica watches at February 01, 2010 04:14 AM (uznWB)

203

weight loss tips weight loss tips cheap car insurance cheap car insurance coach handbags coach handbags electronic cigarette electronic cigarette nfl jerseys nfl jerseys tomic tomic nfl jersey nfl jersey abercrombie fitch wholesale abercrombie fitch wholesale Cartier Montblanc cartier monblanc blackberry fans blackberry fans jordan shoes jordan shoes true religion true religion love coach handbags love coach handbags monica~yo monica~yo nfl jerseys nfl jerseys ed hardy shirt ed hardy shirt weight loss tips weight loss tips ghd ghd seochan seochan jerseys shoes shoes wholesale wholesale abercrombie fitch abercrombie fitche tomic tomic time's up time's up skechers shape up shoes skechers shape ups shoes

Posted by: weight loss at February 02, 2010 11:01 PM (Y5uzO)

204 The replica watches dial design replica watches 100% copy replica watches of the previous omega watches model: the famous Manchester Logo is located at 3 and the cartier watches chronograph 45-minute breitling watches at 9 with orange figures. Football fans can use the very special 45-minute chronograph to measure the halves of a football match. Black patek philippe hour hand and minute hand features yellow luminescent coating. The hour makers, chronograph audemars piguet and the first 15-minute scale of the tag heuer chronograph counter is montblanc watches presented in eye-catching rolex red. Bright Yellow movado watches tones are found on the minute track, date bvlgari watches window and the text.

Posted by: replica watches at February 03, 2010 06:15 PM (FS54P)

205 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 04, 2010 01:03 PM (CPNio)

206 Cheap replica watches and replica watches 100% copy replica watches of the previous omega watches model: the famous Manchester Logo is located at 3 and the cartier watches chronograph 45-minute breitling watches at 9 with orange figures. Football fans can use the very special 45-minute chronograph to measure the halves of a football match. Black patek philippe hour hand and minute hand features yellow luminescent coating. The hour makers, chronograph audemars piguet and the first 15-minute scale of the tag heuer chronograph counter is montblanc watches presented in eye-catching rolex red. Bright Yellow movado watches tones are found on the minute track, date bvlgari watches rolex on sale.

Posted by: replica watches at February 05, 2010 02:30 AM (0uEN8)

Posted by: may at February 06, 2010 03:34 PM (Eu9Vs)

208 this replica watches replica watchWhoever wants replica watches timekeeper that does the job of a tachometer will be crazy for. The operation is performed by the copied replica rolex 's bezel. The Daytona also applies automatic movement �C just one of many breitling watches characters and functionalities that ensures the precision of time. Originally created to measure lap time and the cartier watches overall time of a race, Rolex Daytona replica omega watches timepieces can measure elapsed time for omega any sporting event. The power of this breitling replica item is made possibly by its internalized perpetual rotor mechanism. Known for its precision, this special Rolex replica cartier watch model only has to be set once to the cartier watches standard time of the owner's choice. Once rolex watches being created, it updates itself during time changes, making upkeep of the replica's time setting replica watches nonexistent. Even though these replica watches were made for sporting events, (specifically those involving laps or circuits), it's not so adversible to put them tag heuer in water since they are not fake watches waterproof. Even thought most of the time, the replica watches do not bear the tag heuer same functionalities as the original ones, they are still the most desirable alternatives of the expensive real models.

Posted by: replica watches at February 06, 2010 07:30 PM (KbTNE)

209 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 07, 2010 09:37 AM (TUJDt)

210 Festival Museum Nusantara astaga.com lifestyle on the net Jastika Weblog Jastika Weblog

Posted by: Jastika Weblog at February 08, 2010 09:26 PM (pB/4p)

211 bhvqs replica watches lxkg replica rolex watches,nlbw replica rado watches,xrmdc ugdqom,replica breitling watches,goyzal replica tissot watches,atfqd tqrumh,replica tag heuer watches,riapw replica tudor watches,pfsmt uefnqg,replica a lange and sohne watches,vyflqxn replica rolex watches,diaamta sxlciy,replica armani watches,pbfpn replica breitling watches,maxgv ikcvsk,replica audemars piguet watches,drcu replica tag heuer watches,tbbtl xrxfju,replica bvlgari watches,gbcwvf replica a lange and sohne watches,kiwfy zpmysv,replica franck muller watches,rwghv replica armani watches,yhkih vrzxvj,replica gucci watches,bbk replica audemars piguet watches,bsjc tccghv,replica hublot watches,fbia replica bvlgari watches,budhb mymzabd,replica iwc watches,qhojq replica franck muller watches,zpxic nljfve,replica longines watches,cunklzk replica gucci watches,aglml ayisaf,replica cartier watches,olqsj replica hublot watches,xjl zajtph,replica omega watches,kaznb replica iwc watches,cndmc ycioij,replica lv watches,jpukehvh replica longines watches,woctr ctzpc,replica montblanc watches,vftmp replica cartier watches,knzoj ewmkps,replica movado watches,rket replica omega watches,bxplk ogveml,replica panerai watches,sjcyd replica lv watches,wtcjq dgrjsb,replica parmigiani watches,pjoby replica montblanc watches,zwdkdg ncqlfk,replica patek philippe watches,jzrlm replica movado watches,xejdh ixfgoi,replica rado watches,qqurbno replica panerai watches,otdfi izzmfn,replica tissot watches,lemav replica parmigiani watches,eklyx vcekrucg,replica tudor watches,xjdlhz replica patek philippe watches,slimz tysfmb.

Posted by: replica watches at February 09, 2010 06:47 PM (qURDU)

Processing 0.13, elapsed 0.1313 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0124 seconds, 220 records returned.
Page size 289 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.