19
   

Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

 
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Okay. I'll try different wording.

What I want to know is this. You consider waterboarding illegal. Do you consider the killing of Osama Bin Laden to be illegal? Thanks.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:08 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
According to all international treaties, waterboarding is illegal.

As said various times now: I have no idea about the US legal background which could justify this killing.

If you're interested, it would be a crime here.

But since you're the one who obeys the laws, plays by the rules), why don't you do it with torture?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Renaldo plays by his own rules.

Except when he dancing to the tune of others, of course. Then he plays by their rules.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:24 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Okay. If your leader sent men to kill Osama, would you consider your leader a criminal? Right?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:27 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
If someone would use waterboarding here, she/he IS a criminal.

Oh, we are discussing hypothetical situations in Germany and the German Criminal Code now?
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:29 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Boobie, wasn't that Bush the lesser?



Rap
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:43 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I'm talking about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. What do you think about it? Is our President a criminal according to your values?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:49 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I'm talking about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. What do you think about it? Is our President a criminal according to your values?


Walter Hinteler wrote:

According to all international treaties, waterboarding is illegal.

As said various times now: I have no idea about the US legal background which could justify this killing.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 11:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Damn, you beat me to the punch on this one! More from the Washington Post

Washington Post wrote:
Exclusive: Private letter from CIA chief undercuts claim torture was key to killing Bin Laden
By Greg Sargent


CIA chief Leon Panetta has written a private letter to Senator John McCain that offers the most detailed answer yet to questions about the relationship between torture and Osama Bin Laden’s death — and undercuts the claim by former Bush administration officials that torture was key to Bin Laden’s killing.

The letter has not been released publicly but was sent my way by a source. Marie Harf, a CIA spokesperson, confirmed the letter’s authenticity to me, but declined further comment.

Last week, Senator McCain published a widely discussed Op ed in the Washington Post calling into question claims that torture was instrumental in tracking down Bin Laden. McCain cited Panetta as a source for his information, but didn't release any material provided to him by Panetta, and conservatives like former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey subsequently dismissed McCain’s account. The CIA has not publicly taken sides in the dispute.

But Panetta’s letter, dated May 9th, bears out McCain’s version of events.

To be sure, there are a couple of lines in the letter that conservatives will seize on to bolster their case. But the overall thrust of the letter clearly undercuts their larger version of events.

The case being made by conservatives — that Bin Laden’s death vindicates torture — was spelled out last week by former Bush
AG Mukasey in an Op ed in the Wall Street Journal. Mukasey argued that the trail to Bin Laden “began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.”

The account in Panetta’s letter clearly contradicts this. Here are the operative three paragraphs from the letter, which represents a response from Panetta to McCain’s earler request for information about torture and Bin Laden’s death:

Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

Emphasis mine
. Panetta’s account contradicts Mukasey’s claim that the trail to Bin Laden “began” with disclosures from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed that were achieved through the “pressure" of torture.

Panetta’s account also represents public, on-the-record confirmation from the CIA of — and adds new detail to — a careful and thorough investigation by Scott Shane and Charlie Savage of the New York Times, which was based on anonymous sources and concluded that torture “played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.” Shane and Savage also quoted unnamed sources claiming torture resulted in bad information — also confirmed in Panetta’s letter.

Conservatives will argue that little is known about the “other intelligence means” used to secure the courier’s name or whereabouts. They will also point out that Panetta’s letter also indicates that some detainees who “provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role” had been subjected to torture. In saying this, Panetta is expanding on an earlier claim in an interview that torture, waterboarding included, produced info that played some kind of role at some point in tracking Bin Laden.

But if anything, Panetta’s letter actually downplays the info achieved through torture, is inconclusive on how useful it was in the end, and states that we can’t know if that info would have been achievable through other means. While the emphasis of Panetta’s account may be intended to be in line with the administration’s anti-torture position, his downplaying of the role of torture is an important addition to the public record.

In the end, we may never be able to establish with total certainty the precise nature of the relationship between torture and the killing of Bin Laden. But for now, Panetta’s account — the most extensive public accounting we now have — simply doesn’t square with claims that torture was key to getting him, which would vindicate Bush’s torture policies.

By Greg Sargent | 12:21 PM ET, 05/16/2011


source

Also this: Detainees deliberately give false info obtained via waterboarding.
R
T
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:12 am
So we can't waterboard a terrorist because that would be "torture, but we can shoot an unarmed terrorist in the eyeball. Welcome to la la land.

Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:16 am
Oh my God, FA just used the Daily Kos as a source. First Wikipedia and then the Daily Kos. You've lost it, pal. Now I understand why you have a hard time with more than one complete sentence.

Greg Sargent? A left wing blogger. Nice worki FA. I'll have to laugh the next time you bring up my "right wing blogs". Hypocrite.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/01/03/wapo-hires-lefty-blogger-greg-sargent-foe-conservative-wingnut-mendacity
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:25 am
Here's a little background on how lame Greg Sargent is.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2007/11/14/liberal-blogger-decries-wingnut-mendacity-new-mrc-book
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:35 am
Looks like Greg Sargent was urging unions in Wisconsin to get violent. Oh my.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/28/washington-posts-greg-sargent-demands-unions-get-violent-union-goons-attack-fox-reporter/
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:37 am
Oh my God. Lookie at what we have here on Greg Sargent.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/01/greg-sargent-encourages-unions-to-commit-violence-then-demands-we-look-at-his-record-on-palin-and-arizona/
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:38 am
If you have an issue with Greg Sargent, ignore his commentary and focus on the direct text from the letter to McCain from Panetta. That is the substance of the letter. That's what matters.

A
R
T
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:40 am
Oh my God. There's more.
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/03/washpos-greg-sargent-carries-media-matters-water-like-a-hacktastic-champ/
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 06:45 am
@failures art,
My, you're naive. First you give me a letter from a political hack. Then when I expose the left wing political hack who printed the letter, you now again want me to believe the letter. If this were a court of law, the jury would be rolling on the floor.
raprap
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 07:08 am
McCain's May 11th Op-Ed on waterboarding and OBL.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html?hpid=z2full

If any US senator knows the meaning and efficacy of torture it's John McCain.

Renee your mouth and mind has been filled with garbage.

Rap
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 07:14 am
@raprap,
There are millions of Americans who don't believe waterboarding is torture. You can't control what free people think. It's already been tried.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 07:19 am
Let's see now, how many millions of Americans is 58% of the voters?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_information
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:48:28