Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director. Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes. Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.
I was under the impression that this was widely known.
The left has made a lot of noise about things being made a bit unpleasant for 3 really bad guys...nearly a freekin' decade. Yet the dozens (hundreds?) killed by drone strikes by Booboo...and nary a peep from the left. Hypocrits.
Quote:
The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States. A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked. Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. "KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM’s case.
I'm wondering when Marc Lamont Hill became the spokesperson for all liberals?
Feel free to show us where liberals anywhere have held this President accountable for his drone policy. Oh, and try to abstain from casual commentary of half-assed complaints from half-cocked couch bloggers.....we want to see reputable liberal dissention backed up with data and facts supporting their case.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
A total of THREE people were waterboarded when Bush was in office. All were "really bad guys" that had helped with 9/11. And as unpleasant as it might have been...all survived it, and at least one provided the intellegence that lead to Bin Laden's death. Now...just how many have been KILLED by drone strikes? How many that have been killed as a result were not guilty of ANY crime?
HOW MANY were killed by "Shock & Awe" that were not guilty of ANY crime?
WHY did you bleeding heart conservatives never have anything to say about THOSE deaths?
Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
In general, I am not opposed to how we have used drones. Any time we can kill terrorists without putting our people in danger is a good thing. But to condemn our use of "waterboarding" while giving drone strikes a free pass just due to who is in the big White House, is hypocrasy.
Torture falls under the Geneva Convention, do innocents killed during war?
Very good point. It all goes hand in hand. Even more troubling is that the drone issue was apparently brought up by logical and objective liberals during the election but was shot down for reasons that I believe we can all figure out.
Anything and everything to protect this President.
It's beyond shameful. And they wonder why we call them "sheep?"
It has gotten to the point on both sides really that clear and objective critic can not be heard. Look at the rinos in the rep party; they are condeming Paul yet it really was a non party issue he bought up. Regardless of political party, NO President should ever get a pass on everything ! And when something is in clear violation of The Constitution, then it should be every American citizen flooding their elected officals offices with letters, calls, and emails with how dare the elected clown not stand up against the wrong. Do you realize that if a U.S. Rep.'s office gets as little as half a dozen calls on the same issue, it is considered a "hot topic" ? THAT IS BECAUSE SO FEW PEOPLE TAKE THE TIME TO CALL THE MORONS!
HOW MANY were killed by "Shock & Awe" that were not guilty of ANY crime?
WHY did you bleeding heart conservatives never have anything to say about THOSE deaths?
Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
Torture falls under the Geneva Convention, do innocents killed during war?
You become guilty when you won't stand up against the ones in your country and harbor those that are. So they were not blameless. And we know in war, many are killed that have nothing to do with policy. It would be best if there never was a war of any sort again, but we have people in power all over the world that want war because they are evil. I think instead of war we should tie 1 hand of each leader together, throw both aholes in a pit and make just the 2 of them fight it out.
HOW MANY were killed by "Shock & Awe" that were not guilty of ANY crime?
WHY did you bleeding heart conservatives never have anything to say about THOSE deaths?
Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
Torture falls under the Geneva Convention, do innocents killed during war?
The Geneva Convention only applies to prisoners of war. Those acting under the orders of a legitimate government. It does not apply to terrorists. Nor to spies for that matter.
As I said, I'm not complaining about the deaths due to drone strikes, I made that clear. If we're going to fight our enemies, I support doing so in a way that minimizes the risk to our military men. Which drones certainly do. I think we're wasting time, money and lives of our military in Afghanistan and that it's time to leave. But if we are there to fight, do it in a way that minimizes our casualties.
The hyprocasy is on the part of those that get their panties in a bunch about waterboarding, but voice no opposition to drone strikes. Or even more hypocritical...those that complain about deaths due to "shock and awe" but have no complaint about those being killed by drones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
