Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: freelyhovering who wrote (111646)	5/22/2009 10:00:02 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541453

Whatever the authorizations were, they didn't waterboard anyone for the last several years of Bush's tenure; yet we are hearing over and over that only waterboarding can protect us from the worst attacks. So which is it, we must have it or it isn't necessary now? Since we don't have actual proof of Cheney's assertion that it worked, the idea that it is ever necessary is flimsy at best. He is talking his own book at every turn. The record is full of contradictions that need to be made clear. We don't need to lower ourselves to the level of banana republic torture goons to maintain our safety and freedom, period.

To: freelyhovering who wrote (111646)	5/22/2009 10:31:39 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541453

I thought that Brooks was saying that there was Waterboarding authorized while Cheney/Bush were in charge and then later with the CIA, Rice, etc getting a better foot into Bush's door/ass, there was an effort to stop some of the craziness that Cheney had been fomenting. Did I read it incorrectly? It's my understanding there was no waterboarding after 2003. There were, I gather, attempts to get it started again, coming from Cheney and his supporters. But I haven't read anything that suggests it was used. I think there are only three it was used on. And that ended in 03.