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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (822889)	12/15/2014 11:00:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579316

>> Ok. You want to accept the word of people trying to cover their ass because they have committed war crimes. And they know it. But, ok. I believe they're more credible than Senate Democrats. The "war crimes" remark is absurd. The rules were carefully designed to push the limits of the law without going beyond. Everyone involved has said that. Which you might have known had the Senate Democrats bothered to interview any of them. >> Which is why it is such a powerful tool for extracting false confessions. So it is great for propaganda. As far as I know no one was trying to obtain "confessions." They were trying to obtain information that was useful in preventing future attacks. And with a proper interrogation process false information can be ruled out. >> If it is so effective, why has there been no examples of information gained from torture and where it helped? Catching bin Laden wasn't one of them, we know that. So what was so valuable? Actually, bin Laden was one of them, but you choose to accept Feinstein's account rather than the facts. But CIA is at a bit of a disadvantage in that they can't just go around disclosing classified data willy-nilly like nitwit senators can. I would just raise the point, though, that if THEY didn't think it was doing any good, why would people like Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller support the program, including waterboarding, as they did at the time? In fact, Rockefeller pressed for even more harsh tactics, although he is lying like hell about it now. Everyone on the intelligence committee knew exactly what was going on. The exception is Feinstein, since she wasn't on the committee then. >> You have no moral compass. The moral justification is clear. It isn't something we do in ordinary times but these actions weren't taken during ordinary times. To the extent it saved lives, or even MIGHT HAVE saved lives, it was the proper thing to have done. We had been attacked and lost more than 3,000 innocents; it is the most important responsibility of government to protect its people; the vast majority of Americans as well as informed government personnel believed another attack -- one which well might have been bigger and more destructive -- was on the horizon. As I pointed out on this thread at the time, the greatest enemy of the US in the war on terror was, and continues to be now, the exceptionally short memories of liberals.