NationStates Jolt Archive

And it's not by a psycho or anything. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html) I don't normally quote entire stories, but this is an important one, and it's not terribly long. I'll bold some significant moments.

The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light

By Barton Gellman,
a Washington Post staff writer who reports on intelligence and national security
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; C01

THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE

Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11

By Ron Suskind

Simon & Schuster. 368 pp. $27

This is an important book, filled with the surest sign of great reporting: the unexpected. It enriches our understanding of even familiar episodes from the Bush administration's war on terror and tells some jaw-dropping stories we haven't heard before.

One example out of many comes in Ron Suskind's gripping narrative of what the White House has celebrated as one of the war's major victories: the capture of Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002. Described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations even after U.S. and Pakistani forces kicked down his door in Faisalabad, the Saudi-born jihadist was the first al-Qaeda detainee to be shipped to a secret prison abroad. Suskind shatters the official story line here.

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."

Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.

How could this have happened? Why are we learning about it only now? Those questions form the spine of Suskind's impressively reported book.

In interviews with intelligence officers, Suskind often finds them baffled by White House statements. "Why the hell did the President have to put us in a box like this?" one top CIA official asked about the overblown public portrait of Abu Zubaydah. But Suskind sees a deliberate management choice: Bush ensnared his director of central intelligence at the time, George J. Tenet, and many others in a new kind of war in which action and evidence were consciously divorced.

"The One Percent Doctrine" takes its title from an episode in late November 2001. Amid fears of a "second wave" attack after 9/11, Tenet laid out for Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice a stunning trove of new intelligence, much of which Suskind reveals for the first time: Two Pakistani scientists who previously offered to help Libya build a nuclear bomb were known to have met with Osama bin Laden. (Later, Suskind reports, the U.S. government would discover that bin Laden asked pointedly what his next steps should be if he already possessed enriched uranium.) Cheney, by Suskind's account, had been grappling with how to think about "a low-probability, high-impact event." By the time the briefing was over, he had his answer: "If there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response."

This "Cheney Doctrine" let Bush evade analytic debate, Suskind writes, and "rely on impulse and improvisation to a degree that was without precedent for a modern president." But that approach constricted the mission of the intelligence and counterterrorism professionals whose point of view dominates this book. Many of them came to believe, Suskind reports, that "their jobs were not to help shape policy, but to affirm it." (Some of them nicknamed Cheney "Edgar," as in Edgar Bergen -- casting the president as the ventriloquist's dummy.) Suskind calls those career terror-fighters "the invisibles," and he likes them. His book is full of amazing, persuasively detailed vignettes about their world. At least a dozen former intelligence officials speak frankly in public here, as did former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill in Suskind's previous book, "The Price of Loyalty."

Suskind's enterprise has turned up several scoops, including the important disclosure that First Data Corp., among the largest processors of credit-card transactions, began to give the FBI access to its records after Sept. 11, 2001. Suskind's account is fuzzy on some of the legal questions, but he argues that the operation "swept up the suspicious, or simply the unfortunate, by the stadiumful and caught almost no one who was actually a danger to America."

Suskind titles one chapter "Zawahiri's Head," a reference to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command, whom Suskind cheekily dubs "bin Laden's Cheney, the older man who made sure that ideas were carried to action." At least four times in 2001-02, reports reached Washington that Zawahiri had died. One set of Afghan tribal chiefs said they could prove it. In June, they delivered a mud-caked head, and an intelligence officer flew it in a metal box to Dulles airport for DNA analysis. Coleman, the FBI analyst, held the jawless skull "as Hamlet did with Yorick's." It felt, he tells Suskind, "like a boccie ball." Bush, who was tracking the transaction, reportedly told a briefer -- "half in jest," Suskind writes -- that "if it turns out to be Zawahiri's head, I hope you'll bring it here." It turned out to be someone else's.

Reviled for failure to develop human spies inside al-Qaeda, the CIA in fact has done so at least twice, Suskind reports. One source warned in detail of a planned 2003 cyanide gas attack on New York subways -- then said Zawahiri himself had inexplicably called it off. The other informant was a "walk-in" who led the CIA directly to the most significant al-Qaeda operative captured to date -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the 9/11 plot's mastermind, known to "the invisibles" as KSM. Suskind reports that the al-Qaeda turncoat who turned KSM in collected the $25 million U.S. reward for information leading to his capture and is now living under a new name in this country.

Tenet and his loyalists also settle a few scores with the White House here. The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Three months later, with bin Laden holed up in the Afghan mountain redoubt of Tora Bora, the CIA official managing the Afghanistan campaign, Henry A. Crumpton (now the State Department's counterterrorism chief), brought a detailed map to Bush and Cheney. White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S. troops to get him. But Crumpton's message in the Oval Office, as told through Suskind, was blunt: The surrogate forces were "definitely not" up to the job, and "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful."

Suskind's portrait of Tenet, respectful but far from adulatory, depicts a man compromised by "insecurity and gratitude" to a president who chose not to fire him after 9/11. "At that point, George Tenet would do anything his President asked," Suskind writes.

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

That's some disturbing shit, as far as I'm concerned. What's the spin going to be on this one?

And this is new...how?

Every time nazz forgets to put his tinfoil hat on and take his meds he gets all foaming at the mouth about the evil Bush dude. Nothing new....the only disturbing thing is his mind .

And we should care....why?

I don't.

Red is positive...aww, you guys already know that one.

Every time nazz forgets to put his tinfoil hat on and take his meds he gets all foaming at the mouth about the evil Bush dude. Nothing new....the only disturbing thing is his mind.

In other words, you've got nothing. Go away little child, let the adults talk.

And we should care....why?

I don't.

Red is positive...aww, you guys already know that one.

These are serious issues. If you don't care, you're nothing more than a braindead sheep, happily on his way to the meatpacker's plant.

Every time nazz forgets to put his tinfoil hat on and take his meds he gets all foaming at the mouth about the evil Bush dude. Nothing new....the only disturbing thing is his mind .
It's cute when you cry like a little bitch.

I hope that good solid evidence is presented and then used to bust some asses over this

I am so incredibly not surprised. Disgusted. Enraged. Blood pressure boiling because Bush and his entire cabinet haven't been and probably never will be arrested and hit with criminal charges.

But not surprised.

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

I have no idea whether this guy was insane or disturbed or what, but if he was Al-Qaeda's logistics manager (or whatever the title is), then he's a legitimate target for interrogation. Maybe we can agree on that.

As to the methods, waterboarding may be made illegal or may arguably be illegal, but it's not a clear-cut issue, and I would think that, under certain circumstances, it could be acceptible. Mock execution is illegal, in any case. Still, some of the details Suskind gives seem a bit dubious, especially in the paragraph I'm quoting here. The events quoted are a bit improbable, that "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target" despite hearing gibberish from the subject, for one.. if they had, it certainly wouldn't support the argument that the government knowingly tortured an insane subject..

I hope that good solid evidence is presented and then used to bust some asses over this

Sadly, evidence doesn't seem to be too well respected in this country.

I mean, I regularly see Vince Foster's name come up (a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory,) and this is called tin-foil hattery?

I have no idea whether this guy was insane or disturbed or what, but if he was Al-Qaeda's logistics manager (or whatever the title is), then he's a legitimate target for interrogation. Maybe we can agree on that.

No one is arguing that. We're just questioning the wisdom af trusting any intel from a tortured split-personality.

As to the methods, waterboarding may be made illegal or may arguably be illegal, but it's not a clear-cut issue, and I would think that, under certain circumstances, it could be acceptible.

You know, the Party of Morality should really rethink their "the only measure is legality" stance on acceptible behavior.

Mock execution is illegal, in any case. Still, some of the details Suskind gives seem a bit dubious, especially in the paragraph I'm quoting here. The events quoted are a bit improbable, that "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target" despite hearing gibberish from the subject, for one.. if they had, it certainly wouldn't support the argument that the government knowingly tortured an insane subject..

You're right, there probably is a bit of exaggeration there, for effect. There probably wasn't panic, and the numbers are probably inflated. The point, though, is valid. I hope you apply that same critical eye to ALL reporting, whatever the source.

It's cute when you cry like a little bitch.


Ohhhh how touching ...nazzy is stretching his vocabulary ...:p





Prologue:

Did Saddam Hussein's inner circle and the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan actively court each other in hopes of forging an anti-American alliance in the region?

Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), examined efforts by Saddam Hussein to build and hide weapons of mass destruction, and supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit documents and materials of Saddam's regime.

Click here for more on Ray Robison and the Saddam Dossier

In this second of a three-part examination of a newly-released document captured in Iraq, Robison offers further evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban reciprocated with an invitation to Iraqi officials to visit Afghanistan.

The document appears to be a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent, and apparently captured in 2003. The translation is provided by Robison's associate, known here as “Sammi.” The notebook deals extensively with the meetings between a prominent Taliban supporter and former Saddam regime



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html


Ohhhh now this is seriouse stuff ....

In other words, you've got nothing. Go away little child, let the adults talk.



These are serious issues. If you don't care, you're nothing more than a braindead sheep, happily on his way to the meatpacker's plant.


When are you waking up your parents ?

In other words, you've got nothing. Go away little child, let the adults talk.



These are serious issues. If you don't care, you're nothing more than a braindead sheep, happily on his way to the meatpacker's plant.

Torture them until they die, or give up the information. They're plotting to wipe out America. I don't care what happens to them-whether or not they live to get out depends on what they give.

And it's not by a psycho or anything. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html) I don't normally quote entire stories, but this is an important one, and it's not terribly long. I'll bold some significant moments.



That's some disturbing shit, as far as I'm concerned. What's the spin going to be on this one?




Spin... BECAUSE of course its the absolute gods honest truth ! You found it on the internet ! :rolleyes:

Private conversations are always subject to close scrutinty between the President and his staff and then handed out to nuts all the time.

It really ...really happened ....ummmm OK ...the crazy dude wet his pants ?

What else ...anything good ?


but then again And it's not by a psycho or anything.

because of course thats where you normaly get your info....at least you have the onions to admit it .:rolleyes:

When are you waking up your parents ?

My father died 20 years ago, and my mother died 3 years ago. Now, could you just hurry up and get my fries, please?

Spin... BECAUSE of course its the absolute gods honest truth ! You found it on the internet ! :rolleyes:

Private conversations are always subject to close scrutinty between the President and his staff and then handed out to nuts all the time.

It really ...really happened ....ummmm OK ...the crazy dude wet his pants ?

What else ...anything good ?
Uh huh. Ron Suskind has a rep as a solid reporter and writer. This isn't some kid in his mom's basement cranking this stuff out--it's a reporter with a long history of solid work, and who has, to my knowledge, an unimpeachable record. Try again, child.

Torture them until they die, or give up the information. They're plotting to wipe out America. I don't care what happens to them-whether or not they live to get out depends on what they give.

A swing and a miss. I mentioned nothing about caring about the feelings or well-being of the guy. Re-read what I said, and get back to me.

Uh huh. Ron Suskind has a rep as a solid reporter and writer. This isn't some kid in his mom's basement cranking this stuff out--it's a reporter with a long history of solid work, and who has, to my knowledge, an unimpeachable record. Try again, child.


Until now . You destroyed his streak when you quoted him .

My father died 20 years ago, and my mother died 3 years ago. Now, could you just hurry up and get my fries, please?


Only if you order in english and say please . sorry to hear about you mom and dad.

Until now . You destroyed his streak when you quoted him .

How does that work?

Until now . You destroyed his streak when you quoted him .
I see. Remind me to quote Dubya, "Shooter" Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, "Slanthead" Hannity, the entire Republican caucus of both the House and Senate, Ann Coulter, and everyone on Fox News then.

Im writing a book about how lame forum fags are.

Im writing a book about how lame forum fags are.
Oh, an autobiography, then. HAHAHAHAHahaha...heh. :rolleyes:

Isn't it amazing how people who are okey-doke with torture so frequently "debate" like a bunch of 10-year-olds in a schoolyard?

Oh, an autobiography, then. HAHAHAHAHahaha...heh. :rolleyes:

Isn't it amazing how people who are okey-doke with torture so frequently "debate" like a bunch of 10-year-olds in a schoolyard?
Mainly 'cause you need the emotional age of a mentally-challenged 10-year-old to find it acceptable.

Mainly 'cause you need the emotional age of a mentally-challenged 10-year-old to find it acceptable.
No doubt. I really do occasionally wonder if the brain actually is a vital organ. The ancient Egyptians, you know, thought it was just our lifetime's supply of snot. It might not be true of everyone, but...there are some specimens walking around that I wonder about...

I see. Remind me to quote Dubya, "Shooter" Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, "Slanthead" Hannity, the entire Republican caucus of both the House and Senate, Ann Coulter, and everyone on Fox News then.

Well, if the charges are valid, then you should see some action on it muy pronto, given Bush's low popularity numbers. An investigation will be launched, and you will at long last get your heart's desire, Nazz. Impeachment. But somehow, I doubt that will happen. This just sounds like just another specious allegation, despite your allegations that the source is without question. But since this IS a serious matter, you don't mind if we check out the facts and make our own minds up, do ya? Thanks much. And each time something new to potentially (oh, dare WE hope?!) flame Bush comes up, you trumpet it from the highest mountaintop as though it were The Word Of God, inviolate and (you should pardon the expression) unimpeachable. Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. So I'm inclined to doubt it just because you froth and foam on so about it. Your past record on Dubya is, well, legendary. However. Time will tell. I shall be following it with great interest. With an OPEN mind.


I await the f-bombs and insults that are your bread and buitter to ooze from your poison pen directly. I'm sure you will not disappoint me.

I didn't know there was a question about authorizing torture. Things like that don't happen without someone at the top knowing it. Grunt soldiers half way around the world from each other don't just come up with these things. Maybe you can have one day in which the officers are away but not day after day. And officers have higher officers looking at them. There is no question that so much couldn't happen in so many places without it being a policy.

Oh, an autobiography, then. HAHAHAHAHahaha...heh. :rolleyes:

Isn't it amazing how people who are okey-doke with torture so frequently "debate" like a bunch of 10-year-olds in a schoolyard?

Amazing indeed… this is different, though at least they come up with an argument
most the time…
Seriously, If want to debate like a ten year old the make your own thread :rolleyes:

Oh, an autobiography, then. HAHAHAHAHahaha...heh. :rolleyes:

Isn't it amazing how people who are okey-doke with torture so frequently "debate" like a bunch of 10-year-olds in a schoolyard?

Yeah I think torture is necessary when there are many lives at stake. And you know what, the way they handle their POW's. Why should we treat them any better. I only believe in electricution, beaten up, and scare tactics. Putting fear into those who think they are fear. That's no crime at all. If torture is the last means in protecting not only our countrymen but to the rest of the people in the world then so be it.

Well, if the charges are valid, then you should see some action on it muy pronto, given Bush's low popularity numbers. An investigation will be launched, and you will at long last get your heart's desire, Nazz. Impeachment. But somehow, I doubt that will happen. This just sounds like just another specious allegation, despite your allegations that the source is without question. But since this IS a serious matter, you don't mind if we check out the facts and make our own minds up, do ya? Thanks much. And each time something new to potentially (oh, dare WE hope?!) flame Bush comes up, you trumpet it from the highest mountaintop as though it were The Word Of God, inviolate and (you should pardon the expression) unimpeachable. Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. So I'm inclined to doubt it just because you froth and foam on so about it. Your past record on Dubya is, well, legendary. However. Time will tell. I shall be following it with great interest. With an OPEN mind.


I await the f-bombs and insults that are your bread and buitter to ooze from your poison pen directly. I'm sure you will not disappoint me.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think something will be done about it this time, as opposed to the many other times stuff has come up? Bush's poll numbers have been low for a long time, after all.

I'll tell you why nothing will be done about this, and why nothing has happened before--Congress gives it a pass because they're complicit. The Republican Congress has given Bush everything he's wanted, to the point where Bush has never had to veto a bill. So why do you think anything will change this time around?

But I tell you what--check Suskind out. Try to impeach him as a writer and a reporter. I'm confident that he'll check out. And then go after what he's written--his record is such that I'm not worried. This isn't a Jason Leopold we're talking about here.

See--not one f-bomb. But I am snickering about your claim of addressing this subject with an open mind. You haven't done it with the other subjects--why spoil your record?

Amazing indeed… this is different, though at least they come up with an argument
most the time…
Seriously, If want to debate like a ten year old the make your own thread :rolleyes:
You call a post which contains nothing at all but a reference to "forum fags" an argument? Right. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I'm feeling remarkably bitchy towards the pro-torture crowd tonight, so I will decline to accept a put-down from somebody who either thinks that's an argument or else could not be bothered to actually read the thread.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think something will be done about it this time, as opposed to the many other times stuff has come up? Bush's poll numbers have been low for a long time, after all.

I'll tell you why nothing will be done about this, and why nothing has happened before--Congress gives it a pass because they're complicit. The Republican Congress has given Bush everything he's wanted, to the point where Bush has never had to veto a bill. So why do you think anything will change this time around?

But I tell you what--check Suskind out. Try to impeach him as a writer and a reporter. I'm confident that he'll check out. And then go after what he's written--his record is such that I'm not worried. This isn't a Jason Leopold we're talking about here.

See--not one f-bomb. But I am snickering about your claim of addressing this subject with an open mind. You haven't done it with the other subjects--why spoil your record?

I DO have an open mind. Mine are just open to other possibilities that might just include the possibility that Bush is not involved directly or even indirectly in torture as a means of obtaining intelligence. Until I check it out, I am not automatically going to assume he is Saddam Hussein's evil twin solely on your word. You DO have a very, very, large bias regarding Shrub.

Good job, Nazz. You CAN feign civility for short stretches.

But thanks for the news item nonetheless. I will check it out. Count on it.

Yeah I think torture is necessary when there are many lives at stake. And you know what, the way they handle their POW's. Why should we treat them any better. I only believe in electricution, beaten up, and scare tactics. Putting fear into those who think they are fear. That's no crime at all. If torture is the last means in protecting not only our countrymen but to the rest of the people in the world then so be it.
Ooh, the "they started it" argument. Yes, it's the schoolyard all over again. Next you'll be advocating triple-dog-daring the terrorists to stick their tongues to a frozen flagpole.

The joke's on you, Ralphie. Torture is a crime. That's a law. A US law, as well as an international one. So what you're doing here is advocating a crime. For which people can be, should be, and are sent to prison for very, very long times. When you try to weasel out of that by claiming it's somehow legal -- or at least not illegal, if you turn it just right and squint real hard, in the dark -- or, even better, by actually saying that we should be just like the terrorists because, you know, they started it, all you do is show yourself to be a coward as well as a violent criminal.

Yeah I think torture is necessary when there are many lives at stake. And you know what, the way they handle their POW's. Why should we treat them any better. I only believe in electricution, beaten up, and scare tactics. Putting fear into those who think they are fear. That's no crime at all. If torture is the last means in protecting not only our countrymen but to the rest of the people in the world then so be it.

As much as I despise torture, I would much rather have a tortured and scarred terrorist and a safe city than the opposite. Torture works.

I DO have an open mind. Mine are just open to other possibilities that might just include the possibility that Bush is not involved directly or even indirectly in torture as a means of obtaining intelligence. Until I check it out, I am not automatically going to assume he is Saddam Hussein's evil twin solely on your word. You DO have a very, very, large bias regarding Shrub.

Good job, Nazz. You CAN feign civility for short stretches.

But thanks for the news item nonetheless. I will check it out. Count on it.
If it were my word you were being asked to trust, you might have a beef, but I never claimed any special knowledge on this matter. My personal bias had nothing to do with the article I quoted--hell, I didn't even add much in the way of commentary, so claiming some problem because of me is, frankly, silly. Unless, of course, you think I'm really Ron Suskind, taking time away from my busy book tour schedule to post pseudonomously on NS General.

As much as I despise torture, I would much rather have a tortured and scarred terrorist and a safe city than the opposite. Torture works.
Kindly post some links to sources providing facts to back up that claim.


*smiles. look at watch. goes out for coffee, shopping, a movie, maybe a weekend by the beach, a trip to hawaii, a 4-year college degree, while waiting for requested source material to appear*

As much as I despise torture, I would much rather have a tortured and scarred terrorist and a safe city than the opposite. Torture works.
Did a hell of a job on Algeria in the 50s. Ask the French. :rolleyes:

You call a post which contains nothing at all but a reference to "forum fags" an argument? Right. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I'm feeling remarkably bitchy towards the pro-torture crowd tonight, so I will decline to accept a put-down from somebody who either thinks that's an argument or else could not be bothered to actually read the thread.
Wha…? How am I putting you down? I’m agreeing with you
(Don’t over emphasize the :rolleyes: smiley)

What I meant was;
In pervious threads our ‘pro-torture’ crowd would say, something similar to ‘Well if it saves lives then, it must be worth doing (because America knows exactly who hold what information.), or ‘Well if some one you knew was in danger you’d do it!’ (Not likely sense if I knew who the victims were I should know were and when it’s going to happen) and those are (crappy but,) legitimate arguments.
But right now they’re not even trying…

Wha…? How am I putting you down? I’m agreeing with you
(Don’t over emphasize the :rolleyes: smiley)

What I meant was;
In pervious threads our ‘pro-torture’ crowd would say, something similar to ‘Well if it saves lives then, it must be worth doing (because America knows exactly who hold what information.), or ‘Well if some one you knew was in danger you’d do it!’ (Not likely sense if I knew who the victims were I should know were and when it’s going to happen) and those are (crappy but,) legitimate arguments.
But right now they’re not even trying…
Oh. Sorry. Never mind. :)


EDIT: Just re-read your original post. Definitely my bad. Sorry.

Ooh, the "they started it" argument. Yes, it's the schoolyard all over again. Next you'll be advocating triple-dog-daring the terrorists to stick their tongues to a frozen flagpole.

The joke's on you, Ralphie. Torture is a crime. That's a law. A US law, as well as an international one. So what you're doing here is advocating a crime. For which people can be, should be, and are sent to prison for very, very long times. When you try to weasel out of that by claiming it's somehow legal -- or at least not illegal, if you turn it just right and squint real hard, in the dark -- or, even better, by actually saying that we should be just like the terrorists because, you know, they started it, all you do is show yourself to be a coward as well as a violent criminal.

If a terrorist is tortured, and noone is around to see it, is it still a crime?

Muray-qoute me the laws on torture in the US. And don't get me started on international law-I don't care for most of it. Phuck it.

If a terrorist is tortured, and noone is around to see it, is it still a crime?

Muray-qoute me the laws on torture in the US. And don't get me started on international law-I don't care for most of it. Phuck it.
A. Yes it is.

B. It's spelled fuck, with an F.

C. There is a request for supporting facts on the table. Chop-chop, Captain America, we don't have nothing but time to waste.

If a terrorist is tortured, and noone is around to see it, is it still a crime?

Muray-qoute me the laws on torture in the US. And don't get me started on international law-I don't care for most of it. Phuck it.
Read it your damn self (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter113c_.html). I'm sure there's more, but that's a start.

A. Yes it is.

B. It's spelled fuck, with an F.

C. There is a request for supporting facts on the table. Chop-chop, Captain America, we don't have nothing but time to waste.

I don't speak legalese, but it says you can't torture someone when it's on an area where the US has jurisdiction?

So that's why we hand them over to Saudis/Egyptians. Smart CIA people.

Of course, then there is the Patriot act.....:p

If a terrorist is tortured, and noone is around to see it, is it still a crime?

Muray-qoute me the laws on torture in the US. And don't get me started on international law-I don't care for most of it. Phuck it.
How dose that work? I kinda thought threre had to be a Torturer to torture people.

I don't speak legalese, but it says you can't torture someone when it's on an area where the US has jurisdiction?

So that's why we hand them over to Saudis/Egyptians. Smart CIA people.

Of course, then there is the Patriot act.....:p
Oh, you pitiful excuse -- you are absolutely incapable of doing anything but spouting bullshit, aren't you? I am sick of this crap with you. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. You refuse. Nazz even gave you a source to read, and you can't even handle that, handed to you on a platter. Conclusion = DM is a time-wasting troll. We're done here.

My father died 20 years ago, and my mother died 3 years ago. Now, could you just hurry up and get my fries, please?
I thought they kept that ... well, type of drone AWAY from the hot oil for some reason or another.

Mainly 'cause you need the emotional age of a mentally-challenged 10-year-old to find it acceptable.
winner
of
thread

Well, if the charges are valid, then you should see some action on it muy pronto, given Bush's low popularity numbers. An investigation will be launched, and you will at long last get your heart's desire, Nazz. Impeachment. But somehow, I doubt that will happen. This just sounds like just another specious allegation, despite your allegations that the source is without question. But since this IS a serious matter, you don't mind if we check out the facts and make our own minds up, do ya? Thanks much. And each time something new to potentially (oh, dare WE hope?!) flame Bush comes up, you trumpet it from the highest mountaintop as though it were The Word Of God, inviolate and (you should pardon the expression) unimpeachable. Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. So I'm inclined to doubt it just because you froth and foam on so about it. Your past record on Dubya is, well, legendary. However. Time will tell. I shall be following it with great interest. With an OPEN mind.


I await the f-bombs and insults that are your bread and buitter to ooze from your poison pen directly. I'm sure you will not disappoint me.
Almost.
Sweet talk ...
CAFFEINE.

Torture works.
Reminds me of an old joke:
Try to catch the rabbit
MI5, Mossad, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. It's decided to give them a test. A rabbit is released into a forest and each of them has to catch it.

MI5 goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.

Mossad goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.

The CIA goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"

And surprisingly, not a comment from one of the senior officers in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Deep Kimchi. You'd think he'd be quick to try and shoot down a book and author that's mucking up his pet theory that a bunch of low-ranking National Guardsmen who probably never heard of Islam alone could be capable of masterminding sacrilegous abuse that requires firm insight into the victim's religion.

Okay, now that I've gotten that snarkshot out of my system...

Does anyone notice a pattern? The Bush Administration nails small fries and when it does, the nation gets a press conference on how another "terrorist mastermind" has been taken down and how "we are winning the War on Terror™, bringing Democracy to the rest of the world," etc. etc.

An MPD who was just an errand boy for Al-Qaeda and a late small-time crook turned thug-slash-Al-Qaeda fanboy are what the Bush Administration calls "major blows" against terrorism. While Bin Ladin and most of his real inner circle aren't even a concern to Shrub nowadays.

More and more The War on Terror™ is looking like a taxpayer waste of money that exaggerates the importance of its targets to make it look like something's actually being done. Kind of like trying to take first prize at the Bass Pro Tour with a sardine you pulled out of a can from the local supermarket.

I don't speak legalese, but it says you can't torture someone when it's on an area where the US has jurisdiction?
That you cannot speak legalese does not in any way explain your apparent comprehension failure. It's in fairly basic English...it even comes with it's own 'handy-dandy definitions list'...
If you are trying to claim some inability to comprehend the text, then you'll need to claim a problem speaking and/or reading and/or comprehending English...

So that's why we hand them over to Saudis/Egyptians. Smart CIA people.

Did you actually read the linked to text? Did you fail to notice the conspiracy clause and the clause that grants jurisdiction over acts occuring outside the US and to non-US citizens?

Of course, then there is the Patriot act.....:p[/QUOTE]
What about the Patriot Act?

And I'll just throw this in for good measure--it's a little old, but hey, when you've got a Lt. General writing an article titled "Cut and Run? You Betcha," it's worth revisiting (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3430).

Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of “red state” citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.

The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, U.S. President George W. Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let’s consider his administration’s most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.
He then engages the 5 most popular talking points for staying. Read the whole thing--it's enlightening.

And it's not by a psycho or anything. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html) I don't normally quote entire stories, but this is an important one, and it's not terribly long. I'll bold some significant moments.



That's some disturbing shit, as far as I'm concerned. What's the spin going to be on this one?
Maybe not a psycho, but certainly a disgruntled former employee. Try this spin. Tenent screwed up his tenure at the CIA and now he's determined to tell everyone that it wasn't his fault.

And you didn't quote a story, you quoted a book review.

I find George WrongWar Bush not guilty for reason of insanity.

The Iraq War is a mistake and we told you so!
(In cooperation with Anarchic Christians - and maybe Yootopia)

Maybe not a psycho, but certainly a disgruntled former employee. Try this spin. Tenent screwed up his tenure at the CIA and now he's determined to tell everyone that it wasn't his fault.

And you didn't quote a story, you quoted a book review.
If it were only Tenet, then you might have a beef, but as the review points out--and there are other reviews to look at, by the way--Suskind has a wide array of sources for this book.

If it were only Tenet, then you might have a beef, but as the review points out--and there are other reviews to look at, by the way--Suskind has a wide array of sources for this book.
The guy from the Post didn't persuade me to put that book on my Amazon.com wish list.

And you're right about the other sources. Paul O'Neill is one of the happiest ex-employees I've ever seen.

Maybe not a psycho, but certainly a disgruntled former employee. Try this spin. Tenent screwed up his tenure at the CIA and now he's determined to tell everyone that it wasn't his fault.

And you didn't quote a story, you quoted a book review.

I love the "disgruntled former employee" excuse, because all you have to do to discredit a possible future informant/whistleblower is to fire them.

I love the "disgruntled former employee" excuse, because all you have to do to discredit a possible future informant/whistleblower is to fire them.
And it plays into the assumption that the former employee had absolutely no reason to be disgruntled. Maybe the employee was pissed because of the bullshit his bosses were getting away with, you know?

I love the "disgruntled former employee" excuse, because all you have to do to discredit a possible future informant/whistleblower is to fire them.
The brush-off done here is a nice way to ignore the facts, as well.

The brush-off done here is a nice way to ignore the facts, as well.
What facts? The O'Neill book was never seriously challenged as inaccurate, no matter how gruntled or disgruntled he was. And I hope the White House challenges this book, because at the very least it'll open up that curtain of secrecy they hide behind all the time.

What facts? The O'Neill book was never seriously challenged as inaccurate, no matter how gruntled or disgruntled he was. And I hope the White House challenges this book, because at the very least it'll open up that curtain of secrecy they hide behind all the time.

Prediction. White House ignores it alltogether.
Which, you have to admit, is sane politics.

The brush-off done here is a nice way to ignore the facts, as well.

The original fact-free brush-off was yours, not mine (which my comment pointed out.) And now you're trying to blame me.

Sorry pal, my name is not Clinton.

Torture them until they die, or give up the information. They're plotting to wipe out America. I don't care what happens to them-whether or not they live to get out depends on what they give.

Wow, you're wough and tough....

isn't this like one of the worlds worst kept nonsecrets? of course he authorized it. what do think rove and rumsfield are letting him warm the chair and be their posterboy/puppet for?

=^^=
.../\...

Listening to GW Bush trying speak English is torture already ...

That's some disturbing shit, as far as I'm concerned. What's the spin going to be on this one?

"Alleged".

Like a mentally ill man being tortured, and coming up with any story that springs to mind, people can "allege" anything they like, and half the people in the world will take it as fact.

"Alleged".

Like a mentally ill man being tortured, and coming up with any story that springs to mind, people can "allege" anything they like, and half the people in the world will take it as fact.

If only you used that skepticism on an equal basis with regards to Bush and the Iraq war...

If only you used that skepticism on an equal basis with regards to Bush and the Iraq war...

You'll notice that I historically take a dim view towards "intelligence".

If Tenet came up to me and told me that the CIA noticed that my shoes were untied, I would not bend down to check, nor would I think that they were untied.

That said, a President presiding over a GWOT has to do something, or risk being labelled politically as "fiddling while Rome burns".

That, and when you get an intelligence estimate, and you're the President, you have to ask yourself, "what happens if I act on this information and believe it and it's wrong?" and "what happens if I don't act on this information, don't believe it, and it turns out to be right?"

In that situation, you aren't any smarter than Bush. You can't for a moment (unless you're speaking in hindsight) tell me that you have the knowledge of everything that is going on everywhere to tell if the CIA is right or wrong.

Love those second guessers - they have nothing to lose by chiding people in hindsight.

The original fact-free brush-off was yours, not mine (which my comment pointed out.) And now you're trying to blame me.

Sorry pal, my name is not Clinton.
All we're really looking at is a "Mommie Dearest" book with political overtones.

All we're really looking at is a "Mommie Dearest" book with political overtones.
Read it already, have you?

Read it already, have you?
No, I just rush to conclusions.

No, I just rush to conclusions.

That faint sound you just heard was coutless NSers nodding their heads.

That faint sound you just heard was coutless NSers nodding their heads.
There is a place and time for serious discussion. This isn't it. This is a nice place to try out ideas, though.

Yeah I think torture is necessary when there are many lives at stake. And you know what, the way they handle their POW's. Why should we treat them any better. I only believe in electricution, beaten up, and scare tactics. Putting fear into those who think they are fear. That's no crime at all. If torture is the last means in protecting not only our countrymen but to the rest of the people in the world then so be it.

Funny thing is, you've got this exactly backwards. It's because we don't treat them any better than we do that our POW's, oops, I mean "kidnapping victims" get tortured to death.

Torture has long been known to be a source of highly unreliable information. People being tortured will just say random crap to get the torture to stop.

Your whole "if" is a load of crap. There's only one reason to torture. You're a sadistic asshole.

And it plays into the assumption that the former employee had absolutely no reason to be disgruntled. Maybe the employee was pissed because of the bullshit his bosses were getting away with, you know?

Yeah. By the logic they use, the mafia should have claimed that Sammy "the Bull" was just a disgruntled employee.

Reminds me of an old joke:
Try to catch the rabbit

Good one! :D

<snip> Kind of like trying to take first prize at the Bass Pro Tour with a sardine you pulled out of a can from the local supermarket.
Brilliant! Nicely put. :D

You'll notice that I historically take a dim view towards "intelligence".
<snip>
Yes, we've all noticed that. :p

I hope that good solid evidence is presented and then used to bust some asses over this
Read "The Men Who Stare At Goats". There's an interview with someone who was taken to Guantanimo and released. He talks quite a lot about his experiences.

Torture them until they die, or give up the information. They're plotting to wipe out America. I don't care what happens to them-whether or not they live to get out depends on what they give.
*does some completely politically incorrect hand slapping and groaning*

You do realise that most of the people in Guantanimo have done nothing wrong and were picked up "because they looked suspicious" by "private contrators", yeah?

Yeah. By the logic they use, the mafia should have claimed that Sammy "the Bull" was just a disgruntled employee.
Well, technically, he was, and that just makes him a pretty good example: The fact that he had a beef with his old bosses had nothing to do with the fact that everything he said about them was true. And since it was true, the Mafia could gnash their teeth about him all they liked. His bosses still got convicted based in part on his testimony.

Yes, we've all noticed that. :pThat would appear to substantiate his innate inability to learn from his mistakes ... like posting that little nugget, for example.
Nice pwn. :D

That would appear to substantiate his innate inability to learn from his mistakes ... like posting that little nugget, for example.
Nice pwn. :D
Thanks. When somebody gives me such a sweet set-up, I feel like it would be churlish to pass it up. :)

Thanks. When somebody gives me such a sweet set-up, I feel like it would be churlish to pass it up. :)
He's full of 'em. He's a good guy to hang around on some of the longer days. He also doesn't seem to mind much - even to the extent of starting WHOLE threads that are destined (as much as anything is) to end in what would normally be considered "painful humiliation".
;)

Uh huh. Ron Suskind has a rep as a solid reporter and writer.

Just like Dan Rather, right? :rolleyes:

That said, his inability to walk through walls is duly noted. ;)

This isn't some kid in his mom's basement cranking this stuff out--it's a reporter with a long history of solid work, and who has, to my knowledge, an unimpeachable record.

Actually, I'd have more faith in the kid working from his Mom's basement. It's the people who are starting out and who are trying to build a reputation who are more likely to be energetic in doing a good job and less likely to cut corners than an established hack like Mr. Susskind would be. I'm afraid you are more impressed with Mr. Susskind's career thus far than I have been.

I do have an interest in the way urban folklore develops within political circles and in the way a fallen political class engages in the modern equivalent of a Cargo Cult but I'm currently engaged in a project that has little to do with this interest and I don't think anyone would be able to give me back the time I spent on yet another self-serving political myth. If this is more than the tripe I believe it to be independent verification (As opposed to the usual "echoing" that out-of-power political factions engage in on these occasions) will doubtless be available in good time.

Just like Dan Rather, right? :rolleyes:

That said, his inability to walk through walls is duly noted. ;)



Actually, I'd have more faith in the kid working from his Mom's basement. It's the people who are starting out and who are trying to build a reputation who are more likely to be energetic in doing a good job and less likely to cut corners than an established hack like Mr. Susskind would be. I'm afraid you are more impressed with Mr. Susskind's career thus far than I have been.

I do have an interest in the way urban folklore develops within political circles and in the way a fallen political class engages in the modern equivalent of a Cargo Cult but I'm currently engaged in a project that has little to do with this interest and I don't think anyone would be able to give me back the time I spent on yet another self-serving political myth. If this is more than the tripe I believe it to be independent verification (As opposed to the usual "echoing" that out-of-power political factions engage in on these occasions) will doubtless be available in good time.

So tell me. What's your particular beef with Susskind? Where has he been inaccurate? Or is it that you just don't like what he reports on?

I'm afraid you are more impressed with Mr. Susskind's career thus far than I have been.


Do you have any solid reasoning for this i.e. known falsehoods, erroneous reporting, etc, etc or you just don't like him?

Do you have any solid reasoning for this i.e. known falsehoods, erroneous reporting, etc, etc or you just don't like him?
Probably typical republican infantilism coated with a rancid spray of rightwing catchphrases. Pthpbt.

He's full of 'em. He's a good guy to hang around on some of the longer days. He also doesn't seem to mind much - even to the extent of starting WHOLE threads that are destined (as much as anything is) to end in what would normally be considered "painful humiliation".
;)
I think he's starting to mind though. In another thread, he said I have a personal crusade against him. As if. Why would anyone hold unpleasant personal feelings about someone who advocates genocide, war and torture? Pshaw.

I can't tell whether he's starting to itch under the uncomfortable labels that best fit his views, or whether it bothers him when I say something that isn't an angry denunciation of him. He seems to mind the denunciations less than the teasing. Go know. *shrug*

Reminds me of an old joke:
Try to catch the rabbit
MI5, Mossad, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. It's decided to give them a test. A rabbit is released into a forest and each of them has to catch it.

MI5 goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.

Mossad goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.

The CIA goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"

I've heard that and it never fails to crack a smile out of me.

Probably typical republican infantilism coated with a rancid spray of rightwing catchphrases. Pthpbt.

Notice he never followed up.

Notice he never followed up.
Shot his load, i suspect. He'd have to take another rectal infusion to opine the second blessed time.