Torture memos

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Jill

There weren't any repetitions of the 1993 WTC bombings for 9 years, and we weren't torturing anyone in the aftermath of that attack.

True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?

I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.

And yet we knew that Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in the U.S.", and we even knew that the plans included hijacking airliners, and we knew all of this through traditional intelligence gathering techniques. Which President got this briefing? Which President ignored it, to all of our detriment and peril?

And you forgot that there wasn't anything in that report with a date or a place or anyone named, or even described, as the terrorists? There was nothing in there that could be used to target the men responsible.

It is not a sustainable idea to insist that Bush could only make errors, because, after all, he was trying to commit foreign policy while being Republican. That seems the core of your argument in the above quote.

No, you did not claim that it is the same regardless of time or place. That is why you believe you can accuse me of not outlining what the difference is. Let me show you our exchange again so you don't have to go back and look for it, highlighting the relevant portions. Battlefield /= Prison cell

Fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty = fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty, quite regardless of whether it's under the sky or in a room. I had thought I had made that clear to even the meanest understanding.

War /= Interrogations

By interrogations, you gain intelligence, and with intelligence, you fight better. So it's all the same thing, really. About the only point you really have here is that interrogations differ from overall war about the way infantry differs from close air support; each has its piece of the action.

I hope this "outline" is clear now. Huh? I have no idea what "details of date or language next to the essential question, etc." even means. This is just gobbledeegook.

I see nothing opaque in the sentence. I'd suggest this failure to get it is owing to a blank refusal to think.

What I think you're trying to say is that other members of this board are too stupid and fascist, whether consciously or unconsciously, to -- what, challenge your approach or vehemence? Again, Huh?

Here being an example of that blank noncomprehension: what I said was that I am vehemently disagreed with by people of fascist sympathies, not democratic ones. And it looks like you can correlate their vehemence with their lack of enthusiasm for propagating genuine democratic government abroad on the earth. They seem to think that leaving the fascists unmolested -- their villainies the better to perform -- is the best road, the embodiment of wisdom, and we'll all be good good friends. It's been said elsewhere that "It's an old idea, called 'peace at any price.'"

I say its wiser to make no friends of the undemocrats, the fascists, the communists, the other madmen and their tools. I say it is wiser and better to remove these obstacles to human liberty and progress, and to remove them without let or hindrance.

I am proud to be an apostle of liberty. My opponents, however, cannot have such pride, for they do not deserve to, and aren't trying for it in any case -- they're dead to it from the heart upwards.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?

I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.

Actually, we knew quite a bit about al qaeda back then, but Bush thought they weren't all that dangerous so he demoted Richard Clarke and told people to stop talking to him about it. In the summer of 2001, one of our best informed people about al qaeda in the FBI, John O'Neill, left because he had been forced out. Ironically, he had been hired as head of security at the WTC, and he was killed in the attack. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ He had been warning us another attack was coming, or trying to warn us. It's kinda hard to warn people when they stop listening to you. Carrying on though, Bush ignored the chatter in the summer of 2001 and went on vacation, instead of trying glean any information about how or when or where bin Laden might try to attack inside the United States, even though some people in intelligence had said their hair was fire there was so much chatter. If Clinton had still been in office, there is a chance, however slight (or big), that we might have stopped it, because Clinton took al qaeda seriously, and he warned Bush that al qaeda was the biggest single threat facing America at that time. Too bad Bush choose not to listen to him. So we were hit by them for the second time.

And you forgot that there wasn't anything in that report with a date or a place or anyone named, or even described, as the terrorists? There was nothing in there that could be used to target the men responsible.

Bush didn't even TRY to glean any new information. He had been warned, and he chose to look the other way and to NOT investigate the warning or take it seriously.

It is not a sustainable idea to insist that Bush could only make errors, because, after all, he was trying to commit foreign policy while being Republican. That seems the core of your argument in the above quote.

Trying to commit foreign policy while being republican? WTF does that mean? I thought republicans thought they were the superior party with regard to foreign policy? Clearly though they are not.

Fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty = fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty, quite regardless of whether it's under the sky or in a room. I had thought I had made that clear to even the meanest understanding.



By interrogations, you gain intelligence, and with intelligence, you fight better. So it's all the same thing, really. About the only point you really have here is that interrogations differ from overall war about the way infantry differs from close air support; each has its piece of the action.

Not when the intelligence you gain is tainted because of the methods you choose to use, OR the fact that recruiting for the enemy goes up based on the interrogation methods we use. It is a FACT that al qaeda recruitment went up after Abu Ghraib and the knowledge that we used torture, in a prison where it was known Saddan also used torture... How fucking brilliant was that? ummmm, it wasn't. In fact, it couldn't have been MORE STUPID.

I see nothing opaque in the sentence. I'd suggest this failure to get it is owing to a blank refusal to think.



Here being an example of that blank noncomprehension: what I said was that I am vehemently disagreed with by people of fascist sympathies, not democratic ones. And it looks like you can correlate their vehemence with their lack of enthusiasm for propagating genuine democratic government abroad on the earth. They seem to think that leaving the fascists unmolested -- their villainies the better to perform -- is the best road, the embodiment of wisdom, and we'll all be good good friends. It's been said elsewhere that "It's an old idea, called 'peace at any price.'"

I say its wiser to make no friends of the undemocrats, the fascists, the communists, the other madmen and their tools. I say it is wiser and better to remove these obstacles to human liberty and progress, and to remove them without let or hindrance.

I am proud to be an apostle of liberty. My opponents, however, cannot have such pride, for they do not deserve to, and aren't trying for it in any case -- they're dead to it from the heart upwards.

Since I am one of these people you refer to as "fascist" (even though you seem to clearly not know what that word actually means), I will say this, why exactly is it OUR JOB to propogate democracy across the globe? How is that ANY DIFFERENT from Russia trying to propogate communism? Forcing a form of government on people who may not want it is not democratic by any definition of the word.

And ftr, we have overthrown democratically elected leaders in the middle east (and elsewhere) for the simple fact that they were not friendly to our wanting control over certain aspects of their economy, like OIL. Overthrowing a government that had a leader who was democratically elected by his people, and well liked by his people, is NOT spreading democracy.

You claim the United States is not empirialistic, but yet you tout spreading democracy, in places where people do not want our kind of government. How is that in any way democratic?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?

I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.

So the whole torture thing is "punishment"?