I honor the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, over the comfort level of some muzzie psychopaths.

And what about all the wild-goose chases KSM sent the CIA on while his cohorts were planning and executing bombings in Bali, Spain and London? Why didn’t we hear about Richard Reed from him? Or the plot to blow up 10 US-bound flights that was foiled by Scotland Yard?

If torture had produced anything valuable that led to a capture or prevented an attack a’la Jack Bauer, then the Bushies would have trumpeted that from here to Timbuktu to defend their illegal actions. Consequently, flunky-lawyers like John Yoo and Jay Bybee will now be thrown under the bus to establish plausible deniability for those who requested and acted on their “advice.” It’s not justice per se – the rotting fish-head Cheney will never be prosecuted for crafting the whole fiasco – but it’s a damn good start.

Looks like the rotting fish-head had something other than Keeping Us Safe on his mind.

Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link

“Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.”

Senior administration officials, however, “blew that off and kept insisting that we’d overlooked something, that the interrogators weren’t pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information,” he said.

[...]

While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”

Maybe we waterboard Pat’s fake lesbian daughter.

Holder on CNN in April 2004:

HOLDER: When you look at some of the things that have done under the spirit of the [Patriot] Act, where you detain citizens without giving them access to a lawyer, where you listen in on attorney-client conversations without involving a judge, these are the kinds of things that have been done in the name of the Patriot Act by this administration that I think are bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people which is a vital tool to be successful in this war on terrorism . . .

I think in a lot of ways, the problem that I had with the enforcement of the act is that this administration said essentially trust us. We’re not going to involve judges, we’re not going to report to Congress on what we’re doing, and I think our history has shown us that we are best when we operate as people governed by the law as opposed to putting our trust in people and that’s the problem I have.

You have to deal with this whole question of secrecy and the way in which the administration has conducted itself. You need to involve judges. If you’re going to look at business records or library records, this should not be something that’s simply done by the executive branch without the involvement of judges.

If you’re going to listen in on attorney/client conversations, as we did in the Clinton administration, the difference was we asked a judge to authorize it as opposed to simply saying we in the executive branch by ourselves can do this without any supervision by a judge. You also need to report to Congress on a regular basis to let them know what you’re doing under the act.

I’ve been really surprised to see this attorney general [John Ashcroft], a former senator, who has been extremely reluctant apparently to get up on Capitol Hill and talk about it. Even if it’s in the intelligence setting where the public doesn’t necessarily hear, been reluctant to share information about the way in which he has enforced the Patriot Act.

What people said and did in the immediate aftermath of the trauma of 9/11, and I consider January, 2002 to be part of that period, is excusable so long as they never acted on their gut instincts in the way that Bush did. Many people who have ended up as important advocates for the Constitution and the rule of law made some early statements and formed some positions, undoubtedly attributable to the emotional impact of 9/11, that they came to regret.

If there will be no prosecutions, then why is the rotting fish-head now quaking in his boots and running to his cronies at the CIA for cover?

An opnion piece from Bill “there’s absolutely no evidence that the Sunni and Shia in Iraq are enemies” Kristol’s parlor rag? You still believe Iraq and bin Laden are connected? Six years scouring the entire country and not one shred of evidence to support it has been unearthed. Oh I forgot, you’re into that faith-based thing. You might try placing your faith in sources who actually get things right occasionally.

“I can hear it now, when another attack like 9-11, or worse, occurs,”

You and your jumping beans are certainly rooting for one, aren’t you? That’ll really set you winguts on fire and make everyone see firsthand the folly of electing that Black Dude, eh? Then we’ll all come crawling back to you Authoritarians in waves.

To me, the most interesting aspect of this debate is the resist vs. inflict angle. SERE candidates are put through waterboarding so they can learn how to *resist* some nasty-ass shit that nasty-ass people may do to them one day. (Do I have this correct–”SERE” is the name of the program?)

I wish the US could just say “Yes, we torture people because it gets us extremely valuable results that save American lives.”

I was trying to find that video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded. Does anyone have it? Could they post it here?

Best,
Tom

What is obvious is that if the tables had been turned, this 7th-century savage KSM would have been chopping our heads off while making a video of it. Irresponsible grandstanding on the left is to be ignored, these people don’t know -or don’t want to know- what it takes to keep America safe… nor do they understand the nature of the enemy, apparently.

And waterboarding is not a near-drowning technique- the subject is never in danger of drowning. Water boarding is not torture- there is no physical harm to the subject.

Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is a BAD guy, wouldn’t talk, and was taunting US interrogators with “you’ll see”… so they obtained valuable info from him using this technique, which we now find-out prevented a 9/11-scale attack on Los Angeles. Who cares how many times it took?

It was up to him how long before he decided to cooperate, didn’t have to be this way- looks like he clung stubbornly to a bad decision.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Stop trying to say waterboarding isn’t torture. The US tortures people to gain extremely valuable information. Information that keeps this country safe from potential attack.

I mean, I think. Right? Rep Reagan Resist, don’t you agree?

~Tom

Mohammed Patty is in desperate need of another ass pounding. Where’s Jonnnnnnnnnnnnny?

Pat – your reference to “that black Dude” is clearly an attempt to paint us a racist. It doesn’t work and neither do Obama’s policies.

As far as torture, go ask Pelosi what waterboarding is like. She approved it and may have even thought it wasn’t tough enough.

This whole thing is going to backfire on you and your ilk.

Say, if it isn’t torture, and if it works, then why don’t stateside police departments and prison systems use waterboarding?

Or for that matter, employers, day cares, and parents of teenagers?

FYI, the Republican party as you knew it two years ago it dying a quick painful death. Welcome to the land of 25% ‘ers, and good luck to you.