|
|
|
|
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 10:16:18 AM |
At least two people, Cheney and former CIA head General Michael Hayden, beg to differ ....
So the director of the FBI says it was useless, and Cheney (who has no practical first-hand knowledge) and a former CIA head says something different.
Either way you cut it, somebody is full of shit / lying. Since two government sources are offering opposing positions, and since only 1 can be right (meaning the other is full of shit) I hope that rational-thinking people can conclude from this lesson that sometimes the government lies and/or is mistaken/full of shit.
Who do ya trust?  | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 11:48:07 AM | I think that the CIA's tactics were getting less than optimal results, due to the fact that they didn't go far enough. A little Drawing & Quartering would have worked WONDERS!!
You grab one terrorist, march the rest in, draw & quarter the selected scumbag, then tell the rest, "You scuzz are NEXT if you don't talk!"
If nobody talks, next week, you do it again. Sooner or later, the fear would get to 'em and they'd be spilling the beans.
Nice? Nope. Effective? Eventually...or at least there wouldn't be any terrorist captives left.
 | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 1:02:08 PM |
... at least there wouldn't be any terrorist captives left. It's already been established that 99% of the so-called "terrorist" captives ... you know, those evil "enemy combatants" ... had absolutely nothing to do with "terrorist" anything.
Sort of like four years ago ... the dreadful case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen whom the Bush administration abducted at JFK Airport and rendered to Sryia for 10 months to be tortured only for it to then be revealed that he had no connection whatsoever to terrorism ...  | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 1:42:56 PM | | Your so correct Cotter that why the thinking of types like Bigshreks bother the hell out of me,can you just not picture him knee deep in the middle of it,he seems to thrive on it,scary that people that think like him actually exist,him or the terrorists each one believes the carnage is fine because its for revenge,each thinks they are correct,as if they are entitled to play god,but a god like that would scare the s h i t out of me,when I read his writings,I see no difference,evil perpetuates evil.Hes a poster child of the harm the military can do to a human being,one warped pup.Everything he writes is sick. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 1:54:29 PM | I try to be very fair and open-minded when discussing politics, but some that continually bash Bush irritate the hell out of me. I didn't agree with everything he did as president, but give him the respect the office deserves. I hope Obama's critics do the same (but I know that's just as impossible for far too many).
Anyway, the problem I have with Bush haters is their hate is so profound and intense they almost froth at the mouth at even the thought of him and find it impossible to be fair. He's NOT on par with a Hitler or Stalin, people, not even close. Moreover, I don't agree or even accept his actions had some evil, all-consuming intent to do the kind of harm his critics want attributed to him.
In the aftermath of 9-11, his single-minded, profound sense of purpose was to protect the American people from further attacks and make sure something like 9-11 never happened again on his watch. Our intelligence uncovered at least some evidence terrorist organizations were planning more attacks; attacks that could have included nuclear and/or biological weapons. There were threats of more hijackings. There were anthrax scares. It was a very frightening time, and the American public wanted our government to do all it could to protect us.
As far as I know and can remember back then, there was almost zero resistance to using enhanced interrogation techniques, which included waterboarding. I'm sure even my grandmother would have been for it at the time if there was even the "slightest" chance using it could have prevented another attack. People in the corridors of power that either tacitly or outright agreed to the techniques, but are now speaking out against them, seem to have a very selective memory. To me that's a cowardly response and politically motivated. This current revisionist history and self-righteous posturing is rather sickening.
As for invading Iraq, the Bush administration fervently believed Saddam was hiding WMD and was a real threat, and was as surprised as most when WMD didn't exist (not, btw, because there wasn't "any" evidence of them, but because Hussein "stopped" further research and implementation years before, probably out of fear of what ultimately happened). And it wasn't just the Bush administration? Every major allied intelligence agency in the world thought he was hiding WMD, too. Hussein could have very well avoided invasion by simply allowing inspectors to do their work unhindered and quit his childish shell game of appearing to hide evidence. But he thought Bush had no guts and America was a paper tiger. He learned otherwise.
Furthermore, I think the jury's still out regarding Iraq's transition to a more peaceful government; it's still way to early to make final determinations. It may take decades, as previous examples in world history have shown.
Bush's tragic flaw was his unwavering belief in his own moral certitude and absolutism. It blinded him to different paths and closed his ears to dissenting voices. It made him unable to admit mistakes or make course corrections in policy when they were not only needed, but demanded. For that he takes full blame.
But if the yardstick for presidential action is to wait for global consensus before doing "anything", any president would be severely crippled.
Obama was fairly elected, and as such is entrusted by the American people "as a whole" to protect them and the vital interests of the United States. All democratically elected representatives in any similar country is mandated to do the same for their respective nations, be it Canada or Great Britain, France, Germany...whomever.
If at some point Obama exercises his judgement, and does "anything" in the world according to what he "feels" is in America's best interests, but some people vociferously disagree, is he supposed to roll over and accede to their wishes, or follow public opinion polls for guidance? Ridiculous logic. No one can administer a nation that way, nor should they. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 2:58:32 PM |
You grab one terrorist, march the rest in, draw & quarter the selected scumbag, then tell the rest, "You scuzz are NEXT if you don't talk!"
...because people that are willing to undertake suicide attacks are really afraid of dying, right? Use your head, man. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/28/2009 3:05:39 PM |
You grab one terrorist, march the rest in, draw & quarter the selected scumbag, then tell the rest, "You scuzz are NEXT if you don't talk!" your assuming the man is guilty,I'm assuming these are like all the prisoners we had that were given no counsel,were not even tried,your idea is pathetic,barbaric,evil,and on the same level as some of the butchers in other countries prisons,your in the wrong century,you would be perfect for the Spanish Inquisition ,The ladies on this site must just be thrilled with you. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/29/2009 3:53:19 AM | This isn't the dark ages. Empathy and compassion are pretty big forces in the world, not to mention information. I sincerely hope that the wars of the future are fought and won by those weapons.
People generally do not become resistance fighters (aka terrorists) because they 'feel like it'. They are people just like you and I, are motivated by the same things. Desire the same things for their children. Sure they may look different, sure their habits may be different, but underneath is a man/woman/boy/girl just like you and me. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 12:53:25 AM |
You grab one terrorist, march the rest in, draw & quarter the selected scumbag, then tell the rest, "You scuzz are NEXT if you don't talk!"
If nobody talks, next week, you do it again. Sooner or later, the fear would get to 'em and they'd be spilling the beans.
What you'd get is a bunch of false confessions. These are the same techniques that the inquisition used. Do you REALLY think young women through out the middle ages were having sex with the devil or indulging in witch craft? Because that's the kind of answers they got.
Also, it's hard not to believe a person is taking a certain "physical" pleasure in this kind of revenge fantasy, Sadism is a sexual fetish after all.
In the aftermath of 9-11, his single-minded, profound sense of purpose was to protect the American people from further attacks and make sure something like 9-11 never happened again on his watch. Our intelligence uncovered at least some evidence terrorist organizations were planning more attacks; attacks that could have included nuclear and/or biological weapons. There were threats of more hijackings. There were anthrax scares. It was a very frightening time, and the American public wanted our government to do all it could to protect us.
Nothing to do with Iraq I'm afraid. or imprisoning people without trial, or torturing people who later turned out to be innocent. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 11:34:33 AM |
Nothing to do with Iraq I'm afraid. or imprisoning people without trial, or torturing people who later turned out to be innocent.
I was explaining the mood of the country immediately after 9-11 and know exactly what I'm talking about. I stand by what I wrote. I wasn't defending or ridiculing the "methods" of that protection in the passage you're citing, just giving the background. Are you saying the mood was completely different and Americans "didn't" want our government to protect us? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 12:09:35 PM | Many of the Americans wanted the government to protect them and many were afraid how Bush would,many were shocked the moment the Bin Laden relatives were flown out of the country when all other flights were grounded,most of the worried ones then knew it was going to be bad.What happens when there is a murder,the investigators ,investigate they don't put the suspects on a plane and fly them out of US jurisdiction.Many many were extremely disappointed when we decided then to go after Saddam in a country that had not a shred to do with Bin Laden,many of us were extremely irked that we did nothing about the Saudis because almost all the terrorists were Saudis.
Yes the moment 9-11 happened we were all glued to the TV and in shock and I for one would have gone on a plane that day,30,000 flights a day and only a few planes were involved,I and many others do not believe the sky is falling everywhere because one huge horrible tragedy happened . I never once felt enraged like a vigilante that I would stop at nothing to get these men.We should have gone after Bin Laden and the men involved not taken on every terrorist in the world,that costs money,something we did not have,that above that costs young soldiers lives something I value.Iraq took provocation we didn't have that,we were lied to by Bush/Cheney.
Yes there was a mood but many of us did not want revenge at any cost,some of of still have morals,and believe in the constitution,Bush/Cheney took or Constitution and wiped their b u tt with it,which was highly unamerican,so do not act like we all wanted the same thing at any cost. | |
|
Kaos86
|
Joined: 3/7/2007
Msg: 765 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 12:15:16 PM |
What you'd get is a bunch of false confessions.
Not acording to President Obama's national intelligence director Dennis Blair.
"High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in a memo to personnel.
It's hard to compare barking dogs, nudity, sleep deprivation, and even waterboarding with decapitation.
If you want to know what torture realy is go ask Daniel Pearl. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 12:37:37 PM | Fine, you didn’t agree with everything our government did at the time. That’s your right. It’s NOT your right to pretend you’re speaking for the mood of the entire country back then, or to intimate the Bush administration “must" have acted out of some evil intent and not a solemn desire to protect us.
That’s where most of the Bush haters “real” venom comes from, right, and what I consider their biggest flaw. This deep, irrational, distorting hatred which apparently needs to portray Bush as the devil incarnate and America as some monstrous evil that reeks havoc on the world, while apologizing for the behavior terrorists and other obvious enemies with arguments like because of past policy “sins”, we had something like 9-11 “coming”.
There’s not much mistaking that’s where most of this crap springs from for a lot of people, even more so internationally. If you extend the logic it evidently means we’re supposed to lay down and take whatever hits, never use military force in retaliation, or rely on “any” intelligence methods to uncover or foil terrorist plots.
If you disagree, then please spell out exactly “what” our policy should be and what methods are acceptable? I’d like you to put your president hat on and take the awesome responsibility and crushing pressure to protect the country for even five minutes and see if you’re up to the task.
Let’s get specific here. Waterboarding is a definite no-no, so that’s out. What about the other interrogation techniques listed on page 30? Is “nothing” acceptable? If so, tell me what. When do you use our military? 9-11 was a direct attack on our nation, and since the terrorists behind it were trained, armed, and guided by an organization given safe haven and protection by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, do you agree we had the moral right to invade and take them out? If not, how would you have handled it? No smug, righteous posturing or moral superiority from your soapbox in here, but unsentimental policy strategy and real world decisions that people entrusted to run our country have to make every day. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 1:31:19 PM | Some of you crack me up when you say the only reason we are complaining is because we hate Bush or have an agenda against Bush.
When will you learn that to two are directly connected.Bush blew the whole thing by letting the Bin Ladens leave the country when every plane was grounded.Bush made no attempt do go after Saudis who were the terrorists,But the Saudis darn near own us so why rock the boat.Bush walked away from the Afghanistans search for for Bin laden leaving a Skeleton crew there and put all our resources in an unrelated place,Iraq.Bush allowed torture,made illegal wiretapping legal,and threw away the constitution and took away human rights and rights to counsel.Bush never acted on the info he had terrorists here in the country,we knew the terrorists were here ,intel shows that.
Rather than studying the 9-11 debris we shipped it away,there was evidence even in video of the tell tale signs of thermite (generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel)showing the buildings did not drop from the jet fuel alone,video pictures show the ground girders melt cut at perfect 45 degree angles,molten steel still laid in puddles below them,The buildings after being studied by top engineers show it broke the laws of physics and it broke the laws of momentum,even the pancake drop of the towers fell twice faster than physically possible,expert implosion engineers stated only implosion can drop a building twice faster than the laws of physics and momentum.There was more involved than the airplanes,building 3 dropped same way and all it suffered was an extreme fire of one corner of the building in and area of 100 by 100 foot,expert stated a skyscraper cannot pancake collapse to ground level because of an extreme fire on one floor in one corner.All testimony was silenced,firecrews had stated fires were under control and almost out,after the collapse we were told uncontrollable fires dropped the building ,firemen were taped reporting they had fire down to one line,meaning one hose.Bush blew it by not investigating the full story.
Experts were upset because the debris was hauled away and dumped so no one could do time consuming forensics,reports stated the engine found at ground level was not of the type of one of the planes that crashed.
People blame Bush/Cheney because most everything we suffer from now is because of him,but you die hards keep ignoring the reasons and writing it all off as a grudge against Bush.The science arenas,the environmental problems,the banking,our medical ,and our Vietnam action now is because of Bushes administration,lack of judgment,lack of direction,ignoring the greater problems,ignoring anything green,its endless what Bush the destroyer did,endless,yes he inherited some of these problems and then he took them to all time lows,he even made choices for religious reasons and for pride rather than good reason.
There are 3 top drugs for extracting information,and if you take in a possible terrorist our constitution demands he has counsel from the get go.You cannot stand behind our constitution only when its convenient or your un American and against what we stand for,those of you that spit on our Constitution I call the enemy too and can please leave you obviously stand against the beliefs of the United States.Its hard to tell China to respect human values when Bushes administration has the prisoners being tortured,hypocrites. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 1:50:43 PM | Oh for crissakes, not that silly argument about 9-11 being the biggest hoax in the history of civilization again. That's "definitely" a separate discussion and has also been done to death in other threads.
For discussion purposes, even if you don't agree, let's "say" my previous scenario was true and al-Qaeda "was" behind the attack and the Taliban protected them. How would you have handled the situation? Simple question, really.
If I were president "at the time" and had access to all the intelligence, I definitely would have gone into Afghanistan, probably would have gone into Iraq, and used waterboarding in the timeframe mentioned, but only on intelligence-rich targets that offered the best chance of uncovering information of other 9-11 type attacks. I would have instructed our military or CIA NOT to use it indiscriminately, though.
20-20 hindsight is a great thing, but context of time, place, and circumstances must also be used in order to give a fuller, more complete picture of any historical event.
It’s when critics judge by either dismissing or distorting these factors and sermonize from the safe and insular confines of later history that irritates me. That’s why I always try to put myself in the position of the person being criticized and see if I would have done things differently.
If in hindsight all my decisions were wrong or flawed I'd have to answer to history, just as Bush will do. But I'd be satisfied in knowing any decisions I made were done with the "intent" of protecting my fellow Americans and in the best interests of the nation.
Obama may very well be faced with his own international crisis with direct security implications to the United States if Pakistan goes islamofascist. If America-hating, Taliban-like militants seize power and take control of nuclear weapons it’ll be interesting to see how he handles it. My bet is India will probably react first since they have no desire having such an influence sitting right on their doorstep. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 2:14:23 PM | Why is it every time the proof comes out from the experts involved in the towers as this was more of an event then the two planes being involved that there were probably more terrorists than thought,you people call it a silly hoax.You cannot not look at the findings,its all there,its a no brainer its documented.there had been documented workers in those building the weeks before the event,maybe more Saudis or who knows who the rest of the terrorists were,those buildings dropped by implosion,duh.and the planes were the start of the event,no plane hit the third building but it imploded anyways.
There is no need to talk to you about torture,you keep bringing up hindsight when we all knew torture was torture before the event,torture was against the law,we hung the Japanese for war crimes that used waterboarding,so stop mentioning hindsight.
If in hindsight all my decisions were wrong or flawed I'd have to answer to history, just as Bush will do.
Are you kidding me,what do you think we are talking about,this is the hindsight,right now,what he did was the history,and we are now making him answer to it but people like you keep defending him,history does show that no matter what the ruler there were always those that failed to see after the fact and during,You wouldn't give a hoot until your mom was wrongly plucked off the street and flown to a black site overseas,no phone call,no lawyer,just torture,and 5 years from now if she lived you two could have a good laugh about it,and say,wow,hindsight,who knew. | |
|
Kaos86
|
Joined: 3/7/2007
Msg: 770 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 2:20:40 PM | I love how it is not about Bush and then he goes of on a tangent about Bush and the insane 911 Conspiracy Theory.
Is Nancy Pelosi in trouble?
So we find that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, despite her angry denials, has to face up to having been briefed back in 2002 on the CIA’s ‘enhanced’ coercive interrogation techniques:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least
two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
Pelosi’s laughable defense is now to admit that she was briefed on the Bush Administration having obtained Office of Legal Counsel memos on waterboarding but she thought they got those memos but didn’t actually intend to use them:
Pelosi denied these claims. “We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would,” she said.
She said some officials, such as Goss, who went on to become CIA director, argued the lawmakers should have known the waterboarding would be used because they were told it was a legal practice. But she said they had no way of knowing that for certain…
http://newledger.com/2009/04/nancy-pelosi-was-briefed-on-waterboarding-but-apparently-didnt-inhale/
So Nancy is saying "It's ok to use it just as long as you don't use it".
Pathetic!
Like Lemings to the cliff. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 2:28:43 PM | Mesa, you have repeatedly failed to answer what YOU would have done in the scenarios I provided and keep sticking to the tried and true tactic of berating Bush as a demon instead. I'm still waiting, and please give the reasons "why" you'd take a particular course of action.
Why is it every time the proof comes out from the experts involved in the towers as this was more of an event then the two planes being involved that there were probably more terrorists than thought,you people call it a silly hoax.
Because the majority of experts in the fields pertaining to the questions surrounding 9-11 have overwhelmingly REFUTED your "experts", that's why. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 2:33:44 PM | .
I am impressed "two officials present" at a secret meeting ?
How about Names?
Proof..................
So you want to protect Nancy from a DOJ investigation? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 4:25:40 PM | Thats because I am not an expert in getting information,this thread was,did waterboarding save lives,experts already stated torture does not work,Obama last night said the tests are flawed since the same people might have talked under sane methods but we will never know.
Your stuck on the then how would you have done it without torture then,when I see it as we have no moral right to be evil to try to get info,period,what, is the need to know, a license to be evil.I do not believe in interrogation period,nothing can be believed,torture a man and he will tell you anything he can make up,why because your torturing him.
If you or anyone tortures your evil,if you believe it ok,you believe evil is ok,your scary.We have nothing to discuss because your idea of getting info is evil it doesn't matter if I have a better idea,just because I haven't a better one besides any of 3 safe truth serum chemicals doesn't mean torture is ok then,
and like I said,your mother has been mistakingly picked up,we are going to torture her for off and on for 5 years,and you have no problem with this, picking up a person because you suspect they are all bad,well thats Mexico ,Napoleon law,guilty until proved innocent,but hey even in mexico within the month you get an attorney,torture is barbaric.
As far as what would I do,I would have never opened a black site or a evil Guantanamo bay what is this the time of the Inquisition,7 years there with no lawyer and out they come innocent,you people scare me,I only am glad your mothers were not taken in.or your son.but hey if someone had a hunch ,why not ,huh | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 5:10:45 PM |
Thats because I am not an expert in getting information,this thread was,did waterboarding save lives,experts already stated torture does not work,Obama last night said the tests are flawed since the same people might have talked under sane methods but we will never know.
That's a copout. I answered the questions I put forward -- there's no reason you can't too.
Your stuck on the then how would you have done it without torture then,when I see it as we have no moral right to be evil to try to get info,period,what, is the need to know, a license to be evil.I do not believe in interrogation period,nothing can be believed,torture a man and he will tell you anything he can make up,why because your torturing him.
And you're stuck on demonizing the Bush administration for taking steps they thought at the time were needed to stop another, more vicious 9-11-style attack. This was their thinking behind "all" their actions at the time, as they've repeatedly stated. I'm not about to be so superior and self-righteous that I could honestly say I'd do differently under the guise of hindsight. THAT is the heart of the matter and what I'm trying to get at.
I know you're against waterboarding, but what about the other interrogation techniques mentioned? You touched on truth serum as being a more humane method. But many would disagree. They would charge that injecting a prisoner with a foreign substance against his/her will is a violation of their basic human rights. What if the subject has a violent medical reaction and dies? Are the interrogators subject to criminal prosecution? Is the superior in charge of the unit? Is the president and his cabinet liable? If Congress knew of the technique and approved, are you going to drag every member in front of a judge and try them for being accessories to murder?
..you people scare me
And you people scare the hell out of me with your paralyzing fear to do "anything" in the face of danger. You've repeatedly sidestepped commiting to any action in the scenarios I presented. Heck, we can't even agree what a real threat is? It's all semantics to you people? It's either a hoax or some figment of a bloodthirsty imagination by people who don't agree. From what I can tell you think Bush was a bigger threat than anything the terrorists did. Unbelievable. You people wouldn't know a threat if it jumped up and bit ya on the butt, and even then not only turn the other cheek but bend over for more. You'd allow the attacker the very means of punishment they use against you, and never retaliate. Maybe you'd be very satisfied in what you feel is your moral superiority, but that's little comfort when being stomped on the head.
| |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 4/30/2009 6:03:04 PM | How about current world affairs. We have a real-life, real-world hypothetical that could turn menacingly true if Pakistan gets taken over by militant Islamic fascists, just like Afghanistan.
If you were president Obama how would you proceed? It's time to quit hiding behind ideological superiority and make important decisions that would govern not only how you would protect your fellow Americans, but our allies.
I'll bare my views for scrutiny and be brutally honest yet again. I hope the critics show some guts, follow suit, and not take cheap potshots from the peanut gallery.
The non-militant Pakistani people that "don't" want a Taliban-style takeover should get our deepest, most heartfelt support. Their interests are ours; I don't think there should be any debate on that.
If, however, Pakistan becomes a virulently anti-American islamofascist theocracy (which would also mean access to a nuclear arsenal, remember) I'd practice a policy of containment and mutually assured destruction. What this means is if any terrorist attack emanates from their soil, they get hit. The doctrinal framework would need to be spelled out in exact detail so no one in the world can mistake its meaning or consequences.
I would make waterboarding illegal, but all other methods deemed safe and usable by our military and intelligence experts are fair game and on the table. What that means is they would be charged with monitoring terrorist groups, investigate all leads that could conceivably lead to another 9-11-style attack, and stop them "before" any plans come to fruition. I will not needlessly shackle them by prescribing politically-motivated, arbitrary rules, but leave it up to the experts that actually have to carry out the tasks.
If a Taliban-controlled Pakistan makes demonstrable efforts to back off from their anti-American stance I'd ease restrictions and explore more normalized, friendly relations. But they would have to demonstrate this change in policy by concrete actions and not words. | |
|
|
| Page 31 of 41
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
... long before they even start to pour the water. Ya ... the only water pouring in the area of the water board will be him ... peeing his pants ... 
