CIA Report

Status
Not open for further replies.
The sources you support is Government´s side. We tried to convince why we don´t beleive Government´s side. I am on innocent´s side over Government. :)

Now you see yourself that your Government lied to you but you still deny it... :)
The "innocent side" and you do not have access to classified information. the "innocent side" is actually known to exaggerate, distort, and/or hide the truth. again - agree to disagree. 2 sides, remember? :)

Well, this memo Obama released support former detainee Muslims/Arab´s claim over their bad experience in Gitmo Bay and other milatry prisons.

Give up, Jiro... :)
Your statement is incorrect. Obama released them because there were no evidence.... not because he sympathizes with them.

Nope... :aw:

I will blame on Bush Admin. 100% if Obama prosecuted Bush & his companions because Muslim and Arabs want justice for Bush & his companions. It´s fair and justice. If not, it´s risk because Muslim and Arab will be angry with Obama for not prosecute Bush & his companions. I would blame on Obama Admin 1% and on Bush Admin. 99% if terrorist threaten happens.
there's no "if not...." because Obama has already stated that he's not going to pursue the prosecution of these officials. :)
 
The "innocent side" and you do not have access to classified information. the "innocent side" is actually known to exaggerate, distort, and/or hide the truth. again - agree to disagree. 2 sides, remember? :)


Your statement is incorrect. Obama released them because there were no evidence.... not because he sympathizes with them.


there's no "if not...." because Obama has already stated that he's not going to pursue the prosecution of these officials. :)

He has left the possibility of prosecution open, Jiro.

Obama said it will be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether or not to prosecute the former officials.
Bush-era interrogation may have worked, Obama official says - CNN.com
 
He has left the possibility of prosecution open, Jiro.

Obama said it will be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether or not to prosecute the former officials.
Bush-era interrogation may have worked, Obama official says - CNN.com

originally - he said he will not pursue prosecutions of the officials. and now he's saying he's leaving the possibility of prosecution open? Make up your mind, Obama! :roll:

The politics of 'torture' heating up in Washington
Obama angered Republicans by releasing the confidential documents, over objections by CIA Director Leon Panetta and Bush administration officials who worried that it would telegraph to terrorists how far U.S. interrogators are permitted to go in trying to extract information.

But he also disappointed Democrats by ruling out the prosecution of interrogators who might have engaged in what some define as torture and initially suggesting that the lawyers who had advised them wouldn't be prosecuted either because, as Obama said several days ago, "this is a time for reflection, not retribution."
........
All I care about is that Obama choose a position and sticks to it, and that, as commander-in-chief, he fully grasps the enormous responsibilities that came with the office.

let's face it - the prosecution will not happen. why? because the Democrats' hands are dirty too in this matter. :)

The politics of 'torture' heating up in Washington
The Ohio Republican pointed out that he saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans "who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word."
.....
"We must take a thorough accounting of what happened, not to move a partisan agenda, but to own up to what was done in the name of national security, and to learn from it," he said.
 
The "innocent side" and you do not have access to classified information. the "innocent side" is actually known to exaggerate, distort, and/or hide the truth. again - agree to disagree. 2 sides, remember? :)

Not real terrorists yet... Can you prove me with source which is real terrorists...? All what I know is "suspects" and then free them after years... This is proof of their innocents. They are only victim of US political games, that´s all.

Your statement is incorrect. Obama released them because there were no evidence.... not because he sympathizes with them.

Really? Your post prove youself that you deny it... Interesting... :hmm:

McCain opposes wide interrogation probe
Reid: 'There needs to be a public accounting of these troublesome policies'


WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, who fought the Bush administration on its harsh interrogation policies, says he thinks it would be counterproductive to now seek the prosecution of officials who said the tactics were legal.

McCain long has insisted that terrorism-era interrogations of suspects and detainees must strictly follow procedures outlined in the Army field manual and had to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

But in an interview Thursday on CBS's "The Early Show," the Arizona Republican said any move to reopen the political controversy surrounding the previous administration "would have a chilling effect" on any kind of advice that legal counselors give to presidents.

McCain charged that any such move by the Obama administration or majority Democrats in Congress would turn the issue into "a witch hunt."

'The needs to be a public accounting'

Senate Democratic leaders don't appear inclined to appoint an independent panel to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation program before the Senate Intelligence Committee completes its own probe near the end of the year.

The panel is investigating the legal underpinnings for the interrogation program as well as the value of the information it gathered. Republicans oppose the creation of a bipartisan commission for what they view as a backward-looking effort to vilify former President George W. Bush.

"One way or another there needs to be a public accounting of these troublesome policies," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid said the committee inquiry "will answer a lot of the questions the American people have."

Two Senate reports issued back to back this week were meant to answer some of those questions.

A Senate Armed Services Committee report draws a direct line between the Bush administration's approval of the CIA's harsh interrogation program and the military's abuse of prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Intelligence Committee issued a newly declassified narrative of the legal guidance provided to the CIA that allowed the secret detention and interrogations to go forward.

As early as April 2002, the narrative states, the CIA sought permission to use waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — to break the resistance of a newly captured alleged terrorist, Abu Zubaydah. Permission came that July, delivered personally by the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to CIA Director George Tenet.

Holder on the Hill

Meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Thursday he won't play "hide and seek" with secret memos about harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Holder said he's willing to release as much information as possible about the interrogations.

Several members of the committee pressed him about the Justice Department's release last week of four long-secret legal memos detailing the harsh techniques used on some detainees during the Bush administration.

"It is certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek, or not to release certain things," said Holder. "It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to try to hide things from the American people."

Republicans — including former Vice President Dick Cheney — have urged the Obama administration to release other, still-secret documents detailing what intelligence was gained from the controversial interrogation techniques.

Holder said he wasn't sure exactly which memos Cheney is referring to, because he hasn't seen them. The attorney general suggested such classified documents may exist at other agencies.


Any attempt by Democrats to gain political advantage from an investigation could be tempered by a memo from National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, who privately told employees last week that "high-value information" was obtained in interrogations that included harsh techniques, though he deemed them unacceptable and counterproductive.

McCain opposes wide interrogation probe - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com


there's no "if not...." because Obama has already stated that he's not going to pursue the prosecution of these officials. :)

I want to explain you why I use "if not..." but Jillio beat me. :)
 
Guess you are having difficulty reading again today. The statement says that Obama will not personally pursue prosecution, but will leave that decision to the Attorney General. That is the statement he has made all along. There is nothing inconsistent in there.

Obama has simply done what leaders do. Delegated the duty someone with expertise in the situation. He did not say there would be no prosecution. He said he is leaving the decision to the Attorney General.
 
Guess you are having difficulty reading again today. The statement says that Obama will not personally pursue prosecution, but will leave that decision to the Attorney General. That is the statement he has made all along. There is nothing inconsistent in there.

Obama has simply done what leaders do. Delegated the duty someone with expertise in the situation. He did not say there would be no prosecution. He said he is leaving the decision to the Attorney General.

Guess today's just not your day. Again - reread my post #63 regarding prosecution. :cool2:
 
on that note - you still have not answered my simple questions in post #53 and #55. avoiding them, aren't ya? you slick slick willy one :lol:
 
Guess today's just not your day. Again - reread my post #63 regarding prosecution. :cool2:

Every day is my day, Jiro. You are implying that there will be no prosecution, and that is an incorrect assumption on your part. The decision regarding prosecution has not been made yet. It has simply been delegated to the Attorney General. So you can't use lack of prosecution to support your argument.
 
Every day is my day, Jiro. You are implying that there will be no prosecution, and that is an incorrect assumption on your part. The decision regarding prosecution has not been made yet. It has simply been delegated to the Attorney General. So you can't use lack of prosecution to support your argument.

I implied no such thing and I made no such incorrect assumption. If you know one thing about politic, it's obviously a LOGICAL assumption. No one in their right mind, even Attorney General, would ever dare to proceed with prosecution. To do so is a political suicide and career disaster for all parties and it brings nothing but instability & serious distrust in America.

It's best left to Senate Intelligence Committee to deal with this, not independent team. :cool2:
 
I implied no such thing and I made no such incorrect assumption. If you know one thing about politic, it's obviously a LOGICAL assumption. No one in their right mind, even Attorney General, would ever dare to proceed with prosecution. To do so is a political suicide and career disaster for all parties and it brings nothing but instability & serious distrust in America.

It's best left to Senate Intelligence Committee to deal with this, not independent team. :cool2:

So, you have a crystal ball now that tells you what the Attorney General is going to do? The possibility of prosecution is still open. You cannot say they weren't prosecuted because there was no evidence of wrong doing. That decision has not been made. The "intelligence" has already been gathered, Jiro. Or perhaps you missed that. Now the decision is what to do now that the intelligence is known. That is the prosecution decision, and it rightfully has been delegated to the Attorney General.
 
So, you have a crystal ball now that tells you what the Attorney General is going to do? The possibility of prosecution is still open. You cannot say they weren't prosecuted because there was no evidence of wrong doing. That decision has not been made.

then you must be naive......
 
then you must be naive......

Where have you seen anything that states that the Attorney General has made a decision regarding prosecution? The decision has not been made. You are simply assuming that the decision will be made in the negative, but the fact is, you don't know, because the Attorney General has not made that decision yet.
 
Where have you seen anything that states that the Attorney General has made a decision regarding prosecution? The decision has not been made. You are simply assuming that the decision will be made in the negative, but the fact is, you don't know, because the Attorney General has not made that decision yet.

again - refer to my post #69. I've never said that he made decision regarding prosecution. I said nobody would dare to proceed with it. :cool2:
 
again - refer to my post #69. I've never said that he made decision regarding prosecution. I said nobody would dare to proceed with it. :cool2:

Which means that you are assuming that prosecution will not take place.:roll: You can't possibly know that. Unless you are really Attorney General Holder, and you've been pretending to be a Korean guy that designs websites.:giggle:
 
Which means that you are assuming that prosecution will not take place.:roll: You can't possibly know that.
My logic tells me that based on your continuing statement - this implies you're hoping for prosecution to take place. Beside - is it a crime to make assumption? prediction? guess?

Unless you are really Attorney General Holder, and you've been pretending to be a Korean guy that designs websites.:giggle:
:lol:
 
My logic tells me that based on your continuing statement - this implies you're hoping for prosecution to take place. Beside - is it a crime to make assumption? prediction? guess?


:lol:

Not when you admit that it is a guess and nothing more.:P
 
Not when you admit that it is a guess and nothing more.:P

oh? ADMIT? it's a foreign concept to you... :hmm: The day you actually admit to something is the day when pigs fly.... :hyper::run::fruit:
 
oh? ADMIT? it's a foreign concept to you... :hmm: The day you actually admit to something is the day when pigs fly.... :hyper::run::fruit:

I admit that you have admitted to guessing.:lol:
 
I don't think anyone will go after Bush in anytime.
 
the SS and Gestapo tortured (pulling off nails, raped, putting them in cold water for hours and hours, etc) thousands of Jews and even German to keep Nazi Germany safe. Many of the leaders were hanged after the Nurember trial. Now, Liebling, is that funny?


I am laughing when I read part of the article...

Torture helps to keep America safe? What a joking!!! :laugh2: Look how people commit crimes including severe criminal, murders, rapes, etc and also accidents in everyday to compare with terrorists...

I would say lie to torturers to save my pain. Torture would NEVER get information because they would lie to save themselves.

:lol: Cheney is trying to save his skin and cover up war crime... :lol: :blah::blah::blah:

Give it up Cheney!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top