What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

Well, well, well… what have we here? Seems U.S. officials have found many things while searching Osama bin Laden's million-dollar Abbottabad hideout. And what have they found most recently? Yep. Porn.

Reuters reports:

"The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity."

There's no word as to where the smut was discovered or who might have been viewing said smut but, hey, does it really matter? "Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials," says Reuters. He would have totally denied it anyway, right?

Apparently this isn't out of the ordinary, as Reuters relays, "Three other U.S. officials familiar with evidence gathered during investigations of other Islamic militants said the discovery of pornography is not uncommon in such cases."
Click to expand...

Read more: https://techland.time.com/2011/05/1...n-electronically-recorded-porn/#ixzz1MGW8vcpL
 
Millsapa said:
What other country and what were their "traditional methods?"

McCain has personal reasons to deny the effectiveness of "intense interrogations."

How does he know? and why does his version of events contradict other versions.
Click to expand...
1: Not sure what country. I don't know if he said or not.
2: He may have personal reasons to deny the effectiveness, but he doesn't have a reason to flat out lie about it.
3: He knows because he spoke with Panetta about the specifics. And do you really not know why there are different versions of the events coming from the former Bush admins? lol

Here is all the info about it:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/j...r-any-other-form-of-torture-led-to-bin-laden/

quote from link
Senator John McCain, who whatever you else might say about him has been consistent and forthright in his opposition to the use of waterboarding of and other forms of “enhanced interrogation techniques” by the United States, and today, he’s out with twin broadsides that pretty much dismantle the arguments from former members of the Bush Administration and their apologists that the use of these techniques played a key role in finding Osama bin Laden, and that this fact somehow justifies their use.
In both a Washington Post Op-Ed and a speech today on the Senate floor, McCain completely dismantled the argument that torture led to Osama bin Laden:

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

That was from today’s floor speech. In the Op-Ed, McCain went on to make the most important point about this debate:

As we debate how the United States can best influence the course of the Arab Spring, can’t we all agree that the most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a nation that holds an individual’s human rights as superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government? Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.

All of these arguments have the force of right, but they are beside the most important point. Ultimately, this is more than a utilitarian debate. This is a moral debate. It is about who we are.

I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves. Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us.

I made a similar point last week, and the extent to which many on the right seem to have thrown the question of morality over the side in this debate is really quite disturbing, although it may not be surprising. The fact that something “works” (and the question of whether torture is a reliable method of intelligence gathering is something that doesn’t even to be worthy of debate on the right anymore) is irrelevant to the question of whether it’s right or wrong. There are a whole host of interrogation techniques we could undertake if we wanted to:

It may be theoretically possible that we could break a suspected terrorist by placing him a room with his child while a CIA operative put a loaded gun to the child’s head, threatening to kill them unless the suspect revealed what they knew. We could revive the medieval torture processes of the Inquisition. Those methods might even prove highly effective in getting a particularly difficult person to crack. That doesn’t mean we should do those things, however, and the fact that the debate has suddenly moved into “ends justify the means” territory should concern anyone who believes in the rule of law.

I’ve never been much of a McCain fan, but on this one issue, perhaps because of his own real life experiences, he’s been on the nose from the beginning. It’s unfortunate that the rest of his fellow Republicans seem so caught up in bloodlust that they either aren’t listening or don’t care.
end of quote
 
SaltyDawg said:
1: Not sure what country. I don't know if he said or not.
2: He may have personal reasons to deny the effectiveness, but he doesn't have a reason to flat out lie about it.
3: He knows because he spoke with Panetta about the specifics. And do you really not know why there are different versions of the events coming from the former Bush admins? lol
Click to expand...

2. The same reasons exist for both.
3. If he got that information from Panetta, he is contradicting Panetta's own words.

WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was -- as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?

PANETTA: It-- you know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here. We had a multiple source-- a multiple series of-- sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees but we also had information from other sources as well. From Sigent intelligence, from imagery, from other sources that we had-- assets on the ground. And it was a combination of all of that that ultimately we were able to put together that led us to that compound. So-- it's-- it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.

WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was, in part, among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?

PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether-- whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question.

WILLIAMS: So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques -- which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years -- that --

PANETTA: Right.

WILLIAMS: -- includes water boarding?

PANETTA: That's correct.
Click to expand...
 
Millsapa said:
2. The same reasons exist for both.
3. If he got that information from Panetta, he is contradicting Panetta's own words.
Click to expand...
So to be clear, are you saying John McCain got on the senate floor and flat out lied?

Panetta never directly said waterboarding lead to Bin laden. He said some detainees had in fact been waterboarded, and the intel that lead to Bin Laden had in fact come from some detainees (at least the quotes you posted). But I don't see where he is directly saying "We waterboarded this guy and that's how we got the tip that lead to Bin Laden."
 
SaltyDawg said:
So to be clear, are you saying John McCain got on the senate floor and flat out lied?

Panetta never directly said waterboarding lead to Bin laden. He said some detainees had in fact been waterboarded, and the intel that lead to Bin Laden had in fact come from some detainees (at least the quotes you posted). But I don't see where he is directly saying "We waterboarded this guy and that's how we got the tip that lead to Bin Laden."
Click to expand...

I'm saying he contradicted Panettas statement.
Panetta says that they got information from multiple detainees (for this situation) and that some of these detainees were waterboarded when they got the information from them.
 
Millsapa said:
I'm saying he contradicted Panettas statement.
Panetta says that they got information from multiple detainees (for this situation) and that some of these detainees were waterboarded when they got the information from them.
Click to expand...

In the quotes you posted, Panetta says they got information from multiple detainees, and some detainees were waterboarded. But he never says the detainees that were waterboarded gave the tips that lead to Bin Laden.
 
SaltyDawg said:
In the quotes you posted, Panetta says they got information from multiple detainees, and some detainees were waterboarded. But he never says the detainees that were waterboarded gave the tips that lead to Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Yes he does, or else why would he say the following?:

Panetta said:
But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether-- whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question.
Click to expand...
 
Millsapa said:
Yes he does, or else why would he say the following?:
Click to expand...
That is not equal to "The tip that directly lead to Bin Laden was acquired through the use of waterboarding."

McCain flat out says it did not. There is no "If you try real hard you might be able to interpret it like this" about what McCain said.
 
Ya'll are arguing about the same stuff you were 25 pages and almost 2 weeks ago. And have you gotten anywhere? No. An exercise in head-banging.
 
SaltyDawg said:
That is not equal to "The tip that directly lead to Bin Laden was acquired through the use of waterboarding."

McCain flat out says it did not. There is no "If you try real hard you might be able to interpret it like this" about what McCain said.
Click to expand...

There wasn't "the tip;" there were multiple tips and some came from detainees who were waterboarded, according to Panetta.
 
Millsapa said:
There wasn't "the tip;" there were multiple tips and some came from detainees who were waterboarded, according to Panetta.
Click to expand...
Not according to McCain. According to McCain, there was a tip from another country that they acquired through traditional interrogation of someone they had in custody. And that tip was the name of Bin Laden's courier, which is how they found Bin laden.

The quotes you keep referring to from Panetta don't really say anything. Just a politician dodging questions by giving generic answers that could be interpreted many different ways.

McCain left absolutely no doubt about what he was saying. There is only 1 way to interpret it. He was perfectly clear- the tip that lead to Bin Laden was not acquired through waterboarding.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Not according to McCain. According to McCain, there was a tip from another country that they acquired through traditional interrogation of someone they had in custody. And that tip was the name of Bin Laden's courier, which is how they found Bin laden.

The quotes you keep referring to from Panetta don't really say anything. Just a politician dodging questions by giving generic answers that could be interpreted many different ways.

McCain left absolutely no doubt about what he was saying. There is only 1 way to interpret it. He was perfectly clear- the tip that lead to Bin Laden was not acquired through waterboarding.
Click to expand...

Point: What does it matter what McCain said if his story isn't factual?

It has now come down to a "he said he said" situation, so I guess we can leave it at that.

By the way, did you vote for McCain?
 
Millsapa said:
Point: What does it matter what McCain said if his story isn't factual?

It has now come down to a "he said he said" situation, so I guess we can leave it at that.

By the way, did you vote for McCain?
Click to expand...
No, I did not vote for McCain. But I still have no reason to think he would get on the Senate floor and flat out lie.

As to your point, again, it's not a he said she said. McCain is saying what happened, and clarifying the comments made by others. You seem to be claiming that McCain contradicted Panetta, but he didn't. You are reading into Panetta's comments what you want to see. Panetta never said "waterboarding got us the tip that lead to Bin Laden" and that is what McCain is clearing up.

MCCain flat out said waterboarding did not get us the tip that lead to Bin Laden, and he said waterboarding actually got us a bunch of false info. I have not heard anyone involved claim McCain was wrong in his statements.

So it's not a he said she said. Unless you can find where Panetta says McCain is wrong, then it would become a he said she said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top