Bill Kristol calls the release of the CIA Interrogation Memos "Pathetic"

[jksonny]

Kristol is correct. What was the point of releasing the memos? And what was in them that was so terrible, anyway?

[rmccay88]

@jksonny

Because it shows who ordered it and who broke the law and should be prosecuted. The last administration, just like the one now, has the attitude that they are totally immune from the law and will trample on the Constitution all in the name of "keeping us safe."

[p3snooper]

This is Pox News. And Kristol, co-founder of PNAC and scum of the right wing. What more needs be said?

[anon9871]

bill kristol is pathetic

[ryanshaunkelly]

This is the Lawyered-up Propaganda produced for mass consumption.

The REAL memos are leaking out all over the place ~

Thank you whistle blowers!

[reevaluate2008]

Obama, the Apologist in Chief strikes again.

[SailorBarsoom]

Bill Kristol is one of those people who likes to shout "America! America!" despite the fact that he does not believe in America.

That question: "Are we in a war or aren't we?" suggests that we can EITHER hold to the principles our nation is founded upon OR we can be safe, but not both. It is a statement that America is not good enough, and that in a situation of danger we have to quit being America and become something else.

It is, in a nutshell, cowardice.

[schradersl2]

No, it's a called living in the real world.

[SailorBarsoom]

Only if you believe that the principles the United States has championed have no place in the real world. Only if believe that those "American values" our politicians so loudly proclaim are useless in the real world. Only if the real world is a place where only the biggest asshole can succeed. Only if everything our nation is supposed to stand for is a lie, instead of the real world.

I reject such pseudo-patriotism, in which one rejects America, saying it is the only way to save America.

[schradersl2]

Nice flowery language there. Still doesn't change the reality. We are in a war. Gaining information is a vital part of keeping Al Qaeda from killing us. Now that these methods are known AQ can train to withstand them. Information is less likely to be obtained. The America you and I love is more at risk.

[SailorBarsoom]

If you truly believe that the principles that have made this nation great for over two hundred years are nothing but "nice flowery language," then I'm not sure we have anything to talk about. I will address the other point, though:

a) Yes, gaining information is important. Now that we aren't wasting time on this torture crap, we can use methods that actually work.

b) Except perhaps for the caterpillar thing, this information was already out there.

c) Damned character limit.

[SailorBarsoom]

d) If we aren't using these methods anymore, then SO WHAT if al Qaeda trains to resist them? In fact, I frickin' HOPE that AQ is wasting their time, money, and energy training to resist methods which are no longer in use.

Yes, AQ, PLEASE spend as much time and money as possible training to resist waterboarding and insects, neither of which you will ever face. You should be dumping bugs on each other and pouring water on each other as much as possible. If anybody talks, kick him out of AQ.

[schradersl2]

The only positive thing I see is we can now see how ridiculous all those who cried out torture have been. The stuff described in these memos is on the level of sibling pranks. When compared to AQ torture guidebooks which include drilling hands, gouging eyes, removing limbs, electro-shock, hot irons and blowtorches, calling what the Bush administration did "torture" is laughable.

[SailorBarsoom]

Somehow, the formula "B is even worse than A, there A is good" fails to impress.

[schradersl2]

Throwing a man into a specially designed wall is not torture. Dousing them in cold water is not torture. Putting them in a confined space short enough where muscles don't atrophy is not torture. The memos do not describe torture.

[SailorBarsoom]

"Throwing a man into a specially designed wall is not torture."

The law says that it is.

"Dousing them in cold water is not torture."

The law says that it is.

"Putting them in a confined space short enough where muscles don't atrophy is not torture."

The law says that it is.

"The memos do not describe torture."

According to the law, yes they do. If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed and vote for people who will change it.

damned character limit

[SailorBarsoom]

Until the law is changed, these methods ARE torture, and torture is illegal. Lawbreakers are supposed to be punished.

What is and is not torture is not determined by what does or does not trip your personal squick meter (or mine, or Kristol's).  The law already defines this word: torture.

[schradersl2]

The legal definion of torture is "extreme pain and suffering". Those methods are uncomfortable, sure, but none come close to the actual definition except for possibly waterboarding.

[schradersl2]

a) Those methods were not a waste of time. CIA director Michael Hayden and Attorney General Michael Mukasey are on record saying "fully half" of what we know about AQ came through these methods. Let go of this myth that harsh methods don't work.

b) There's a big difference between previous nebulous leaks and a this confirmed, detailed analysis.

[SailorBarsoom]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that Bush's AG and Bush's CIA Director would say that the techniques work. Shocked!

You give up the myth. And read some history while you're at it. Torture is good for getting people to confess to witchcraft. Waterboarding was especially popular in the days of witch hunting.

Why was waterboarding popular? Because it was so effective.

How do you know that it's effective? Because every time you use it, people start confessing to flying on brooms.

[schradersl2]

How about John Kiriakou? He's a former CIA interrogator with no political beef. He was directly involved with the questioning of Zubaydah, one of the 3 people waterboarded. According to Kiriakou, Zubaydah would not talk. Then he was waterboarded. Immediately after he gave up info that thwarted attacks in SE Asia. Your claim that harsh techniques don't work is demonstratably false.

[SailorBarsoom]

Here are the two relevant sentences:

"He was directly involved with the questioning of Zubaydah, one of the 3 people waterboarded."

and

"ACCORDING TO KIRIAKOU, Zubaydah would not talk." (emphasis added)

Again, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that this man would try to justify what he himself was involved in.

There are conflicting accounts of how long Zubayda was waterboarded, what else was done to him, and how useful any information gotten from him was.

Remember all those flying witches.

[schradersl2]

You are unbelievable. You are unwilling to listen to experts in the field of intelligence gathering and interrogation because it doesn't fit to your world view. You make an absolute claim that harsh methods never yield good intel, but when presented with an example of it working you say he's lying. You lack the ability to reason.

[SailorBarsoom]

There are differing accounts from people present, Kiriakou being one of them, about how often the guy was waterboarded, what else was done, and how useful the information was. They can't all be right.

You say that Kiriakou has "no political beef." You conveniently left out that he has a don't-want-to-be-locked-up-for­-twenty-years beef. The idea that somebody might fudge a little when he's staring down the barrel of a two-decade prison sentence seems to bee more than you can acknowledge.

[schradersl2]

That's not an issue with Kiriakou. He never performed the waterboarding. He interrogated Zubaydah. When Zubaydah refused to give up info about AQ, Kiriakou warned him harsher methods would ensue. Zubaydah still refused. Kiriakou was then authorized to waterboard, but he declined. Another operative waterboarded Zubaydah. Kiriakou interrogated him afterwards, and "like a light switch" Zubaydah became cooperative offering intel on AQ Se Asia attacks. Read the interviews on ABC News and the WashPo.

[SailorBarsoom]

Different people who were there give differing accounts.

But you know what? None of this matters. Nobody is going to pay any price for these war crimes. I guess Curtis LeMay was right: the only real war crime is to lose.

I will not reply to any more messages in this thread. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and none of it matters anyway. Nothing matters.