McClaud said:
Note that I said the previous Adminstration. That does not mean only the President. It means a lot of his staff were making pretty erroneous suggestions at the time, even when other people outside the office were offering good suggestions. I don't fault the President for acting on faulty suggestions - only for acknowledging they were faulty but still clinging to the continuation of a bad course of action.
Your entire previous point was that we use it for the war. Due to the revelation of the little miscalculation of the intelligence that led to the Iraqi invasion - all intel rules for all agencies were cranked up another notch. Mostly because the rules for intelligence and confidential materials are the same no matter what agency you belong to - you have to triple verify any intelligence gleaned from torture. Even the CIA - whether they are using using it for the war or not - has to verify it first. Which takes time. Lots and lots of time.
This was one of my jobs in the military. I interacted with the CIA, the FBI, Britian's MI, Israel's Mossad ... we all went through the same motions. We all traded intel for a billion reasons. All of us looked at torture intelligence with skepticism, sometimes enough to file it in the shredder. Some "terrorism" busts that claimed to use intelligence gathered through torture was after the fact that we already knew that intelligence and set the wheels in motion before it was brought to our attention. We all would shake our heads in disbelief at what aides would tell Administrations was the cause of catching terrorists.
Now, please give me your experience with the Intelligence community so you can back up your criticism of what I've been telling you. And please don't quote Fox News, because their Intelligence experts are usually private consultants hired to analyze anything and make it sound smart.
And RRilef - I'm not saying that Obama is any wiser than McCain. What happened there was that one side got to the particular issue first, and the other was forced to take a provision against it. Can Obama suspend the legal precedent set by his predecessor's executive order on captives? Only with a lot of work and with enough time. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the window for upping it slipped by last year. I'm sure that even McCain would not be happy to deal with that.
Problem is - not enough time. The pressure would have been on whoever sat in that chair. Obama just happens to be the one who has to make the decision that was already made for him two years ago.
cant quote fox news huh? curse you that was my most reliable source of information...... ohh wate, no it wasnt, my common sence is.
and ill post my credentials just as you have yours.
im a top level analist for the NSA and work on wire tapping American citizens E-mails to make sure there is nothing subversive in them. i could tell you more but then id have to kill you and everyone else reading this games forum :roll:
certianly i dont have to point out that just because you SAY your thus-n-so doesnt make it true. this is especialy obvious when your arguing that information gained from torture is totaly usless when common sence tells it it clearly isnt true. you havent refuted what i said, you just put up alot of words that look impressive untill you actualy spend a moment looking for a point and dont find one.
and frankly if you ARE actualy involved in the intell community than it should be more than obvious number 1) you wouldnt be on a games forum talking about it, and number 2) with your clearly wrong conclusions and blanket statments about how torture doesnt provide ANYTHING of value , you would be one of those people that OFFERED that 'bad advice' your trying to villify. again my common sence wispers in my ear that there ARE things our intell community knows that we cant/dont/wont talk about in ANY public venue so if you ARE part of now or were part of any time in the past of this intell community you wouldnt be allowed too talk about certian things anyhow, my point being that if your clame is true than your obviously being very ....... missleading at the least about what is and isnt used if only for securitys sake. in other wordes even if you KNEW as part of your work that a tortured prisoner gave us intell about the plot to bomb the subways in England and we twarted it, you couldnt talk about the details of it anyhow. you couldnt say ...... "well we got the information from Gitmo" becuse then the enemy would KNOW that you had broken certian of their allies there and ALL their operation that person may have known about would need to be changed. i dont need a degree from "www.makemeaspy.com" to know this bit of common sence.
now having said all this id like to say im sorry of my tone offends you its hard to put the fact that im grinning as i type and show that my post is ment as light banter more than a flaming attack on you though it is. i acutaly find some of what you say reasonable and dont at all concider you just another forum tard with one too many tom clancy books on your book shelf. my only real point to joining this chat at all is because i see the first X number of pages full of the flat out wrong statment that "torture doesnt work". im not at all one of those kinds of people that think our government and leaders are totaly worthless and wouldnt know a good idea if it bit them in the ass. im with reagan on this, trust but verify. i start out with the assumption that given the obvious drawbacks to torturing people if only because its illegal under US law and toss in the clear and unversaly bad immage it gives us around the world that our leaders must know SOMTHING we dont when they chose to continue the practice.
im not saying they are right ..... im saying WE dont have all the information to make an informed judgment and untill we get that information than we truly look like total fools any time we make blanket statments that 'torture doesnt work'. its a judgment if nothing else based on gut feelings and a distaste for torture (not to mention those fox articles you refered too) rather than cold hard facts.
ive provided a sound argument about why torture CAN work, no one has refuted it , even you because it cant be refuted. the only real argument it seems to me is this. is the information we get worth the price we pay? and
answer a solid "hell no"!