Ex-CIA Interrogator: Obama's War on Terror Is Less Ethical Than Bush's

[Abba]

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-cia-interro...134551480.html

It's worth more to capture and interrogate these people than just simply kill them.

"These people', a derogatory phrase often used to classify a group for persecution. Not very charitable, I say. I believe that as Catholics we are to promote peace amongst people rather than hatred, fear and violence. How can we know all the people being assassinated were so-called 'radical Islamist'? Or is it the case that under that title even the people that are fighting for their human rights, land, religion, and life are thrown in? What kind of an undeclared war is this that violates the sovereignty of nations and kills people in their own homes, attacks villages and so one? We are told that these people are so-called terrorists or potential terrorists, but are we not creating more by terrorizing these people? Are the children that throw sticks and stones also 'Islamic Terrorists"?

[SamH]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

They never really were an ally, even when they said they were (which was very early on, post 9/11). What was Osama's last known residential mailing address?

The US has fought two wars over the deaths of 3,000 Americans, why should we expect any less from Pakistan?

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by SamH

The US has fought two wars over the deaths of 3,000 Americans, why should we expect any less from Pakistan?

A bit of a stretch of my original point, but since we are now there, could not these wars and the unfortunate collateral deaths have been avoided if all cooperated to bring the terrorists to justice?

And I also assume you do not live in the vicinity of NYC. I was in NYC that day, with a clear view down 6th Avenue of everything. That "only" 3,000 people perished is truly an act of a merciful God, and the brave men and women who risked or sacrificed their lives for others that day. The toll could have been much, much worse. Any idea how many people worked in those buildings and those surrounding the towers? What if the towers fell over instead of collapsing? What then would have been the toll?

You likely did not ride home on the NJT Morris-Essex train line, as I did, before filled daily with Wall Street workers, now nearly empty - only the ghosts of those poor souls remained.

While we Americans can and should examine with hindsight our nation's actions following that day, and the decision to go to war in this way, let's not pretend that if all nations were truly united in opposition to terror at this level that any of it would have been necessitated.

[DaveBj]

Originally Posted by Abba

"These people', a derogatory phrase often used to classify a group for persecution . . .*snip*

Not always. Sometimes "these people" just means "these people" (the group under discussion), as opposed to "those people" (i.e., other folks).

[JMJSHJ]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

This guy has admitted to covering up torture for the Bush administration, and he's talking about ethics?

Should Obama talk about ethics considering that his authorizing of predator drones has killed people. Is torture worse than death?

[saveusfromhell]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

A bit of a stretch of my original point, but since we are now there, could not these wars and the unfortunate collateral deaths have been avoided if all cooperated to bring the terrorists to justice?

And I also assume you do not live in the vicinity of NYC. I was in NYC that day, with a clear view down 6th Avenue of everything. That "only" 3,000 people perished is truly an act of a merciful God, and the brave men and women who risked or sacrificed their lives for others that day. The toll could have been much, much worse. Any idea how many people worked in those buildings and those surrounding the towers? What if the towers fell over instead of collapsing? What then would have been the toll?

You likely did not ride home on the NJT Morris-Essex train line, as I did, before filled daily with Wall Street workers, now nearly empty - only the ghosts of those poor souls remained.

While we Americans can and should examine with hindsight our nation's actions following that day, and the decision to go to war in this way, let's not pretend that if all nations were truly united in opposition to terror at this level that any of it would have been necessitated.

i was there that day, not sure how that gives the american goverment the right to kill millions who had nothing to do with it.
why haven't you stopped the american terroists from killing innocent iraq's. i'm sure all those murdered kids over there are glad American terroists liberated Iraq it of its oil.
of course as we all know saddem was such a big follower of bin laden

[vz71]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

Well of course Obama would rather kill suspected terrorists than capture them. He could care less whether or not they have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law!

He is avoiding the negative publicity he helped author for detaining terrorists.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

This guy has admitted to covering up torture for the Bush administration, and he's talking about ethics?

Speaking of ethically challenged:


Was Nancy Pelosi a member of the Bush administration?

Recall that in a Capitol Hill news conference three years ago, Pelosi (D-Calif.) vehemently denied being told about the use of waterboarding at a CIA briefing in September 2002. “We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” Pelosi said. She later changed her story, telling reporters, “We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used.” She claimed she learned about the use of waterboarding the following year, only after other lawmakers were told by the CIA. “I wasn’t briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it,” she said.

==================

In his new book, “Hard Measures,” Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.”

“We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.”

How did she respond when presented with this information? Rodriguez writes that neither Pelosi nor anyone else in the briefing objected to the techniques being used. Indeed, he notes, when one member of his team described another technique that had been considered but not authorized or used, “Pelosi piped up immediately and said that in her view, use of that technique (which I will not describe) would have been ‘wrong.’ ” She raised no such concern about waterboarding, he writes. “Since she felt free to label one considered-and-rejected technique as wrong,” Rodriguez adds, “we went away with the clear impression that she harbored no such feelings about the ten tactics [including waterboarding] that we told her were in use.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...trT_story.html


I guess Nancy wasn't telling the truth all along - but the fact she changed her story a week after the first denial should have been an indicator.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

i was there that day, not sure how that gives the american goverment the right to kill millions who had nothing to do with it

millions?

[oldcelt]

Well,

That is akin to calling Harry Truman less ethical than FDR because he finished the job.

John

[SamH]

Originally Posted by oldcelt

Well,

That is akin to calling Harry Truman less ethical than FDR because he finished the job.

John

I don't think anyone accused Harry Truman or FDR of having ethics.

[Jerry Miah]

No surprise the thread got derailed. It's basis -- that a torturer has the moral authority to sit in judgment -- is morally bankrupt. The corporate media is also responsible for coddling/promoting this admitted war criminal.)

Prosecute Jose Rodriguez for violating the anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A).

He did it. Enjoyed doing it. And would do it again.

Rodriguez admitted on 60 Minutes that he organized, ordered, and destroyed evidence of "enhanced interrogation techniques." Yesterday's 60 Minutes featured CIA rendition-supporter/torture proponent/videotape destroyer Jose Rodriguez, giving him a platform to pimp his new book, Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, which discusses CIA black sites and touts torture. (It should not be lost on anyone that Simon & Schuster gave Rodriguez a book contract, 60 Minutes gave Rodriguez a main-stream-media platform, and CBS owns both Simon & Schuster and 60 Minutes.)

Despite Rodriguez admitting his crimes on national television, the only person the Obama administration has criminally prosecuted in connection with the Bush-era torture program is John Kiriakou, who refused to participate in torture and blew the whistle on waterboarding.

How can we be a nation of laws when a former government official can proudly boast about his criminal behavior on national television without consequence?

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42...jose-rodriguez

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

No surprise the thread got derailed. It's basis -- that a torturer has the moral authority to sit in judgment -- is morally bankrupt. The corporate media is also responsible for coddling/promoting this admitted war criminal.)


http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42...jose-rodriguez

Well, at least it isn't just a "Faux News" conspiracy now, right?

[Robert Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please stay on the topic of the original post

[Armyvet007]

Being "less wrong" then the other guys doesn't excuse a person of being wrong in the first place.