Cheney on MTP
- Thread starter JohnnySavage
- Start date
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
BTW, Savage
you and your EIT BS
you know that ClitMan was offered OBL by Sudan?
You know why he didn't take OBL?
cause they didn't have a chair that fit his frame and didn't want to discomfort him...and were afraid that when they put tape on his mouth, when they would take it off, parts of his beard would come off as well....absurd is it?
well, its true and you can look it up
THAT IS YOUR VALUES
you and your EIT BS
you know that ClitMan was offered OBL by Sudan?
You know why he didn't take OBL?
cause they didn't have a chair that fit his frame and didn't want to discomfort him...and were afraid that when they put tape on his mouth, when they would take it off, parts of his beard would come off as well....absurd is it?
well, its true and you can look it up
THAT IS YOUR VALUES
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Savage agrees
British Soldiers Told Not To Yell At Captured Jihadists…
dont yell
Appeal to their sensitive side.
Via The Telegraph
British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.
The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect.
The regulations replaced a previous policy that had to be withdrawn after a series of legal challenges and the death in custody of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi detainee in Basra.
But there is growing disquiet within the ranks that the latest guidelines, officially called Challenge Direct, are so stringent that it makes interrogation pointless.
There is also concern that the rules can be so easily breached — especially given the pressure under which soldiers are operating — that military personnel will be left exposed to legal claims and possible disciplinary action. […]
Col Tim Collins, who made a celebrated eve-of-battle speech during the Iraq war and now runs a private security company with expertise in intelligence gathering, said: “Since I was serving, the rules on interrogations have been tightened up because of the lawyers. We [the military] are no longer able to carry out tactical questioning.
“The effect of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and the play-it-safe judges is that we have got to the point where we have lost our operational capability to do tactical questioning. That in itself brings risks to the lives of the people we deploy.
“These insurgents are not nice people. These are criminals. They behead people; they keep sex slaves. They are not normal people.”
British Soldiers Told Not To Yell At Captured Jihadists…
dont yell
Appeal to their sensitive side.
Via The Telegraph
British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.
The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect.
The regulations replaced a previous policy that had to be withdrawn after a series of legal challenges and the death in custody of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi detainee in Basra.
But there is growing disquiet within the ranks that the latest guidelines, officially called Challenge Direct, are so stringent that it makes interrogation pointless.
There is also concern that the rules can be so easily breached — especially given the pressure under which soldiers are operating — that military personnel will be left exposed to legal claims and possible disciplinary action. […]
Col Tim Collins, who made a celebrated eve-of-battle speech during the Iraq war and now runs a private security company with expertise in intelligence gathering, said: “Since I was serving, the rules on interrogations have been tightened up because of the lawyers. We [the military] are no longer able to carry out tactical questioning.
“The effect of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and the play-it-safe judges is that we have got to the point where we have lost our operational capability to do tactical questioning. That in itself brings risks to the lives of the people we deploy.
“These insurgents are not nice people. These are criminals. They behead people; they keep sex slaves. They are not normal people.”
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
No, it's that moron busybody.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
hey yo, Savage
the PEEPS don't like you....they like ME
and if you ex out the
LIBZ/DUMZ/GIMPZ/FAGZ/ and sundry LOONZ, the ratio to me vs you would be MUCH HIGHER
On Interrogation, the Verdict is In
After a week of condemnations of the CIA interrogation program, and talk everywhere of how it violated our values and weakened our standing in the world, the verdict of public opinion is in: People support it.
From Pew:
Following the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA interrogation practices in the period following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 51% of the public says they think the CIA methods were justified, compared with just 29% who say they were not justified; 20% do not express an opinion.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 11-14 among 1,001 adults, finds that amid competing claims over the effectiveness of CIA interrogation methods, 56% believe they provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks, while just half as many (28%) say they did not provide this type of intelligence. . .
Overall, the public expresses the most doubt not about the CIA methods and program itself, but about the Senate committee’s decision to release its report: as many call the decision to publicly release the findings the wrong decision (43%) as the right decision (42%).
In the case of Cheney v. Feinstein, Cheney wins–at least with the public.
the PEEPS don't like you....they like ME
and if you ex out the
LIBZ/DUMZ/GIMPZ/FAGZ/ and sundry LOONZ, the ratio to me vs you would be MUCH HIGHER
On Interrogation, the Verdict is In
After a week of condemnations of the CIA interrogation program, and talk everywhere of how it violated our values and weakened our standing in the world, the verdict of public opinion is in: People support it.
From Pew:
Following the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA interrogation practices in the period following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 51% of the public says they think the CIA methods were justified, compared with just 29% who say they were not justified; 20% do not express an opinion.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 11-14 among 1,001 adults, finds that amid competing claims over the effectiveness of CIA interrogation methods, 56% believe they provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks, while just half as many (28%) say they did not provide this type of intelligence. . .
Overall, the public expresses the most doubt not about the CIA methods and program itself, but about the Senate committee’s decision to release its report: as many call the decision to publicly release the findings the wrong decision (43%) as the right decision (42%).
In the case of Cheney v. Feinstein, Cheney wins–at least with the public.
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
I assume you mean 2nd or 3rd degree murder (i.e. "manslaughter") since 1st degree murder, as I understand it, is a premeditated act specifically intended to cause the very death that results.
Cheney and all of the interrogators were aware of the legal authority they believed themselves to be operating under, and no one from the President on down has ever asserted that they had the legal authority to murder a captive in cold blood.
As long as we're making distinctions, I think that one is important as well.
Oh, btw, the CIA declassified its official response to the Feinstein report last week: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports...ormer_Detention_and_Interrogation_Program.pdf
