That’s not my supposition, that’s what the memos say. The memos say that lesser methods failed to work, and this one did. It therefore follows, inescapably ,that either the memos are lying, or that moving it up to waterboarding was necessary.

Is it possible that mere angry questioning — continually for 24 months while having him confined in cramped, cold quarters and forced to listen to the Dixie Chicks — might have broken him? I’m sure, but what use would the intel be at that point?

If we want to argue the veracity of the memos, then we truly make this whole discussion pointless. So hopefully we won’t devolve into that.

just not *probable* given all the information that we do indeed have.

Just like it is *possible* that your are not a leftist…but not *probable* being that you are using leftist argumentation.

Honestly. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever read with regards to waterboarding. So, what shall we do? Line up a few government employees and just go through the list of torture tactics until we find something that is “appropriate”, “effective”, but doesn’t make anyone raise their eyebrows? Construct a hierarchy of torture? I agree with Streiff (below)…I’d be more than happy to hook the terrorists up to, say, a car battery, before waterboarding them. Perhaps boiling oil? The rack? I hear thumbscrews are achieving a new vogue overseas.

If we hold to the argument “even though it worked this time, it might not work every time, so we’d better not do it anymore”, we’re just treading water. Inaction is a very great evil…as is flailing around worrying about every “what if” some bottom-scraping “analyst” can come up with.

If a technique worked, I applaud it. They could have done a lot worse to these guys to get that information and save lives, and I’d thank them for it.

That’s the real bottom line here; the rest is just navel-gazing.

KSM was a rare individual, trained and tough enough to withstand the other interrogation methods used before those in charge made the decision to use waterboarding.

In most cases, as is my understanding, interrogation officials do not have to go so far as to use waterboarding.

Of course, if waterboarding is deemed illegal, than terrorists and other enemy combatants will have it that much easier and will only have to train for what amount to fraternity hazing rituals.

I went through E&E training (what the Navy calls SERE school) in 1968 and again in 1969. They worked you up to being waterboarded. You didn’t start there. Some people made it through waterboarding without breaking (it helped to know it is just training), though not many.

I won’t mention some of the other techniques we were exposed to, and that you got if you made it through the waterboarding. I don’t know if they still use them at all or not. But a couple of them were every bit as coercive as waterboarding and maybe more so, without involving mutilation or or beatings, or doing any permanent damage .

They taught that everyone breaks. The idea was to hold out as long as you could, so that hopefully the information you eventually gave would have by passage of time been rendered of less value.

The bottom line is they know pretty-much exactly what will work and are expert at evaluating when someone is verging on breaking. The only question is how soon do they need the information.

Lesser techniques work over time. When you’ve got to have it now, unrelenting waterboarding is pretty sure to get it for you.

the timestamps show that pretty clearly…his reaction pretty much solidified that he was a leftist…at least to me.

Thanks for the link, Aaron. I responded to it down below in a commented entitled “I don’t get it.” By the way, do you know what’s up with all the crazy font changes in the memo?

Re: the source of the evidence: yes, of course I get your point about the reliability of Kos, but I’m talking about a single clip from the Kos video, a clip where GWB talks about a plot that was thwarted in early 2002, and that plot sounds exactly like the plot that is mentioned in this memo (thanks, Aaron Gardner, for the link). (Ignore the fact that it’s from Kos and watch the video, if you don’t mind, so you can see what I’m talking about. It’s only the GWB part.)

From the video we can conclude one of three things:
1. There was a second plot, the one mentioned in the memo, which was identical to the first, which also was thwarted. This is possible, but, if true, why didn’t GWB mention it?
2. GWB got his dates confused, and the plot was actually thwarted in late 2003 rather than early 2002. Also possible. I know how easy it is to get dates wrong. I am constantly having to do mental gymnastics just to remember how long I’ve been married. If this is true, then we just need to get GWB to say that he misspoke or that he got his dates wrong or something simple like that.
3. The information given in the memo is not true. Also possible. If the information mentioned was included for the specific purpose of justifying water-boarding, it is reasonable to ask whether or not the incident as reported took place at the time it was reported to, or if someone may have fudged the dates a little to make it look like the plot foiling was the direct result of the waterboarding of KSM. Because of the dates involved and because of the similarity of the two alleged plots, this seems to me a reasonable question to ask.

After all, just as we don’t believe everything just because it’s printed in a newspaper, I don’t necessarily believe what was reported in this memo. Since the two supposed plots seem like only one actual plot, it becomes a “he said she said” between the president and the person who was referenced in this memo.

I find it hard to believe that there were two separate but identical plots and that GWB would mention one but not the other.

In other words, I’m feeling a lot of reasonable doubt here. Help me out with something more concrete.

Waterboarding isn’t torture and is legal. So every thing after the middle of you first sentence become moot.

And yes..as long as that neutral observer also has the ability to think rationally…which you obviously don’t.

with the obvious caveat that at no point does torture enter into this debate.

The question of, as you put it whether or not torturing people advances our national security interests is a non-debate because that assumes waterboarding is torture.

The question of whether waterboarding is torture is a whole separate debate, and I refuse to allow the assumption to be “yes” as a prelude to the other debate. Nope.

The actual debate can be posed several ways, all of which are similar enough to suit me:

• Given a choice between aggressive interrogation and letting cities be bombed, what is the proper choice?
• Does aggressive interrogation advance our national interests?
• Does a refusal to aggressively interrogate, as a national policy that the whole world knows, advance our national interests?

I’m not debating anything else. You pick which one you want to play between those 3.

As far as your little lectures that accompany every comment of yours, as to what conservatives are doing wrong, and should do different, and why you think “average” people don’t like us – your opinion is deeply, sadly wrong, but duly noted.

You keep preaching that, and remember to ask yourself this: if conservatism is dead and the whole nation is against us, why is it that Obama and his Democrats in Washington have to keep fast-tracking through legislation in the dead of night, with no public debate? Ask yourself why the press has not even the remotest interest in making note of that fact. Ask yourself why 60% of Americans now say the government has too much power, why the generic Dem-v-Repub ballot polls show dead even, why the Boy president’s approval rating is now 55%.

And sleep deeply and well, my friend.

Dude do yourself a big favor and STFU. I used to lurk on KOS, and there is less common sense and more super liberal hatred there, then I have ever seen here.

of that comment, but take it literally…. The mindset of wit-less wonders that cannot grasp the consequences of actions – like the dangers of playing with Fire, even after you’ve burnt down your home. You won’t grasp that metaphor either I’m sure.

“I love my country and stand with conservatives on everything they believe in, but I just don’t want to be associated with Republicans.”

Witless drivel. I am sure you know SO MANY conservatives JUST LIKE this.

And why do you think releasing Gitmo detainees into your neighborhood would result in something “bad” happening to you? Or did you just screw up and admit that Gitmo is where they belong and where they shoud stay? Seems to me if they were innocent you would welcome them into your neighborhood as political prisoners of the evil George Bush.

thanks for the elevated sense of superiority in your last sentence. Funny, you seem to have a misguided sense of self given that you chose the name Green Lantern.

With Castro as VP. Maybe you could have gotten excited then.

You can’t stand us, and you can’t muster up the mental strength to just leave. Fine.

Blam.

Moe Lane