Thursday, December 11, 2014

The Feinstein Report

I comment here about the Feinstein Report, on the Bennett show.
You have GOT to listen to this liberal call from a college professor in Louisville that came in after me.
And a friend of mine, Angry Tom from Ann Arbor called in right after that.

I could retype my comments for your reading enjoyment, but I'm swamped at work as it is.

17 comments:

  1. I listened to all three..good job. The lib prof is a NUT. He'd rather have himself and his family blown to bits than be waterboarded? What do they think holding your breath in water knowing someone won't hold you enough to kill you is LIKE? Or how about staying up for 3 days? As Kimberly Guilfoyle said the other day "that's like studying for the law exam/bar"
    And he'd have not been waterboarded to save THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE? I'm glad the left exposes itself.
    Angry Tom cracked me up.
    I hope he didn't finally end up hurting his dog like he said !:-)
    I want Bill's job...hang around, talk politics, shmooze...and get paid big bucks.
    heaven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something that Liberal John would also sacrifice his family on that altar.
      As for Bill: I know. He's the only Philosophy PHd talk show host on radio.
      Tom is a friend of mine on FB and lives locally.
      I did some detective work and found out his real name.
      Thanks for stopping by.


      We drove by each other one day in an attempt to meet out on the lake, but haven't met each other yet.
      He was kidding about the dog.

      Delete
    2. You neglect the point that the report found that torture did not produce enough useful information to stop an attack.

      I did lead to a lot of wild goose chases and considerable expense.

      Delete
    3. The report was flawed in so many ways, why should I believe that also?
      We had how many successful attacks after 911?
      And I do not consent to the use of the term torture for EIT.

      Delete
    4. Ducky, absolutely don't neglect the point. There are those you won't listen to who say they did get valuable information.
      it's always a 'wild goose chase' when Conservatives try so hard to get the truth out in so many scandals.
      thanks.

      Delete
  2. http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/interrogator-breaks-his-silence_819033.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Notice that the left continues to use the word “torture,” as if this were true. Those who actually do know what they are talking about refer to what transpired as enhanced interrogation. Once again, a lie told often enough ...

    Here’s a fact: the North Vietnamese actually did torture John McCain. Nothing happened to any of the Moslem terrorists that even remotely resemble torture, unless the left is willing to set forth an argument that one man’s torture is another man’s enhanced interrogation. This would not surprise me in the least.

    The question does still remain: until one has extracted information, how does one know whether it is useful or actionable? Much of the information we get from interrogation comes to us as pieces of a puzzle. Until one places all the pieces together, then we cannot be certain that the information is useful. This suggests a time element, which further explains why we must hold on to a captive for some period of time. I suspect that attitudes we see on the communist left constitute the likely consequence of confusing Hollywood thriller movies with real life.

    The question remains: people are trying to kill Americans and damage US property, so what do you intend to do about it. If you are sitting on the left, you take a few puffs of your Meerschaum pipe and respond, "Well nothing, actually." This very closely resembles attitudes in Europe rather than here in the land of the free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my reply to Ducky (above): "And I do not consent to the use of the term torture for EIT."

      When I think of enhanced interrogation, I think of Col. Allen West putting a .45 alongside the head of a jihadist to save the lives of his troops.
      He was let go, and knew it would come to that.
      He should have had an impromptu water boarding.

      Delete
  4. amen ED!...the libs are beyond description!..have a great one and don't work too hard!! xoxox

    ReplyDelete
  5. Torture has certainly worked at times in the past to elicit information, taking the entirety of the historical record......and certainly not even a majority of the techniques used by the CIA and contractors could be defined by the label. But waterboarding most certainly is. The techniques used in SERE were developed specifically to expose the methods a captured US service member might expect to face, from an adversary who was likely not a signatory to the Geneva and Hague Conventions, or the CAT; and an adversary who would use these methods out of a desire to elicit a confession...any confession....for propaganda purposes rather than actionable intelligence. This is the reason that US military interrogators were not trained to use many of these techniques, because they were deemed ineffective in developing the psychological rapport that has been proven over time to be much more effective in gaining intelligence of value.

    What does constitute torture? An appropriate question...and one that at least has answers in our signature on the Convention Against Torture, among others. After 9/11, we intentionally established a grey area of the law of armed conflict; one where we revived the layman label of 'unlawful enemy combatant' and essentially invented a new class of interrogation techniques, calling it 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. We did this for a very specific reason, to skirt standing law and treaty, and act out of a sense of expediency. Terrorism is either an act or war...or a crime...or more accurately, both. Though our current adversary is justifiably not expectant of POW status per the Geneva Convention, they are admittedly [by the past and current Administrations] expectant of protections under Common Article III.

    Taking into account the historical treatment of waterboarding as a criminal act, and the text of the international agreements we are a party to....I find no defense [nor efficacy] for the use of waterboarding in interrogation procedures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your position.
      And I am not one who feels that 9-11 justified torture.
      But torture has historically involved the act, or threat, of permanent damage and or disfigurement. The grief of permanent loss.
      Obviously not the case here. And the interogatees seemed aware of the limits also.
      As I pointed out on the Bennett show, and others have, we gained intelligence that led to OBL. I assume more was gained than we know.

      Delete
    2. I get your points, but waterboarding at least, has always been considered to be torture [in western and non-communist civilization].

      I would say that the amount of information gained by torture and leading to bin Laden, is mixed. Plus, while I truly like the fact that he's crab food....knocking off the head has more emotional value than strategic. The financial and material facilitation networks are far more valuable than a figurehead.

      Delete
    3. Was Philipines waterboarding harsher than EIT?

      Delete
  6. Good job once again Ed. The crazy lib professor call sandwiched btwn angry tom's and yours really does emphasize the incompatibility of the clear thinkers and these progressive twits. These last 6 years under obama's lawlessness has been a form of torture. How many fingers would you forgo to avoid the next two?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm being tortured now! Every time I turn on the TV or computer and have my nose rubbed in the excrement of Obama and his ilk.

      Delete