Menu Bar
Jesse Ventura: Pelosi, Torture, Al Franken
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
From The Ed Show May 19, 2009. Jesse Ventura weighs in on some of the issues of the day.
May 20, 2009 4:48 AM
Re: Jesse Ventura: Pelosi, Torture, Al Franken
God bless you Jesse, but damnit quit saying we don't get any good information from being tortured. Bullshit. I'm not pro-torture, just saying you should use some good arguments here. There's plenty of them. With torture we PROBABLY get good information from those who have the information and we probably get bad information from those who don't. Just because the CIA says they got good information before torturing doesn't make it true. I bet the CIA tortured right off the bat and then later stated that they did it as a last resort to save face.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Jesse Ventura: Pelosi, Torture, Al Franken
What's your argument here? I guarantee I could make you say you were a flying pig from the planet Zolcor if I tortured you long enough. You get whatever "information" you want to get... If it was good information, we'd have sent Bush's buddy Osama Bin Laden to the gallows long ago.
By: chawx
Re: Jesse Ventura: Pelosi, Torture, Al Franken
Sorry, Keyser, Jesse's right on that point.
FBI agent Ali Soufan testified at the U.S. Senate a couple of weeks ago that all the actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah came from the rapport-building techniques, and bogus made-up crap came from the roughing-up techniques. He says they were making great progress till the CIA started getting medieval. Every time the CIA got him, he'd shut down. Every time the FBI got him back, he'd eventually open up, each time after progressively more coaxing. Great work CIA. The torture tactics had precisely the opposite of the desired effect.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/
Yes that would be the same Abu Zabaydah whom Dick Cheney claimed was singing like a bird after being "enhanced interrogated". Yeah, Dick. Yeah.
FBI agent Ali Soufan testified at the U.S. Senate a couple of weeks ago that all the actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah came from the rapport-building techniques, and bogus made-up crap came from the roughing-up techniques. He says they were making great progress till the CIA started getting medieval. Every time the CIA got him, he'd shut down. Every time the FBI got him back, he'd eventually open up, each time after progressively more coaxing. Great work CIA. The torture tactics had precisely the opposite of the desired effect.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/
Yes that would be the same Abu Zabaydah whom Dick Cheney claimed was singing like a bird after being "enhanced interrogated". Yeah, Dick. Yeah.
Re: Jesse Ventura: Pelosi, Torture, Al Franken
Well obviously torture is not an effective source of information when the CIA is trying to make a detainee give false statements. I agree with you that in this particular case torture gave us bad information. But if the detainee actually had some valuable information and the CIA didn't have an agenda, then the detainee would most likely spill the beans when tortured.
Also, Jesse and other politicians are missing the point by arguing how ineffective torture is. The effectiveness of torture has no place in this argument. Torture is a violation of human rights. The argument shouldn't need to go any further.
Also, Jesse and other politicians are missing the point by arguing how ineffective torture is. The effectiveness of torture has no place in this argument. Torture is a violation of human rights. The argument shouldn't need to go any further.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Jesse Ventura: Pelosi, Torture, Al Franken
> Also, Jesse and other politicians are missing the point by arguing how ineffective torture is. The effectiveness of torture has no place in this argument. Torture is a violation of human rights. The argument shouldn't need to go any further.
Correct
> Well obviously torture is not an effective source of information when the CIA is trying to make a detainee give false statements. I agree with you that in this particular case torture gave us bad information. But if the detainee actually had some valuable information and the CIA didn't have an agenda, then the detainee would most likely spill the beans when tortured.
If the CIA is trying to get good information and use torture, then if the person doesn't have any good information to give, they say whatever they think the agent want's to hear. The agent more than likely won't be aware of this. That's the point. The agenda of the agent does not come into it.
Correct
> Well obviously torture is not an effective source of information when the CIA is trying to make a detainee give false statements. I agree with you that in this particular case torture gave us bad information. But if the detainee actually had some valuable information and the CIA didn't have an agenda, then the detainee would most likely spill the beans when tortured.
If the CIA is trying to get good information and use torture, then if the person doesn't have any good information to give, they say whatever they think the agent want's to hear. The agent more than likely won't be aware of this. That's the point. The agenda of the agent does not come into it.
By: gerrywastaken
