Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:14 PM
jpak (26,923 posts)
Panetta: Enhanced interrogation did not lead to bin Laden
Source: CBS News
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Sunday that "We could have gotten bin Laden without" enhanced interrogation techniques, despite the implication in the film "Zero Dark Thirty" that the techniques, called torture by opponents, played a pivotal role in finding bin Laden. "First of all, it's a movie," Panetta said on NBC's "Meet the Press". "Let's remember that." Saying he "lived the real story," Panetta added that "in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to bin Laden, there was a lot of intelligence. There were a lot of pieces out there that were part of that puzzle." Panetta went on to say that there was at least some truth to the notion that enhanced interrogation was part of the hunt for bin Laden. <more> Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57567347-10391739/panetta-enhanced-interrogation-did-not-lead-to-bin-laden/
|
12 replies, 1365 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| jpak | Feb 2013 | OP | |
| sakabatou | Feb 2013 | #1 | |
| Iggo | Feb 2013 | #2 | |
| Festivito | Feb 2013 | #3 | |
| Kelvin Mace | Feb 2013 | #6 | |
| Festivito | Feb 2013 | #12 | |
| azurnoir | Feb 2013 | #4 | |
| Kelvin Mace | Feb 2013 | #5 | |
| Moral Compass | Feb 2013 | #7 | |
| The Second Stone | Feb 2013 | #8 | |
| Franker65 | Feb 2013 | #9 | |
| JustABozoOnThisBus | Feb 2013 | #10 | |
| Solly Mack | Feb 2013 | #11 |
Response to jpak (Original post)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:25 PM
sakabatou (29,083 posts)
1. Didn't we already know that torture doesn't work before Bush took office?
Response to jpak (Original post)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:35 PM
Iggo (22,323 posts)
2. It's called torture, Leon. (n/t)
Response to jpak (Original post)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:19 PM
Festivito (12,283 posts)
3. "I think we could have gotten bin Laden without that."
|
Some information we used was given by persons we tortured -- maybe. To figure out which information was from torture, after torture or under the threat of torture would be ridiculously hard to ascertain is what I would understand.
...some truth to the notion that enhanced interrogation was part of the hunt... It is not nice to try and put a puzzle together and have someone hand you a piece from a different puzzle. Seems to me, that screws up putting a puzzle together. But, we could have been a nation that held its head high with pride instead of power. |
Response to Festivito (Reply #3)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:10 PM
Kelvin Mace (9,830 posts)
6. When you use the tools of monsters
|
you are a monster.
We are now monsters thanks to not only people like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al; but to people like Panetta who offer weak condemnation of blatant war crimes. |
Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #6)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:01 AM
Festivito (12,283 posts)
12. We have monstrous tools, perform monstrous acts, and become what we hated.
|
We seem no longer strong enough to be free and brave, and our leaders, no better, do not think we deserve to be free or brave.
It is a sad state. |
Response to jpak (Original post)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:48 PM
azurnoir (26,662 posts)
4. Zero Dark Thirty is propaganda of the "why we fight" genre
|
another take on the movie and its promotion of torture
'Zero Dark Thirty' is the most vile and immoral war film I've seen in years
“Revenge of the agonized killers” would have been a more appropriate title. Now I must say this – in decades of watching Israeli and international war cinema, I don’t remember a film as immoral, vile and self-righteous as Zero Dark Thirty. This narcissistic movie, with all its aesthetic portraits of torture and assassinations, not only enjoys and fetishizes the violence it depicts but also justifies and rationalizes it. It is not – as some more naïve viewers said – a “complicated” or “controversial” way of promoting “a debate” on torture, but the other way around. Torture and assassinations are presented as effective though unpleasant ways of preforming heroic acts. The film completely ignores collateral damage, the innocents who are killed and abused and the inherent abuse of power (and think in that context not just about the acts carried out by the U.S, but also by its allies, in Pakistan for example), which are part of the argument for conducting warfare within a different normative and legal framework. But the problem goes even deeper. Zero Dark Thirty is so self-righteous that it makes the blunt orientalism of The Hurt Locker actually look good. There, the director seemed to have understood that some people like “the action” – but we never saw that kind of emotion in Zero Dark Thirty. After all, no American would like torture or killings. Bigelow’s portrait people at war runs contrary to anything we know about human nature and violence everywhere and at all times. If the director would have shown the sadism and corruption that comes when you cross certain boundaries, then some viewers would have felt uncomfortable, and gone home really thinking or talking about what they saw. But I don’t think the film would have been such a success in such a case. Holywood is giving Kathryn Bigelow prizes because she makes Americans feel good about themselves and the wars they wage. I am not judging those wars themselves here or even the practices of torture or extra-judicial killings, but rather the way they are told and discussed. When you take ZDT and The Hurt Locker together, you understand that Bigelow actually thinks that in the more than 11 years of wars in three countries, the sole and only victims were Americans. This is the worst kind of propaganda, one which is directed at the bleeding hearts and liberals who seem to enjoy their action flicks with a sauce of “moral dilemmas” and remorse. Be sure – the old style of war films was way more honest and moral because it praised the hero’s actions and therefore assumed at least certain responsibility for them. Naturally, the Arabs are just as dead in both genres. http://972mag.com/zero-dark-thirty-is-the-most-vile-and-immoral-war-film-ive-seen-in-years/64872/ |
Response to jpak (Original post)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:07 PM
Kelvin Mace (9,830 posts)
5. The fact that you won't call it torture
|
makes you just another Eichmann's in the banal machine of evil.
|
Response to jpak (Original post)
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:48 PM
Moral Compass (106 posts)
7. Torture!!!! Not "Enhanced Interrogation"...
|
Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:25 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) It's not "enhanced interrogation". It is "torture". Plain, simple, and impossible to defend.
Our media have to stop enabling this Orwellian double speak. America, who once executed Japanese and Germans for torturing civilian prisoners and prisoners of war, tortured. We've also created a new class without any human rights called "enemy combatants" whom we are still to this day imprisoning without charges or recourse to any sort of justice system. It is time that we not only recognize that our government did not benefit from torture, but that our country has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. And that would only be the beginning. Our indiscriminate use of drones...our continued pattern of disregarding national sovereignty... Where are we, as a country, going? But let's start with objecting to the term "enhanced interrogation"... Call CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and object to the use of that one term. It was torture--plain and simple. And it didn't help us at all. |
Response to jpak (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:35 AM
The Second Stone (1,029 posts)
8. Torture is a method of questioning
|
and every study of its results compared to other methods shows that it is worse than other methods. (A polygraph is also another method.)
Torture is used by people who are stupid, ignorant, lazy and frustrated who want to dominate the subject. Professional questioning requires preparation, intelligence, hard work and patience. It is the opposite of torture in its methods and results. |
Response to jpak (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:41 AM
Franker65 (252 posts)
9. We all know 'Enhanced Interrogation' did happen
|
Denying it had absolutely no role in finding Bin Laden doesn't seem accurate...the manhunt lasted 10 years and torture was a common element throughout that time. Even if it didn't lead directly to Bin Laden doesn't change the fact that it did happen.
|
Response to jpak (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:06 AM
JustABozoOnThisBus (9,918 posts)
10. That is a movie, this is a TV interview, ...
|
... and the truth, if it's written at all, is in some pile of classified documents, maybe never to see the light of day.
We can be fairly certain that something was wrapped in a white shroud and dropped into the ocean, to great fanfare. Those who know the true story are probably very good at keeping their mouths shut. |
Response to jpak (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:14 AM
Solly Mack (49,518 posts)
11. Because calling it what it is - torture - would harm America's beautiful mind.
|
Wouldn't want to disturb those wrapped up in denial.
|

