Freeper Tactic Alert: CIA "Confirms" Torture Prevented Attack on L.A.

[Mr. Ected]

Found this "news" item on the CNS website...I'm posting here, not to legitimize their point, but as a foreshadowing of the inevitable arguments of the pro-torture crowd:

"The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles."

<snip>

"A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here."

Needless to say, that CIA spokesman remains unnamed.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

[tridim]

1. The neocon game is over and they're still on the field running plays.

Good luck with that.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. It's not over till we get the airwaves back.

As long as the M$M supports the GOP 24/7, he haven't won.

[tridim]

14. MSNBC is a good start.

But I hear what you're saying.

We'll never get Faux to change, they ARE BushCo. They'll fold long before they start telling the truth.

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Yeah, but we need CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN

Faux has no other purpose than to lie.

The only hope there is that they may one day go out of business.

[Political Heretic]

2. This isn't a political answer, but: I don't care if it did thwart and attack.

I'd rather be attacked that torture. It's just that simple.

There are ALL kinds of things we could to be "safer." We could have loyalty oaths, brown shirts patroling our streets, total surveillance, repeal the first amendment.

The fact that we don't do those things means, by default that we are more vulnerable to attack. An open society is always more risky than a closed one. So someone making the argument that torture prevented an attack - I don't even care. I mean, I think that's bullshit, but I really don't care either way.

I WANT to live in a free an open society. I WANT to live in a society with habeus corpus, with humane standards for treatment even of our enemies, and I DONT CARE if that makes us more vulnerable.

That's why price we have ALWAYS paid for freedom.

[safeinOhio]

13. tell em

we'd be safer without the 2Amendment too. So what. I don't want to be that safe.

[rucky]

3. Source: Dick Cheney's ass.

[HereSince1628]

4. Proving a negative will require the release of more documents. I say go for it.

Lets just spill all the contents of the secret drawer out onto the table and lets photocopy them and send them around.

I just love the defense, "Innocent by reason of productive torture."

[louis-t]

5. Is it the same source that said KSM was only tortured

for 30 seconds before he gave up all the info they wanted?

[walldude]

6. Yeah 30 seconds... 188 times.

You know these guys are in deep, the scrambling is getting fierce.

[MidwestTransplant]

7. BS ALL THE WAY AROUND. 1. there is ONE CIA spoksperson. 2. They are always on the record.

3. If this is true, the Spokesperson outed themselves (or their office) so not giving their name and being quoted as a spokesperson is absurd. They can't even make up realistic shit.

[Mr. Ected]

9. But the Article Deftly Creates the Illusion That An Official Confirmation Was Given

Most casual readers wouldn't even notice that they hadn't quoted the source.

SLIMY SLIMY SLIMY.

[JVS]

8. This is bad. If I were in Obama's shoes, I'd purge the CIA immediately.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Had they thwarted a real, legitimate planned terror attack, it would have been leaked

with all of the details....c'mon, you think Bush wouldn't make sure he got credit? I like how the CIA "talked" to CNN News, but no name of the spokesman is released. I wonder why?

[Traveling_Home]

11. What "May 30, 2005 memo"? nt

[Mnpaul]

16. They can be found here

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html