Calling out Christiane Amanpour
I told you the other day about Marc Thiessen’s must-read book, Courting Disaster, on how the Left and Obama are sabotaging all the effective intelligence-gathering programs that the Bush administration created to prevent jihadi attacks after 9/11.
Thiessen is taking the fight directly to the liberal lion’s den, and called out Christiane Amanpour on CNN for her own misleading reporting on the CIA interrogation programs.
It’s too early to grab the popcorn, but pull up your bowl of cereal and coffee and watch. This is how more GOP lawmakers need to take on the White House, Democrat majority, and pro-jihadi propagandist media. Head on, with the facts, to set the record straight once and for all:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
KSM and company go on military trial, face death penalty
April 4, 2012 01:30 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
Video of the day
February 21, 2012 12:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 CommentsThe trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
January 23, 2012 03:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
59 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Trial update, prosecution collapse, plea deal in the works?
January 19, 2012 05:49 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Wuterich trial update
January 5, 2012 06:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
26 Comments
Remember SSgt Frank D. Wuterich: The last Haditha Marine goes on trial
January 2, 2012 12:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
57 Comments
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
December 25, 2011 03:26 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsJoe Biden: The Taliban Per Se is Not Our Enemy
December 19, 2011 04:06 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Remembering Pearl Harbor: 70 years
December 7, 2011 10:10 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: War
Nice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNewsBusters.org
» Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’Nice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNewsBusters.org
» Reuters's Freeland: 'Anorexic' Americans Think Tax Bite Too Heavy When In Fact It's Dangerously Thin
I can’t believe you just asked that.
I said a perfectly fine method for DEVELOPING a CRITERION.
Notice I didn’t say determining. Developing assumes that other considerations are used.
They both should have been shot waaay before they got to those numbers.
Professor Terguson: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I’m gonna be watching you.
Schooled. He burried them in facts and their response is, “we don’t accept that.”
What is Cf?
LMAO hahahahahhaaaaa oh that was a good one and absolutely the way I feel!!! Crackin up here can’t stop…….
On January 21st, 2010 at 10:32 am, chapoutier said:
I know. Its amazing the hoops people will jump through to justify waterboarding.
My apologies. Thiessen presented it as a bright line rule. I am willing to concede that you disagree with him.
Pours or occasions?
I think it’s pours. That might have lasted less than 5 minutes.
After 2 minutes he may have stated, “Ok ok ok. I’ll tell you.” But he may not have actually started providing information for another 2 minutes.
Or maybe it was 10 minutes total. Such a timeline doesn’t seem unreasonable as a possibility.
Btw, while I don’t think that waterboarding is torture. I don’t think the US should use such a harsh interrogation tactic.
From latin “confer” meaning to compare or consult, presumably because the cited source agrees with the premise stated.
All I have seen is “times”.
Sounds to me like they rather liked it. After all, who would be foolish enough to not do what they had to do in order to stop treatment that they found intolerable? They could have had zero treatments in one of two ways: US troops could have summarily shot them on the field for being non-uniformed combatants (as Obama is doing by blasting suspected operatives with missiles fired from drones), or they could have immediately conducted comprehensive seminars on all they knew about the enemy.
They certainly weren’t forced to undergo waterboarding any number of times.
Gorman: Apone! Look… we can’t have any firing in there. I, uh… I want you to collect magazines from everybody.
Hudson: Is he f@#$%n’ crazy?
Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?
Terrorists? Not protected under the Geneva Convention as Theissen says. I don’t care what they do to extract information.
Obama? Is that you?
And, for what its worth, whether or not it was pours or occasions, it broke the CIA’s own rules in place for waterboarding.
2 x 6 x 5 = 60.
Then that belies the notion that it is an effective interrogation method doesn’t it?
And what’s the penalty for breaking the CIA’s own rules?
No. The purported reason they liked it was because it gave them the perfect reason to provide information without guilt.
This may be harsh but – When I think of those burned bodied hanging from a bridge and our own tropps that were taken and tortured and mutilated so badly they could not describe the condition they were found in as well as the filmed be-headings – water boarding was a cake walk for these animals, a blow torch and pair of pliers should have been used on them.
Clearly, nothing.
You are basing this psychoanalysis on…what exactly?
There are many interrogations techniques that can be used. I just don’t think waterboarding should be one of them.
But waterboarding is definitely NOT torture.
I suppose we could get off waterboarding entirely, and talk about the three detainees that allegedly committed suicide by hanging themselves. Of course, when the bodies were sent back to their families, the throats had been cut out, thus eliminating any evidence of this claim.
But you agreed earlier that it worked, didn’t you?
Effective means
, which you have stipulated that waterboarding did.
You may be confusing “effective” and “efficient”. Granted, if the intelligence officials had to use 183 sessions, that sounds like a big waste of time that may have been obviated by more aggressive techniques, such as those involving batteries, water and body parts.
Nonetheless, the barbarians provided the required information, and the treatment was gentle enough for them to be able to tolerate it what you must admit is many times.
So I don’t get what the fuss is about.
***
I’ve watched Christiane Amanpour’s reporting–it seems biased to me. I think she needs some post graduate educational improvements to “broaden” her outlook on torture, women’s rights, terrorism, etc. A few humble suggestions follow:
***
She should watch the videos shot by a brave reporter in Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled this benighted country. The ones showing the cutting off of women’s lips for using lipstick. The shooting of a woman in the soccer stadium where punishments were done.
***
Then she should watch some Saudi Arabian or Iranian Sharia Law punishments. Stonings, amputations, beheadings, slow lift hangings, flogging to death for minor offenses, canings, homosexual and gay raping of prisoners, etc.
***
Then she should get to live for a while in an Israeli settlement that comes under random rocket attack from Gaza or Lebanon. And she should take some bus rides where a suicide bomber blows up the bus. Or maybe she should go for pizza in the mall with the Israeli kids and bombers. Or attend a Jordanian wedding with a husband and wife suicide bomber team.
***
Then she should be put in a burka and sent to live in Gaza, Iran, Sudan, or Somalia for a while.
***
If she makes it back we can award her a PHD in what real torture and lack of woman’s rights really looks like. Waterboards and panties on the head aren’t even on the torture lists. Her education has been sorely neglected.
***
John Bibb
***
Isn’t Amanpour’s husband Jewish?
rocketman: yet she still has so much to say, right?
On a story which claimed that the one of the waterboarded individuals thanked his interrogators since he was only required to resist to the point at which he couldn’t resist any longer – then he was free to provide them with information.
The story claims that he told the interrogators that they should waterboard everyone during interrogation since it would release them from their bond of silence since they’d be unable to resist.
I’ll try to find the story for you.
My fuss is, FruNoblux, that I do think it is effective. Which is why I find it absolutely unbelievable that it took 183 times to extract all the information KSM had. Two possible explanations:
1) the CIA continued to do so after they knew they already had all the information he could give up for no other reason than spite;
2) the CIA thought there might be more information when there was not. Which underlines my point that a detainee being waterboarded is not free just to say “Stop!”
Neither is good.
So were you trying to imply that the waterboarding was grossly excessive because some CIA rule (btw, do you have a date on that rule) was broken?
I am implying that the CIA cannot even follow an unambiguous bright line rule like this.
It’s unreal that so many have qualms about murdeous bastards merely getting their faces splashed for a few moments to possibly save lives. Totally unreal. Some here haven’t looked into stone cold eyes that’d knife/shoot you for a dollar like I have. Your life and your family’s means squat to such animals. You forfeit being human when you want to murder mases of people and cheer over it later. High horse ivory-tower pseudo-compassionate PC stops at my family being blown up at a mall or a plane, whether the blasted bomber or terrorist gets his face dunked or hands chopped off is ultra-okay for me. CIA, if they bar you from waterboarding to save lives, you can use my bathtub on the sly anytime.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
I really think it’s 183 pours – not sessions.
I don’t think it takes long to execute 183 pours. And pour doesn’t mean an entire pitcher.
One might argue that it should have been done before the free airplane rides. But then that would hijack this thread. Nothing that you have in mind because you are clearly the intellectual here and we aren’t logically kicking your butt. (Read: Look, a shiney object!)
Sorry.
Taught in public school years ago (mirabile dictu!), believe it or not, along with op. cit., loc. sit., ibid., etc.
Its a shorthand for “see”, or “refer to”.
Glad you agree. But maybe you didn’t have any choice on the matter.
Baseless accusation. I’m not convinced that you quoted a rule that existed before the waterboarding was actually executed – not during.
A simple CIA directive can be waived or changed by the director prior to the operation.
On January 21st, 2010 at 10:49 am, stillontheroad said:
It would be un-PC to say I agree with you, but I don’t not agree with you.
OK, but I’m not sure what relevance it had to my comment.
Again, refer to her backgroud.
Might that have anything to do with her bias?
Is it even remotely possible that we are witnessing the slightest, subtlest bit of taqiyya here?
I wonder if her background has anything to do with her bias.
Apologies.
Unfortunately, terrorists don’t have dipsticks you can check to determine when all the good info from them has been drained.
If you get a bit of information from another source, I don’t see a problem with then going back to KSM with that new info and trying to determine if he has more related details. If that happens 183 times: it sucks to be him.
It makes me sick when people claim waterboarding is torture – it isn’t!
If you want to know what defines torture, google Miracle the dog. The sheer HELL visited on man’s best friend for a three week period during late November ’09, defines torture.
A busted jaw, a gouged-out eye, a severed appendage and a collar melded to his skin by sizzling hot bacon grease is torture; that the poor creature survived is indeed a miracle!
Somehow I think Miracle would have considered a little fresh water dumped in the face rather refreshing – compared to the real torture he endured!
So then you agree with me that they can’t just say “Stop! I’ve told you everything!” An interrogator has to continue, even though the detainee at some point is actually telling the truth when he says this.
Tell you a little story. When Islomofacist group capture and hung Higgins in Lebanon – around that same time a couple Soviet Diplomats were taken hostage also. Now the people I knew then, and still know now told how the soviets sent in a special team to retrieve their people and within 2 days the Diplomats were released and never again were the Soviets, in any position, even looked at in the wrong way. Now I wonder what the Soviets did to command that!
Now for those of you that do not understand the enemy we face – these people are affected by fear and respect, when this enemy has no fear and no respect then we will be fighting this war forever. Understand your enemy and fight them.
The situation that I observed actually had nothing to do with bias.
Her actions weren’t motivated by bias.
Her actions were motivated by selfishness without regard for the truth.
I observed her lie to the world and put the needs of hundreds of thousands so that she could eloquently move on to her next story.
Steven G. Bradbury, head of the OLC under Bush claimed this was the rule.
He also said this:
I have tried to find a direct link to the complete memo, but haven’t yet.
First of all Chap, what rules do the terrorists follow when either conducting their “operations” or their interrogations? Wait, I’ll answer that for you. NONE.
Second, I don’t really have a whole lot of sympathy for those barbarians. Which is not to say that I would approve of using the same methods they use.
What?
The subject ALWAYS knows more. If nothing else the subject can provide guesses, estimates, predictions, opinions, analysis, projections….there’s always more.
Are you deliberately trying NOT to understand how intelligence works?
I guess that’s one of the occupational hazards of terrorism.
Our military men and women in the field can’t just say “stop” when they are under fire from the enemy, either, and you don’t hear them whining about it.
What do you think is worse, being under fire — in a situation where you know you could very well die, or being waterboarded — a situation in which you know you aren’t going to die?
Okay…so then you agree that the detainee can never say “stop” because the interrogators could always extract more, however spurious or tangential?
Okay. I am willing to add that as a third option. My point that claiming the detainee has a “choice” in his waterboarding remains.
I don’t understand why the quote is written in the 2nd person.
Dude, really? That part of the IG report sounds like a joke.
The only clear difference described was that it was for real? Ask SERE students how real they thought their situation was. Ask SERE students if they were so scared that their shook uncontrollably. Ask SERE students if they sang like canaries to their interrogators – why would they do that if it wasn’t real enough?
Sure they have a choice. They could choose not to be a terrorist, couldn’t they?
Amanpour is a limousine liberal married to Jamie Rubin, former Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for State Department under Clinton. So much for unbiased reporting.
Amanpour lived a privileged life in Iran under the Shah and fled, when the Islamic Revolution didn’t afford the life she became accustomed to.
What Amanpour and other liberals refuse to acknowledge; is the Obama Regime painted a massive bulls eye for terrorists upon Lower Manhattan and America at large, bringing the 911 perps to Federal Court instead of leaving them at Gitmo for completion of military tribunals.
Obama painted those bulls eyes with the blood of 911 victims.
Lastly; Tomorrow is the deadline in which Obama signed his first piece of legislation into law, promising to close Gitmo. He will fail to do that thus far and I’m damn glad about that.
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
Do you understand how waterboarding works? The entire point is to make the person feel as they are going to die. Every report I have heard of people that voluntarily undergo it is that they go in knowing they are going to be okay, telling himself that over and over, thinking the logical part of their brain will override its natural instinct. But once that water hits, all of that goes out the window and the person is convinced he is drowning. That is the entire point of it, in fact.
Thank GOD someone has called out Amanpour. She is the biggest anti-America reporter in the world.
I NEVER listen to her. I turn the channel EVERY TIME she is on TV. The only thing she cares about are stories that make America look bad.
She got us into the war in Kosovo because she was in a civil war and said we should be there to fight on the Muslim side. She didn’t care about other civil wars where Muslims fight against Muslims. She basically shamed Clinton into fighting on the Muslim side in Kosovo. . . without telling both sides of the story.
Amanpour needs to retire. She never gives any real or important news. She has made a career of telling stories specifically to make America look bad.
Amanpour, would you rather have stayed and grown up in Iran? I have never heard you utter a negative word about their ‘torture’. She only talks about things if she can put America in a bad light when talking about them.
I won’t even click on the video link because I just know the smarmy, know it all, condescending tone she’ll take right as she tells her listeners how terrible America is.
The memo was to the CIA. He is stating this is what the CIA represented to him is its rule. Which he relied on in making his legal opinion.
Of course it was. In the same way that you answer your critics – with blithe deflections. Read your own posts. Once I saw your technique (of not addressing the challenge), it became clear you did not want to confront the facts surrounding why waterboarding was or was not necessary. If you were a boxer the ref would be taking points from you.
By definition these are all arguments based on personal opinions, yours as well as the lawyers who presented the legal justifications for waterboarding in the first place. There is no right answer unless you are on the receiving end of the next “man-made disaster”.
Why do you have some notion that the detainee would say stop and it’s over.
The detainee might express a desire to cooperate at which time the pours might be suspended. Then questions would be asked. If the interrogators believe that the detainee is cooperating then they might lengthen the suspension. But if the detainee was merely hoping to answer a single question, then the pouring might be reinitiated. For certain detainees, they might continue to cooperate as long as the threat of waterboarding remains.
The post you were (and I use this term loosely) “arguing” against had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not waterboarding is or is not necessary. It was whether one could define torture based upon some sense of voluntary engagement in the same physical act.
Maybe that is why you can’t articulate an actual argument against my analogy. You don’t even know what my position is.
And that neither induces actual pain nor leaves any visible scares -
I do not. I think I have made that perfectly clear.
Let’s waterboard Chap and ask just one question everytime: What lies have you told in court in order to win a case.
See how many times it takes to get the truth. I’m guessing the fun could last forever.
Oops -Freudian slip! scares = scars
Is that your definition? If someone marched your son or wife up in front of you and started doing unspeakable things to them, are they torturing only them or are they torturing you as well?
Roger.
How do you know that all 183 pours lasted longer than 10 seconds?
Pours less than 10 seconds wouldn’t have been constraining.
I am not a trial lawyer. Sorry to disappoint.
You’re a lawyer.
Then why do you think it should be otherwise?
You do know that many lawyers never see the inside of a courtroom, no?
You all have to understand – chappy wants the terrorists to win. He believes that his position as aiding and abetting them will give him a place of privilege at their table.
Little does he know what the enemy does to the 5th column when they win…
I am not saying it should be one way or the other. Again, I am just rebutting the absurd notion that a detainee has a choice to stop it whenever he wants.
A table with no pork and no alcohol? Please. You don’t know me very well, do you?
So? That’s tough. They’re not going to die, and they know it. Nobody made them be terrorists — they chose it and I don’t feel sorry for them when they are exposed to the consequences.
Our brave military men and women willingly jeopardize their lives to save their fellows, and to save the lives of innocents. They take actions that they know can or even will end their lives. Yet, they don’t complain. In fact, almost to a one, they decline the title of “hero”.
Ask any of the savages in G’tmo whether they’d rather have gone there, possibly to face waterboarding, or have been turned into hamburger by a Sidewinder missile or 30mm helicopter fire. If they choose “hamburger”, well, we should oblige. Otherwise, they should quit whining, and simpering idiots who don’t understand war should quit whining on their behalf.
War is awful, nobody would disagree. But if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
An empathetical yes! I indicated as much in the story of Miracle.
Psychological torment is not torture, and neither is waterboarding.
I understand your position. That you choose to ignore challenges to it is not my problem. Maybe if you could articulate more clearly? Your Aikido technique is lovely though your rape “analogy” still remains weak.
I do. I also know that all lawyers are adversarial in their training. Meaning lawyers are schooled and indoctrinated to win at all cost. Stretching the truth and bending the rules is OK as long as you get the result you desire. Losing is not an option. Most lawyers do not care whether their clients are innocent/guilty, right/wrong it is their job to produce the outcome the client desires.
That said, arguing with you the merits of waterboarding is essentially a waste of time because you, as a lawyer, have determined waterboarding to be torture. You will argue against our position regardless of the facts and/or merits nor will you ever concede that we have convinced you to reconsider any portion of this discussion.
Oh, now that hurt my feelings.
I may not understand war, but I do understand stupid ad hominem and lack of logical capacity. Kudos to you on both.
Luck? Reminds me of Dirty Harry – “You have to ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky? Well do you punk?”
So Z, who do you feel lucky about? My family or yours? How about Obama? How many of your fellow citizens are you willing to sacrifice to luck??
Seems to me luck would have nothing to do with it, except in the case of the Fruit of the Boom Bomber. (h/t Rush) His not blowing up that plane sure was luck. However, his getting to that point was a failure of “good police work”.
I have yet to see one from you. Again, merely claiming an analogy is poor is not an argument. You do understand that, right?
So, if you would, please point out where you made an ACTUAL argument that my analogy was flawed.
I think, frankly, that is appalling.
What?
Didn’t I make it clear that immediate and sustained cooperations would terminate all waterboarding? Doesn’t that count?
How is that any different from incarcerating someone without due process for violating a subpoena? The S.Ct. has ruled that the detainee holds the keys to their own cell. Do you disagree with that?
And if you tell the judge that you will testify, but then cease your testimony after a few minutes, then you’d be back in jail without due process. Isn’t that the same thing?
Dude, he’s not a trial lawyer. He don’t know nothing about that.
Actually, its not. We have ethics boards that you are subject to if you are caught. How many other industries have that?
We also have to pay into a common fund, a “client protection fund” that compensates clients who are the victim of unscrupulous lawyers. If only all industries were that “unethical.”
No, you did not. You said:
Emphasis mine. The interrogator’s belief as to whether or not a detainee is cooperating fully is entirely different than the objective reality of whether or not a detainee is cooperating entirely. Again, the power to stop lies with the interrogator, not the detainee.
Only until you realize he has information that can keep your family or people whose lives you are responsible for from dying.
That is what you call a “moment of clarification.”
They don’t need to be. They have lawyers.
If it is something objective, like merely showing up in court, or producing such and such document, then yes.
if it is based on the Court’s opinion of whether or not someone in contempt is now complying, then no.
Nope. That is what you call 24-style fantasy land.
OK.
I’m speculating as to whether her background has anything to do with her bias, or with her worldview.
Enough…I am ignorant and indifferent as to how many angels are on the head of a pin.
Why did you think I was referring to you? Do you classify yourself as a simpering idiot?
For what it’s worth, I think I have advanced an entirely logical argument, which, in case I have failed to express it clearly, is as follows:
Waterboarding isn’t torture — if it were, it wouldn’t have required so many treatments to gain valuable information. The savages could have stopped it any any time by simply spilling the beans.
If we accept the proposition that the detainees found waterboarding so completely terrifying that they provided comprehensive information upon even the threat of being subject to it, and thus any treatment was gratuitous, well, that’s too bad. It’s a fairly safe bet that they would rather that than face a grisly death by Hellfire or AC-130 attack — something that goes on all the time; this is a “war”, after all.
The detainees chose to be exposed to one of the two alternatives. That point cannot be denied: They learn how to defeat interrogation in their training camps, so they must know it’s a possibility, but continue regardless.
Most people don’t feel bad about the discomfort of the terrorists when our brave military personnel willingly expose themselves to much, much worse.
I’d be grateful if you would point out the gap in my logic.
I like to keep it simple. I’m glad they got information out of him that prevented more death and destruction and I don’t care about the method they used. I’m sorry he isn’t in hell yet where he belongs.
I contend that the detainee has full power to make the interrogator believe that he is cooperating. So your distinction is meaningless.
Okay…
You assume, without basis, that it did take that many to extract the information.
I have already pointed out the profound fallacy of this point.
Why are you now claiming the very definition for torture you posited above is now pointless?
Those are just the ones I found in 20 seconds of reading.
I have no doubt that her background contributes to her worldview (which would include any bias).
I just don’t think her bias had anything to do with the despicable actions I remember. It was pure selfishness.
Convenient contention, that is. Anything to back it up?
Christiane Amanpour and her ilk would shrug at 10,000 dead Americans from a dirty bomb or a Beslan type attack on our schoolkids out of her own moral vanity.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t the falafel guy on the corner. He’s a brutal murder; it is said he is the one who sawed off Daniel Pearl’s head. He’s the guy who planned the deaths of thousands of Americans. He’s probably laughing his butt off because the effete people who preen on about their moral superiority because they treat their enemies better than their neighbors are the real weakness of the West. They live on Planet NPR, where up is down, black is white, and who are we to say somebody else is wrong…but we have met the enemy and it is us. Well, more correctly, it’s “you,” those who cling to their stupid guns and religion.
Bosh to all of that! The jihadists aren’t after the elites, they’re after the regular folks and all of those pot-scented touchy-feely old hippies aren’t going to save any of us with their lisping. Send Christiane’s butt back to her homies in Iran and see how she likes it wearing a potato sack all of the time and getting shot at by the mullah’s goons.
Off topic (actually…more on topic, but whatever)
corkie, what story are you referring to the Amanpour lied about? Or is it something you can’t discuss without giving up sources?