2,732
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:" We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
:" We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
So even as the ''Guardian'' stated, "implied" is clearly false. And the ''Christian Science Monitor'' article is pure defamatory, disinformation, wholey without a shred of credible merit, and patently false. Any claim on any subject from any of these organizations, or the authors involved, is henceforth suspect [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So even as the ''Guardian'' stated, "implied" is clearly false. And the ''Christian Science Monitor'' article is pure defamatory, disinformation, wholey without a shred of credible merit, and patently false. Any claim on any subject from any of these organizations, or the authors involved, is henceforth suspect [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
He said, "we don't torture," because he doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Why would he say it was a "very important tool" in that investigation, had it not been used? -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)