Take a look at this article. It would be too bad if the CIA isn't given the latitude to keep up these practices. I'm all for it!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/

I wouldnt worry about the CIA. But the authors of the legal rationalization- I would imagine they are sweating.

I wouldnt worry about the CIA. But the authors of the legal rationalization- I would imagine they are sweating.
Why? Considering these people have broken our laws, why should we be bound by any laws in return?

Sometimes two wrongs do make a right, 9/11 changed everything :smokin:

-spence

Why? Considering these people have broken our laws, why should we be bound by any laws in return?

Sometimes two wrongs do make a right, 9/11 changed everything :smokin:

-spence


I totally agree with this,,,,, This country better toughen up because the people who want to hurt us play on our softness,,,,

It is amazing to me how fast people have forgotten what terrorists and Islamic militants did to innocent Americans when they kidnapped them,,,,

It is amazing to me how fast people have forgotten what terrorists and Islamic militants did to innocent Americans when they kidnapped them,,,,

They cut their heads off.

Makes me think we should just cut the detainees heads off in response. Now that would get them talking.

-spence

Damn.. I thought this was a surfing thread..

Why? Considering these people have broken our laws, why should we be bound by any laws in return?


-spence

Its a dangerous precedent.

I only hope Obama is playing chess....

Have you taken a look at the Max security prison these guys go too? It's a 4 star hotel compared to where these terrorists live. A complete joke. I have trouble with this big time.

Have you taken a look at the Max security prison these guys go too? It's a 4 star hotel compared to where these terrorists live. A complete joke. I have trouble with this big time.

I dont know that western living standards are something terrorist are particularly concerned about. But 23.5 hrs in a cell for years on end is no weekend at Bernies.

Take a look at this article. It would be too bad if the CIA isn't given the latitude to keep up these practices. I'm all for it!

It's great. Aside from the fact that past intelligence officers have declared that no credible or useful evidence has ever been acquired through the techniques.

So yeah, let's continue to torture people even though previous experiences have shown them as an ineffective and unneeded practice.

3 square meals a day, healthcare, religious time, etc. JOKE! No matress, pee in cup or on the floor, if you get sick then you die, no lights, etc. These guys should have nothing and should live as long and painfully as possible. Too many good people died because of these radicals. They need to pay.

It's great. Aside from the fact that past intelligence officers have declared that no credible or useful evidence has ever been acquired through the techniques.

So yeah, let's continue to torture people even though previous experiences have shown them as an ineffective and unneeded practice.


I don't usually go off on these rants but being ex-military with a top level security clearance I had access to some sensitive stuff. It's too bad these documents got leaked out. I don't care if we got little or no information from these techniques. If it made them feel like they were going to die then good. They should suffer. Too many innocent hard working families are missing loved ones because of their jealousy of our freedoms and way of life.

After speaking about this with several Marine officers I know, about things like this, almost to a man they told me that this only proves the point that we shouldn't take prisoners. If they are caught in a combat zone, armed and have shot at US forces or their allies, they just get shot. Most of the ones I spoke too, said if they would have been the guy to find Saddam, they would have shot him and sworn it looked like he was going for a weapon. If there is a chance the guy will be released to harm their brother marines, they want to shoot first.

I don't usually go off on these rants but being ex-military with a top level security clearance I had access to some sensitive stuff. It's too bad these documents got leaked out. I don't care if we got little or no information from these techniques. If it made them feel like they were going to die then good. They should suffer. Too many innocent hard working families are missing loved ones because of their jealousy of our freedoms and way of life.

Yep, and they should realease the video so we can all enjoy the suffering.

-spence

Too many innocent hard working families are missing loved ones because of their jealousy of our freedoms and way of life.

Are you one of those people who think 9/11 happened over jealousy??

:rotf3::rotf3::rotf3::rotf3::rotf3:

Oil, religion, or whatever else caused 9/11, the fact is they committed an act that made an impact on many innocent people. I guess I'm not as smart as you to know the exact reasons why 9/11 happened. I don't know how you could laugh at any of this. All bets off with 9/11. I don't know why I got started on this thread. Too much coffee, pissed about the economy, and then I read that people who killed Americans and if they were free would kill more are being considered torture victims. Sore spot with me and it's personal. Think I'll leave this forum for awhile and cool down.

I don't usually go off on these rants but being ex-military with a top level security clearance I had access to some sensitive stuff. It's too bad these documents got leaked out. I don't care if we got little or no information from these techniques. If it made them feel like they were going to die then good. They should suffer. Too many innocent hard working families are missing loved ones because of their jealousy of our freedoms and way of life.

Too bad the documents got leaked out?

Because the US public shouldn't know that the government tortures people, in the name of saving lives. Yet, those who have been tortured never had any useful information. You're out of your mind.

If the torturing had yielded useful evidence, then you'd be cheering about the documents being released.

Also, the documents weren't "leaked out". They were released.

I don't think they're 'jealous of our freedoms'. I think they're pissed that we effed around in their own lands. Let's not forget that the United States used to have Bin Laden on their payroll during the 1980's Afghan wars.

Oil, religion, or whatever else caused 9/11, the fact is they committed an act that made an impact on many innocent people. I guess I'm not as smart as you to know the exact reasons why 9/11 happened.

Based on everything I've learned, in a nutshell...

Al Qaeda seeks to overthrow the Saudi government and establish what they feel is an Islamic government that's more true to the Koran instead of a corrput Saudi monarchy.

We're simply standing in their way, and they feel our economy is our underbelly. Hence the attack on the WTC 9/11.

The "they hate us for our freedoms" line is a bunch of crap.

All bets off with 9/11.
Well, no. The biggest gift we could give to terrorists is to cast aside our core values in response to their threat. This, more than anything, proves to the Islamic world that our system is just as flawed as the European and Socialist systems and dictatorships that bin Laden argues have failed muslims around the world.

-spence

After speaking about this with several Marine officers I know, about things like this, almost to a man they told me that this only proves the point that we shouldn't take prisoners. If they are caught in a combat zone, armed and have shot at US forces or their allies, they just get shot. Most of the ones I spoke too, said if they would have been the guy to find Saddam, they would have shot him and sworn it looked like he was going for a weapon. If there is a chance the guy will be released to harm their brother marines, they want to shoot first.

On this I'd tend to agree, to a point. It has to be very muddy in an urban combat zone against insurgents where the line between enemy and local is difficult to rapidly determine. In general we should give our troops freedom here and the benefit of doubt in the context of the situation.

That being said, they still have rules and must operate within appliable laws, as messy as the business of war is. To kill someone whom you believe to be unarmed for instance, just to make it easier, is ethically wrong IMHO and a very slippery slope.

-spence

3 square meals a day, healthcare, religious time, etc. JOKE! No matress, pee in cup or on the floor, if you get sick then you die, no lights, etc. These guys should have nothing and should live as long and painfully as possible. Too many good people died because of these radicals. They need to pay.

The vast majority of those held at GTMO were never charged with being radicals. Hell, most were set free...

But for those that we thought had information, the memos describe what the Government could legally do to them. For instance, as David Corn commented...

For example, a detainee, according to the memos, could be handcuffed and shackled--with the handcuffs attached to a chain from the ceiling--and forced to stand naked (except for an adult diaper) for 180 hours in order to deprive him of sleep (not, mind you, to induce pain). Then this person could be thrown against a "flexible false wall" a few times. He could be slapped in the face and abdomen. He could be placed in a cramped space. He could be doused with water as cold as 41 degrees Fahrenheit. And then waterboarded. Throughout all this, the detainee, according to the memos, would be carefully monitored by CIA medical personnel to make sure he is not truly harmed. And the rules discussed in the Justice Department memos do indicate the CIA med teams were supposed to be fastidious and prudent. (If the detainee suffered swelling in his legs or feet because of being forced to stand for too long, he would be shackled in a sitting or horizontal position in which he could not sleep.)


This sure doesn't sound like a picnic to me.

Doesn't sound a lot like America either.

It does sound like the kind of behavior America has long stood against.

Now I have no love for those who have done us wrong, but I wish for swift justice, not sadistic suffering.

-spence

The biggest gift we could give to terrorists is to cast aside our core values in response to their threat. This, more than anything, proves to the Islamic world that our system is just as flawed as the European and Socialist systems and dictatorships that bin Laden argues have failed muslims around the world.

-spence

Like we sould care less what they think about our
core values, and i don't think they care either.

Does bin Laden argue we have failed the Muslim people or their relegion?

1993-WTC bombing- Yousef, Al Qaeda trained ,6 innocents killed over 1000 wounded. 17 kindergatners trapped 5 hours in an elevator.

2000- USS Cole 17 killed 40 injured. Al Queda took credit.

2001-9/11 3000 innocents killed over 6000 injured.

These were all pre-meditated attacks by ununiformed combatents by Al Queda.

While I'm against outright torture, to use the Geneva, name, rank and serial #
rules for un ununiformed combatents is ludicrous.

Like i should care what these killers think of our core values.

Personaly i could care less what they think about our core values, and i don't think they care either.
Ok, then what do you think about our core values? If you agree that torture is wrong, but we have tortured doesn't that bother you? Nobody is asking for a Hogan's Heros style of detainment. I think most rational folks understand the difference, and it's not black and white.

The primary reason al Qaeda seems to get so much support among moderates is because the arguement that the West is against Islam has been reinforced by our actions. Why else would we compramise the rule of law, something that we've held high for 200+ years?

-spence

what next? torturing murder and rape suspects?

they still have rules and must operate within appliable laws, as messy as the business of war is. To kill someone whom you believe to be unarmed for instance, just to make it easier, is ethically wrong IMHO and a very slippery slope.

-spence

The laws of war, those four words are probably the largest oxymoron of all time.

I am not finding fault with what you said Spence, and I did cut up your post somewhat. The only law in any war from my point of view is that american soldiers come home whole and unharmed. Sorry, but even unarmed civilians could be lookouts. If that civilian is going to give away a plan or position of troops, go, be with allah, Mr. Civilian. That being said, you can't kill everyone you see, while at war.

Ok, then what do you think about our core values? If you agree that torture is wrong, but we have tortured doesn't that bother you?

-spence

I think our core value of not inflicting excuciating pain to our combatant prisoners is good. Having said that, stress standing positions, exposing prisoners to cold or 100deg heat and sleep deprevation is not ,imo excruciating pain.
Our own Seals and Special Forces go through that as part of their training.
Personally i'm against waterboarding as i couldn't do that to someone myself.
Bring on the truth serum, long hours of interrigation, and sleep deprivation.

We need a new policy for ununiformed terrorists, whoops sorry-"man-caused disasters", somewhere between the Geneva Rules for uniformed comdbatents and those ununiformed who use terrorist tatctics to kill innocent citizens.

Btw, ya didn't answer my question - Does bin Laden argue we have failed the Muslim people or their relegion?

I think our core value of not inflicting excuciating pain to our combatant prisoners is good. Having said that, stress standing positions, exposing prisoners to cold or 100deg heat and sleep deprevation is not ,imo excruciating pain.
Our own Seals and Special Forces go through that as part of their training.
From what I've seen on special forces interrogation training makes it appear to be very intense and realistic, and I'd even bet that many people forget they are being trained.

But even that being said, it's not the same thing. Oh and I might add that our troops have volunteered for the training!

We need a new policy for ununiformed terrorists, whoops sorry-"man-caused disasters", somewhere between the Geneva Rules for uniformed comdbatents and those ununiformed who use terrorist tatctics to kill innocent citizens.
Terrorists are still terrorists, you're reading the talking points wrong :laugha:

But I'd agree and it's something I argued Bush should have done once we were in Afghanistan. If other countries didn't agree at least you made the effort and can claim more freedom to do what you think is right. Instead, Bush simply claimed that rules no longer applied to the USA while he demanded every other country followed the letter of the law.

Btw, ya didn't answer my question - Does bin Laden argue we have failed the Muslim people or their relegion?

Bin Laden is a master manipulator so I wouldn't put it past him to have argued just about every aspect of this issue. But generally speaking, his ilk say that the current and past systems have failed the people. Some certainly will argue that the systems are not compatible with the religion.

But it's important to note here that not all militant Muslims take to violence for the same reasons. Most of it traditionally has been political in nature. Religious violence is newer and is exacerbated by the political violence. Most importantly though is that it's not a unified threat against the West as portrayed by Bush, who has lumped Iran, al Qaeda and Hamas into the same bucket and pretended there's a one size fits all solution. In reality there are multiple facets to the overall threat and groups derive motivation from many, if not often local, inputs.

In the end we should stay true to our values, carry a big stick and see problems for what they really are. I think the American people are smart enough to comprehend a little nuance.

-spence

3 square meals a day, healthcare, religious time, etc. JOKE! No matress, pee in cup or on the floor, if you get sick then you die, no lights, etc. These guys should have nothing and should live as long and painfully as possible. Too many good people died because of these radicals. They need to pay.

Amen Brother Amen!

[B]Oh and I might add that our troops have volunteered for the training![/B

-spence

__________________________________________________ __________

AND MAY I ADD THAT THE TERRORISTS,OR PC "MAN-MADE DISASTERS", VOLUNTEER FOR TRAINING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE !

You prolly went through as much excruciating pain as a memeber of your college varsity karate team. ;)

I don't use "talking points", wouldn't know where to find them even if i wanted too. :doh:
Just use what i see, hear, read and when sorted out, what my common sense tells me.

Your answer to the question is interesting.

AND MAY I ADD THAT THE TERRORISTS,OR PC "MAN-MADE DISASTERS", VOLUNTEER FOR TRAINING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE !
I think you're missing the point.

We're using these interrogation techniques on prisoners whom we simply believe might have information. You're presuming they're guilty or that everyone we've captured is a terrorist. This just isn't the case. There are credible examples of people being detained, shipped to rendition centers, tortured and then dropped on the street because they were found to have no informational value.

There is difference between someone who becomes a Jihadist because they think Islam is under attack, someone who shoots at Americans because we're driving down their street, and someone who's plotting to proactively kill Americans or attack our interests.

You prolly went through as much excruciating pain as a memeber of your college varsity karate team. ;)
That's um, a different kind of pain :hihi:

I don't use "talking points", wouldn't know where to find them even if i wanted too. :doh:
Just use what i see, hear, read and when sorted out, what my common sense tells me.
It was a joke.

Your answer to the question is interesting.
How so?

Rereading my post I'd not that when I say religious violence being newer, I'm speaking in the context of modern Jihad this century rather than historic Jihad's since the Crusades. To some (like Bin Laden) they are the same, but in practical terms they can be thought of quite differently.

-spence

I think the American people are smart enough to comprehend a little nuance.

-spence

Spence, there's a lot that we see eye-to-eye on. However, I don't think you could be more inaccurate with that statement.

In general, the American people are idiots. People in this country lack any sense of foresight or critical thinking skills. There is very much a mentality of "the news said it, so it must be true."

People splinter into their cliques, watch one station for news, don't research issues further and then complain about what's happening right this minute. There is no sense of yesterday or tomorrow, only this minute.

Unfortunately, those of us that occupy this forum are not an accurate representation of the American public in whole. The people that post in here (well most, there are some here that *are* representative of the ignorant American public) are intelligent people, capable of forming their own opinions. While some of what's posted here may sometimes be regurgitation of what was read on the internet or heard on the morning talk-radio show, there is almost always critical thinking behind it.

Spence is opposed to waterboarding because it brings back bad memories of getting swirlies from the tough guys in the math club back in high school. To this day, he still can't go into public restrooms unless they have locking doors.

Spence is opposed to waterboarding because it brings back bad memories of getting swirlies from the tough guys in the math club back in high school. To this day, he still can't go into public restrooms unless they have locking doors.

Had you been in math club you'd know there were no tough guys :musc:

-spence

I was implying that they were tough compared to you, Spence. Of course, if you got your entire home economics club together to take them on it would have been a real donnybrook. Is it true that you used to keep a rolling pin in your bookbag for protection?

Is it true that you used to keep a rolling pin in your bookbag for protection?
I really didn't have much need for protection. The thugs knew if they took me out they wouldn't have a bookie.

You see, we practiced applied mathmatics :lama:

-spence

Most importantly though is that it's not a unified threat against the West as portrayed by Bush, who has lumped Iran, al Qaeda and Hamas into the same bucket and pretended there's a one size fits all solution.

-spence
__________________________________________________ ___________

Hmm no, i didn't miss the point, just filling in all the blanks. :hihi:

In answer to your question,what i found interesting was your quote above..

If my memory serves me right, and it hasn't always at times lately :),
I remember Busch after 9/11 declaring war on terror wherever it was, where terrorists were killing innocents.

It was to be a new kind of war,
taking decades to fight using intelligence, disruption of terror $ and communication, and taking pre-emptive strikes where needed with new as well as old tactics.

Doesn't seem to me like he lumped or used one size fits all tactics in dealing with the three you mentioned.

War is hell , I think the american people get to much info for there own good , this country has done fine in the past so dont knock it know . I have faith in our military and armed forces more than I have in the lieing back stabing polititians that bull .... there way into office. This country needs to be ruthless if its going to survive this war ....The first bomb they blow up over here youll see these bleeding heart libs begging someone to help them ...Thats a fact jack

If my memory serves me right, and it hasn't always at times lately :),
I remember Busch after 9/11 declaring war on terror wherever it was, where terrorists were killing innocents.

It was to be a new kind of war,
taking decades to fight using intelligence, disruption of terror $ and communication, and taking pre-emptive strikes where needed with new as well as old tactics.

Doesn't seem to me like he lumped or used one size fits all tactics in dealing with the three you mentioned.
Bush certainly took the position that the post 9/11 world required a new approach to security. But think about how he decided to apply this new approach. Saddam and Bin Laden were treated as the same regardless of the reality. Iran and Bin Laden were treated as the same regardless of the reality. Political terrorism like in Chechnya or Palestine was mixed with Religious extremism like in Pakistan as if they all had the same root causes.

The only common factor is Islam, yet Bush insists we're not at war with Islam. This is the contradiction that's been exploited to gain sympathy for those who do mean to do us harm. People (on the Right) are always trying to knock this, who cares what they think etc..., but the reality is that without mainstream sympathy the real terror organizations have little leverage.

The big problem with the Bush approach is that he had an opportunity to divide these challenges and deal with them as more fragmented issues. Instead they largely used the rhetoric around terrorism to win domestic elections, and in the process have driven our enemies closer together.

-spence

Obama won...he has apologized for US and we no longer have any enemies...didn't you get the memo..? it's just a matter of time......

The rest of the story is that we actually obtained some high value information using these techniques, unfortunately I didn't notice the article on the front page of the Providence Urinal today like the initial article. In fact we thwarted a 9/11 style attack on LA. In the end no one was killed by being waterboarded and no Americans died in a terror attack. Was it worth it, ask your aquaintences who live in LA.

In fact we thwarted a 9/11 style attack on LA. In the end no one was killed by being waterboarded and no Americans died in a terror attack. Was it worth it, ask your aquaintences who live in LA.

Did we now? And that was as a result of torturing 2 prisoners that didn't give up any useful information, according to a Bush security adviser. It has been brought up more than a few times by past security officials that little, if any, useful information was acquired.

Between the two of them, the prisoners were waterboarded 266 times. Can you somehow explain to me what they could get out of the 266th waterboarding that they couldn't get from the 200th?

While torturing at all is illegal and the appropriate people should be prosecuted, people overlook the excessive use of those actions that took place as well.

One last thing, there is no clear information that any attack on LA was thwarted. Cheney *hinted* that a 9/11 attack on LA *might* have been thwarted. But because the idea was *hinted* at, supporters of the previous administration are spinning the hell out of it and stating it as fact.

After the numerous infringements on the privacy of average American citizens, I refuse to believe the Bush administration would not be extremely public about preventing a 9/11 sized attack. They had lost all credibility and fought an uphill battle for the last 3 years he was in office. This would have given Bush the much needed boost to push through more of the Big Brother policies that he wanted enacted.

[quote=JohnnyD;683387]Between the two of them, the prisoners were waterboarded 266 times. Can you somehow explain to me what they could get out of the 266th waterboarding that they couldn't get from the 200th?

Cleaner forehead!


It begged to be said, couldn't resist.

Did we now? And that was as a result of torturing 2 prisoners that didn't give up any useful information, according to a Bush security adviser. It has been brought up more than a few times by past security officials that little, if any, useful information was acquired.

Between the two of them, the prisoners were waterboarded 266 times. Can you somehow explain to me what they could get out of the 266th waterboarding that they couldn't get from the 200th?

While torturing at all is illegal and the appropriate people should be prosecuted, people overlook the excessive use of those actions that took place as well.

One last thing, there is no clear information that any attack on LA was thwarted. Cheney *hinted* that a 9/11 attack on LA *might* have been thwarted. But because the idea was *hinted* at, supporters of the previous administration are spinning the hell out of it and stating it as fact.

After the numerous infringements on the privacy of average American citizens, I refuse to believe the Bush administration would not be extremely public about preventing a 9/11 sized attack. They had lost all credibility and fought an uphill battle for the last 3 years he was in office. This would have given Bush the much needed boost to push through more of the Big Brother policies that he wanted enacted.



you torture people everyday....:wavey:

you torture people everyday....:wavey:

I guess, if you consider thoughtful opinions based on facts, as opposed to copy/pastes of some Conservatives "commentary" that many take as fact.

:whackin:

The big problem with the Bush approach is that he had an opportunity to divide these challenges and deal with them as more fragmented issues. Instead they largely used the rhetoric around terrorism to win domestic elections, and in the process have driven our enemies closer together.

-spence

Spence, you made some good points in your reply.
We could go round and round on this forever. :deadhorse:

While i didn't agree with Bush on A LOT of his policies, even hindsight on the terrorist attacks forgets
we were flying by the seat of our pants in unknown threats.
Mistakes were made for sure, but we were kept safe for his entire term.

For me and my family living 16 miles from ground zero, my son in law, a pilot flying a 767 that morning non stop to LA from Kennedy leaving at 8 am, not knowing his plane was safe until 11:30, loosing 2 young friends of ours in the towers and knowing what their families still go through, and knowing we are in close proximity to other possible targets,
I for one am very greatful for his keeping us safe.

It's easy to Monday morning 1/4 back, but you have to give him credit, if for nothing else, his policy worked in keeping us safe.
Glad I didn't have to make any of those decisions.

Given that many of our torture techn. were copied from China, perhaps we need to update them. Maybe (like we did w/German rocket scientists after WWII), we can find some taliban who want to cooperate or that we got to "cooperate" and let them run wild. Give them a little piano wire and some steel pipe and they should be all set. These are different times, we have to forget out morals and values b/c our enemy has none of those.

I guess, if you consider thoughtful opinions based on facts, as opposed to copy/pastes of some Conservatives "commentary" that many take as fact.

:whackin:

You have spouted the "fact" that no information was aquired from CIA tactics. How about some info to back up the claim. No copy/pastes please.

You have spouted the "fact" that no information was aquired from CIA tactics. How about some info to back up the claim. No copy/pastes please.

I have already addressed this at least a half dozen times.

There's a difference between citing a source based on facts and just copy and pasting a commentary and inferring an opinion is fact.:p


As an aside, buckman did you see in the Mansfield News how many teachers were pink slipped this past Friday?

While i didn't agree with Bush on A LOT of his policies, even hindsight on the terrorist attacks forgets
we were flying by the seat of our pants in unknown threats.
Right after 9/11 I'd agree. And at that time I thought the Administration acted with a pretty cool head. It was after we had a chance to think about our actions that things really went awry. That worries me...
Mistakes were made for sure, but we were kept safe for his entire term.
Did he?

Firstly, I've never heard anything that indicates we've stopped any credible terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Most of the successes touted by Bush have been a bunch of half-wits tricked into guilt by the FBI.

After 9/11, there have been many serious terrorist attacks outside of the US on our allies, London, Madrid etc...

And perhaps most importantly. Since 9/11 we've lost 4273 American service members in Iraq, another 1000 or so contractors and what will be over a trillion in spending. All for what as a result? To overthrow a dictator who wasn't involved in 9/11 and posed little threat to the USA? To free a country that's probably going to be closer to Iran than us when it's all said and done?

It doesn't sound like we've kept Americans all that safe.

For me and my family living 16 miles from ground zero, my son in law, a pilot flying a 767 that morning non stop to LA from Kennedy leaving at 8 am, not knowing his plane was safe until 11:30, loosing 2 young friends of ours in the towers and knowing what their families still go through, and knowing we are in close proximity to other possible targets, I for one am very greatful for his keeping us safe.

It's easy to Monday morning 1/4 back, but you have to give him credit, if for nothing else, his policy worked in keeping us safe.
Glad I didn't have to make any of those decisions.
I don't think any of this has been easy, and I'm not one who believes that Bush or Cheney are evil. I do think they did what they thought was good for the American people.

That being said, I think at times they've (or more importanly those around around them) have conflated US interests with their own interests.

I've said often and I'll say again. Stay a true course and people will forgive your mistakes. But if you're often straying then things are open for scruitny. It seems like Bush strayed and often...

-spence

Did he?

Firstly, I've never heard anything that indicates we've stopped any credible terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

-spence

No sense in speculating on that, none of us will ever know for sure,
unless top secret documents are released at some time, if ever.

We weren't attacked on our own soil after 9/11 and that is ALL we know for sure.

I hope that continues under Obama's watch.

No sense in speculating on that, none of us will ever know for sure,
unless top secret documents are released at some time, if ever.

We weren't attacked on our own soil after 9/11 and that is ALL we know for sure.

I hope that continues under Obama's watch.
My hope is that our interests are not attacked, which might be very difficult to stop.

As bad as 9/11 was, a nuke or like minded attack in the Middle East could prove to be far, far worse.

-spence

We will know about what plans may or may not have been foiled if someone gets charged with a crime in relation to the waterboarding uproar. Any defendent will have access through evidence disclosure. We all know secrets wont be divulged, so no one in the end will be charged. So in essense all Obama is doing is using the torture for his own political gain, which is cheap. At least Bush was trying to elicit plans for other 9-11's before they happened. And I'm not saying torture is the way to go, at least all the time. But what is worse, making solid your political career, or trying to save us more torment.

We will know about what plans may or may not have been foiled if someone gets charged with a crime in relation to the waterboarding uproar. Any defendent will have access through evidence disclosure.

You are right Swimmer, if Leahy and Congers have their way and Obama goes along,
all that top secret info will be exposed.

Very dangerous precedent will be set if they go ahead with this, as every
administration's policies in the future will be subject to be scrutinized after
their terms, when policies are changed.

Talk about dividing the country.

My hope is that our interests are not attacked, which might be very difficult to stop.

As bad as 9/11 was, a nuke or like minded attack in the Middle East could prove to be far, far worse.

-spence

As long as no one from my family was in the Middle EAst and there were no significant American casualties I can give an F less if there is attack there. How an attack on foreign soil can be worse than one of US soil is beyond comprehension to me.

As long as no one from my family was in the Middle EAst and there were no significant American casualties I can give an F less if there is attack there. How an attack on foreign soil can be worse than one of US soil is beyond comprehension to me.
First off it would probably shut off 1/3 of the oil flowing to global markets throwing our economy off the edge. Then the energy wars begin...

-spence

still better than having american's dying in their offices and work places. Better than kids waiting to be picked up from school and their parents never show.

I dont want to see anyone in any country die, but my preference will always be that its them, and not us.

"What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight... is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings."

-General David Petraeus

still better than having american's dying in their offices and work places. Better than kids waiting to be picked up from school and their parents never show.

I dont want to see anyone in any country die, but my preference will always be that its them, and not us.

If the Middle East erupts into fire we're going to be sending a lot of our kids and parents to die outside of this country.

Hell, we've already lost 4200+ in Iraq not counting civilian contractors and another 600+ in Afghanistan. This isn't an argument that we should or should not fight, but don't these deaths and their families count?

-spence

If the Middle East erupts into fire we're going to be sending a lot of our kids and parents to die outside of this country.

Hell, we've already lost 4200+ in Iraq not counting civilian contractors and another 600+ in Afghanistan. This isn't an argument that we should or should not fight, but don't these deaths and their families count?

-spence

They sure do. They are the best and bravest this country has to offer.

However, I'm not sure we have a choice but to bring the fight to them. We never fight battles on our own soil and I would just assume we keep it that way.

However, I'm not sure we have a choice but to bring the fight to them. We never fight battles on our own soil and I would just assume we keep it that way.
We've been fortunate in that we have ideal geographic location, aside from very long borders.

To be honest I think we've grown so accustomed to the fight being "over there" that it's given (North) Americans a very different perspective on war than most every other country.

The "big picture" trap here, that many US Presidents have fallen into, and that our Founding Fathers warned of, is the continued extension of US force around the world.

The fall of the British Empire is a good lesson in that we can't just assume we can fight all our battles on TV. Perhaps we need to be more selective as to where and when we apply power.

-spence

Our next war will be in Pakastan. The Taliban are moving towards a takeover of the Northwest areas. The Govornment will fall and they will move into the leadership vacuum. Then they will control the nukes. Scary thought, but inevitable without the US stepping in. No diplomacy will work here.

Our next war will be in Pakastan. The Taliban are moving towards a takeover of the Northwest areas. The Govornment will fall and they will move into the leadership vacuum. Then they will control the nukes. Scary thought, but inevitable without the US stepping in. No diplomacy will work here.

Pakistan has a very large military controlled by secular leadership. The chance that nukes would fall into the hands of the Taliban is still very remote. I'd be more concerned with loose Russian nukes at this point.

Remember as well that Pakistan is a pretty big country, and it's only the northwestern corner which has radicalized. Clinton has been pretty vocal of late that the policy to allow Sharia Law was a mistake and the Pakistani Government must do more to contain religious extremists.

I think that before the US has a large military event in Pakistan we'd see India making a play. Right now they're both US allies and in the near term India has a lot more to loose.

All that being said, the area does have the potential for explosion, as does the Middle East.

-spence

"Waterboarding stopped a West Coast 911."

This seems to be 'slightly' inaccurate.

The 9/11-sized event was prevented in February 2002. However, the terrorist that Cheney/Rove claim yielded information on the event was apprehended in March 2003.

I must ask, why are we suppose to believe a word anyone from the previous administration says? They cannot even get the dates of their lies in line.

"Waterboarding stopped a West Coast 911."

This seems to be 'slightly' inaccurate.

The 9/11-sized event was prevented in February 2002. However, the terrorist that Cheney/Rove claim yielded information on the event was apprehended in March 2003.

I must ask, why are we suppose to believe a word anyone from the previous administration says? They cannot even get the dates of their lies in line.

2 separate west coast instances that were stopped. you are confusing the time of one with the other.

2 separate west coast instances that were stopped. you are confusing the time of one with the other.

Care to cite any references to back up your assertion?

And I think one must be careful with the assertion that an attack was "stopped". I'd wager that the number of terror attacks that actually become real threats (i.e. have proper funding, resources timing etc...) is very small.

Granted, any disruption is a good thing, but if we get word that two guys in Singapore are talking about attacking Americans and break it up that doesn't necessarily mean that an attack has been "stopped" as it may have never had a likely chance of becoming real in the first place.

I'd also note that we probably do disrupt a lot of early planning due to regular anti-terror activities that target funding, communication etc...some of this is credible and I'd think a lot of it is just noise. This must present a huge challenge for the CIA/FBI/NSA trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

All that being said, I still haven't heard much on credible attacks that have been thwarted, and certainly nothing that you could say wouldn't have happened without torture, which is really the point.

-spence

Our next war will be in Pakastan. The Taliban are moving towards a takeover of the Northwest areas. The Govornment will fall and they will move into the leadership vacuum. Then they will control the nukes. Scary thought, but inevitable without the US stepping in. No diplomacy will work here.

Yep, and while we have our front lines and thousands of troops in AFG, our only real supply line goes through Pakistan / Khyber Pass...

Pakistan has a very large military controlled by secular leadership. The chance that nukes would fall into the hands of the Taliban is still very remote. I'd be more concerned with loose Russian nukes at this point.

Remember as well that Pakistan is a pretty big country, and it's only the northwestern corner which has radicalized. Clinton has been pretty vocal of late that the policy to allow Sharia Law was a mistake and the Pakistani Government must do more to contain religious extremists.

I think that before the US has a large military event in Pakistan we'd see India making a play. Right now they're both US allies and in the near term India has a lot more to loose.

All that being said, the area does have the potential for explosion, as does the Middle East.

-spence


Hey sizzlecheeks:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/taliban_advance_east.php

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6164687.ece

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan

Yep, and while we have our front lines and thousands of troops in AFG, our only real supply line goes through Pakistan / Khyber Pass...




Hey sizzlecheeks:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/taliban_advance_east.php

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6164687.ece

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan

I like how your first link starts with a quote on the Taliban's progress from an Islamist leader :tooth:

But it looks like the Taliban is already in retreat as they've overstepped their bounds. I still maintain that the Pakistani Army of 500,000 active and another 500,000 reserves isn't going to let the Taliban take over.

That being said, I also noted it was ripe for flame up. Could get ugly...

-spence

I like how your first link starts with a quote on the Taliban's progress from an Islamist leader :tooth:

But it looks like the Taliban is already in retreat as they've overstepped their bounds. I still maintain that the Pakistani Army of 500,000 active and another 500,000 reserves isn't going to let the Taliban take over.

That being said, I also noted it was ripe for flame up. Could get ugly...

-spence

I think that we are in for some big problems over there. The Paks are more worried about India than they are than what is happening in their own yard. On top of that, a sizeable percentage of the inteligence services and the military sympathize (if not members of) the Taleban. Yeh, its going to suck badly.

2 separate west coast instances that were stopped. you are confusing the time of one with the other.

I'm not confusing anything.

Bush, Rove and Cheney have all said at one time or another that the attack planned in 2002 was prevented with the intelligence they received from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. However, he was not tortured for information until March 2003.

There's nothing to confuse.

there were no attacks planned on America...it's all made up to justify the horrors of waterboarding....

hey, for the folks...democrats in washington and liberals everywhere that are just "OURTRAGED" that their country engaged in the brutal and unspeakable procedure known as waterboarding, how the world views us as a result and it's use on "3" terrorists so far as I can see ....

aren't many of you the same people that barely blink when asked about abortion and all of it's forms? our fearless leader has condoned the procedure(AND NOW ARRANGED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR) right up to the point that if you happen to survive THE TORTURE OF LATE TERM ABORTION..... you get no medical assistance.....simply expire in a closet....huh?

which would you prefer?....water poured over your head to simulate drowning.....or....being dragged through a tight space then having something jabbed into your brain to hopefully cause you death ? I know that the latter occurs far more frequently in this country each year...the former are mass murders or potential mass murderers and the later...well.....we'll never know now will we???

WHY SHOULD AMERICA EVER BE PUNISHED WITH A TERRORIST???
WE DIDN'T WANT THEM....
THEY SNUCK IN WHEN WE WEREN"T USING PROPER PROTECTION...
WE CAN"T AFFORD TO HAVE THEM AROUND.....
AND THEY"LL PROBABLY NEVER AMOUNT TO ANYTHING...I MEAN...WHAT KIND OF LIVES WILL THEY HAVE IF LEFT TO DEVELOP???

If we are going to release "torture" photos/videos
We need to release to the public pictures and video of partial birth abortions along with accurate statistics so that the public can know and see what is being done...

let the public decide which is more heinous.....

what do you think the polls would be after watching both..... side by side...partial birth abortion of LITTLE BABIES vs. waterboarding TERRORISTS????
Clearly the dems in Washington and many of their supporters have decided which they find more troubling...YIKES!!!!

I THINK WE OWE THE WORLD A BIG APOLOGY!!!!

ABORT TERRORISTS...SUPPORT PLANNED RADICAL ISLAMISTHOOD

Well that is quite the typical conservative response to being proven wrong...

Act ridiculous and completely stop making any sense at all.

Got Bush through 8 years.

Care to cite any references to back up your assertion?
-spence

Sure,,, let me just run to the base, and ask the Admiral if I can get those declassified. May take a while as he'd have to get approval from the Whitehouse, but I'm sure once he tells them I need it because some Liberal on a fishing board online doesn't wanna listen to sense, they will jump right on it..... :call:

If Bush "misspoke" on the dates, well he did get confused from time to time. :bl:

If Bush "misspoke" on the dates, well he did get confused from time to time. :bl:
Several people in the Administration made the assertion on several different occasions, this isn't based on one Bush gaffe.

To be honest there's so much disinformation floating around it's difficult to know what's believable, although the reports from people who report to have actually been there seem pretty consistent.

-spence

It may or may not work. They might or might not have stopped an attack. It may or may not have even been "torture". But I don't see anyone on this board a victim of a terrorist attack since 9/11 so I say... Job well done.

Well that is quite the typical conservative response to being proven wrong...

Act ridiculous and completely stop making any sense at all.

Got Bush through 8 years.

I know JD...it must be tough for the libs...one day you are voting for a guy that supports infanticide...and the next day you are whining because a couple of the worlds most evil inhabitants have been tickle tortured....tough position to find yourself in...I'll never understand it ....btw...it makes perfect sense, you just don't like what it clearly points out ...

.it makes perfect sense, you just don't like what it clearly points out ...

it points out that this administration is capable of making decisions based not on idealology but on common sense. Not decisions based on who is good or bad, but what is right and wrong.

it points out that this administration is capable of making decisions based not on idealology but on common sense. Not decisions based on who is good or bad, but what is right and wrong.

:jump::jump: Right, that's it.

:jump::jump: Right, that's it.

I, for one, finally welcome an administration that doesn't let the Bible dictate every non-commerce related decision.

It may or may not work. They might or might not have stopped an attack. It may or may not have even been "torture". But I don't see anyone on this board a victim of a terrorist attack since 9/11 so I say... Job well done.

Yes, that pretty much sums up their "ends justify the means" justification that started us down this slippery slope. I don't think I could have been more concise had I tried.

-spence

it points out that this administration is capable of making decisions based not on idealology but on common sense. Not decisions based on who is good or bad, but what is right and wrong.

Neither side owns right and wrong.

-spence

Neither side owns right and wrong.

-spence

Sure they do.
we're married.
hence, always rong

When did Waterboarding NOT become torture?

when the terrorist waterboardee got up and walked away unscathed...

Neither side owns right and wrong.

-spence

your right. my point is that hopefully our leadership will be more common sense based and not based on ideology.

..."it points out that this administration is capable of making decisions based not on idealology but on common sense." Nebe

REALLY???



CNN.com Ruben Navarrette


SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- For someone who insists he is personally opposed to torture, President Obama has a rhetorical knack for it.

This week, Obama tortured the right, left and center with his parsing, hedging, and flip-flopping on newly released Bush-era torture memos and what to do about them.

Along the way, he also tortured logic and consistency, making a total mess of his own position. Only the most die-hard Obama supporters -- those who are invested to the hilt in his presidency and find it hard to see the blemishes -- could deny this.

Obama angered Republicans by releasing the confidential documents, over objections by CIA Director Leon Panetta and Bush administration officials who worried that it would telegraph to terrorists how far U.S. interrogators are permitted to go in trying to extract information.

But he also disappointed Democrats by ruling out the prosecution of interrogators who might have engaged in what some define as torture and initially suggesting that the lawyers who had advised them wouldn't be prosecuted either because, as Obama said several days ago, "this is a time for reflection, not retribution."

And then, this week, while this middle-of-the-road approach was being applauded by those in the center who smile on nuance, he flummoxed them by reversing course and suggesting that the whole matter of whether the three former Bush Justice Department lawyers who wrote the memos -- Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo -- ought to be prosecuted should be decided by Attorney General Eric Holder.


Nice. And I bet you thought the two men were friends. With friends like Obama, Holder should run out and buy a flak jacket. No matter what Holder decides, he will be criticized. And for all the hay that Senate Democrats made about how former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales allegedly politicized the Justice Department, it's ironic that Obama was so quick to drag his own attorney general into a political firestorm.

Besides, how do you go about prosecuting lawyers for simply offering legal opinions when asked for them? They've broken no law.

A friend of mine who heads up an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union concedes that is new territory but suggests there could be a case if the opinions were intentionally fraudulent or overly ideological.

I can imagine the same argument from conservatives the next time a liberal-leaning state attorney general issues a legal opinion supporting gay marriage. Just because a lawyer comes back with an opinion you don't like doesn't make it a crime. If Holder says otherwise, good luck to him the next time he asks one of the hundreds of lawyers in his own agency for an opinion on a politically sensitive matter.

Most disturbingly of all, by passing the buck on such an important issue, Obama has fallen short on the Harry Truman leadership scale. This is precisely why we elect a president -- to deal with tough issues, the adjudication of which is never going to make everyone happy. A real leader accepts that fact going in and doesn't cower in the face of it.

For what it's worth, on the issue of torture, I've changed my own view since September 11, 2001. For several years after the terrorist attacks, I bought the argument that the United States couldn't afford to torture terror suspects.

But now, acknowledging that the Bush administration did something right in preventing more attacks, I've come around to the view that we can't afford to take any option away from interrogators as they try to prevent an attack that could cost thousands of lives.

Too many Americans keep forgetting that the threat we face is real, and unrelenting. In fact, the Bush administration claimed that just a few months after 9/11, it thwarted a planned attack on Los Angeles where al Qaeda intended to use shoe bombers to hijack an airplane and fly it into the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in the city. If enhanced interrogation played a role in foiling that plot, wouldn't it have been worth the cost?

After all the bobbing and weaving this week, I'm not really sure what President Obama believes about torture or what to do with those who authorize it. And, at this point, I don't care.

All I care about is that Obama choose a position and sticks to it, and that, as commander-in-chief, he fully grasps the enormous responsibilities that came with the office.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette.

HI Nebe....:wavey:....no fish yet...

when the terrorist waterboardee got up and walked away unscathed...

Was that the standard after WWII when we prosecuted waterboarding as war crimes?

HI Nebe....:wavey:....no fish yet...

we got em ova heya.. not lots of them, but they are here and there...

(just did a restoration on a set of old steuben champane flutes.. ground down all of the lips to remove chips and dings... then polished them )

scott,

Of all people to be quoting a commentary of Ruben Navarrette, I would expect you to be one of the last.

First off, the guy is a moron. Any minor policy that tries to prevent Mexicans from coming to this country sets the guy off on fits of screaming racism.
Second, he has a friend that heads up an ACLU affiliate.
Third, most of his commentaries don't make the least bit of sense, present poorly supported points and are generally just ramblings.
Forth, he even looks like a douchebag.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/politics/july-dec08/0829ruben.jpg

your right. my point is that hopefully our leadership will be more common sense based and not based on ideology.

That would be contrary to everything that the libs have done in the past. They lead by emotion. There followers, follow because they too are run by emotions. Common sense has never been a word to describe the Democrats, at least the ones that are now in charge.

I'll take emotion over greed and stupidity any day of the week. How about you?

I'll take emotion over greed and stupidity any day of the week. How about you?


Emotion is running this country into bankruptcy faster then stupidity and greed did.

That would be contrary to everything that the libs have done in the past. They lead by emotion. There followers, follow because they too are run by emotions. Common sense has never been a word to describe the Democrats, at least the ones that are now in charge.

So how do you explain the Republicans who crossed over to elect Obama? Perhaps they were able to reprogram themselves...

Certainly I'd think you'd agree that they were motivated by anti-Bush emotions. Does this mean they were really closet liberals?

If that's the case, how many closet liberals do you think are out there? What could set them off?

-spence

So how do you explain the Republicans who crossed over to elect Obama?

-spence

I don't remember a lot of Republicans campaigning for Obama, I do however remember Lieberman stumping for McCain.

So how do you explain the Republicans who crossed over to elect Obama? Perhaps they were able to reprogram themselves...

Certainly I'd think you'd agree that they were motivated by anti-Bush emotions. Does this mean they were really closet liberals?

If that's the case, how many closet liberals do you think are out there? What could set them off?

-spence

What Republicans?

So you don't think the advantage Obama received in the election came somewhat from Republican leaning independents and otherwise registered Republicans...

Like Colin Powell?

-spence

I really hate to go there, but perhaps Colin Powell voted for Obama for the same reasons the other 98% of the black population. I think race seemed more important than his moderate beliefs. He was against all of the Conservative Supreme Courts Justices. He made a statement during the run up to the election, stating he had a problem with the possibility of McCain picking up to 2 more conservative judges.

Sorry, but I can not see it any other way, if 98% of whites voted for McCain, we would all be racists, but it's not when it's reversed? Colin Powell is most definitely not a conservative, I'd call him a left leaning Moderate at best.

I guess he's as much a Conservative and Lieberman is a Liberal..... So I guess we are even there....:usd:

scott,

Of all people to be quoting a commentary of Ruben Navarrette, I would expect you to be one of the last.

First off, the guy is a moron. Any minor policy that tries to prevent Mexicans from coming to this country sets the guy off on fits of screaming racism.
Second, he has a friend that heads up an ACLU affiliate.
Third, most of his commentaries don't make the least bit of sense, present poorly supported points and are generally just ramblings.
Forth, he even looks like a douchebag. Sounds like you are describing your average democrat in Washington in each case
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/politics/july-dec08/0829ruben.jpg

what to do...what to do...geez JD...I like you and all but it pretty obvious that for you and Spence, anyone that disagrees with your position is a complete idiot in your minds....Spence has dismissed out of hand the opinions of some pretty esteemed journalists as though he has a deeper understanding of...well...everything... , I decide it better to quote Obama supporters on left wing networks and sites since you attack anyone that you consider "conservative" and you still find fault...I heard it stated yesterday that Obama's easiest marks are the elites and those that grossly overestimate their own intelligence....gotts say it's SO TRUE

Obama has the final say on whether and which memos are released....if those that have not been released had evidence refuting Cheney's suggesting that an attempt on LA was averted and supporting Peolsi's claim that she was deaf dumb and blind....those memos would be out there already and Cheney would be savaged...

So you don't think the advantage Obama received in the election came somewhat from Republican leaning independents and otherwise registered Republicans...

-spence

it came from illegal aliens voting in areas where dems have ensured that you can vote without showing any form of ID:btu:

I really hate to go there, but perhaps Colin Powell voted for Obama for the same reasons the other 98% of the black population. I think race seemed more important than his moderate beliefs. He was against all of the Conservative Supreme Courts Justices. He made a statement during the run up to the election, stating he had a problem with the possibility of McCain picking up to 2 more conservative judges.

Sorry, but I can not see it any other way, if 98% of whites voted for McCain, we would all be racists, but it's not when it's reversed? Colin Powell is most definitely not a conservative, I'd call him a left leaning Moderate at best.
Or perhaps Powell didn't like what the Republican party had become?

Conservative and Republican are not the same thing by the way.

-spence

http://patriotroom.com/article/liz-cheney-utterly-destroys-norah-o-donnell-on-torture

Well put.

http://patriotroom.com/article/liz-cheney-utterly-destroys-norah-o-donnell-on-torture

Well put.

She's basically just parroting the same talking points as her father, although I think she's smarter than Nora O'Donnell.

But her core argument is simply wrong. Because we use some of these techniques on our own troops in training doesn't alone legally justify our use on detainees. That's really absurd and very scary when you think about it.

She also makes assertions that are impossible to back up, like the notion that we've gained valuable information only through water boarding. According to the memos that were released, we didn't even really try conventional methods on the high value detainees. Rather they just went strait to the harsh methods.

-spence

One question ..... Why is it OK for Obama to bomb a home of suspected terrorist and kill women and children but He's too righteous to put a know terrorist, that has info on killing US women and children in a cold box?

How do you know again that they have any info?

Besides, the rules of engagement are different if you have someone in custody and they are under your control. By your reasoning we should be able to just execute all suspected terror prisoners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you know again that they have any info?

Besides, the rules of engagement are different if you have someone in custody and they are under your control. By your reasoning we should be able to just execute all suspected terror prisoners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

My opinion on the theory behind it is due to the enemy being neutralized. As far back as England's Medieval wars (as far back as I could find reference), prisoners were treated as human beings and held under comparatively favorable conditions. Captors that mistreated their prisoners were shunned.

My point being that this isn't a new concept. Yes, some countries have been barbaric, but that has been the case since the beginning of time. Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.

On your theory, the Geneva Convention was a waste of time. No country should have signed it, because if I can shoot the enemy on the battlefield, then I should be able to shoot them after they surrender; the concept of surrender shouldn't even exist - just execute them where they stand.

Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.


So all we have to do is leave the arms attached and we can torture them..... :btu:

So all we have to do is leave the arms attached and we can torture them..... :btu:

Hahaha... :whackin:

My opinion on the theory behind it is due to the enemy being neutralized. As far back as England's Medieval wars (as far back as I could find reference), prisoners were treated as human beings and held under comparatively favorable conditions. Captors that mistreated their prisoners were shunned.

My point being that this isn't a new concept. Yes, some countries have been barbaric, but that has been the case since the beginning of time. Once an enemy is disarmed, they must be treated as a human being.

On your theory, the Geneva Convention was a waste of time. No country should have signed it, because if I can shoot the enemy on the battlefield, then I should be able to shoot them after they surrender; the concept of surrender shouldn't even exist - just execute them where they stand.

Valid points JD. From what I can see, in most cases our POWs have been tortured in just about every war. I still don't believe what the media and the left has described is torture. And I still fail to see the "high road" that the left wants to walk on, when Obamas bombing innocent women and children.

This was nothing more then an emotional decision based on appeasing the left.

Is it OK if you know they have info???? Answer me, why is it so bad to put a bug in a cage with a known terrorist, but it's fine to blow the crap out of a suspected terrorist's home and kill him and his kids? I'm just trying to find a tiny shread of consistancy with the anti" torture" crowd

I believe the Geneva Convention would stipulate that a prisoner isn't capable of fighting back. You don't seem to be getting this...

Also, the assertion that it's fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids isn't really valid. Generally speaking, collateral damage is taken very seriously precisely because it is such a big deal. More often than not we'll avoid using force for this reason, and I'm sure with hindsight at times it's even been considered a mistake.

The notion that the "anti-torture crowd" lacks consistancy based on your question is silly because you're trying to apply black and white tests to an issue, like most issues, that is very complex and situationally dependent.

Many people who are generally against the use of torture (as I am) don't base their position simply on the basis that it's unethical (which is highly relative), but also the factor that many credible experts believe it's not reliable.

The same could be said for the death penalty (which I'm also generally against). If it was more cost effective and a proven deterrent I think you'd find more people willing to accept it. But it's not...

Even as a cost/benefit analysis it doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

I believe the Geneva Convention would stipulate that a prisoner isn't capable of fighting back. You don't seem to be getting this...

Also, the assertion that it's fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids isn't really valid. Generally speaking, collateral damage is taken very seriously precisely because it is such a big deal. More often than not we'll avoid using force for this reason, and I'm sure with hindsight at times it's even been considered a mistake.

The notion that the "anti-torture crowd" lacks consistancy based on your question is silly because you're trying to apply black and white tests to an issue, like most issues, that is very complex and situationally dependent.

Many people who are generally against the use of torture (as I am) don't base their position simply on the basis that it's unethical (which is highly relative), but also the factor that many credible experts believe it's not reliable.

The same could be said for the death penalty (which I'm also generally against). If it was more cost effective and a proven deterrent I think you'd find more people willing to accept it. But it's not...

Even as a cost/benefit analysis it doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence


It didn't say it is fine to kill a terrorist's wife and kids . It's what happens when, in some instances Obama approves bombings in Pakastan.
Your right this isn't a black or white thing. Some would consider, as I do, that what the CIA did was harsh interrogation at worse. I don't consider it torture.

Many credible experts believe it's reliable. That's why they did it.

And I have yet to see a person put to death for murder repeat the crime. It is 100% effective. Bundy will never kill again. Trust me

FYI
Now that we are closing Gitmo, the brave Dems will not vote to provide the money to move the prisoners. Typical grandstanding without a plan.They don't want to be know as the ones voting to bring the bad guys to the US. Now the are leaving their hero Obama in the lurch.

Here's a log for the fire.....

Do Liberals consider abortion as torture?

It's ok, to rip the little guy out and leave him on the counter to die (Obama voted for this), but I can't drip water on a canvas draped over some terrorists face?????

Many credible experts believe it's reliable. That's why they did it.

Who, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Donnie Rumsfeld....the "chicoms"

And I have yet to see a person put to death for murder repeat the crime. It is 100% effective. Bundy will never kill again. Trust me

Assuming the deathrow inmate is the actual murderer and not some mentally handicapped raggamuffin. You really think the state of Texas or Virginia has never executed someone wrongly convicted of a capital crime. Thats all I need to oppose it. I leave the bloodlusting for rest.

Who, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Donnie Rumsfeld....the "chicoms"


Assuming the deathrow inmate is the actual murderer and not some mentally handicapped raggamuffin. You really think the state of Texas or Virginia has never executed someone wrongly convicted of a capital crime. Thats all I need to oppose it. I leave the bloodlusting for rest.


Sounds like collateral damage. Something that we strive to avoid. So I take it you are fully opposed to the US bombing anywhere,anytime and for any reason.

Here's a log for the fire.....
Do Liberals consider abortion as torture?


This is off topic...
No, but I'm not a fan of using it for birth control or population control either, I'm Pro-choice, not a rabid ra-ra abortion guy; most liberals probably fall in this category.

Sounds like collateral damage. Something that we strive to avoid. So I take it you are fully opposed to the US bombing anywhere,anytime and for any reason.

Collateral damage is one of the challenges confronting the execution of asymetrical warfare. I do agree we have got to be surgical and much depends on intelligence.

But as it relates to Bush-doctrine-war, I oppose any "US Bombing anywhere, anytime and for any reason"

Now with regard to the death penalty, prosecutors dont always get good "intelligence" on the situation and its not cost effective. I can understand support for the death penalty in theory, but real world practice speaks volumes to our civil imperfections.

Not to mention that it seems death sentences are handed out like candy when the victim is white. Simply put, the courts in Ohio would have us believe that the lives of whites are worth more than blacks.


I think were talking to different types of collateral damage.

As an American,a decendent of genocide(Armenian that is) and most of all a Veteran I am appalled by the idea that we(our government) tortured people.

We're Americans.Are we not better than this?Do we need to step down to the level of the religious/political fanatics in order to gain info?

We're American.Want info?Dominate the freaks and force them through shear firepower and technology.Waterboarding my ass,we are better than that.

We're better than torture.We're American.

Collateral damage is one of the challenges confronting the execution of asymetrical warfare. I do agree we have got to be surgical and much depends on intelligence.

But as it relates to Bush-doctrine-war, I oppose any "US Bombing anywhere, anytime and for any reason"

Now with regard to the death penalty, prosecutors dont always get good "intelligence" on the situation and its not cost effective. I can understand support for the death penalty in theory, but real world practice speaks volumes to our civil imperfections.

Not to mention that it seems death sentences are handed out like candy when the victim is white. Simply put, the courts in Ohio would have us believe that the lives of whites are worth more than blacks.


I think were talking to different types of collateral damage.


This isn't about the Bush doctrine. I asked about Obama bombing in Pakastan and how it balances with his decision to ban harsh interrogation.

The courts do take black on black crime one way and black on white crime quite the different. It is not always the case but there is about a 10% difference. That's not a reason to stop capital punishment. If it were "fair" more blacks would be on death row, not less.

As an American,a decendent of genocide(Armenian that is) and most of all a Veteran I am appalled by the idea that we(our government) tortured people.

We're Americans.Are we not better than this?Do we need to step down to the level of the religious/political fanatics in order to gain info?

We're American.Want info?Dominate the freaks and force them through shear firepower and technology.Waterboarding my ass,we are better than that.

We're better than torture.We're American.


IT WASN'T TORTURE!

IT WASN'T TORTURE!

Actually it is.

Would you like to be waterboarded?.....Of course not,you neither have the nads or the ability to withstand it.And if you think you do,you are delusional.Its torture or we wouldn't use it.If you believe the threat of "I'll kill you" will even elicit a response from these freaks, once again you are delusional.I've been gassed as part of basic and trust me that was mild in comparison.

WTF did you miss in my post about domination through technology and firepower?Seriously,did you miss that part?

Another armchair quarterback who thinks he knows whats best.Join the rest,including those you constantly argue with here.

IT WASN'T TORTURE!

Waterboarding has been defined by the international community to be torture. That same international community that the US is a part of. All of which have signed a document against the torture of any individuals.

News outlets need to stop using Euphemisms like "Enhanced Interrogation" or "Harsh Interrogation." Torture by any other name is still torture.

If I wrap my arm around someone's throat and squeeze, can I call it a Happy Hug so as not to be prosecuted?

Actually it is.

Would you like to be waterboarded?.....Of course not,you neither have the nads or the ability to withstand it.And if you think you do,you are delusional.Its torture or we wouldn't use it.If you believe the threat of "I'll kill you" will even elicit a response from these freaks, once again you are delusional.I've been gassed as part of basic and trust me that was mild in comparison.

WTF did you miss in my post about domination through technology and firepower?Seriously,did you miss that part?

Another armchair quarterback who thinks he knows whats best.Join the rest,including those you constantly argue with here.

Your right, I would sing like a sparrow. I guess your admitting it works.

The American people don't have the stomach for a heavy handed war. Imagine dropping the bomb now. We have gone soft. You can talk tough all you want, but the fact is, if the people in charge would let our men fight then we WOULD kick butt. They won't ,so we are forced to fight covert. Just thank your lucky stars that there are people willing to make the hard choices and do the hard thing so your kids can sleep in peace.

Seems like I'm argueing with you. How's your chair?:lasso:

The American people don't have the stomach for a heavy handed war. Imagine dropping the bomb now. We have gone soft. You can talk tough all you want, but the fact is, if the people in charge would let our men fight then we WOULD kick butt. They won't ,so we are forced to fight covert.

I think this is a load of horse hockey.

People have the stomach for war when they believe it's the right thing to do, but people are not warmongers.

When Bush's marketing department convinced the American people that Saddam was involved with 9/11 the people we're out for blood. They didn't turn because they went soft, they turned because the oringinal case for war fell apart and they felt duped.

Most people aren't against torture because they're soft, they're against it because without a line in the sand we're no better than they are. Basswipe is right on this.

-spence

http://www.iqhp.org/English.aspx

I think this is a load of horse hockey.

People have the stomach for war when they believe it's the right thing to do, but people are not warmongers.

When Bush's marketing department convinced the American people that Saddam was involved with 9/11 the people we're out for blood. They didn't turn because they went soft, they turned because the oringinal case for war fell apart and they felt duped.

Most people aren't against torture because they're soft, they're against it because without a line in the sand we're no better than they are. Basswipe is right on this.

-spence

You may be right Spence. But if we were to fight World War II, with the media coverage we now have, the public opinion would be for us to get out. We have become soft. Can you imagine the outrage when 100 young solders are killed from your small town alone. My point is that if we are not going to let our troops fight they way they are trained, then you should count your blessings that we have covert harsh interogation or what ever the hell you want to call it.
Basswipe is dead on. If the generals made the dicisions then the war would be over. They don't. A bunch of pansie politicians do.

Your right, I would sing like a sparrow. I guess your admitting it works.

The American people don't have the stomach for a heavy handed war. Imagine dropping the bomb now. We have gone soft. You can talk tough all you want, but the fact is, if the people in charge would let our men fight then we WOULD kick butt. They won't ,so we are forced to fight covert. Just thank your lucky stars that there are people willing to make the hard choices and do the hard thing so your kids can sleep in peace.

Seems like I'm argueing with you. How's your chair?:lasso:



I talk tough because I lived it.Our boys ARE fighting hard.Who are you to question anything an American soldier does?Have you served?Have you seen?I can answer that.....a great big no I would say.I'll wager your kids sleep in "peace" through nothing you've done but what others have done.How dare you question my commitment to my country and my family.

My chair is fine.I was standing outside of mine while you were sitting in yours!Go to hell.

Waterboarding works because it causes complete agony.America isn't about inflicting agony on its prisoners,ask American POWS of the Japanese how it feels dumbo!Think before you speak dumbass!

We should be killing these freaks outright through firepower and technology...no prisoners to start with.Shear domination.Wake up kid.

I hate fvcknuts like you.

I talk tough because I lived it a$$hole.Our boys ARE fighting hard.Who the fvck are you to question anything an American soldier does?Have you served?Have you seen?I can answer that.....a great big no I would say.I'll wager your kids sleep in "peace" through nothing you've done but what others have done.You a$$,how dare you question my commitment to my country and my family.

My chair is fine.I was standing outside of mine while you were sitting in yours!Go to hell.

Waterboarding works because it causes complete agony.America isn't about inflicting agony on its prisoners,ask American POWS of the Japanese how it feels dumbo!Think before you speak dumbass!

We should be killing these freaks outright through firepower and technology...no prisoners to start with.Shear domination.Wake up kid.

Wow! You totally misread him. He wasn't criticizing us that have served or are serving, he was criticizing the damn politicians. Our military is like a professional baseball team, and they make us play with a plastic bat, a tee and a wiffle ball. The politicians love to put us in harms way and tie our hands!

And the petty name calling was beneath even you, Basswipe.

And the petty name calling was beneath even you, Basswipe.

I agree.My apologies to buckman.

I cleaned it up a little.

And I a little clarification.When I say I lived it I mean to say I had an uncle who freely talked about his time as a Japanese POW.I certainly wouldn't want to misrepresent what I wanted to say.

Basswipe,
No one respects the military and those that serve more then me. I thank you and my children thank you for your service. Read my past post and you will see my feelings for the men and women that serve or have served.

The American left has hit a new low by trivializing genuine war crimes through likening them to the discomfort inflicted by water boarding. Since the release of the "torture" memos this mantra has been repeated by liberals: we convicted and executed Japanese War criminals for water boarding so the Bush Administration has to be brought to justice.

this document from the actual trials; "Japanese Methods of Prisoner of War Interrogation."


" The victim's stomach is filled with water from a hose placed in the throat. A plank is then placed across the distended stomach, and Japanese, one on each end, then ' see-saw' thus forcing out the water from the stomach. Many of the victims die under this torture."


"The victim's thumbs are tied together and he is hitched by them to a motor car which proceeds to pull him around in a circle until he falls exhausted. This is repeated at two-or three day intervals."


Prisoners were made to beat each other, half rations for "special PWs (Army Air Corp)," beheadings? The liberal strategy of moral equivalence employed but only when it serves their political goals.

To make it even worse, the Japanese visited these atrocities, and worse, not just on captured military personnel, but on the civilian population as well. With regard to civilians, the whole purpose of this torture, often mass torture, was punitive. It was completely different from the coercive stress techniques used here to elicit information from people aiming to cause mass "man caused disasters.

[QUOTE=Cool Beans;686559]Here's a log for the fire.....

Do Liberals consider abortion as torture?

abrtion is the first sacrament of the religeon of the left, it's euphoric...but, you can't call it abortion anymore...we're way beyond that polarizing term that the conservatives have so sullied...it's..."the enlightened elimination of unwanted punsishment for behavior taught in kindegarten procedure"...or...Altrnative Democrat Voter Registration Guaranteed Loyalty for Life Program...

Scott.
I'll give you one thing. your posts always leave me saying...
what the %$%$%$%$ is he talking about?

sorry RIR....here...a little more concise...the left has used "waterboarding" as a political issue as they have Valerie Plame, Domestic Spying, Abu Ghraib and many others, feigned outrage supported by the press to gain political advantage.....you cannot compare what is being called "torture" in this case based on the facts with what has been done around the world and throughout history to "actually torture" and keep a straight face if you are at all serious.... and at the same time continue to support abortion in all of it's forms.... and publically fund it as well......it's just funny what the outrages left and what does not...clearly the morality is determined by political expediency and not some basic sense of right and wrong...love ya man...

sorry RIR....here...a little more concise...the left has used "waterboarding" as a political issue as they have Valerie Plame, Domestic Spying, Abu Ghraib and many others, feigned outrage supported by the press to gain political advantage.....you cannot compare what is being called "torture" in this case based on the facts with what has been done around the world and throughout history to "actually torture" and keep a straight face if you are at all serious.... and at the same time continue to support abortion in all of it's forms.... and publically fund it as well......it's just funny what the outrages left and what does not...clearly the morality is determined by political expediency and not some basic sense of right and wrong...love ya man...

Yes, a basic sense of write and wrong as you have defined them.

Good to see you're in charge of the moral relativism police.

-spence

call it immoral relativism

let's see, I'm willing to allow water to be poured into the faces of three mass(or aspiring) murderers to gain informtion that may or will(waiting for the memos) save innocent lives.....

the left in general is currently very upset that this so called torture took place and while at the same time whole heartedly supports and with public funds the abortions of milions of innocent babies....

seems to me a handful of lawyers approved both practices...

and I'm the crazy one...:heybaby:

Yes, a basic sense of write and wrong as you have defined them.

Good to see you're in charge of the moral relativism police.

-spence

I have to agree with Scott here ( Surprise!) You don't think this is about politics Spence?

While my heart tells me one thing, my mind tells me another as far as abortion goes. I don't think anyone considers it the "right" thing to do. The right thing to do, is not get knocked up. I think it should have it's own thread.

terrorists are people...with rights!
babies are not... with none?

uncomfortable, I know...
"don't hate me because I'm sensible":as:

Getting into a debate about abortion is like getting into a debate about religion, cyclical and boring.

The arguments on both sides are tired and unoriginal. The same crap has been stated over and over again by both sides for decades.

That's how arguments about morals always go. What one person finds immoral, there will always be another that finds it moral.

What's annoying to me is that abortion really has absolutely nothing to do with Waterboarding. Abortion is a moral issue, waterboarding is a legal issue.

Getting into a debate about abortion is like getting into a debate about religion, cyclical and boring.

debating the slaughter of millions of innocent children- THAT'S BORING.

That's how arguments about morals always go. What one person finds immoral, there will always be another that finds it moral. THAT'S WHAT TED BUNDY SAID.

What's annoying to me is that abortion really has absolutely nothing to do with Waterboarding. Abortion is a moral issue, waterboarding is a legal issue.

BUT...waterboarding three dirt bags....now that's a "legal issue" that the left can really get up in arms about .....weird.....

wait...I though torture was a moral issue??? "WE DON'T TORTURE"...remember..we only dismember....not terrorists of course...the question with waterboarding is if in fact, it is actual torture...on the scale of possible torture methods it seems to be WAAAAYYY down on the worst that could be employed....bordering on...oh, I don't know....ENHANCED INTERROGATION..and apparently , at the time a perfectly acceptable way of eliciting information for a host of dem. lawmakers..that was, until they could make it a political issue...keep separating law and morality when it's convenient for you:hee:

BUT...waterboarding three dirt bags....now that's a "legal issue" that the left can really get up in arms about .....weird.....

wait...I though torture was a moral issue??? "WE DON'T TORTURE"...remember..we only dismember....not terrorists of course...the question with waterboarding is if in fact, it is actual torture...on the scale of possible torture methods it seems to be WAAAAYYY down on the worst that could be employed....bordering on...oh, I don't know....ENHANCED INTERROGATION..and apparently , at the time a perfectly acceptable way of eliciting information for a host of dem. lawmakers..that was, until they could make it a political issue...keep separating law and morality when it's convenient for you:hee:

Well, it has become very apparent that you've paid zero attention to anything I have said previously.

First, Waterboarding has never been a *moral issue* for me. I have repeatedly stated, "If they broke the law, then they should be prosecuted."

Second, Waterboarding has already been *defined* as torture by the US and other countries. "Enhanced Interrogation" is merely a euphemism. A politically inaccurate term developed so that politicians can refer to the actions without saying "torture"... and the American public has so far been stupid enough to go along with it. Looks like you've taken the bait hook, line and sinker as well.

I don't separate law and morality when it's convenient for me. I've been quite explicit that this whole issue is a legal one. Maybe you should look back at previous posts in this very thread once in a while. *You're* the one conflating the matter.

It's funny. I've never mentioned my opinion of abortion before but you assume my position on it because I think people in the Bush Administration should be tried for ordering torture.

Your massive level of ignorance is amazing. Pull the shroud from your eyes and take a step outside of your bubble. Don't bother replying to any more of posts by me with the expectation of a response because I'm done with you. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with people like you is impossible, with your verbal diarrhea. It's like you take a thousand random subjects, throw them in a hat and pull one out to use as a rebuttal, regardless of the subject.

What is the world coming to? She has been very outspoken about prosecuting Bush Administration members for torture. Now, Nancy Pelosi approves of waterboarding?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

This is all very confusing.:huh:

ahhh... the plot thickens

Well, it has become very apparent that you've paid zero attention to anything I have said previously.

First, Waterboarding has never been a *moral issue* for me. I have repeatedly stated, "If they broke the law, then they should be prosecuted."

Second, Waterboarding has already been *defined* as torture by the US and other countries. "Enhanced Interrogation" is merely a euphemism. A politically inaccurate term developed so that politicians can refer to the actions without saying "torture"... and the American public has so far been stupid enough to go along with it. Looks like you've taken the bait hook, line and sinker as well.

I don't separate law and morality when it's convenient for me. I've been quite explicit that this whole issue is a legal one. Maybe you should look back at previous posts in this very thread once in a while. *You're* the one conflating the matter.

It's funny. I've never mentioned my opinion of abortion before but you assume my position on it because I think people in the Bush Administration should be tried for ordering torture.

Your massive level of ignorance is amazing. Pull the shroud from your eyes and take a step outside of your bubble. Don't bother replying to any more of posts by me with the expectation of a response because I'm done with you. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with people like you is impossible, with your verbal diarrhea. It's like you take a thousand random subjects, throw them in a hat and pull one out to use as a rebuttal, regardless of the subject.

very touchy for someone who himself can be quite annoying:smokin:
cranky know it all:wave:
I went a fished the end of the drop while you were writing all of that and now have some filleting to do, you should forget politics for a while and fish a little and relax......you seem uptight...

very touchy for someone who himself can be quite annoying:smokin:
cranky know it all:wave:
I went a fished the end of the drop while you were writing all of that and now have some filleting to do, you should forget politics for a while and fish a little and relax......you seem uptight...

I'm not touchy at all. However, you've made it quite apparent that you pay zero attention to anything people say, make nonsense points, and try to relate topics that don't even have the slightest relationship to each other. Then you try to accuse me of separating morals and legality as I see it fit, when I've never implied any opinion about morals.

I'll be fishing all weekend.

What is the world coming to? She has been very outspoken about prosecuting Bush Administration members for torture. Now, Nancy Pelosi approves of waterboarding?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

This is all very confusing.:huh:

Nah, it's not confusing at all. Just displays the point that Pelosi is a complete, unethical moron. She demonstrates one opinion behind closed doors because the public won't see it, yet was outspoken about prosecuting the Bush Administration because it was the cool thing to do.

Corrupt pieces of Sh&t. I'm going fishing....:fishin:

I'm not touchy at all. However, you've made it quite apparent that you pay zero attention to anything people say, make nonsense points, and try to relate topics that don't even have the slightest relationship to each other. Then you try to accuse me of separating morals and legality as I see it fit, when I've never implied any opinion about morals.

I'll be fishing all weekend.

it sounds like you know that I'm right and just can't deal with the massive blow to your world view...

what happened to "I'm done with you?"

heh..heh..gotta have the last word eh' Johnny?

that's ok, you just keep pontificating ...hey are we going to put all of the members of our military in jail for breaking the law when they used waterboarding to train our troops? we need to be consistent...

why did Obama feel the need to ban waterboarding in 2009 if it was already illegal? and immoral??

why is the defense department refusing to comment on whether it's still used for training purposes?

Nancy Pelosi is a victim of Botox poisoning..too much of that stuff makes you crazy and she goes through a lot!

Corrupt pieces of Sh&t. I'm going fishing....:fishin:

good luck buddy, hope ya get a big one:heybaby:

Nah, it's not confusing at all. Just displays the point that Pelosi is a complete, unethical moron. She demonstrates one opinion behind closed doors because the public won't see it, yet was outspoken about prosecuting the Bush Administration because it was the cool thing to do.

Corrupt pieces of Sh&t. I'm going fishing....:fishin:

That's why I like you, JD. You don't blindly stick to the party affiliation bs and can recognize that there idiots on both sides. Good luck with the fishing. Let me know if you have any luck.

Johnny, you really stepped in it when you said this was a legal and not ethical issue...wow, I thought you were smarter than that.

As for Scott's running non sequitor, last time I checked how we train our troops and how we handle prisoners wasn't covered under the same jurisdiction. That is unless Scott thinks of our troops as potential terrorists :hihi:

As for Pelosi, there seems to be a lot of questions as to what they were actually briefed on. I'd wager they didn't do their homework and simply went along with what was being proposed considering this was right after 9/11. Not that they could have done anything about it, in these secret briefings they can't even take notes to have an aid do a detailed legal review.

That being said, assuming they were briefed, select members of Congress are certainly responsible for either not providing oversight or being hypocritical.

-spence

Johnny, you really stepped in it when you said this was a legal and not ethical issue...wow, I thought you were smarter than that.

Again, this is where the misconception lies... I've stated over and over again that my opinion with regards to anyone being prosecuted lies in the legal aspect of things. The entire issue at hand lies within the legality or illegality of waterboarding being ordered. Regardless of the issue being moral or not, people cannot be tried for immoral acts if those acts were within the bounds of the law.

However, it is my belief that the actions were outside of our domestic law and also outside international law, and as such, people must be held accountable for the actions that took place.

When I state that "the waterboarding issue has never been a moral one", it is with regards to the discussions of Bush Administration officials being brought up on charges.

While I've never been explicit in my moral opinion of waterboarding, reading my first few posts in this thread should yield a sufficient understanding of where my opinion lies.

As for Pelosi, there seems to be a lot of questions as to what they were actually briefed on. I'd wager they didn't do their homework and simply went along with what was being proposed considering this was right after 9/11. Not that they could have done anything about it, in these secret briefings they can't even take notes to have an aid do a detailed legal review.

That being said, assuming they were briefed, select members of Congress are certainly responsible for either not providing oversight or being hypocritical.

-spence

I listened to a couple of Pelosi's public statements regarding her knowledge of the matter. Now, I am only speculating but, the way she articulates some of the things she has said and the way she punctuated certain statements gave me the impression she was overcompensating. Listening to a few minutes of her talking about the matter made me feel like she knew exactly what was going on and is now trying to backtrack on the actual events to keep her nose clean.

good luck buddy, hope ya get a big one:heybaby:

Thanks. Hooked into two shad tonight. Came close to landing one, but the ride is all that really matters.

Man those fish are a blast on ultra-light freshwater gear.

Listening to a few minutes of her talking about the matter made me feel like she knew exactly what was going on and is now trying to backtrack on the actual events to keep her nose clean.
It sounds like they were briefed but also told the practice was legal. Considering the situation I'd be surprised if anyone in a top secret briefing would call their briefer a liar to voice moral concerns unless they had good reason.

That being said, it's at best a foggy situation. I don't think it's a big deal for Pelosi unless they tried to prosecute someone and then the potential for hypocrisy would be a big issue.

What's the most interesting thing here is why Bush's lawyers didn't do any homework before they wrote their briefs claiming the President didn't have to worry about legal issues? It seems like they were more concerned with giving Bush what he wanted rather than practicing good law.

-spence

What's the most interesting thing here is why Bush's lawyers didn't do any homework before they wrote their briefs claiming the President didn't have to worry about legal issues? It seems like they were more concerned with giving Bush what he wanted rather than practicing good law.

-spence

Considering the resume prospects of being a legal adviser for the President, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030323-1.html

THE PRESIDENT: I've been briefed, I'm constantly briefed by the Pentagon and through the National Security Office. I would -- I don't know all the details yet. I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely.

:lama: