Waterboarding

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by 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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

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

[Cool Beans]

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....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

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

[buckman]

http://patriotroom.com/article/liz-c...ell-on-torture

Well put.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

http://patriotroom.com/article/liz-c...ell-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

[buckman]

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?

[spence]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

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

Hahaha...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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

[buckman]

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.

[Cool Beans]

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?????

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

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.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[basswipe]

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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!

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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?