Waterboarding

[fishbones]

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]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

-spence

[fishbones]

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[moosh]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[scottw]

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......

[Fishpart]

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

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.

[Swimmer]

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

you torture people everyday....

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.


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

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[Swimmer]

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[RIJIMMY]

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.

[EarnedStripes44]

"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

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

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.