Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, September 18, 2006

"In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget. ... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it. ... I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. He did not promise them their liberty. He promised them -- if they signed -- uninterrupted sleep!" -- former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin describes his experience at a Soviet prison in the 1940s. [Washington Post]

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

More "alternative Interrogation" techniques as authorized by Premier Bush and his commissars:

"[T]he cells were entirely unheated. There were radiators in the corridor only, and in this "heated" corridor the guards on duty walked in felt boots and padded jackets. The prisoner was forced to undress down to his underwear, and sometimes to his undershorts, and he was forced to spend from three to five days in the punishment cell without moving (since it was so confining). He received hot gruel on the third day only. For the first few minutes you were convinced you'd not be able to last an hour. But, by some miracle, a human being would indeed sit out his five days, perhaps acquiring in the course of it an illness that would last him the rest of his life."

"The Gulag Archipelago." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Blueboy,

You are beyond hope if you can actually try to draw equivalence between the degree and scope of the Soviet gulags, and US enemy combatants' detention in places such as Gitmo.

I forget the man's name, sadly. In any case, his book about incarceration in Afghanistan and at Gitmo will be released soon. He was never charged with any crime, and, as far as can be told, was guilty of nothing.

He said he heard the sounds of a woman screaming in the room next to his. He was told by his AMERICAN interrogators that this was his wife.

He was also harmed physically in various ways.

He said he begged his captors to ask him queations. He said his captors simply told him to confess, to anything, and they would then check the veracity of his confessions.

When you argue "degree and scope", and not qualitative experience, then you've lost the moral argument.

"President Bush yesterday announced the transfer of the last 14 suspected terrorists held by the CIA at secret foreign prisons to the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...."

Sounds like gulags to me. Sounds like an "archipelago" to me. Sounds like it's been going on for some time.

www.washingtonpost.com

Who loves terrorists? Not me or any other American. So, before any rightwingers start calling names, let's just make that clear.

Yes, we have some bad people in Gitmo. But, since there hasn't been a single trial in 5 years, how do we know who's guilty and who's not? America's legal system has always been based on the presumption of innocence. I don't care how bad someone is. Torture accomplishes nothing but bad intelligence. History proves this. John McCain, the only serving politician who has actually BEEN tortured is against it. As a vet, so am I.

So, what are we left with of the America that used to stand for what was right and just if Bush is mincing words and trying to circumvent the Geneva Conventions? A country the world used to look at with awe that is now scraping the bottom of the morals barrel trying to find 'reasonable' means of torture. Makes me sick.

YEAH! Well what do you expect out of good "Christians" like this?
"Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush -- these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp.""
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
YEAH!

This deserves a double take!
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
YEAH! The "Base" at it again!

"and worshipping a picture of President Bush"
Nope! That's not creepy at all!

www.rawstory.com

Typical Bushite mentality. No respect for reality, morality, positive results, etc.

Bushites have completely embraced the mentality, a politican mentality, which focuses on short-term, "positive-lite" results. Nothing of lasting value, nothing with moralistic value, nothing which produces anything except a sound-bite.

Irony: the biggest enemy of Republifundie-ism. Next to reality, that is.

Blueboy,

You are beyond hope if you can actually try to draw equivalence between the degree and scope of the Soviet gulags, and US enemy combatants' detention in places such as Gitmo.

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-09-18 09:03 AM | Reply

The behavior of the President on Friday, his near hysteria at having his desires questioned by people who know so much more than he does (McCain, Warner, Powell)and his clear desire to torture so long as he can call it something else, simply invites the comparison above.

You have misguided faith in the omnipotence of this administration, Jeff, flaunting the law and the Constitution with blatant disregard, and not to protect the Americam people, but to protect their own asses. Some CIA people have clearly already violated the Geneva Conventions. The Bush remedy: Change and/or ignore the Geneva Conventions. Get our Supreme Court to uphold our remedy.

Your suggestion, that comparison with what other evil regimes have done is hopelessly wrong, is just like Bush's non-answer to the question what about North Korea dealing with captured US troops. "You cannot compare the US with other countries" i.e. "The USA is always right."

Well I'm a patriotic American and I know darned well we are often not right, but we used to strive to be better.

Would one of you bleeding hearts tell me just what torture has been going on. The real facts, not just a bunch of wild guesses.

Wearing panties on their heads?
Getting into a dog pile with no clothes on?
Wearing a dog collar?
Keep them awake for a couple of days?

Sounds like what a bunch of college boys do to their frat brothers, not torture in a prison camp.

I just wish some reporter from ANYWHERE, when in the prsence of some military inteligence officer in afgahnistan or iraq ask them one simple question: "back in your civilian duties, which law enforcement agency did you work for?". In fact, I wish several would do so, keep notes then do comparisons of response.
The truth is not known.
You should fear it.

"Sounds like what a bunch of college boys do to their frat brothers,"

Those belonging to a frat, choose to allow themselves to be humiliated and degraded.

There are rules to prevent countries from those actions.

from the atricle:

President Bush is urging Congress to let the CIA keep using "alternative" interrogation procedures -- which include, according to published accounts, forcing prisoners to stand for 40 hours, depriving them of sleep and use of the "cold cell," in which the prisoner is left naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees and doused with cold water.

I'll tell you what Sniper an JeffJ, we'll keep you awake for a few days, in cell around 50 degrees and occasionally toss cold water on you. We'll see, if at the end of just 3 days, you still think it's "not torture"

You are beyond hope if you can actually try to draw equivalence between the degree and scope of the Soviet gulags ...

We're holding people in secret prisons on secret evidence without bringing charges of any kind for years. How close does it need to be before you would find it alarming?

Republicans are supposed to be the party that distrusts government. Ronald Reagan once said the scariest sentence in the world is "I'm with the government and I'm here to help." If you don't trust the government to run Social Security, why do you trust the government to run secret prisons?

With out a clue.

This is how nations and civilizations come to ruin.

Republicans are little sheep bitches. They don't distrust government, they just pule about a government which is FOR the people, rather than providing them the opportunity to suppress people.

Conservatives: always the greatest threat a freedom loving people.

Sounds like what a bunch of college boys do to their frat brothers, not torture in a prison camp.

Posted by Sniper at 2006-09-18 10:27 AM


You know, you might be right, and Dubya should know:

In 1967, a Yale Daily News article exposed hazing traditions that make the stories of contemporary initiation rites seem like a mere weeklong frat party. "Pledge week at DKE this fall began with a food fight," the article stated, "and ended with a hot branding iron applied to the small of each pledge's back." The article, stating that beatings and hot coat hangers bent in a "D" shape were routine parts of DKE initiation, led to a story in The New York Times a week later, in which President George W. Bush '68, a former DKE president, defended his fraternity's practices. DKE was later fined for its inappropriate initiation rites, but these days DKE members said the fraternity no longer brands its pledges.

It appears Bush has been down this road before.

For the full article that the above was taken from, go to:

www.yaledailynews.com

OCU

"Sounds like what a bunch of college boys do to their frat brothers, not torture in a prison camp."

There's a reason why hazing has been outlawed on every single college campus that I know of.... its demeaning and degrading, and when it gets out of hand people get injured or dead for no good reason.

Plus, there's a whole world of difference between a senior telling you to chug a beer, or tea-bagging you... to a soldier with a machine gun (or easy access to one) or a snarling, barking german sheppard leashed in his hand telling you to climb on top of a bunch of your fellow inmates naked.

Do you really not see the difference? I am truly afraid for this country when the Admin. is not listening to Ex-POW Senators, Colin Powell, and the attorneys working FOR the military when they say the Bush proposals are dangerous.

And yes, obviously the CIA has already violated the Geneva conventions.... and I am sure they will continue to do so in secret. The worse thing we can do is to legalize it, to shine the spotlight on it, and say "we think this is good stuff".

so you're saying if we have someone in custody who we are sure has info on a dirty bomb set to go off in ny... where say your whole family is living... we should tell him what a bad boy he is...give him a nice hot meal and a comfy bed in an airconditioned room AND expect him to tell us where the bomb is ? like the nice little islamofascist that he is. tsk...tsk...

Bush is a DKE?

Well that explains everything!

The chapter at UNC lost its IFC charter because some girl died of a coke overdose a few years back. When I was a junior, a brother took a shotgun to his own head at the outdoor theater.

Them's some phuq'ed up peoples.

Kerrin: your whole post is ridiculous.

like 9/11 was rediculous? it could have been stopped if our governemnt was doing its job with out all the restrictions put in place by the left.

"so you're saying if we have someone in custody who we are sure has info on a dirty bomb set to go off in ny... where say your whole family is living... we should tell him what a bad boy he is...give him a nice hot meal and a comfy bed in an airconditioned room AND expect him to tell us where the bomb is ? like the nice little islamofascist that he is. tsk...tsk..."

Well since you like hypotheticals so much.... let me tell you real life examples...


Remember "Curveball"?? This is the informant/spy that was giving the Admin. and CIA alot of information about Saddam's WMDs, and chemical weapons capabilities, as well as alot of the supposed attacks that have raised our "alert" level several times over the years since 9/11. He was the source that found the mobile chemical weapons factories in the desert (in Iraq)... which turned out to be complete BS.

We weren't even torturing this guy... as far as I know, yet his false information has probably cost us billions of dollars in wasted man-hours and heightened security, to chase down each one of his supposed threats.

Now, why wouldn't a smart terrorist, getting waterboarded, start spouting off all these supposed bombings and terror attacks, real or (and much more likely) UNREAL!?!?!? And while we chase down each one of his phantoms, the real terrorists hit?

"it could have been stopped if our governemnt was doing its job with out all the restrictions put in place by the left."

Name a restriction, put in place by the left, that if absent would have prevented 9/11. I'll give you a break, it wouldn't even have to PREVENT 9/11, just have helped uncover more info prior to 9/11.

And I want a citation of some rule of Federal law, international treaty to which USA is a party to, or CIA/FBI guideline that restricted those agencies in anyway, and an explanation of how the LEFT was responsible for that restriction.... not some BS blog from some righwing pundit citing non-existent memos, or the ABC "Path to 9/11" BS.

Let me save you some time.... it doesn't exist, you are full of it.

Dear Rcade:
A-frickin-MEN.

"Curveball" was one that was not tortured. But anyone remember the terrible terrorist, Zubaydah? ShrubCo trumpted his capture as being one of the top guns of Bin Laden. Zubaydah was shot while being captured and we patched him and got him well enough to be turned over to some of our specialists in extracting information. Zubaydah was tortured and Zubaydah talked. He told his interrogators everything they wanted to hear. What he DIDN'T tell them, however, was the truth because Zubaydah was NOT a top gun of Bin Laden. He was a minor cog in the Al-Qaeda organization, sort of like a facilitator. He helped with travel arrangements and so forth. He was also apparently quite crazy. In fact, he is reported to have 3 different personalities. So what did we get for torturing a mentally ill man? All sorts of tales of Al-Qaeda getting ready to blow up banks and supermarkets and bridges. His stories had the CIA and FBI scurying all over the United States and not ONE of those stories was true. He was, by that time, babbling and echoing anything his captors told him to say. We got very, very little actual information that was usable from this man and from what I understand, the information we did get that was usable is what was taken at the time of his actual capture. Check out "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind for further information on this subject.

This is the United States. Our country USED to stand for what was good and right in the world. Today we have fallen down that slippery slope and are becoming more and more what we feared most...the Soviet Union during its heyday. I don't think it at all inappropriate to compare our current tactics in dealing with captured 'terrorists' (and many of those people languishing in Gitmo and various black sites may not have even BEEN terrorists when they were captured...but they probably are by now!) with the Soviet Union gulags. We are getting closer and closer.

Nothing like secret prisons, secret police and your fellow citizen spying on you to inspire ones' sense of freedom and liberty.

"like 9/11 was rediculous? it could have been stopped if our governemnt was doing its job with out all the restrictions put in place by the left.
"

YEAH! Even though the congress has been in complete control of republicans since the early 90's.

Oops!
Now that's just "ridiculous"!

Notice hnow he can't find any restrictions that were put in place by the "left"

Torture never works, just ask John McCain...oh, wait...nevermind, don't ask him because he actually spilled the beans while being tortured.

Cold cell or no cell, it beats a beheading any day.
What percentage of AlQuaeda, Taliban, or Iraqi prisoners are still alive?
What percentage of US prisoners in their hands are still alive?


Why don't you sissies just convert already and make it official?

Chair: please supply the relevant information McCain spilled under torture.

Not only did he not spill relevant iformation, when he was offered to leave early due to his injuries and the fact that his Father was an Admiral, he turned it down to let those ahead of them leave. He stayed and waited his turn.

Or is this the official beginning of the Swiftboating of McCain?

Briwo,
Name, rank, and SSN, that's all he is required to give up.
As you may know, I do not fault him for giving up the info. I just find it interesting he says it doesn't work when he himself admitted to giving info.

Yes, he gave months old information that was no good. He was given clearance to do this by his CO at the Hilton. They needed to stop his torture or his injuries from the crash would never heal and he would die.

But I'm sure YOU wouldn't have cracked while under the kind of "interrogation" he was subjected to.

To a lesser degree, he also signed a war crimes memo that was used for Propaganda purposes.
Again, I don't fault him for any of that. He was in bad shape to begin with (busted bones), so I can't even imagine what level of pain he was in before they started to torture him.

"You are beyond hope if you can actually try to draw equivalence between the degree and scope of the Soviet gulags, and US enemy combatants' detention in places such as Gitmo."

"Sounds like what a bunch of college boys do to their frat brothers, not torture in a prison camp."

An so the torture experts/apologists of the Ultra Right are heard from. If this is the best they can do ... herm

Oh, and add:

"Why don't you sissies just convert already and make it official?"

Are these guys real? herm

But I'm sure YOU wouldn't have cracked while under the kind of "interrogation" he was subjected to.

Posted by briwo at 2006-09-18 01:51 PM | Reply


Oh, so I would have cracked but McCain didn't? Or are you now saying that it was acceptable for McCain to crack?
Please clarify. You refuted my original post and now seem to be back tracking.

I believe most people would have cracked given anywhere near that kind of treatment, including me, but that's the point copernicus.

"Why don't you sissies convert....?'

That's really what this argument reduces to from what passes for the Right these days---

Do you want someone to to think you are a "sissy", or do you want someone to thin you are "yellow"?

It's hard to imagine anything more stupid, but there it is.


I'm saying he did not crack and was given permission by his CO at the Hanoi Hilton, to tell them useless information so they would let up on him and let him heal.

The guys that were there with him have all verfied that.

What's going to be your motivation until the day you die when some goofball pretends to be torturing and raping your wife in the cell next to you?

Especially if you are innocent? No wonder this country is in such bad shape.

"It's hard to imagine anything more stupid, but there it is."

Isn't that the message of the extremist, Convert or be killed? I don't like those choices. I don't think it is stupid at all I think it is quite serious myself. Excuse me while I go hide under my bed.

"Excuse me while I go hide under my bed...."

Before you go, your thoughts on Americans torturing prisoners? Missed those.

I'm saying he did not crack and was given permission by his CO at the Hanoi Hilton, to tell them useless information so they would let up on him and let him heal.

The guys that were there with him have all verfied that.

Posted by briwo at 2006-09-18 02:01 PM | Reply


And I am saying he did. John McCain says he did. Is John McCain a liar?

His Hanoi Hilton CO can tell John to wear a tutu, but that doesn't make it OK.
He succumbed to torture, plain and simple. His "CO" didn't tell him to spill the beans because tortutre wasn't working Briwo.
And because the leftwing loonies have a hard time reading...I do not fault McCain for giving in, he did what 99% of us would have done. Self preservation is natural.

redneckboy...i said the gov'ment.get your head on staight.this is not dmc/gop.you libs are so vindictive and defensive you must froth at the mouth. i refer to most politicians as career political whores.they consider themselves our royalty. maintaining their lifestyle,adding to their own coffers and lining up fat boardroom retirements are all they care about.i am a conservative...most rinos and democrats make me want to puke.but by no means do i lay it all on dems

I don't enjoy human suffering. It depends on the circumstances. Not totally against it but not totally for it.

"Because torture wasn't working...."

That's right. Didn't work at all. The NV got what?

That's right. Didn't work at all. The NV got what?

Posted by Zed at 2006-09-18 02:21 PM | Reply


They shouldn't have gotten anything more than name, rank, and SSN. Any more questions?

He gave his ship, squadron, and target. He signed a war crimes confession as well.
That info he gave out could have been used to trick others into giving info, to corroberate other prisoner info, and for propaganda.

So to answer your question dumbass, the NVA got more than they were supposed to. No amount of denying that is going to prove you right, so save your crying and deflections for once.

"No amount of denying is going to prove you are right...."

Hmmmm. So, when servicemen are trained to give out false and/or redundant information under torture, as they are, how that fit into your ideas?

I'd say the NVA got more AND less than they thought they were, and likely just as they were supposed to.

Pardon me, I'm going to see the latest Webster's definition of "dumbass"...

"Self-preservation is natural...."

What other "natural" things surface under torture?

What other "natural" things surface under torture?

Blood.

Hmmmm. So, when servicemen are trained to give out false and/or redundant information under torture, as they are, how that fit into your ideas?



Posted by Zed at 2006-09-18 02:53 PM | Reply


Are you saying McCain didn't give the correct information?
What did I say about you deflecting?
He gave the correct info. Any other pilot that was shot down or from that ship or squadron would know that the info McCain gave was true. Think about that and quit deflecting.

Chair: I think you misunderstand. His CO at Hanoi Hilton told him, actually ORDERED him, to do what he did.

Yes he admits it, and I'm sure in his eyes he is guilty. But he did what he was ordered to do and he didn't take the ealry release.

Was it redundant information or not? That is, was it information the enemy already had?

What's the training these men have? Why are you turning a brave and clever ruse into something else?

Was it redundant information or not? That is, was it information the enemy already had?

What's the training these men have? Why are you turning a brave and clever ruse into something else?

Posted by Zed at 2006-09-18 03:35 PM | Reply


Is signing a war crimes confession redundant (I'll just ask you stupid questions seeing as though you don't know how to do anything else)?
Did he already tell them his ship, unit, and target? Did the fact that he told them that info somehow corroberate some other detainees story or perhaps catch him in a lie?

I realize you'll have more BS deflections and will stop you at the pass...McCain succumbed to torture, it is an undeniable fact, unless you want to call the man a liar.


"You are beyond hope if you can actually try to draw equivalence between the degree and scope of the Soviet gulags, and US enemy combatants' detention in places such as Gitmo."

you are a MORON if you don't think we are headed that way. Try to think if anyone had said we would be doing what we ARE doing five years ago. What would your response have been?

Chair: A man like McCain would beleive he succumbed even if he was follwing orders.

McCain/Powell 08

"I realize you'll have more BS deflections and will stop you at the pass...McCain succumbed to torture, it is an undeniable fact, unless you want to call the man a liar."

meanwhile Dumbya was hat home drinkin' beer and pulling his dick

Why any AMerican would advocate for the use of Torture is Beyond Me. They sure in the Hell Aren't Americans by SPirit that is for certain.

Larry

"President Bush has also sent Congress draft legislation to authorize military commissions very similar to those already struck down by the Supreme Court. In addition, he is asking that Congress to retroactively strip habeas corpus and to provide immunity from prosecution for civilians, CIA agents and administration officials who may have violated the War Crimes Act."

www.amnestyusa.org

Why is Bush asking for this? Why does he want it to be retroactive? Why does he wish to include "administration officials"? Bush is worried because he knows the "few low level bad apples" defense won't work for where he's at now.

Try to think if anyone had said we would be doing what we ARE doing five years ago. What would your response have been?

Posted by geezer1 at 2006-09-18 03:49 PM | Reply


It would have been "Oh yeah? Well we've been doing it a lot longer than that copernicus. Did you think otherwise?"

As for W, how did he enter the conversation?

Briwo,
The order he followed was IMO incorrect. That CO as far as I know can not tell a subordinate to violate a Geneva Convention standard like "name rank SSN".
Also, did this CO tell him to sign the war crimes memo as well (again, I don't know so I'm asking).

Why does he want it to be retroactive?

So that he isn't charged as a war criminal when the republican rubber stamp congress is gone.

I honestly don't think it would be impossible to prove at this point. The Bush admin is a nascient gestapo.

Oooh- torture got McCain to sign a worthless piece of propoganda paper.

Big fuckin deal.

Chair: not sure about the war crimes memo, but I do know, those were the orders given by his CO. Now keep in mind, under the POW circumstances, the CO (highest ranking officer being detained)could wel give unusual orders to keep a valuable assett like McCain or the other pilots alive.
There are quite a few documentaries that deal with McCAin and what went on at teh Hanoi Hilton, some good books too, and I also talked to some guys when I was in who had been there.

Nasty stuff.

And Bush wants to emulate them, briwo. Why? Because the torture has be ongoing, and he wants to cover his ass.

Bush also threatened to stop all interrogations unless he gets his way, so it's all or nothing. He's willing to put us all in danger to not get tried for war crimes. It's much like a cop saying he refuses to arrest people unless you allow him to brutalize the occasional suspect. Disgusting.

Bush threatens to stop interrogations

WASHINGTON - Warning that terrorists "are coming again," President Bush said Friday that he'd shut down a secret CIA interrogation program if lawmakers refused to give interrogators wide latitude in dealing with detainees.

www.sunjournal.com

See that? Bush is willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater(to take his blocks and go home) if the govt doesn't let him have his way.

George W Bush is perfectly willing to stop the CIA from interrogating(ie not torture, but question)terrorists, thereby removing intel that could save lives...

...Just so he can get his way., and retroactively cover his pathetic ass. This man is a spoiled, dangerous child. Impeach.

"It's a dangerous world," Bush said as he prodded Congress to follow his lead in dealing with suspected terrorists. "I wish I could tell the American people, "Don't worry about it, they're not coming again.' But they are coming again."

But if you don't let us torture people, we'll stop asking questions and allow you all to die. Want to live? Help me protect myself from legal action. -W.

Have we hit impeachable offenses yet? Last week I read that rumsfeld threaten to fire anyone that discussed post war planning...because he didn't want the american public to realize that we'd be in Iraq for along time, in case they might not be for that. Iraq was locked in from the beginning, and this administration allowed our soldiers to die for fear of not getting their war of choice.

www.dailypress.com

The Source is Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, army chief in 2003.

Impeach these fuckers.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

IMPEACH NOW!

He's willing to put us all in danger to not get tried for war crimes. It's much like a cop saying he refuses to arrest people unless you allow him to brutalize the occasional suspect. Disgusting.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2006-09-18 04:20 PM | Reply


Yes Alexandrite, "brutalize".
Put your hysteria away for a moment and use your noodle. Bush isn't willing to put our military and the CIA, NIA, FBI, interogators in danger or at risk of being tried for war crimes.
Clarification on treatment isn't a green light for pulling out fingernails as much as you guys want it to be.

Life isn't fair, but you can't tell me that Al Quaeda is worthy of recieving the same treatment as a Russian or Chinese SOLDIER (as an example). The rulings regarding giving those mutts the "name, rank, and SSN" is shooting ourselves in the foot.

McCain signed a war criminal memo. It is a big deal. When somebody of his stature was broken I can only imagine that it broke the will of numerous hold-outs. Of course to you a "war criminal" memo is no big deal though...

Briwo,
I do not believe that the Hanoi Hilton POW CO had the authority to allow somebody to give such information.

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it."

George Walker Bush - 2006.

"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,".

William Jefferson Clinton - 1998.



I suppose Bush's defense will be that "alternative interrogation techniques" do not constitute torture just as Clinton's defense was that a blowjob does not constitute "sexual relations".

Anybody believe Clinton? Anybody believe Bush?

Briwo,
I do not believe that the Hanoi Hilton POW CO had the authority to allow somebody to give such information.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-18 04:30 PM

Chair: And I beleive he may have had just such authority. The info McCAin gave was months old and useless.

101- it isn't clarificatin on treatment. The military and geneva have already done that.

He's asking for retroactive protection from prosecution for people that violated the law. Himself included.

101Chairborne-

McCain signed a war criminal memo. It is a big deal. When somebody of his stature was broken I can only imagine that it broke the will of numerous hold-outs. Of course to you a "war criminal" memo is no big deal though...

And when were you tortured?

Or are you just being an asshole?

In fact it is the military in many instances that is balking at Bush's "clarification" of the Geneva Convention article III.

"McCain signed a war criminal memo...It's a big deal...."

Not at all. Anyone paying attention since Korea knows what those things were all about, and how the enemy got them.

I think you have a much different idea of "succumbed" than most people. In my eyes, Mcain acquitted himself as a hero. Are you saying something else?

101Chairborne-
You realize that there have been those interrogated to death (ie, murdered) in Iraq and Afghanistan?

www.aclu.org

"You are beyond hope if you can actually try to draw equivalence between the degree and scope of the Soviet gulags, and US enemy combatants' detention in places such as Gitmo.

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-09-18 09:03 AM | Reply"

Take it from JeffJ, because he was there. He knows. What? He wasn't? He didn't? He doesn't? Oh, nevermind. Just another 'contributor' talking about something he has no knowledge of.

(Sorry, JeffJ, but for you to pretend knowledge of what goes on in a secret prison that we only recently admitted existed is a little hard to take. I'm sure we'd all like to believe that we aren't like that, or more accurately, that the Bush admin is not like that, the fact is we don't know. Any insight into why we need to have these secret places outside the U.S., its laws, and its courts' jurisdictions?

You realize that there have been those interrogated to death (ie, murdered) in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by Whatever


What is your point?

101Chairborne-
BTW -- though in my view it is immaterial -- since you were proud to claim it, where is your proof that McCain provided any information that helped his captors under torture?

I think his point is that it was barbaric and illegal. Just a guess.

Take it from JeffJ, because he was there. He knows. What? He wasn't? He didn't? He doesn't? Oh, nevermind. Just another 'contributor' talking about something he has no knowledge of.

(Sorry, JeffJ, but for you to pretend knowledge of what goes on in a secret prison that we only recently admitted existed is a little hard to take. I'm sure we'd all like to believe that we aren't like that, or more accurately, that the Bush admin is not like that, the fact is we don't know. Any insight into why we need to have these secret places outside the U.S., its laws, and its courts' jurisdictions?

Posted by mOntecOre at 2006-09-18 04:54 PM | Reply


And same goes for the douchebag that claimed counter right monte? Unless he was at both how can he claim we are as bad or even close to a russian gulag?


In my eyes, Mcain acquitted himself as a hero. Are you saying something else?

Posted by Zed at 2006-09-18 04:49 PM | Reply

Can you read? Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that I have clarified at least 3 times my position on McCain? I even went so far as to say "And because the leftwing loonies have a hard time reading...I do not fault McCain for giving in, he did what 99% of us would have done. Self preservation is natural.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-18 02:13 PM | Reply"



And when were you tortured?

Or are you just being an asshole?

Posted by Whatever at 2006-09-18 04:42 PM | Reply

What a stupid fucking post. Where in this entire thread did I give you that impression? You know what?...Nevermind, I can already tell you're an idiot.






Eberly-

You realize that there have been those interrogated to death (ie, murdered) in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by Whatever


What is your point?

Posted by eberly at 2006-09-18 04:58 PM

Are you serious?



Very......what is your point?

OK...I'm sorry...the jet lag back to the Dark Ages took some time to adjust to.

Here's your argument (101 and Eberly): Torture even to death is OK as long as it brings any results that may be helpful?

Is that where we are?

Is that the state of discussion here? Sorry, I guess it caught me off-guard.

I asked what your point was Whatever because I wanted you to elicit your actual point on this. Is your problem with the deaths only or the protection we are affording ourselves on this?

"Clarification on treatment isn't a green light for pulling out fingernails as much as you guys want it to be."

You're absolutely right 101....

Its more like going back in time and changing that red light they ran to a green light.

Or, sans time machine, amending the police report that says you ran a red light... it was actually green the whole time.

I don't get the attacks on McCain.... are you saying that he disobeyed orders or the like by succumbing to torture? Is being ordered to withstand all torture an achievable command? Is it a command you are morally obligated to obey or disobey? Was he court-martialed after he was released? Seriously, whats your point?

Is your point that torture works, and that it worked on McCain and that he should therefore be in support of it? More importantly, can you prove that the information received out of him was worth the torture, and that it led to other things?

"And same goes for the douchebag that claimed counter right monte? Unless he was at both how can he claim we are as bad or even close to a russian gulag?

Posted by 101Chairborne"

101, I hope you are not implying that I should respond to both sides of this debate with an even hand. I mean, you have made a career on this site out of pointing out logical fallacies, inaccuracies, etc. in 'progressive' posts while ignoring equally illogical, inaccurate posts by right wingnuts here. (Who pays for this 'career, I don't know, but I hope it is not the same group that subsidizes Rob-the-AHole's time spent here. Cheers.)

Eberly-
I think my point is clear.

Yours seems to be as well, and to be quite honest, I don't care if torture works. (though you have not proved that it does). I do care that we in the US are seriously discussing it not only as an option, but as a done deal that now must be legalized.

It makes me sick.

"I asked what your point was Whatever because I wanted you to elicit your actual point on this. Is your problem with the deaths only or the protection we are affording ourselves on this?"

What protection? Are you going on Bush's word that terror plots have been foiled by the information tortured out of these people? More importantly, what protections do you think our treatment of detainees have afforded those in uniform, who can (and will, eventually) be captured and in the hands of our enemies?

Surely, at this point... McCain and those aligned with him would have been made privy to information that was tortured out of detainees, and yet they still feel its not worth sinking to their (terrorists) level to attain. Shouldn't that tell you something? Our MILITARY is against Bush's proposals.

Or maybe Bush hasn't told McCain and Co. anything regarding that information.... shouldn't that be telling also?

"Is your problem with the deaths only or the protection we are affording ourselves on this?"

I tried, but I truly don't know what to say to something like that. I would betray my true beliefs if I asked for proof that these deaths and this torture "protected" us (though I have seen no such proof), so I suppose I'm at a loss for not only words but even comprehension.

It makes me sick.

Posted by Whatever

So? How do you suppose this would have made you feel?


en.wikipedia.org

My Dear Chairborne---I think "not faulting" McCain is enormously different from giving hero status.

Am I embarassed you've been deliberate ass and I haven't responded in kind? Not yet.

"What protection? Are you going on Bush's word that terror plots have been foiled by the information tortured out of these people? More importantly, what protections do you think our treatment of detainees have afforded those in uniform, who can (and will, eventually) be captured and in the hands of our enemies?"


No, I am talking about prosecutorial protection. Not the information obtained. I also question the worth of torturing. You think the Muslim extremists are going to make changes in their doctrine of how they treat prisoners based on what we are discussing here?

Very sad...

Put your hysteria away for a moment and use your noodle. Bush isn't willing to put our military and the CIA, NIA, FBI, interogators in danger or at risk of being tried for war crimes. 101

But he is willing to interpret the Geneva Conventions as he sees fit to be 'legal' in the USA. That totally endangers captured US troops if some other country says we will do what the USA did- for us the Geneva Conventions mean what WE say they mean.

Eberly-

I do not see the relevance of your Wikipedia post.

But on to this:

You think the Muslim extremists are going to make changes in their doctrine of how they treat prisoners based on what we are discussing here?

That, also, is meaningless. We are not the terrorists. We are the United States of America. We don't legalize torture.

Under torture, I'd hope to do as well as McCain, that "broken" man.

And while being tortured, I'd recite passages from the Encyclopedia Brittanica and make them seem like deep dark secrets as my only means to revenge myself upon a hated enemy.

My bet is most people hurting me wouldn't have a clue. What a worthless, worthless path to hell this torture business is.

Eberly-

No, I am talking about prosecutorial protection. Not the information obtained.

You obviously can't establish that any relevant information we have obtained was the result of torture -- or you already would have -- so I'll leave that aside for the moment.

As to your first sentence, Bush is not seeking that prior torture be excused, but that it be made legal both retroactively and in the future. Oh...I mean he wishes to "clarify" Article III.

Ebery-

Oh...I think I got it. Your Wikipedia post was intended to get me all scared about terrorists setting off a bomb in the US so I would be for torture of prisoners to save my ass and abandon any ounce of humanity I have and codify it into law and this all without any evidence from you that torture works????

OK. Tell me if I missed your point.

Never say our Canadian neighbors are not with us in the war on terror. This innocent man was deported to Syria and tortured, an Official Inquiry finds.

www.nytimes.com

Well I wonder how much longer it is going to take our "liberal" MSM to actually tie Bush's request to the existing evidence of US facillitated torture of detainees worldwide, as now is being uncovered at startling rates? Does anyone think this might be pissing more than a few people off that weren't even thinking of being terrorists before, but might now want to exact their "pound of flesh" for the way they were treated by US proxies?

We don't need OBL to stoke the fires of anti-US hatred because Bush and his run-amok government has already done more for the cause than a thousand tapes and fatwas ever could. Why do "they hate us"? Because we fuck with them, guilty or innocent, every chance we get, then hide the blood and declare ourselves morally superior. We're not.

It seems as though there are those here who would like us to sink to the terrorists level, and use the same kind of tactics they do.

Well we won't. we're better than that.
We're Americans.

"Did he already tell them his ship, unit, and target?"


Duh He Was Shot Down After Leaving The Target That Was Just Bombed And His Plane Had His Ship And Unit On It Along With The Planes Captain i.e. Crew Chief.

So they Knew All Those fact Already.

Oh And By The Way There Were Only 2 Aircraft Carriers In The Gulf During That Time.

His Picture Was All Over The News After His First Carrier Caught On Fire And He Escaped Death By Evacuating From His Plane While the Deck Was Burning.

Sometimes I Just Don't Know About Some Of You Guys.

-Sarge

John McCain

Vietnam
McCain escaped death once again on July 29, 1967. While the USS Forrestal steamed off the coast of Vietnam preparing to launch attacks, a Zuni rocket from an F-4 Phantom was accidentally fired across the carrier's deck. The rocket struck McCain's A-4E Skyhawk as the jet was preparing for launch. The impact ruptured the Skyhawk's fuel tank--after which leaking fuel ignited, knocking two bombs loose. McCain escaped from his jet by climbing out of the cockpit, walking down to the nose of the plane, and jumping off the nose boom onto the burning deck. Ninety seconds after the impact, the bomb exploded underneath the airplane. McCain was struck in the legs and chest by shrapnel. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship.[1] Film shot aboard the Forrestal shows McCain narrowly escaping the explosion.

After the Forrestal incident, McCain joined the VA-163 Saints on board the Oriskany, which was short-handed after a separate incident on that ship. The Saints squadron and its parent Air Wing 16 suffered the highest loss rate of any Navy flying unit during the entire Vietnam War. This was due to the perilous missions assigned to it and to the aggressive demeanor of its aviators. On October 26, 1966, prior to McCain's transfer to that carrier, the mishandling of a flare had resulted in a deck fire (44 men lost their lives, including 24 pilots).

en.wikipedia.org

Prisoner of war

John McCain captured by North VietnameseOn October 26, 1967, McCain was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam, by a Soviet-made anti-aircraft missile, landing in Truc Bach Lake. McCain was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five-and-a-half years, mostly in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. He suffered two broken arms and a broken leg after ejecting from his plane. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by another soldier's rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hanoi Hilton, also known as Hoa Lo Prison.

Once McCain arrived at the Hanoi Hilton, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.[2]


Interview with McCain on April 24, 1974, after his return home.When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), in charge of all US forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to go home, in an effort to embarrass the American military. Senior POWs had ordered there would be no return home unless all POWs were permitted to, and McCain, as did most POWs, followed orders, and refused to be repatriated back to the United States.

McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message which was written in Vietnamese, but did so only as a result of torture (to this day, he cannot raise his arms above his head, due to his two broken shoulders from the severe beatings administered by the North Vietnamese). It is that period during his capture that he most regrets. After McCain signed the initial statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement. This time, he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because he refused to sign any more statements for his captors.[2]

en.wikipedia.org

So What Was All This Top Secret Intel ?

A Propaganda Letter, Come on Give Me A Fucking Break !!!

-Sarge

There ya go Chairborne.

And as a side note; how many of you think Deadeye Dick, Rummy or Dubya would have survived any of that?

How fast do you think Dubya would have started talking once the torture began?

How fast do you think he would have JUMPED at Daddy's help in getting him out of there?

And to freshen your memory, this is the same man that Rove and Bush dragged through the mud during SC primary in 2000, they even questioned is service record.
At the same time they did the same thing to Max Cleeland, a vietnam vet who lost both arms and a leg.

Disgusting cowards is what they are. The whole fucking administration.

Your Wikipedia post was intended to get me all scared about terrorists setting off a bomb in the US so I would be for torture of prisoners to save my ass and abandon any ounce of humanity I have and codify it into law and this all without any evidence from you that torture works????

OK. Tell me if I missed your point.

Posted by Whatever

You missed it by a country mile. My point is that if we killed 8 soldiers during interrogation/torture then it is wrong and should be condemned like it currently is. We deliberately killed how many innocent civilians in a country that, at the time of the bombs, were no threat to invade our country. We recovered from that terrible tragedy.

We will recover from killing 8 terrorists also.

New story about a wrongly accused and tortured Canadian Citizen:

www.msnbc.msn.com

Camp Buca is going to be the next big prison system in Iraq

You have gotta beleive that the CIA and DIA have hired a couple of those ex-soviets to show how to get things done.

William says, "You have gotta beleive that the CIA and DIA have hired a couple of those ex-soviets to show how to get things done."

Of course, you "gotta" believe it! You Leftist/Democrats will believe ANYTHING which is negative about this administration. Then, of course in your hypocrisy, turn around and claim that revealing Plame's status with the CIA harms the CIA and damages our intelligence!

With your left hand, you seemingly support the CIA and their mission, and then on your right hand, declare the CIA to be a criminal organization who tortures prisoners, routinely, and attempt to deny interrogation as a valid intelligence tool . . .

Then, not satisfied with that -- INVENT A LIE AND PRETEND IT MUST BE "TRUE"!

What a bunch of sleazy, political scumsuckers you all make of yourselves!!!

You Leftist/Democrats

*yawn*

Your party is runnin the show. The resistance to the torture bill is coming from the republican congress, who has the actual power here.

Some of them are doing it out of moral standing, most because agreeing with Bush will be toxic in November.

But keep hammering away at the leftist bogeyman...

"What a bunch of sleazy political scumsuckers you all make of yourselves!"

What's your opinion of the GOP putting aside forty five million for the sole purpose of negative campaign ads???

Lisa says, "What's your opinion of the GOP putting aside forty five million for the sole purpose of negative campaign ads???"

I don't understand how seemingly intelligent people can think that I can be misdirected so easily . . . and stay "nice and polite?"

What does this have to do with interrogation and the Congress becoming definitive about the law?

Why don't you just repeat that Bush wants to torture people . . . or some other on subject bit of hysteria? No, you expect that you can sping a fast as a top and still demonstrate what an intellect you happen to be!!!

In a porcine's eye . . .

Then, not satisfied with that -- INVENT A LIE AND PRETEND IT MUST BE "TRUE"!

We're all aware of how we got hoodwinked into Iraq. This is old news. Please try and keep up. Oh wait, I see your point. Bush is lying again about torture, secret prisons, holding people ignoring the most basic principles this Country was founded, and wants to "try" them with evidence derived from torture, never letting them see the evidence.

I stand corrected. It is relevant.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Tad:

I asked that question because you obviously have a distaste for "slimey political scumsuckers" and was wondering if your feel that putting 45 mil into negative ads would fall into that catagory.

Thoughts?

Yav- yeah, so allow me to predict tads next posts...

1-Partisan attack, leftist/democrats, traitors crapweasels, subversives.

2-Victim card. I'm Reviled, dehumanized, you have an obsession, I'm the personal subject wah wah wah.

Alternate and repeat 1 and 2 until bloggers in proximity of puling gasbag want to kill themselves.

Lisa- It's the democrats fault. If a republican senator butchered his family with a chainsaw that would be the democrats fault too. Get with the program.

All I know is, DR wouldn't be the same without the stylings of Tadowe. He's a giving, although self-absorbed, kinda guy.

Alex, he's a piece for sure. On the "14,000" thread I saw him quoting Article 3, clause C) as though it was the only thing in all of Article 3.

Time to get breakfast going and get ready for work.

Good morning, btw.

Good morning Lisa!

Ok, Good morning Ted, too. I am outta here!

Why don't you just repeat that Bush wants to torture people . . _Tadowe

Bush wants to torture people

Bush wants to torture people

Bush wants to torture people

And you know it, too.

Morning, YAV!

Have a great day!

Yav insists, "We're all aware of how we got hoodwinked into Iraq."

Here we go with the concerted misdirection. The subject is the Congress' responsibility in defining the law as concerns interrogations. However, not able to actually address that, on point, you attempt to spin the subject into a personal attack and out-of-context.

"This is old news. Please try and keep up."

You are the one bringing up "old news!" However, you must spin that into a "Big Lie" and that I am the one doing so!

". . . Bush is lying again about torture, secret prisons, holding people ignoring the most basic principles this Country was founded, and wants to "try" them with evidence derived from torture, never letting them see the evidence."

Unreal! You even lie about this! It is "classified" intelligence which will not be revealed, but you imply that it is ALL of the evidence. You lie in saying that Bush wants to torture prisoners because NO TORTURE IS DONE NOW BY THE US! Drugs and stress were permissible to be used by the CIA, when I was in the service (under Kennedy and Johnson) and what has changed?

Why a Republican is conducting warfare and not a Democrat! That's the difference you partisan twit!

Lisa continues to misdirect, "I asked that question because you obviously have a distaste for "slimey political scumsuckers" and was wondering if your feel that putting 45 mil into negative ads would fall into that catagory."

I am not the "subject," Lisa, and I won't be too kind in reply if you continue to do so.

"Thoughts?"

How much is being put into negative ads by the DNC, Lisa?

Thoughts?

Come on, Tad...I'm not misdirecting. I had a simple, logical question.

Why the reluctance to answer with your opinion?

The purpose of blogging is to share thoughts and ideas with each other.

I'm not making you "the subject", I was interested on your opinion.

"A Republican is conducting warfare...."

Some of us would oppose torture even if it wasn't Bush advocating it, Tad.

Alex says, "Yav- yeah, so allow me to predict tads next posts..."

So, Lisa, Alex is much better at making me the subject than you are, but he has had much more practice; I presume.

If I were to notice any fact about that post, then it confirms Alex's prophecy!

Fact one: Alex says, "1-Partisan attack, leftist/democrats, traitors crapweasels, subversives."

Nah! Alex didn't get this one correct, and although he is correct in that the Left/rats do attack partisanly, are tacitly acting out as traitors and are conducting subversion by misleading the public about these issues -- leaving those that do with one sure definition of their status: "crapweasels."

Alex predicts, "2-Victim card. I'm Reviled, dehumanized, you have an obsession, I'm the personal subject wah wah wah."

See? Here, in this thread, the subject is "Interrogation" and the role of the president and Congress in defining it -- while for the Left/rats it is spinning the subject into predictions of what I will do, when a Left/rat makes me their subject (
and as they have done in the past and oh so well, too! While demonstrating that they aren't much different than some Nazi propagandist defaming a Jew.

"Alternate and repeat 1 and 2 until bloggers in proximity of puling gasbag want to kill themselves."

What a pathetic character you happen to be . . .


This is tiresome, Tad.

Tad:

Will you answer the question I asked?

maybe we ought to built a tower...put the cuddly liitle terrorist in and then threaten to hit it with a plane full of fuel... they could tell what they know,be incinerated alive or jump several stories to smash like a ripe watermelon.hell if it was good enough for several thousand INNOCENT american.why in the hell don't y'all pull your heads out of your asses.or how about lettin'em watch nick berg beheaded with a dull knife then let them choose.let the government do their job...

Lisa asks, "Will you answer the question I asked?"

I did. I'll repeat.

The question is not on subject and has nothing to do with the quote you used of mine, and since I was talking about the actions of Leftist/Democrats concerning the subject of this thread. I haven't mentioned negative campaigning, and resent the effort to sidetrack my commentary with non-sequiturs.

Non-sequiturs, btw, which ASSUME that negative campaigning is an exclusive tactic of the Republicans, and that the Leftist/Democrats would never consider earmarking any funds for such egregious activities . . .yeah.

It is sufficient to say that the negative campaigning is more than evident on this blog from the Left/Democrats and in nearly every single "headline" presented for "discussion." A "discussion" which is instantly abandoned in order to misdirect and outright lie about the subject.

This thread was placed here to mock the request of Bush to the Congress: that they DEFINITEVLY say what is and what is not accepted practice in CIA interrogations. (The military is NOT involved in that aspect because they are regulated by the Code of Conduct and the Geneva Convention AND they order even more humane treatment than is normally provided by other Western countries. For example, in training the military demonstrates painful interrogation techniques to trainees, and in an attempt to show that pain is bearable when not crippling or which leave no permanent marks, and which the enemy might use to gain information from them. However, it is absolutely forbidden to use them in actual practice. Activities like "stacking," dog collars and nakedness are NOT condoned, because it is not only childish, immature and stupid, but it DOES NOT cause fear and stress but only loathing and resentment; both of which are not conducive to successful interrogation(s.))

The "truth" is that you want to engage, but won't discuss the subject because you know that you would have to lie about it, in order to repeat the negative propaganda that will earn your party "votes" (32 pieces of silver) during a time of war . . .

. . . Which would confirm my comment you quoted, and which you attempt to misdirect . . .

The problem, Tad, is that Bush had the last five years to "definitively" deal with the definition of torture.

The man is being as cynical as it comes, daring others not to give him everything he wants close to election time.

Let's start with the beginning: Bush hates the Geneva Accords, and tried his best to deep six them.

Let's start with the beginning: Bush hates the Geneva Accords, and tried his best to deep six them.

Posted by Zed at 2006-09-19 11:04 AM | Reply


I believe you mean "Bush realizes that the Geneva accords do not adequately address the reality of a State fighting a Non-State (A Quaeda)."
If you are happy with fighting with one arm tied behind your back then that's fine, but the reality is you are a sucker.

Tad:

It's obvious that one is not allowed to question your comments or actions.

If it's the subject you're so interested in sticking to, Tad, then I would have to correct your comments, because the subject isn't titled "Left Bashing" or "the actions of the Left"...which your posts speak of, in each and every thread. You turn every thread into criticizm of anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with you and your party.

It's the old do as I say, not as I do, rule with you, isn't it??

Well, I'm glad I have the rules finally understood, Tad.

Have a great day!

Hey, I don't see the problem here.

Bush just wants to legalize torture, secret prisons, and indefinite detainment without any oversight for thousands of prisoners, and more to come. He also wishes to convict these suspects, possibly...eventually...if they don't die, without even a whiff of the substance required for what anyone in the US would even begrudgingly refer to as a trial.

It worked for the KGB...so why not us?

So what's the problem with the "scum" and "leftists" such as former Secretary of the Navy Sen. Warner.?

"It's obvious that one is not allowed to question your comments or actions"

Arrrr. Give 'em hell, ye little wench.

Arrrr. Give 'em hell, ye little wench.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2006-09-19 11:20 AM | Reply


National "Talk like a Pirate Day" so soon!?!

No, I'll stand on my assertion Bush hates the Geneva Convention. Available evidence suggests I am right.

The dedicated advocacy of torture I've seen here reminds me of the worst sort of dogmatic religious beliefs. Those held on behalf of Kali, maybe.

You have your religion, I have mine.

National "Talk like a Pirate Day" so soon!?!

Aye, ye bilge rat.

Zed says, "The problem, Tad, is that Bush had the last five years to "definitively" deal with the definition of torture."

The "definition" has been the same for the CIA up to this juncture, Zed, and as you know very well. However, at present, the Leftist/Democrats are attempting to imply that it is somehow different -- that Bush is the "inventor" of CIA interrogation techniques, or the base lie that he wants to torture prisoners.

"The man is being as cynical as it comes, daring others not to give him everything he wants close to election time."

Since Bush's "way" was also Clinton's, Bush Sr.'s, Reagan's, Carter's, and every president's since the creation of the CIA, I don't wonder that he might be cynical over the sudden change in the reality which the Leftist/Democrats are trying to invent and blame him for!

Any reasonably educated person, one who might not read much more than adventure, spy, or mystery novels, could guess that the CIA is so far beyond thumbscrews and wires to the gonads, that it is ludicrous to suppose otherwise. But, here the Leftist/Democrats are pretending that the CIA actually "tortures" prisoners!

Of course, it doesn't matter to the Leftist/Democrats that a vital role of the CIA, one which has benefitted every president up until now, is denied because sleep deprivation combined with drugs is degrading and constitutes "torture." The Leftist/Demorats are only concerned with harming the CIA's intelligence capabilities when they can use it to defame Bush -- Plame's "importance" to the CIA is SACRED to the Leftist/Democrats, then . . .

Now, of course, you puling hypocrites could care less about the CIA's ability to gather intelligence . . .

. . .scum sucking hypocritical crapweasels and virtual traitors . . .

"Let's start with the beginning: Bush hates the Geneva Accords, and tried his best to deep six them."

Post some proof of this statement, or otherwise you're just another of those Leftist/Democrat subversives attempting to profit at the expense of this war by constant defammation and the daily calumny that is so much in evidence . . . on every Leftist/Democrat blog on the internet . . . daily, minute by minute and second by second come the misdirections, obfuscations, pandering to ignorance and outright, base lies.

So very, very despicable and much less during a time of war . . .

My Dear Tad---You're so prolix it's hard to know where to start. I'll start here.

What the CIA would like is to have their combination of sensory deprivation and forced body extensions accepted legally as something besides the torture it is.

They would also like legal forgiveness for sticking ordinary American soldiers for the deaths of the odd Arab cab driver found hanging by their arms from light fixtures.

These are the sorts of things Bush has allowed to date. Let's include threatening wives and children with torture, as the man directly authorized.

You need to read what ex-FBI agents have to say about Bush's direct interest in, and involvement with, torture.

From my point of view, you are on one side of a fence on this subject or the other.

You are on Bush's side of the fence. I'd like to ask him what side his church is on.







Lisa says, "It's obvious that one is not allowed to question your comments or actions."

This a form of putting-words-in-someone's-
mouth. Indeed, it is 180 degrees opposite the reality and which was that I wanted the subject discussed, and not misdirected. I would love to see a reasoned argument in rebuttal from the Leftist/Democrats, but usually get misdirection; with me as the subject usually, however reasoned.

"If it's the subject you're so interested in sticking to, Tad, then I would have to correct your comments, because the subject isn't titled "Left Bashing" or "the actions of the Left"...which your posts speak of, in each and every thread. You turn every thread into criticizm of anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with you and your party."

As I've mentioned, even the title of this thread is a mockery of reality. This isn't about Soviet socialists forcing signed confessions, but about finding out plans and persons of terrorism.

This isn't about some petty criminal being "framed" for a crime they didn't commit, but rather the mastermind of 9/11 and his similar counterparts in the putative "Islamic Jihad," and which encompasses Afghanistan, Iraq, and others in the ME; some who are supposed allies. It isn't about the rack, iron-maiden or scalpels -- it is about fear, stress and drugs to determine who helps, who finances, who are the leaders and what are their plans.

Now, the Congress, in refusing to define the issue are responsible for stopping any such future intelligence because the US interrogators might be brought up on war crimes by our own nation! That's what it comes down to -- we send them to do a job, without specific guidance or hint, and then send them to prison or execution for saving lives with the intelligence they provide for their country.

And, Leftist/Democrats are trying to revile and turn Bush into a Stalin of a Torturer for asking the Congress to do their job and define what is and what is not "torture." Or, they are making anyone who tries to address the reality of the situation -- even if they can demonstrate from their actions that Leftist/Democrats are attempting to damage the US, in order to "get" Bush. You only seem to care about CIA "intelligence" when it can be used to "get" Bush!!!

"It's the old do as I say, not as I do, rule with you, isn't it?? Well, I'm glad I have the rules finally understood, Tad."

What "rules?" I haven't stated anything more than that the Leftist/Democrats literally CAN'T do anything but lie about this situation, since it is no different than when any other president has gone to war!!! Instead, and as I've commented on, they MUST misdirect; often making their correspondent the bearded goat of their effort to do so!

"Have a great day!"

I know you don't mean this. What you mean is, "Take that!" However, Lisa, you do nothing more than run away from attempting to dispute any point I've made; except to place your foot into the shoe . . . and found a fit . . .

If you support torture of any kind, you deserve to be tortured to get a taste of it. That way you know what the hell you are talking about!

I can't believe you freaks who think that torture is ok! Do your parents and children know this is how you really think? Or is this your secret little bloodletting so you can feel big and bad to make up for the fact that your wife and kids walk all over you?

Tad:

"I know you don't mean this."

You're wrong. I did and still do.

"you do nothing more than run away from attempting to dispute any point I've made"

You have not yet answered my question, I'd rethink of who is running away!

Yes or no Tad:

"I asked that question because you obviously have a distaste for "slimey political scumsuckers" and was wondering if your feel that putting 45 mil into negative ads would fall into that catagory."

You did not answer it. This is what your responses were:

First time: "What does this have to do with interrogation and the Congress becoming definitive about the law?"

Second time: "I am not the "subject, Lisa"

Third time: "I did. I'll repeat.

The question is not on subject"

You brought up the "slimey political scumsuckers" Tad. I followed up your comment with a question.

Tad...I will gladly welcome any questions you have of me, following them with a response, once you answer the question I asked of you at 7:25 this morning.

Oh, and Tad?

If I meant to say "Take That"...that is exactly what I would have said!!

I can't believe you freaks who think that torture is ok!

If it comes down to:

a.) The survival, health, safety, or even convenience of myself, my family, friends, co-workers, etc.

vs.

b.) Roughing up some sub-human piece of jihadist shit..

...then guess what?

You can debate the topic at varying levels of moral and ethical abstraction until you're blue in the face.

But that's what it boils down to.

And the more you bitch and whine about it, the more you'll be associated with those who appease and empathize with mass-murdering slugs who make no secret about their desire to wipe us from the earth.

So carry on...

I look forward to discussion about the "sheer stupidity" exhibited by the "brainwashed sheeple" following the elections.

"mass-murdering slugs who make no secret about their desire to wipe us from the earth"


That would be the Mooselamb Botherhood.

"And the more you bitch and whine about it, the more you'll be associated with those who appease and empathize with mass-murdering slugs who make no secret about their desire to wipe us from the earth."

And that argument might have some currency if these slugs actually had any more ability to wipe us from the earth than, say, slugs.

Pinche....

You are an official coward. You will drop beneath the moral standards of those you call subhuman so you have a more "convenient life"

Horse shit! This isn't an abstraction. It is the fact that we are running this "War on the Hypothetical fear" in such a way that the rest of the world, who used to respect and envy us, now fear and pity us because we have lost every once of moral highground and support that helped got us and our allies through tougher global crises like WWII and the Cold War. It's gone, we now have the legitimacy of your average third-world country.

Considering that our many troops are on their third tours it sure would be nice to have some allies to step in and fight for what's right. Unfortunately, policies like torture and secret prisons scare away the relief pitchers. Why do you think Bush has all of a sudden turned into a shuttle diplomat? Even he knows he needs reinforcements, and he won't find very many with such low moral standards.

To say that I'm an appeaseer is "sheer stupidity." I actually would like to see a solution to this crap instead of falling right into the terrorsists gameplan for a change.

"Roughing up some jihadist piece of shit...."

Or killing (slowly) cabbies that had no connection with the enemy that is known, save in the mind of some CIA spook that let an Army NCO take the fall for him.

So, you have two innocent people with their lives destroyed.

But arguing "innocence" gets you no place. They're all jihadists once they've been caught.

And our own soldiers, well---Teach them to accept orders from "contractors".

The practice of torture deserves to be "bitched and whined about".

From my point of view, there's very little "ethical abstraction" in this topic, save from those that really, really need to find some.

And that rejoinder might have some currency were it not representative a point-of-view entrenched in a profound state of denial as to the intentions and emerging capabilities of the slugs.

btw, that was supposed to be "an ounce of moral highground and support that helped us get through WWII and the Cold War"

"Emerging capabilities...."

Hell, if that's the bar to torturing someone, I'd guess no one is safe.

Yes,

I understand Al-Queda wants to kill us all....so does Marvin the Martian. Yes, they are a threat, so lets outsmart them for a change instead of constantly being played the fool by "subhuman slugs."

We are doing everything they want us to do. Ever hear of a "halftime adjustment"
They can't defeat us, but we sure can defeat ourselves. Torture is one more step down the slippery slope to the collapse of a just civilization. A just society will succeed, as a just individual will succeeed. At least, that's what I learned in the Bible. Do you have one by chance?

Let's add "funny walk" and "poor hygiene" to "intentions" as a means to guage threat.

Unfortunately, policies like torture and secret prisons scare away the relief pitchers

No they don't.

It's cowardice---and appeasement of the disgruntled and growing domestic populations of Muslims that scare away the relief pitchers.

You will drop beneath the moral standards of those you call subhuman so you have a more "convenient life"

I will kill my enemy--or make certain that I do whatever is necessary to win.

Like firebombing Dresden or Tokyo.

Or nuking Hiroshima.

Or shelling Normandy.

Or burning Atlanta.

You will drop beneath the moral standards of those you call subhuman...

That's such a convenient and horseshit evocation of moral absolutism.

Salt kills slugs.

I understand Al-Queda wants to kill us all....so does Marvin the Martian.

Except Marvin the Martian is a cartoon character---and, as of yet, hasn't demonstrated his ability to ruthlessly slaughter innocent people by the thousands.

"Make certain I will do whatever is necessary to win...."

And afterwards what do expect, thanks? A special seat at the dinner table? To be able to babysit your friend's kids?

Curtis LeMay at least at the decency to admit what he did to Japan was immoral.

"Evocation of moral absolutism..."

What you mean to say is you prefer your absolutism to his.

Torture is one more step down the slippery slope to the collapse of a just civilization.

So is pretending that your nihilistic enemy can be appeased and mollified by the self-imposed sanctions you place on your treatment of him.

"Nihilistic..."

The irony.

Folks,

We have a stark reality to face here. Conventional methods are largely ineffective when fighting a stateless, shadowy enemy that we are embroiled with.

The right comes off as barbaric in their quest for expediency. The Left comes off as naive and self-defeating with their staunch approach of "We have to apply existing standards accross the board."

Fact is a fine line exists between our security and the squelching of civil liberties in the name of security. We will never all agree on where to draw the line. However, I would vehemently argue that the line, as it currently exists, needs to be moved in the direction of greater security (with the corresponding reduction of protected civil liberties).

"profound state of denial as to the intentions and emerging capabilities of the slugs."

I'm not denying their intentions.
Their capabilities to wipe out western civilization are, and will remain non-existent.

What you mean to say is you prefer your absolutism to his

No.

What I meant to say was that I'm seeing a convenient and horseshit evocation of moral absolutism.

Here is a great op-ed, penned by a liberal, talking about how out of touch liberals are regarding jihadists and national security.

www.latimes.com

The Left comes off as naive and self-defeating with their staunch approach of "We have to apply existing standards accross the board."

Ergo, convenient and horseshit evocation of moral absolutism.

A crass crock of political shit.

"Corresponding reduction in protected civil liberties...."

Great. Which of the Bill of Rights would you like to modify?

Cowardice is straying from what you hold true in the face of fear. Bravery is holding steadfast to what is right....Once again, Bible...Jesus....oh never mind you don't care about that crap.

The rewards of getting mostly vague and mostly innacurate information by means of torture does not meet the cost of moral highground and international cooperation. It's simple calculus. I, as well, want to defeat the enemy. I also want to locate the enemy, pinpoint the enemy, and show the rest of the world "this is your enemy." But we can't even figure out who are the enemy and who are caught up in the crossfire. And it's not like we care who's who either.

As far as your past incidences, yes we fucked them up, but we also knew who the enemy was. The muddied waters has left the International community questioning who the good guys and the bad guys are because the good guys are turning into the bad guys.

Mao---Is it not obvious to you that some of us base their positions on this on clear religous convictions? When did that become "horseshit"?

As far as your past incidences, yes we fucked them up

I don't think we "fucked them up" at all.

We won the goddamn war.

And the world is a far better place for it.

Thank you Zed. It's time the real believers step up and beat down these "beLIEvers." Either you have faith or you have fear. One will eventually trump the other.

So, what would you have us do? Ditch our convictions for your perceived convenience?

Zed,

The Partiot Act, to answer your question.

However, it should NEVER be made permanent. It should always have a sunset causing it's worth and effectiveness to be reviewed where appropriate adjustments can be made if needed.

I just have to interject parenthetically some amusement at a defense of the bombing of Dresden. Had Dresden not been bombed, the only thing we would be missing would be one Vonnegut novel.

Is it not obvious to you that some of us base their positions on this on clear religous convictions?

That's fine.

You may base your position on anything you wish.

But state policy regarding the conduct on warfare needs to be based upon common sense, hard truths, and reality.

Not religious pieties.

Jeff---You want to get me to support something like the Patriot Act, then get Bush to ask Congress to declare war on something.

Let's have a war in order to behave as if we're in one.

no, I mean as in we beat the crap out of them with impunity....regrettably justified and appropriate in their times. Sorry if my language was too confusing for you. You just want to paint me into a corner as an appeaser when it is not going to happen. My position is that of demanding a competent strategy. With a competent strategy, we hopefully will never have to repeat the uber-destructive actions that you have mentioned. A smart and precise intellegence industry in the 24/7 world, with lots of supportive eyes and ears should be more effective than the random deployment of munitions.

Or we can just dehumanize all of them and take random shots and see what happens.
I'll bet we lose and it won't be anyone else's fault, there will be nobody left to blame

Either you have faith or you have fear. One will eventually trump the other.

Posted by bocaink at 2006-09-19 02:12 PM | Reply


How nice that it fits in a little box like that.
Your religion and your bible aren't going to keep jihadi's from attacking the West.

BillO,
Your statement is completely niave. All it takes is one or two rogue governments, or collapsed governemnts to supply nukes, WMD, or Nuclear know-how. It may not wipe the West out, but it would devastate the West.

Now the pussified French want all talk of Sanctions on Iran to cease...Hmmm, who would have guessed that?

To All:
When are you guys going to get sick and tired of kissing muslim mutt ass and finally say "It's time to destroy that rabid ideology"? How many times do you literally have to be told BY THEM that they want to destroy you and your way of life?
We aren't talking about some anonymous bloggers jagging off on a website, we are talking about influential clerics. We are talking about heads of state.
Do you think those mutts are "allowed" to protest in the streets without their governments approval?
Open your fucking eyes.

Fact is a fine line exists between our security and the squelching of civil liberties in the name of security. We will never all agree on where to draw the line. However, I would vehemently argue that the line, as it currently exists, needs to be moved in the direction of greater security (with the corresponding reduction of protected civil liberties).

This is nothing close to fact and this fictitious line of yours only exists in the head of non-thinking rightfundies.

Our security would never ever get higher with reducing our liberties, it moves the other way.

What your low minded doesn't understand is security is for individual people, not governments, not organizations of mass faith, it is for individual people. And the fact that INDIVIDUAL responsibility has been lost to the neoconfundies ideals of right explains to a tee why between you and Mao are going down faster than you can lower your standards.

"Not religous pieties...."

Well, Mao---I'm supposed to subsitute my basic moral convictions out of respect to the alleged common sense of a man who, frankly, is not as bright as either of us? Really?

But state policy regarding the conduct on warfare needs to be based upon common sense, hard truths, and reality.

My point exactly. What you call common sense, hard truths, and reality, I call bullshit loser-bully mentality.

"Your religion and your Bible...."

Yes, it's all just a hobby.

What a strange site this is. Moral absolutists carp about the lack of moral relativism here, and perhaps even pigs fly -- though I haven't seen that yet. Or maybe I have.

As usual crasshole read something that may have sounded cool in some anarchistic way, but due to his complete lack of understanding and total lack of smarts he butchered it and just inserted "fundie" to words he assumes mean something.

But state policy regarding the conduct on warfare needs to be based upon common sense, hard truths, and reality.

Not religious pieties.


Really, coming from one who would argue about the laws coming from the judeo-christian ideals. It seem so funny seeing the drastic move to one immoral direction of these rightpanderingfundies.

The simple fact is we go to war for ideals and protection of those ideals. Well according to you fundies, those ideals don't mean shit when war appears. Well, stepping back a nation in the stages of moral reasoning is your fundies forte.

BillO,
Your statement is completely niave. All it takes is one or two rogue governments, or collapsed governemnts to supply nukes, WMD, or Nuclear know-how. It may not wipe the West out, but it would devastate the West.

Only if we let it, 101. They have no capacity to launch ICBMs. When they do, let me know. The only devestation they can do is the result of the sheeple panicking.

The Left comes off as naive and self-defeating with their staunch approach of "We have to apply existing standards accross the board."

Lol!!!

101, even though you have yet to supply proof any military credentials, I do agree with you that we must defeat the ideology of the fatwah. We have to win hearts and minds to do this because there is very little neutral ground anymore. We either win hearts and minds or lose them. I agree wtih the Pope completely. And I'm gonna piss off about 1.2 billion people by saying that. We must provide an alternative that a war of ideologies can be won through truth and heart. That may mean our noses get a little bloodied. We will lose that battle if we fall into the same ideological trap the Byzantine Emporor said about Islam. Two wrongs will never make it right.

I'm brave enough to stand by what is right even if it means I die. Religion by gunpoint is wrong and torture is wrong.

Zed,

Well, Mao---I'm supposed to subsitute my basic moral convictions out of respect to the alleged common sense of a man who, frankly, is not as bright as either of us? Really?

This is the issue, and frankly am surprised you included their convictions as at a equal level to your own.

Clearly they don't see, understand, or even grasp who they are following or even why they are following.

Crassus,

Your contributions thus far to this thread have been muddled and confusing to say the least.

Seriously, are you drunk or high or something?

Sniffing too much jet fuel perhaps?


Go sleep off your buzz and come back with a cogent, on-point response.

Jeff J.,

Sorry if the points are a little over your head, it would be expected that a sheep following the fox wouldn't understand security.

No, Jeff, he made perfect sense but you won't see it. So denegrate him instead.

Although, I think I can speak for crassus in a manner in which you can understand:

Stupid is as stupid does

Only if we let it, 101. They have no capacity to launch ICBMs. When they do, let me know. The only devestation they can do is the result of the sheeple panicking.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2006-09-19 02:25 PM | Reply


Iran and NK are both close. How about the Paki's? Russia can't control any of their hardware either.
We are attempting "talks" in both NK and Iran. Unfortunately they aren't interested in talking because they know there aren't likely to be repurcussions. France, Russia, and China have no interest in holding any feet to the fire.

Bo,
Talking to the crazies doesn't work, never has. You can not make a jihadi see the error of his ways. When they believe 72 virgins will greet them, when they beleive you either convert or die, and when they believe that killing innocents is ok as long as it's to further allah's will you are not going to convince them that cohabitation is OK.
When you can't even get the moderate muslims to denounce the rabid ones, and when you can't even convince Americans that have been directly attacked and promised more attacks that jihadi's are a danger, you have no chance of changing things via words.

Who needs ICBM's when you can just FedEx it?

101, I understand that talking to the crazies wont work, neither will torturing them. The goal from the start (and it was like this before Iraq) should have been to alienate them as "Crazies." But, our actions in return has given them an (albeit perverted) justification in the Muslim community. Now the "Crazies" are becoming mainstream in large part to anti-U.S. sentiment. Once again, the battle of ideas is what will decide who wins this battle.
Unfortunately an "Eastern Crazies vs. Western Crazies" Superbowl is already on the schedule.

Actually Bo,

His points were not on topic. He assigned a position to me that I didn't take, just so that he could knock it down. And he used a lot of denigrating vebiage in the process.

I just gave it back to him.

101chairborne-

Iran and NK are both close [to launching ICBMs]. How about the Paki's?

1.The "Paks" are our allies in the GWOT.

2. Iran is "close" to launching nukular ICBMs?

3. What the hell are you thinking, and where do you get your information?

But you seem to be correct in that talking to the crazies never works.

This is nothing close to fact and this fictitious line of yours only exists in the head of non-thinking rightfundies.

Our security would never ever get higher with reducing our liberties, it moves the other way.

What your low minded doesn't understand is security is for individual people, not governments, not organizations of mass faith, it is for individual people. And the fact that INDIVIDUAL responsibility has been lost to the neoconfundies ideals of right explains to a tee why between you and Mao are going down faster than you can lower your standards.


A bunch of bullshit platitudes. Also completely erroneous. A police state is safer than a free society. It's certainly not preferable to a free society, but it is safer.

Try reading and understanding what I have written. Then respond on point with a demonstrative understanding of how things work in the process.

Platitudes, naivete and condescension only degrade the entire conversation.

Now the "Crazies" are becoming mainstream in large part to anti-U.S. sentiment. Once again, the battle of ideas is what will decide who wins this battle.
Unfortunately an "Eastern Crazies vs. Western Crazies" Superbowl is already on the schedule.

Posted by bocaink at 2006-09-19 02:41 PM | Reply


Here IMO is your problem...
Why not call a spade a spade? Are you telling me that somehow our actions turn normal people into suicide bombers that find it appropriate and acceptable to kill innocent men, women, and children?
You can not make a jihadi out of a moderate unless you also believe that a moderate muslim is too stupid to see the fallacy in a jihadi's thought process, and without believing that Islam is a violent dangerous religion.

As far as Western Crazies v. Eastern crazies...
Plain old stupid. When has any western leader told people to convert to a certain religion? When has any western leader purposefully targeted civilians and said it was acceptable because "god" said so? When has any western leader praised the cutting out of an Al Quaeda's eyes and genital mutilation?

The mere fact that you subscribe some type of equal comparison is sickening.

Crassus is really one of the dumbest people to post here. He will never back up his assertions. He will state something outrageous as a fact and when called on it he'll ignore it. He thinks adding "fundie" to something makes him look smart.
He also has continually claimed that American GI's that die enroute to Germany or the USA from wounds in Iraq are not counted in the Iraqi death toll, despite being shown that it is untrue. How in the fuck do you expect people to do anything but laugh at him?

"Bo,
Talking to the crazies doesn't work, never has"

Oh I agree with that, 101. But I see no chance of them acquiring launchable ICBMs. And if our intelligence services detected that, we would knock them out in a minute. Their capacities are limited to terror, and the more we change our life the more they have won. So we lose 3,000 a year. So what? We lose 50,000 a year in auto accidents.

Jeff J.,

His points were not on topic. He assigned a position to me that I didn't take, just so that he could knock it down. And he used a lot of denigrating vebiage in the process.

Really, funny this.......

are these not from you:

Fact is a fine line exists between our security and the squelching of civil liberties in the name of security. We will never all agree on where to draw the line. However, I would vehemently argue that the line, as it currently exists, needs to be moved in the direction of greater security (with the corresponding reduction of protected civil liberties).


The Partiot Act, to answer your question.

However, it should NEVER be made permanent. It should always have a sunset causing it's worth and effectiveness to be reviewed where appropriate adjustments can be made if needed.


You are willing to sacrifice your individual security and GIVE IT to the government.

I am simply at a loss as to see how this will solve the problem especially coming from one who thinks the government is getting to big. Well I guess big is bad and but, at least they are honest and trustworthy..........right!

"A police state is safer than a free society. It's certainly not preferable to a free society, but it is safer."


Safer to whom?

101chairborne
As one who has stated that Iran is "close" to the capability of launching ICBMs, I really don't see why anyone would take anything you say on this issue seriously.

He will state something outrageous as a fact and when called on it he'll ignore it.

What a nut!

Whatever,
You are a boy among men.


1. The Paks are one well place IED away from being ruled by fanaticals.
Any more questions shitheap?
2. Iran is close. It's called google, it is your friend. They use Russian and Chinese missiles and insert a little Iranian know how to modify weapons they purchase. Many legitimate sources see Iran being able to launch and hit europe. Shabob 3's modified may be able to launch a sattelite very soon.
Anything else stupid?
3. Again, it's called reading. Check out google.
Isn't this the second time in 2 days you've tripped over yourself to get slapped down?

Good grief. This site is a bit addictive, but a total waste of time.

I suppose I'll be back :)

Individual security?

Temporarily lowering some of the barriers that law enforcement has to make it easier for them to snuff out terrorists.

What is so irritating Crass, is that I was attempting to discuss, with civility where to draw the line. However, we may have to chunk up a bit higher and come to some form of consensus as to the actual level of threat that we face. Any changes to our enforcement tactics, be they temporary or permanent, need to be commensurate with the level of threat and the difficulties faced in eliminating said threat.

I am simply at a loss as to see how this will solve the problem especially coming from one who thinks the government is getting to big

Nothing I've suggested involves an increase in the size of government. The changes I wish to discuss only enable enforcement a better ability to do their job. In fact, with the creation of DHS we have an unneccessary layer of beaurocracy. We'd be more effective to peel that layer back (reducing gov't in the process). Furthermore, providing for our nation's security IS a constitutionally mandated duty of our government.

So your little attempt at 'gotcha' is shot down on multiple levels.

Whatever,
While your gone try reading up on what would happen if Musharaff were to be killed (you know, your point #1 in your 243pm post).
Also, google "Irans Missile Capabilities" or anything similar to that. That may help you with point number 2.


A whole 9 days on the retort and you so willingly offer yourself up? Coincidence I guess?

whoah, 101chairborne...that's a bit of the tactic of the defeated.

But I'll play for a moment.

1. The "Paks" are ruled by fanatics, and they are "our" ally.

2. How 'bout a link to these "legitimate sources" that claim that Iran is ANYWHERE NEAR the ability to launch an ICBM with a nuke, as you claimed.

3. No, it's not called "reading". It's called being a sucker for all seasons of perpetual fear, you little pants-pisser.

101chairborne-
Google "roswell aliens". Google "I'll believe what I wish to believe". Google "I'm a pants-pisser, and yet again ripe for manipulation".

So your little attempt at 'gotcha' is shot down on multiple levels.

Really, I don't see anything shot down on any level.

I see someone who is willing to give up his freedoms and give it to his government and expecting them to use it properly when in the face of reality sees that this trust is foolish.

Removing your freedom give others in certain positions more power, and you are trusting these people to morally do the right thing. What you fail to understand is those people report to other people and the demoralization of effective security is not toward the area you expect.

The constitution gave freedom to the people to protect them from the government, and now you think this is wrong.

Well apparently freedom is not a good thing because according to you we lose security with more freedom. And you're thinking I am naive.

What is really humorous about this whole thing is there is not an organization or country on this planet that is more threatening than our own government. You just want to hand them the keys to begin the threats, mighty manly of ya as 101 would say.

It, again, has been fun. Good luck until we meet again.

..."what would happen if Musharaff were to be killed..."

So what?

"Irans Missile Capabilities"


So what? Are they a threat to us? Not in the least.

There is nothing more dangerous than an individual who makes up perceived threats of dominance and is willing to sacrifice others for that threat.

The constitution gave freedom to the people to protect them from the government, and now you think this is wrong.

Well apparently freedom is not a good thing because according to you we lose security with more freedom.


Righteous sentiments, worth repeating, internalizing, and giving serious thought to....

There is nothing more dangerous than an individual who makes up perceived threats of dominance and is willing to sacrifice others for that threat.

Crassus, you are on FIRE!!! Burn baby burn!!!

Whataclown and crasshole,
How blatanty stupid do you have to be to not realize what would happen if Pakistan were without Musharraf? Do either of you two empty heads read anything other than this blog (and to be honest, even here it is pretty much a given that if Musharaff finally does get assasinated it's bad news)...But the two of you probably know better than everyone else...

Iranian Missile Threats...Yes crasshole, they are a threat to us and our allies. We have troops in the middle east, so even their intermediate range missiles are a threat. Shabob3, Shabob4, shabob5, shabob6...Those aren't pieces of meat on a stick you fools.
How far away is europe? What is the current range of Irans latest and greatest missile?

101...

Even if OBL assumed the role of dictator in Pakastan, the same geopolitical calculus still is in play: Any exchange from Pakastan will likely trigger a nuclear response from India, and most certainly from the US or Israel.

These people are fanatics when they exist in the shadows, but one of the benefits of being a public figure (think Iran) is that there is no place to hide, and everything you have can be destroyed at the push of a button because now you're a state, not a shadowy cave figure.

Of course, any type of turmoil in that region is fraught with peril, but this peril isn't one-sided, its multi-sided. As far as entire countries are concerned, I've yet to see one elect or back a government that openly courted the destruction of their own society just to spite an enemy. Individuals, perhaps, but not entire nations.

Iran test fires long-range missile

One or two more points before I go:

Anyone who claims that Iran is "close" to ICBM capability is an ignorant buffoon.

Pakistan has recently stated that they would not apprehend bin Laden unless he made another boo boo (Google it)

Adieu.

Fact is a fine line exists between our security and the squelching of civil liberties in the name of security. We will never all agree on where to draw the line. However, I would vehemently argue that the line, as it currently exists, needs to be moved in the direction of greater security (with the corresponding reduction of protected civil liberties).



Posted by JeffJ at 2006-09-19 02:02 PM | Reply


Boy I am SHocked JeffJ I thought You were an AMerican and always were up until the Statement above. No Self Respecting AMerican would give up His or Her Civil Liberties for some so called Security. Where is Your American Spirit??


Larry

Righteous sentiments?

I am suggesting that where our government currently draws the line may not be the most effective. Crassus goes off on some starry-eyed rant about evil government (a government which he loves when it's stripping economic freedoms) and Tony applauds with 'righteous sentiments'.


An extension of your logic would suggest that we'd be safest without ANY law enforcement or intelligence gathering whatsoever. Since, I am sure that is not really your position; enforcement/intelligence needs the ability to detain, question, investigate, etc. What I have been suggesting, before the obvious misdirections, is that, perhaps, just maybe, we'd be better served by moving the bar a bit further to the right (this has already been done via the Patriot Act). I am suggesting that perhaps, the gains achieved in intel and enforcement more than offset any losses absorbed to our civil liberties. You guys love to hoist Europe on a pedestal when it suits your purposes. Why not look to the UK as an example of how this delicate balancing act can be achieved.


Seriously, can't we discuss common sense solutions without invoking emotional platitudes?

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Tony, BillO, et al,


I am not so much concerned with a nation state launching a nuke. Although we'd get some clamoring on the left regarding an in-kind response; they'd be in the minority.

What I am concerned about is a rogue state delivering a nuke to a terror group. Then that terror group manages to infiltrate our borders with said nuke and detonate it.


Without a vapor trail and radar confirmation of its origin; whom do we retaliate against? Any evidence of the bomb's origins would be vaporized. Even if say Al Queda claims responsibility, what do we do that we aren't currently doing?

Seriously, can't we discuss common sense solutions without invoking emotional platitudes?

Yes, as long as it means GIVING UP no freedoms, no liberties then you would be on the right track.

In case you have not read the news out side our country, go read som UK news, find out what those people think about losing their liberties.

The simple fact that there is NO THREAT and only the delusional think a threat exists.

Our freedoms and liberties should never ever at anytime ever be put up as a sacrifice for security, this is the mark of a falling government. Period.

"Why not look to UK as an example...."

Word has it the Brits dictate to their Imams what sort of religous text can be used in their sermons.

Hard to know what some here would view as equivalent. How about government dictating to you the sex of your child?
This is an example where freedom would almost certaintly lead to more security, if they had the courage for it.

Guys,

Let's try this a different way:


A search warrant is a clear violation of our right to privacy. This is a tool that should no longer be available to law enforcement.


I could easily make the case that allowance of search warrants is sacrificing our civil liberties.

Would you agree with me?

Crassus goes off on some starry-eyed rant about evil government (a government which he loves when it's stripping economic freedoms)

I like this delusional quarry of a statement. Economic freedoms, like having monopolies, that bad government attacking those People -0ops, they are BUSINESS'S not people.

The farther down the American people decline economically the more difficult it will be to sustain our government, that is history.

The simple fact that there is NO THREAT and only the delusional think a threat exists.

Really?

I guess you must have slept through 9-11. You know, when we were infiltrated and had planes flown into buidlings.

Oh, and you must've forgotten about WTC '93.

The farther down the American people decline economically the more difficult it will be to sustain our government, that is history.

Yep. And the more government 'tinkers' with the economy, the more they fuck it up in the long run. Thus causing an economic decline.

An extension of your logic would suggest that we'd be safest without ANY law enforcement or intelligence gathering whatsoever.

And I will give you the credit of torching your own strawman. For over 200 years America has been able to defeat its enemies and defend its shores without the Patriot Act and without George Bush redefining the meaning of torture. For a person that says they learn from history, you seem to ignore any history which disputes the current point you're trying to get across. Jeff there is absolutely positively no reason to think that if al qaeda were as powerful and organized as is thought that they could not have successfully orchestrated another attack inside the US. We know how porous our borders are and we know how many containers come into this nation without thorough inspection. The world can never be made safe from people wanting to perpetrate violence against other people! It has been this way since day one, and it will be the same when the last human breaths his final breath of air.

All we can ever do is "due diligence" when it comes to using law enforcement and intelligence to anticipate and hopefully thwart pending actions. Britain was successful because of the very things John Kerry talked about during his champaign in 2004. We do not need to give up our liberty to capture terrorists. If we pay attention, they show themselves for who they really are. The key is to be actively watching for the signs, not mining through the mundane rantings of nonoffending US citizens while the real terrorists operate in the shadows. If it were as easy as the Administration claims, where are the fruits of their endeavors?

Have you noticed there hasn't been one FBI or law enforcement spokesperson come out and ask for more intrusive powers to investigate or track potential terrorists? All the chatter has come from the agency, or those with direct ties to it, that are empowered by their ability to see into our lives. I do not trust these people, and I never will trust these people. Our security IS our liberty, it is never compromised by it, nor can it be. Life without liberty isn't life, its a sentence.

Jeff J,

Would you agree with me?

No, your not even being genuine, and frankly am surprise you are even trying to make a case for sacrificing freedoms. It is not in the least educationally sound or emotionally on firm ground.

I alway thought you to be of common sense but now I see a different attitude toward practicality of our nationstate and individual freedoms that puts to question your and my ideals of protection of the people.

We protect people, NOT governments, NOT business's, PEOPLE!

Have you noticed there hasn't been one FBI or law enforcement spokesperson come out and ask for more intrusive powers to investigate or track potential terrorists?
The FBI endorsed the need to tear down the 'Gorlick' wall. So they have ask for more intrusive powers. The FBI also is in favor of the Patriot Act.

A search warrant is a clear violation of our right to privacy. This is a tool that should no longer be available to law enforcement.


I could easily make the case that allowance of search warrants is sacrificing our civil liberties.

Would you agree with me?

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-09-19 03:48 PM | Reply


What utter rubbish. Typical quite typical indeed.

Larry

What I am concerned about is a rogue state delivering a nuke to a terror group. Then that terror group manages to infiltrate our borders with said nuke and detonate it.

Jeff...

If you know anything about the black world of clandestine ops, there is no such thing as complete unknown entities. Any device will provide clues leading to its origin, and you know what will happen then. Of course, I don't want our response to be ex post facto, but the vengance of the US is not something any government or group should wish to be brought to bear against it.

The simple fact that there is NO THREAT and only the delusional think a threat exists.

This statement reflects you are either niave or a fool
. Which is it?

The FBI also is in favor of the Patriot Act.

Link please to rank and file agents saying it makes their jobs easier, not to the heads, serving at this Administration's whims.

PS: The "Goelick Wall" was "broken down during Clinton's latter years because both the heads of the FBI and the CIA shared information at the Cabinet level during anti-terrorism meetings. There was no law that stopped them from comparing notes there.

The "Goelick Wall" was "broken down during Clinton's latter years because both the heads of the FBI and the CIA shared information at the Cabinet level during anti-terrorism meetings. There was no law that stopped them from comparing notes there.
your are simply serving as a willing participant in the redefinition of the Clinton legacy.

Crassus and Whataclown,
You guys are alarmingly stupid.

Tony,
If Jihadi's finally succeed in killing Musharaff the risk for even greater proliferation will skyrocket. The instability caused by his assasination would be beyond belief.

There would be a complete safehaven for Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters and they would be safe due to a nuclear deterant.

The "fear" of reprisal sure didn't do dickall to stop the Paki's from proliferating to Iran did it?

"The simple fact that there is NO THREAT and only the delusional think a threat exists."

HUH??

Crassus...please, elaborate on this statement of yours.

"Our freedoms and liberties should never ever at anytime ever be put up as a sacrifice for security"

This however, I do agree with.

The Gorelick Wall what utter rubbish. It only Prevented the Justice Department from sharing information with the CIA and FBI it did NOT hamper Military Operations. Why people STILL try to bring that up is Beyond Me.

Larry

Jeff J.,

Yep. And the more government 'tinkers' with the economy, the more they fuck it up in the long run. Thus causing an economic decline.

Strange how you don't trust the government to tinker with the economy but whole heartedly wish them to tinker with our freedoms and liberties.

So they are great with liberties and freedoms but not great with economic liberties and economic freedoms.

Really making a lot of sense and the reflection is frightening. Don't let the government effect our money but I don't give a shit if they effect individual freedoms, as long as my money is free to kick ass it is OK by me.

Frightening, very frightening, the very epitome of this administration held firm just with a slight disquise.

Patriot Act - American
Enabling Act - NAZI Germany

Same thing just different Packaging.

Larry

"The simple fact that there is NO THREAT and only the delusional think a threat exists."

There is nothing to elaborate on, there is no threat from any organization or country that has the ability to worry our country in the least. It is perceived but in realistic terms there is no real threat.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, do you honestly think Al-Q attacked us to take over this nation? Do you really think this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you really think Iran has visions of taking over the United States? Do you really think this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WAKE UP you're not living in reality.

Fatrich...

You obviously remain blissfully unaware of Richard Clarke's role in the Clinton Administration compared to his role in W's. Read his book for some illumination, and as Larry has already told you, the Wall was between Justice and the FBI/CIA, not the agencies themselves. Did the Wall prevent the FBI from responding to their agents in the field over the activities of the hijackers before the attacks? No, they managed to ignore good police work all by themselves without any hinderance by the wall.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2006-09-19 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag: abusive


Kind of interesting that this individual without refutation resorts to some moral ethical oddity to misalign the statement using character bashing.

What is even more strange is this individual can't remain current, like an old woman in a fight, 20 years ago you did or said this........like in anyway now becomes valid.

I'm the only person living in reality.
Sincerely,
Crasshole

With apologies...

Crassus For Dummies:

No terrorist organization nor any terrorist state has now, nor ever will have the capability to militarily or violently overthrow the US government and replace it with an Islamic construct of any type. The MOST these groups might do is inflict limited damage to limited targets. While never discounting any domestic attack as being "trivial", these states and groups do not have the means to occupy nor control America and they never will, hence any "threat" from them is more an admission of their weakness than it is of ours to radically change how we live and view the world on account of their bluster and threatening rhetoric.

How's that Crassus?

Crassus,

I know you are not suggesting a complete lack of law enforcement. I am taking your silence to my hypothetical question, that you are in favor of the execution of search warrants. In short, you tacitly acknowledge a need for a police force, and possibly even an intelligence network. These agencies have to gather information to catch bad guys. They have to be allowed certain lattitudes to perform the functions of their jobs.

You are wielding the term 'civil liberties' as if it's an all-or-nothing scenario. I used a somewhat dramatic example to illustrate that ANY enforcement of law is in effect curtailing civil liberties. This is a matter of degree, shades of gray, nuance, etc. You have yet to address this fact; which is why we've gone nowhere in this discussion.

I think a discussion is needed as to what enforcement can and can't do in the performance of their jobs. That's what this discussion is all about. The parameters for such already exist. I am suggesting that the effectiveness of these parameters be evaluated and discussed.


If you feel that we have no room for discussion of any kind on this subject, just say so. I'll call you 'crasswipe' and we'll both move on to a new topic. :-)

I used a somewhat dramatic example to illustrate that ANY enforcement of law is in effect curtailing civil liberties.

Jeff...

You are becoming the king of false analogies. Law enforcement is not the curtailing of liberty. Have you forgotten the 4th Amendment? A search warrant is supposed to be supported by a reasonable suspicion based on evidence, not on the fear of what's possible. Laws protect liberty, they don't curtail it unless that was the purpose they were written for in the first place.

Tony,

Speaking for myself, I wasn't suggesting that we are in danger of a government overthrow by these groups. Your Crassus cliff notes validates that I was having a position assigned to me that I never took.

I was stating that these groups have the ability (as already demonstrated) to inflict serious damage resulting in substantial loss-of-life and substantial economic loss. I present 9-11 as exhibit A.

Prevention is the key in the scope of this discussion. The topic of discussion (as I've framed it) is whether or not we should allow enforcement/intel greater ability to conduct their work.

The collective response I've gotten is that I am a fucking moron for even entertaining any such notion whatsoever.

I wouldn't call the damage from a suitcase nuke limited damage.

I wouldn't consider attacking NYC's subway system with WMD to be limited.

Nor would I consider the financial damage done after the downing of the towers to be limited.


Closing your eyes and repeating "There is no threat" doesn't make it so.

know you are not suggesting a complete lack of law enforcement. I am taking your silence to my hypothetical question, that you are in favor of the execution of search warrants. In short, you tacitly acknowledge a need for a police force, and possibly even an intelligence network.

I have moved on, you're not worth the time or effort.

I will say my position again.

NO LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, FREEDOMS should ever be sacrifices for the advent of security..........Period.

If you don't under stand this I cannot help you. It is not open for debate, I will not waiver.

Tony,

My point was that the 4th Ammendment is a construct. It's a somewhat vague one at that. My 'analogy' was intentionally absurd. The point of it was that our government has laid out parameters defining what is and isn't permissible action to be taken by enforcement/intel in pursuit of their jobs.

I am suggesting that we evaluate those parameters to see if they are up-to-date given this new type of threat that we face.

OK then, Crasswipe.

Crassus,

One final comment:

Perhaps we should make it even harder for law enforcement to do their jobs. Our civil liberties ARE precious (I am not being sarcastic). Perhaps the current parameters are actually STILL an infringement of our rights.

What say you?

NO LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, FREEDOMS should ever be sacrifices for the advent of security

Remember that the next time you heed a traffic signal.

How dare they.

What have we become?

If I had a nickel for every time crasscheese directed this comment to JeffJ I'd be a rich son of a bitch...


I alway thought you to be of common sense but now I see a different attitude...

Closing your eyes and repeating "There is no threat" doesn't make it so.

Removing peoples freedoms doesn't make it so.......either. But this doesn't take a moron to figure it out.


In thought you are saying because we had these liberties 911 happened.

I am saying BULL SHIT!

Jeff J. is no better he is trying to say the same garbage.

You're both full of shit and you both know it, why you trying to pander this crap is beyond me because no self respecting American would think this.

911 happened because of terrorists outside our country who don't like what our country is doing in their neck of the woods so they struck at us.

HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR LIBERTIES OR FREEDOMS.

Grow the fuck up you two and come into the real world.

woah! Now I am sounding like 101.

Jeff...

I'm with Crassus on this one, and on any topic that tinkers with the already accounted for balance between security and liberty prescribed by the Constitution. We all want the same things: those seeking to find enemies wishing us harm having the abilities of doing so. I do not think our laws need to be tinkered with for our best efforts to yield the hoped for results. Even though 101 speaks about 9/11, he can't deny most of these people were known to both the FBI and CIA, and those closest to them tried to inform higher ups of their strange activities, but they were rebuffed. (Just another thread in my LIHOP theory)

All of this occured before the Patriot Act, so how were the existing methods to be blamed when they sniffed out the perpetrators beforehand? They aren't to be blamed because they worked, or more rightfully, our people worked doing the job they are paid to do. There is no reason that increased focus upon likely targets isn't just as prudent as casting a wider net while admittedly looking for such a small, elusive prey.

911 happened because of terrorists outside our country who don't like what our country is doing in their neck of the woods so they struck at us.

Yeah, Jeff.

It's our fault.

Jeff J.,

Perhaps we should make it even harder for law enforcement to do their jobs. Our civil liberties ARE precious (I am not being sarcastic). Perhaps the current parameters are actually STILL an infringement of our rights.

If one is to try and remove a certain amount of our CONSTITIONAL liberties one needs to make an amendment. If the amendment cannot pass then it is not a good amendment. Simple how that works.

They also struck London, Madrid, Indonesia, Israel, Egypt...

It's everyone's fault, exept for the Muslims. The Muslims are not to be blamed or held accountable for anything, EVER!

All of their problems can be traced to somebody else, just ask them. If you are too chickenshit to ask them then ask a liberal, they'll tell you.

except

August 2, 1990-March 1991: The First Gulf War After Iraq invades Kuwait (see August 2, 1990), Laden, newly returned to Saudi Arabia, offers the Saudi government the use of his thousands of mujahedeen fighters to defend the country in case Iraq attacks it. The Saudi government turns him down, allowing 300,000 US soldiers on Saudi soil instead. Bin Laden is incensed, and immediately goes from ally to enemy of the Saudis. [Coll, 2004, pp. 221-24, 270

cooperativeresearch.org

-Sarge

-Sarge

911 happened because of terrorists outside our country who don't like what our country is doing in their neck of the woods so they struck at us.

Yeah, Jeff.

It's our fault.


Nice deflection Mao. Does it ever get old trying to put words into people's mouths, or do you just get off on having your fingers knawed on?

Crassus never implied "we had it coming" or any such tripe! Only the perpetrators are responsible for their actions, even if they view them as reactive. Oh, silly me, I forgot you admire this Administration. No wonder you're completely baffled by the definition of responsibility...didn't W have everyone strike it from his official US version of the King George texts, cause we sure haven't seen any out of Washington for years and years.

I am suggesting that we evaluate those parameters to see if they are up-to-date given this new type of threat that we face.

New threat?????? This is a new threat?????

Really, seems we have had this threat since our existance but it is new.

101...

And don't forget "they" also struck Saudia Arabia, that ME bastion of progressive Western culture and values...err, they have a closed society with little liberty and yet still weren't protected against terrorist attack? I think there's a message in there somewhere, I just can't put my finger on what it is....

"OK then, Crasswipe."

Ok then, Jeffoff.

All of their problems can be traced to somebody else, just ask them.

Yep, aparently it is the people of the United States that is the problem. They should sacrifice freedoms to prevent such tragedies.

And these countries you name have even less freedom than America but in you postulation it is the way to move.

"OK then, Crasswipe."

Ok then, Jeffoff.


Bill gets a funny flag for this!

It all has to do with how we perceive the threat or in Crassus' case whether we even perceive a threat.

The link you posted from the LATimes Jeff seems to explain much of this although here it seems to have a bit of a different slant but its still all the same. Some don't really believe there's enough of any threat to warrant some of what would be necessary to prevent another attack or at least try to prevent another attack.

I must say that those of us who live in primary targets like New York might feel a bit different about this stuff.

The next attack would at least temporarily crush the NYC economy and that might work for some of you but it sure don't work for the millions of us who live and work here.

I'd bet if you polled here in the city, you'd find most wouldn't mind sacrificing rights temporarily if it helped law enforcement keep better tabs on people places and things that might do us harm.

Mid-1990s: Al-Qadi Claims Good Relationship with Cheney Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi will say in an interview shortly after 9/11, "I have also met with US Vice President and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in Jeddah [Saudi Arabia] when he came for a lecture organized by the Dallah Group. I spoke to him for a long time and we still have cordial relations." The US had named al-Qadi a supporter of terrorism and frozen his assets two days before (see October 12, 2001). Oussama Ziade, CEO of Ptech, a US computer company that al-Qadi had invested in (see 1994) and that will be raided for suspected terrorism ties (see December 5, 2002), later will claim that al-Qadi "talked very highly of his relationship" with Cheney. Ziade will claim he only knew al-Qadi for a few years starting around 1994, so presumably the contact between al-Qadi and Cheney happens during the mid-1990s. A newspaper will report later that when a Cheney spokeswoman is asked about his possible ties to al-Qadi, she replies that "she had no reason to believe the vice president had met with al-Qadi". Al-Qadi claims to be a respected businessman who met other important leaders such as ex-President Jimmy Carter. [Associated Press, 1/3/2003; Arab News, 10/14/2001; Computerworld, 1/17/2003] The US will declare al-Qadi a terrorism financier shortly after 9/11 (see October 12, 2001), and the Dallah Group will be accused of funding al-Qaeda (see November 22, 2002).

cooperativeresearch.org

It Looks Like Dick's And The Saudi's Fault.

Why Does All This Terror Shit Always Have Some Sort Of Saudi Arabia Connection, Hmmmmmmm.

-Sarge

911 happened because of terrorists outside our country who don't like what our country is doing in their neck of the woods so they struck at us.

Yeah, Jeff.

It's our fault.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2006-09-19 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:


It does seem that you missed the point. They are not attacking our freedom as you righties so like to espouse.

Fault, I don't look for blame it solves nothing.

That means: "our fault".

Really, how does it mean that? Let's see this twist of nonwords to mean it's our fault.

I don't care for your political postulations so if I attacked you it would mean it is YOUR fault.

I'd bet if you polled here in the city, you'd find most wouldn't mind sacrificing rights temporarily if it helped law enforcement keep better tabs on people places and things that might do us harm.

But the question remains what are these "things" that law enforcement could be doing if not for the Constitution and our laws? Why can't these "things" happen within the law just as easily, without abrogating anyone's liberties? Its called "investigative work", not scorcery. Keep tabs on suspicious people and leave the innocents alone. Gee, I wonder how we ever survived for 200 years without succumbing to outside terrorism or subversion. My money is still riding on the Constitution for providing our security, not on the distrust of what might happen if or when. "Live free or die". It doesn't come more stark than that, does it? See any gray in those words?

That means: "our fault".

To be clear, Bush definitely supports this contention. The past meddling and support for the kind of dictators he doesn't like were the reasons for needing a radical new policy: Democratizing the ME.

I'd bet if you polled here in the city, you'd find most wouldn't mind sacrificing rights temporarily if it helped law enforcement keep better tabs on people places and things that might do us harm.

This is where the problem lies.

What are things you can CONTROL?

Me, myself, and I!!!!!!

Things that cannot be controlled?

Other people, places and things.

but giving up freedoms and liberties will allow you to control other people, places and things...........the delusions never end.

It is a deflection for your words had ZERO to do with the point Crassus was trying to make. Smegma....

"I'd bet if you polled here in the city, you'd find most wouldn't mind sacrificing rights"

I'd bet if you polled in the city, you'd find most wouldn't know what their rights are.

I'd bet if you polled in the city, you'd find most wouldn't know what their rights are.

Well, there's the right to hate the Red Sox, and the right to say "fagettaboutit you ginny cocksucker!" as often as you like, and perhaps the greatest right of New Yorkers, the ability to piss and moan about all the "damn tawlhead cabbies" overtaking the city....

And quit using words like "postulations" within paragraphs written at a fourth grade level of composition.

It's awkward.

No cause and effect?
Let's go get ourselves some OIL! WOO WOO!
We've been pussyfooting around for nuthin!

And quit using words like "postulations" within paragraphs written at a fourth grade level of composition.

It's awkward.


Seems this fourth grade level is matching up to you.

If it's rational to you to torture, because your enemy already seems to have that advantage, then it's more rational to torture before he starts torturing, precisely because he doesn't have that advantage.

Evil stuff. Feel free to try and create a society out of it anyone really wants to live in.

I can see the Libs are having a bit of trouble with the concept of hurting and/or killing someone to achieve a National security objective, so let's put this on a smaller scale that you can relate to:

Pretend that the captured terrorist is actually an unborn fetus that is standing in the way of a young woman's opportunity to backpack across Europe with her college friends, and that the young woman is the United States of America; since the fetus is not a person and is merely an obstacle to the young woman achieving her objective, it can simply be removed for the convenience of the young woman. Under these circumstances, I'm sure you'll agree that the young woman should be off limits to criticism.

Starting with this analogy as a base, now imagine that the fetus actually wants to kill the young woman and then kill all of her college friends. If you Libs still can't relate, try to imagine that the fetus was coercing the young woman to vote Republican- and was planning on convincing her friends to do the same- then you'll have it.

"Hurting/killing someone in order to achieve a national security objective..."

Not a mysterious concept at all. More graspable to me than this to the opposition: that national security objectives aren't the be-all or end-all of existence.

I love the assumptions in this thread by the right that any person captured and then tortured was obviously guilty.

Unbelievable.

Not that this would bother someone who defends the bombing of fucking dresden...

"Live free or die!"

Couldn't say it any better Tony.

I guess we could combine my quote with yours and say:

"Free is as Free does"

Promoting freedom is inherently an oxymoron from the start.

If you are promoting something, you are pushing it on someone else.

Some people wanna be slaves, it's easier that way.

Pretend that the captured terrorist is actually an unborn fetus

Delusional, will pretend nothing of the sort.

Your view of understanding this issue is confusing and weird beyond prudence.

Stick to the issue at hand, your nicevile posts are out there, far far out there and quite frankly demean us in having to read such crap.

"I love the assumptions in this thread by the right that any person captured and then tortured was obviously guilty."

But don't you dare prejudge the Swiftboaters, assuming their guilt before they've had a trial!! THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!

Some republicans here only care about fair play when it's one of them.

Screw everyone else.

I will kill my enemy--or make certain that I do whatever is necessary to win.

Please, tell us some of your 'war' stories.

Bocaink says, "If you support torture of any kind . . ."

Here is a perfect example of partisan, self-imposed blindness! What is "torture?" Define it!

Is it keeping someone awake for long periods of time? Would that be "torture?"

How about yelling insults at them? Is that torture?

What exactly is torture?

That's what Bush is asking the Congress to DEFINE so that the law can either permit "stress" interrogations, or not!

Boca sounds off, ". . . you deserve to be tortured to get a taste of it. That way you know what the hell you are talking about!"

Yeah, typical Leftist/Democrat response: torture anyone who is in favor of interrogation!

"I can't believe you freaks who think that torture is ok!"

Yeah, I know what you mean. I went to San Francisco and saw one of them walking some poor victim around on a leash, dog collar and naked except for a thong with the man's privates hanging out. I just don't know about San Fran. and why the police allow torture to happen.

"Or is this your secret little bloodletting so you can feel big and bad to make up for the fact that your wife and kids walk all over you?"

Well, so that's the criteria, eh? Bloodletting? Well, I was tortured by California police, then. I was arrested for a crime I didn't commit and handcuffed. One of the cops pushed me and I fell, skinning my knee so badly that it bled. TORTURE!

While you Leftist/Demorats shed your collective crocadile tears for TERRORISTS, US cops are conducting TORTURE in US jails all across our nation!!!

But, not a one of you has EVER felt any sympathy for the poor victims of police interrogations!!!

That's because the Leftist/Democrats are PULING HYPOCRITES and only care about political power and defamming their opponents!!!

Disgusting individuals and GANG!

The tad post:


1-Partisan attack, leftist/democrats, traitors crapweasels, subversives.

2-Victim card. I'm Reviled, dehumanized, you have an obsession, I'm the personal subject wah wah wah.

Alternate and repeat 1 and 2 until bloggers in proximity of puling gasbag want to kill themselves.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2006-09-19 08:00 AM | Reply


And I forgot the urbandictionary link. Go 4 it, babe.

I was arrested for a crime I didn't commit


That's what they all say. What crime didn't you commit?

While you Leftist/Demorats shed your collective crocadile tears for TERRORISTS, US cops are conducting TORTURE in US jails all across our nation!!!

No shit, Sherlock.

But, not a one of you has EVER felt any sympathy for the poor victims of police interrogations!!!

Wrong. In fact, prove this. Good luck.

"The tad post"

Recognizable in three words or less.

Scroll on.

Disgusting individuals and GANG!

English as second language?

Lisa can't stop the personal comments, "You're wrong. I did and still do."

And, you know what I meant by saying that, Lisa. Your denial is an excuse for ending a snide and insulting post with "Have a good day." Now, you do nothing more than emphasize that form of hypocrisy!

Lisa whines, "You have not yet answered my question, I'd rethink of who is running away!"

Are you actually this dense, Lisa? I've answered your "question" in every post since you asked it! However, I haven't "answered" in the way you demand I do so, evidently! Tell me what you want me to say, Lisa!

You asked, "Yes or no, Tad: I asked that question because you obviously have a distaste for "slimey political scumsuckers" and was wondering if your feel that putting 45 mil into negative ads would fall into that catagory."

Yes, or no.

"You brought up the "slimey political scumsuckers" Tad. I followed up your comment with a question."

Are you trying to put a leash and dog collar on me, Lisa? To lead me around and torture me with threats of repeating off subject questions until your demands are met?

"Tad...I will gladly welcome any questions you have of me, following them with a response, once you answer the question I asked of you at 7:25 this morning."

Stick your demands where the sun doesn't shine, Lisa.

"Oh, and Tad? If I meant to say "Take That"...that is exactly what I would have said!!"

Have a nice day, Lisa

English as second language?

Posted by TedBaxter at 2006-09-20 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag

He was bitten by a radioactive thesaurus. Unfortunately, it had been translated into english from japanese, and now he types stereo instructions.

Lisa

Be careful. Tadowe finally got to say what he's been feeling all this time:

Are you trying to put a leash and dog collar on me, Lisa? To lead me around

Hey, Morning Tad!

"Are you trying to put a leash and dog collar on me, Lisa?"

Naw....that would be kinda kinky. It's too early for that kinda stuff, I just woke up. But if you wait till later, I may be more interested!!

I asked one simple question, you deflect, mislead and basically refuse to answer one little question because you know, that if you do, it would out you as a "puling hypocrite"!!

"Stick your demands where the sun doesn't shine, Lisa."

FYI: The sun does shine there, Tad.

Any other suggestions??

Lisa tries bravado, "I asked one simple question, you deflect, mislead and basically refuse to answer one little question because you know, that if you do, it would out you as a 'puling hypocrite'!!"

A "double-spin," Lisa? Now, I'm the one who "deflect, mislead and basically refuse to answer. . ."? Where did you discuss anything concerning this thread with me? Instead, you asked an off-subject question to avoid engaging in that issue. Of course, now we see why you asked the question, don't we? You wanted to make me into a "puling hypocrite" if I did answer as you "expected."

Lisa confesses, "FYI: The sun does shine there, Tad."

Where is that, Lisa?

"Any other suggestions??"

You are an ideologue, Lisa, and one which promotes your own ignorance. In this issue Bush is asking a question of the Congress in relation to the need to definitively describe permissible techniques allowed in combat interrogations and those done by the CIA: he isn't the Torturer-in-chief, but you don't seem to have the intelligence to discredit such nazi propaganda efforts to revile and dehumanize during a time of war.

All of you, and not just you Lisa, know that you are sponsoring and rallying around such goebblesesque propaganda and outright lies, but are evidently just too stupid to understand and realize that you are falling into the pattern of being a jackbooted, sam-browne belt wearing, brownshirted thugs. All of you in the grand rotunda shouting: Welfare, Victory!

Disgusting!

Try harder Tad.

You accused someone of being a "slimey political scumsucker".

I asked you if you thought that spending 45 mil on negative ads would fall into the catagory you brought up...off subject, but you refuse to answer.

"Stick your demands where the sun doesn't shine, Lisa."

" "FYI: The sun does shine there, Tad."

"Where is that, Lisa?"

Oh Tad...You're starting to worry me. You are showing signs of alzheimer's.

Lisa begs, "Try harder Tad."

Why? You've already confessed that your "question" was intended to make me out to be a "puling hypocrite." What more reason do I need NOT to answer such sleazy rhetorical "questions?"

"You accused someone of being a 'slimey political scumsucker'."

That is just not so, Lisa! I accused those Leftist/Demorats who were lying about this issue of being "slimey political scumsuckers." And look! You got offended and attempted to lead me into a position where you could call me a "puling hypocrite." Of course, then pretend to be a "friendly" person who wishes me a good day . . .

"I asked you if you thought that spending 45 mil on negative ads would fall into the catagory you brought up...off subject, but you refuse to answer."

What 45 mil, Lisa? You just declare things without an iota of support; besides that it was RHETORICAL AND INTENDED TO INSULT AND REVILE ME, personally -- not a group, party or "gang" but just me, the person, the individual . . .

Oh, Lisa, you are so very smart!

I asked, "Where is that (the sun doesn't shine), Lisa?"

Lisa won't answer any questions, although she demands others do so, "Oh Tad...You're starting to worry me. You are showing signs of alzheimer's."

In your fatuous dreams, Lisa.

I said:

"You accused someone of being a 'slimey political scumsucker'."

You answered:

"That is just not so, Lisa!"

Then continue with this:

" I accused those Leftist/Demorats who were lying about this issue of being "slimey political scumsuckers."

Tad..you're losing it.

Tad, please tell me you are not crying foul when someone points out that you are a hypocrite?? You...of all people after all the posters you have insulted individually???

Come on, Tad...be fair here.

Just because I asked a question, one that would have had you admit one thing or the other that you claim to stand against, doesn't mean that I am personally attacking you. I was just making a point.

And I'm not pretending to be a nice person. I genuinely like you. I don't know why, but I do. I was indeed wishing you a nice day, just as I will today, tomorrow and the next.

Hey...I'm awake now. You want to get back to that collar and leash proposal you made earlier?? Hubba, Hubba!!

Lisa starts to understand Alex's obsession, "You accused someone of being a 'slimey political scumsucker' [and] You answered: "That is just not so, Lisa . . . I accused those Leftist/Demorats who were lying about this issue of being "slimey political scumsuckers." Tad..you're losing it. Tad, please tell me you are not crying foul when someone points out that you are a hypocrite?? You...of all people after all the posters you have insulted individually???"

I don't care if someone calls me an hypocrite, Lisa. I am outrightly here to reply to Leftist/Democrats in the same manner they use to defame and revile their opponents; however, I pledge that I will draw the defammatory conclusions based on evidence and support for my propaganda. In other words, I won't invent lies to defame the scumsucking, muckraking Leftist/Democrats, but rather use their own words and actions to accurately describe them as the zealous, terrorist supporting subversives they make themselves out to be.

I really don't care whether Republicans have money earmarked to discredit Democrats, or whether Democrats have such money set aside for the same thing (and as EVERYONE knows they do!) However, I can see rhetorical "traps" like those, Lisa, and can turn them around to show that you are an example of what I describe. And . . . you know that very well.

"Just because I asked a question, one that would have had you admit one thing or the other that you claim to stand against, doesn't mean that I am personally attacking you. I was just making a point."

Back to the "POINT" and which I can do in EVERY single post you attempt to misdirect it with: I "stand" for a patriotic support of my country while it is fighting a war, Lisa.

It is just too bad that there are people, claiming to be patriotic, who use any and all embarrassing situations for the US (not just Republicans or Bush) to heap dehumanizing propaganda on the US (attempting to get Bush) while our soldiers are dying to preserve our freedoms!!!

The US DOES NOT TORTURE PRISONERS OF WAR!!! but whining subversives attempt to lead that inference based on the frat style actions of a few individuals!

All of whom have been punished and jailed for their actions!

Now, in an attempt to "get Bush" the Leftist/Democrats are highlighting actions of the CIA that have been acceptable to Democrats since Vietnam!!! Only now, in support of the poor terrorists, the Leftist/Demorats are pretending that the CIA interrogations methods were invented by Bush

What a bunch of scumsucking, terrorist supporting, subversive traitors those who do this happen to be!!!

"And I'm not pretending to be a nice person. I genuinely like you. I don't know why, but I do. I was indeed wishing you a nice day, just as I will today, tomorrow and the next."

I don't like your misdirections, I don't like your obfuscations and I don't like your snide innuendoes . . . and I don't much care for your efforts to support subversion and virtual treason(s.)

"Hey...I'm awake now. You want to get back to that collar and leash proposal you made earlier?? Hubba, Hubba!!"

It wasn't a "proposal," and I wonder why you continue to issue these petty lies, Lisa? You aren't actually this stupid, right, but just trying to save your Leftist face?

"I really don't care whether Republicans have money earmarked to discredit Democrats, or whether Democrats have such money set aside for the same thing "

So it's only "leftis/Democrats" who you claim are lying, that are slimey.

Wow.

"it is just too bad that there are people, claiming to be patriotic, who use any and all embarrassing situations for the US (not just Republicans or Bush) to heap dehumanizing propaganda on the US (attempting to get Bush) while our soldiers are dying to preserve our freedoms!!!"

As I believe it is just too bad that there are people claiming to be patriotic, who deny the embarrassing situations for the US in effort to "save the face" of their party, whose leaders have damaged this country, rather than CHANGE them for our country's betterment, while those same soldiers are dying to preserve her freedoms...which obviously, you don't believe freedom of speech should be one of!

Being patriotic does not mean that you are blinded to, or excuse or dismiss wrong doings that the leaders of this country are doing. That would be called being a loyalist to your party. A far cry from a patriot.

"Now, in an attempt to "get Bush" the Leftist/Democrats are highlighting actions of the CIA that have been acceptable to Democrats since Vietnam!!! Only now, in support of the poor terrorists, the Leftist/Demorats are pretending that the CIA interrogations methods were invented by Bush"

That is complete and utter Bull!! You should be ashamed at the way you spin the truth.

As for the rest of your post; I find it sad, that you are that miserable, distrusting, and unhappy that you can't lighten up, enjoy a laugh, and have a little fun.

Try to have a good day anyway.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable