« Army sergeant guns down five American soldiers in Iraq | Main | Obama Decides to Oppose the Release of Those Torture Photos »

Must Watch Video from MSNBC

Here is more must watch video from Liz Cheney who presents the best defense of the Bush administration national security record than just about anyone. What is really funny here is Rachel Wener's Huffington Post comment in the link to the video: "The Cheney family argument that torture did save lives has been undermined by recently released memos."

It is funny because in the video Joe Scarborough exposes the dishonesty of the Obama administration for releasing memos from those who say "enhanced interrogation techniques" don't work, but they keep classified and refuse to release other memos from the CIA and others proving that they did, in fact, work and saved lived.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35656.

Comments (226)

Thanks for the video! I re... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Thanks for the video! I remember when torture apologists weren't tolerated in polite society.

Instead, Adrian, we've got ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Instead, Adrian, we've got apologists for head-hackers. But I'm sure our 'abandonment' of torture will produce the desired benefits - in that the beheadings and mutilations will be done with a SHARP knife instead of a dull one.

I think we're going to find the redefinition of 'torture' is going to have much more than political ramifications... and when there's another attack I'm sure you'll be right up there to make sure any 'suspects' have their slippers and comfy chairs.

Hmmm... sounds like someone... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hmmm... sounds like someone is borrowing the playbook of a certain Austrian house painter:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it

Jlawson, I thought you look... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jlawson, I thought you looked like Cardinal Biggles!

It is funny that the blogge... (Below threshold)
WorldCitizen:

It is funny that the blogger says
"those who say "enhanced interrogation techniques" don't work"

then

"others proving that they did, in fact, work and saved lived"

One side "says" the other "proves" depending on which side you support.

SCSIwuzzy - Dr. Goebbels wo... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

SCSIwuzzy - Dr. Goebbels would be so proud of Obama's team. Wall Street contributed greatly to The One's campaign, probably figuring like the German industrialists of the early 30's "We can control him". Wonder how their feeling now?

WC"One side "says" t... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

WC
"One side "says" the other "proves" depending on which side you support"

I'm not sure which side you are coming down on since that can be taken different ways.

Personally I believe those who can prove something can be done than those who say it can't be done.

Obama is to America as Joe ... (Below threshold)
914:

Obama is to America as Joe Wilson is to Valerie Plame. Liars in love.

Liz Cheney has a future in ... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

Liz Cheney has a future in our party.

a browne - "Thanks for ... (Below threshold)
marc:

a browne - "Thanks for the video! I remember when torture apologists weren't tolerated in polite society."

Odd thing is, your comment proves the reverse.

SCSIwuzzy -Careful... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

SCSIwuzzy -

Careful - there's a comfy chair with your name on it just waiting...!

I can't believe that minors... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I can't believe that minors are allowed to see that.

Conservatives, I think it's... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Conservatives, I think it's high time for you to understand just how much The Left hates torture.

Think for a moment about how the level to which you conservatives hate all the gay couples, hating them so much as to stridently seek to deny to them a right that you yourselves have: the right to marry the adult who you love. Now multiply that level by five. That's how much we on The Left hate torture.

Get that? Got that? Good.
depp=true
notiz=Here's a shovel to bury your broad brushing.

Adrian, I can't believe you... (Below threshold)
Undead Democrat:

Adrian, I can't believe you're allowed internet access in the asylum.

Spew Spew Spew, Generalize,... (Below threshold)
epador:

Spew Spew Spew, Generalize, Generalize, Ad Hominen, Lie, Distort, Distract.

Its all getting rather tiresome WC, Adrian and Herman et al. Can any of you construct a logical argument that is based on reality? Or at least come up with some witty retorts that aren't fecal, prurient or purulent?

They are unable epador. I h... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

They are unable epador. I have learned that over the years. ww

Adraine browne said"... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Adraine browne said
"I can't believe that minors are allowed to see that. "

Why do you find it so hard to believe? Your side of the aisle believes that 8 year olds should be allowed to get abortions without parental knowledge.

Spew Spew Spew, G... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Spew Spew Spew, Generalize, Generalize, Ad Hominen, Lie, Distort, Distract.


For everyone that does this, please stop using the accusation of ad hominem incorrectly. An ad hominem is not an insult.

An ad hominem attack is when a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument.

Not an ad hominem:

A: "OK, I've been following this thread for a while, and I hate to say it, but you're being an asshole. You're really taking this whole thing too personally, and seriously misconstruing everyone else's arguments. Nobody here is arguing that copyright infringement is ethically, morally, legally, or otherwise justifiable. They're simply arguing that equating it with theft is simplistic and inaccurate."

B: "...calling me an asshole is called an ad hominem attack, which does not show me wrong."

This is false because calling B. an asshole is just abuse. A's argument is not ad hominem. A has carefully pointed out what he sees as the flaws in B's argument, and based on B's failure to acknowledge them and general behaviour, has concluded that B is an asshole. This conclusion is quite independent of A's treatment of B's arguments.


A real Ad hominem:

Person a. All humans need water.
person b. You just say that because your work for the water industry.

Person b's argument is false because, where you work, does not disprove the claim all humans need water, Perosn B. is distracting from the argument,

Why do you find i... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Why do you find it so hard to believe? Your side of the aisle believes that 8 year olds should be allowed to get abortions without parental knowledge.

Perhaps your education in science ended before you were an 8 year old, but girls at that age can't get pregnant, and therefore, couldn't have an abortion.

jmc - "For everyone tha... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc - "For everyone that does this, please stop using the accusation of ad hominem incorrectly. An ad hominem is not an insult."

ad hominem:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Attacking an opponent's character is not an insult? Guess I better get a better dictionary.

Or maybe you should.

girls at that age can't ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

girls at that age can't get pregnant,

Yes, they can, and have. They are not old enough to give birth, but old enough to get pregnant. And yes, it's usually family related. If you don't believe it, you need to call around and ask nurses who work in abortion clinics.

Herman: You are showing yo... (Below threshold)
Sue:

Herman: You are showing your liberal biases. I do not hate gays and I don't know of any other conservative personally (and I know many) who hates gays. Being against gay marriage IS NOT "proof" or an indication of hatred. That is what liberals want to believe because they think it furthers their cause and shuts down debate and discussion.

Secondly, what "torture" is defined as is totally an opinion. It is a definition that liberals and conservatives disagree on. You say you are right, we say we are right. Liberals do not have the high moral ground to stand on. You are not automatically "right" because you are a liberal and "liberals are always right". It seems that the end always justifies the means for liberals unless it might "hurt" those they identify with. I'm not quite sure how that works.

jmc-there are plenty of 8 year olds who are capable of getting pregnant. They don't even have to have had their periods before they get pregnant-because they get pregnant just before they get their period. Recall that one ovulates before having a mensus.

Granted, their are not thousands of 8 year olds getting pregnant, but are you telling me that if an 8 year old was pregnant and wanted an abortion you, and the rest of the liberals who are pro choice would advocate for her to have an abortion. After all "it might be incest" so she shouldn't have to inform her family.

The point isn't that it's an 8 year old, it's that liberals think a child as young as 8 should be able to have an abortion without informing her parents, but a 20 year old man in the military is a "boy", and incapable of making the decision to join the military or not. (There are many liberals who use this kind of reasoning.)

In other words it solely depends on what liberals believe when they determine whether someone is a child or an adult. Which ever fits their agenda the best is what they will use. There is no consistancy.

Exactly. And it's not okay... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Exactly. And it's not okay for a young man to make the choice as an adult to go to war because he "doesn't know what he's getting himself into". But partial birth abortion, where a living child is left to suffer, bleed to death, dehydrate and die is all about the woman making a choice about her own body, and not murder.

JMC"Perhaps your e... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

"Perhaps your education in science ended before you were an 8 year old, but girls at that age can't get pregnant, and therefore, couldn't have an abortion"

Youngest mother was age 5.

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

I believe the youngest girl to have an abortion is currently age 9 (at least that I could find).


Attacking an oppo... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Attacking an opponent's character is not an insult? Guess I better get a better dictionary.

I got to hand to your marc, you are never afraid to persist in your own stupidity. An attack on a persons character is an ad hominem only if, the attack is used as a reason to negate that person's argument.

example: A. Dick thinks, Doctors save lives.
B. Why would Dick know anything about doctors Dick is an asshole.

See, it used as a reason to discredit the argument. Now if it went like this:

A. Dick thinks doctors save lives.
B. Well he is right, but he is an asshole.

In this case 'asshole" is not an ad hominem, because it is not used against the argument. There is nothing illogical about person B. Calling Dick an asshole, he might be one. It has nothing to do with his argument. Just like it is not illogical for me to call you are a moron. You are a moron.

Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect
Youngest mother w... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Youngest mother was age 5.

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

I believe the youngest girl to have an abortion is currently age 9 (at least that I could find).

I should amend what I said to "99.99% of girls can't get pregant before 8." The girl you mention had a severe hormanal balance which is rare to say the least.

oh, and a question: I assume, you would prefer, that five year old take on the responsibility of mothering? they could go to grade school together.


btw: in Europe, where they have things like that sexual education you conservatives hate, the abortion rate is much lower than here (per capita) becuase teens don't get pregnet to begin with.
depp=true
notiz=Every time you broad brush is whack time.


Yes Im conservative dicswap... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes Im conservative dicswap.. what has that to do with reason or logic?

" I cant believe minors are allowed to see that"

I cant believe its not butter? So what?

Unless your a donkey? jac a... (Below threshold)
914:

Unless your a donkey? jac ass

I am not sure if I was accu... (Below threshold)
WorldCitizen:

I am not sure if I was accused of spewing, generalizing, ad homenizing, lying, distorting or distracting.

Maybe I should say that the released memo prove that torture does not work while the still classified memos are reported by former administration officials to say it did. I think that is a clear statement of my opinion.

When did people become so trustful of politicians and political appointees? I don't trust this administration or the last 20 to work solely in the best interests of America.

I believe the strategy the Al Queda has implemented is working to a T. Divide the country and drain the coffers. If the Soviet Union was still around and we still had to contend with the Cold War would be in about the same position as they were in the late 80's. Broke and impotent.

8 year's old abortions was however perfectly relevant to this post.

"Logic, facts, reason, c... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Logic, facts, reason, conservatives like you do hate that shit."

Logic is not a part of your assumption that anyone would rather see children become parents as a result of sexual abuse and based on facts. We have yet to see you use anything that resembles logic. The sh*t I hate is when you call your method of reason logic, when you know it's just muddled nonsense.

"8 year's old abortions was... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"8 year's old abortions was however perfectly relevant to this post."

That conversation was stemmed from what adriane said, that he couldn't believe what "minors are allowed to see". You're right about Al Quaeda, except that was happening long before Iraq.

"oh, and a question: I assu... (Below threshold)
Sue:

"oh, and a question: I assume, you would prefer, that five year old take on the responsibility of mothering? they could go to grade school together."

See, you proved my point in only 2 sentences.

8 year's old abor... (Below threshold)
jmc:
8 year's old abortions was however perfectly relevant to this post.

Well, no not really, because no liberal wants an 8 year old to have an abortion without parental consent. It is a strawman to say the least. If Rm thinks liberals are bad because they beleive a teenager should be able to do that, that it least is an accurate argument for some.

"It is a strawman to say th... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"It is a strawman to say the least."

You don't think maybe he was being sarcastic?

Logic is not a pa... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Logic is not a part of your assumption that anyone would rather see children become parents as a result of sexual abuse and based on facts.

Rm expressed anger over an 8 year old having an abortion. I asked if he would prefer she become a mother.

That is a question not an assumption. pea brains who beleive in the Amero make those kind of mistakes.

ad ho·mi·nem <br... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:


ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation:
\(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
New Latin, literally, to the person
Date:
1598

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Has nothing to do with logic, jmc.

"It is a strawman... (Below threshold)
jmc:
"It is a strawman to say the least."

You don't think maybe he was being sarcastic?

Of course, that is why I followed up with sarcasm.

You also said you "assume" ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

You also said you "assume" he would prefer that, as if that had anything to do with the argument.

appealing to feel... (Below threshold)
jmc:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Has nothing to do with logic, jmc.

Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns

moron.


<a href="http://www.fallacy... (Below threshold)
jmc:
"Of course, that is why I f... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Of course, that is why I followed up with sarcasm."

Baloney. Even your dishonesty isn't logical.

"That is a question not an assumption. pea brains who beleive in the Amero make those kind of mistakes."

And it's only a pea brain that doesn't pea brain that doesn't listen to what others are saying and do his own research. To say it doesn't exist is just ignorant. The real question is why it existed to begin with, because the dollar is still goin' bye bye.

"You also said you "assume"... (Below threshold)
jmc:

"You also said you "assume" he would prefer that, as if that had anything to do with the argument."


Given the the statement he made that would be the logical deduction to make. before we proceed much further, I suggest you google logic.

reasons for you to learn lo... (Below threshold)
jmc:

reasons for you to learn logic lamed.

So why learn logical fallacies at all?
I can think of a couple of good reasons. First, it makes you look smart. If you can not only show that the opposition has made an error in reasoning, but you can give that error a name as well (in Latin!), it shows that you can think on your feet and that you understand the opposition's argument possibly better than they do.
Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Much of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn't be taken seriously, or whatever. That kind of response is fine, except that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it's important after all. On the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all. If they can't come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the round.

"Ad hominem is one of the b... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies"

Dude, it's in the dictionary. It's an attack on character rather than addressing an issue, logic or no, so don't try to side-step the definition.

Baloney. Even you... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Baloney. Even your dishonesty isn't logical.

What is illogical about. lets see if you have manged to leanr what a logical fallacy is yet.


And it's only a pea brain that doesn't pea brain that doesn't listen to what others are saying and do his own research. To say it doesn't exist is just ignorant. The real question is why it existed to begin with, because the dollar is still goin' bye bye.

well, coming from a trufer like you, how can I deny that?

jmc, you have never learned... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

jmc, you have never learned logic, except what comes out of a textbook. You never use what you have taught, you just tell people what it is.

Dude, it's in the dictionar... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Dude, it's in the dictionary. It's an attack on character rather than addressing an issue, logic or no, so don't try to side-step the definition.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

jmc, you have nev... (Below threshold)
jmc:
jmc, you have never learned logic, except what comes out of a textbook. You never use what you have taught, you just tell people what it is.

translation: "I can't show anything you said that was illogical, so I'll just repeat my claim."

"well, coming from a trufer... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"well, coming from a trufer like you, how can I deny that?"

The more you type, the more dishonest you are. You have no clue what a trufer is, because there is no such thing. Neither do you know what a truther is. You're shortcut misspellings are showing how really lazy you are when it comes to actual thinking, otherwise you would address the issue at hand, rather than continually telling them "how it's done". "Trufer" is an ad hominem, by the way, whether you like it or not.

"translation: "I can't show... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"translation: "I can't show anything you said that was illogical, so I'll just repeat my claim.""

See what I mean? You can't even understand how to point out logic, only what it's "supposed to be."

As far as the topic is conc... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

As far as the topic is concerned, there is a lot to be determined on what kind of coercion is warranted in an act of war, and I can imagine that this will be an ongoing discussion until there's a shifting of the tide. That shifting will probably be more of a focus on Pakistan, and what Obama's next move is. He won't address anything directly during this term because his administration still has plans.

The more you type... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The more you type, the more dishonest you are. You have no clue what a trufer is, because there is no such thing. Neither do you know what a truther is. You're shortcut misspellings are showing how really lazy you are when it comes to actual thinking, otherwise you would address the issue at hand, rather than continually telling them "how it's done". "Trufer" is an ad hominem, by the way, whether you like it or not.


Well, luckily for me, they have invented a spelling checker. until they invent a thinking checker, you're screwed :) Keep on belevin' in that Amero, you crazy conspiracy nut you.

"translation: "I can't show... (Below threshold)
jmc:

"translation: "I can't show anything you said that was illogical, so I'll just repeat my claim.""

See what I mean? You can't even understand how to point out logic, only what it's "supposed to be."

Translation: I still can't point out jmc's logical fallacy, so I'll repeat my accusation. maybe if I chant it three times it will be so."

If an 8 year old gets pregn... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

If an 8 year old gets pregnant, mightn't you wonder perhaps that her parents are a part of the problem? Maybe that should be investigated before you turn her back over to them. That's what the issue is.

Well, luckily for ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Well, luckily for me, they have invented a spelling checker.

The spell checker isn't going to save your inability to reason, jmc. And you better hang onto that Ivy League girlfriend/fiance, because it's her actual gray matter that will help you through life when all that "truther" stuff pulls the rug right out from under you.

"Translation: I still ca... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Translation: I still can't point out jmc's logical fallacy, so I'll repeat my accusation. maybe if I chant it three times it will be so."

Now you're just talking like your high.

The spell checker... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The spell checker isn't going to save your inability to reason, jmc.

Hey, really clever, take my joke an use it yourself. So creative.

And you better hang onto that Ivy League girlfriend/fiance, because it's her actual gray matter that will help you through life when all that "truther" stuff pulls the rug right out from under you.

I will. I'd wish you the same but we both know no one smart will hang out with you. :)

Liz Cheney was great in thi... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Liz Cheney was great in this interview. She had excellent candor and is an enjoyable speaker.

I especially enjoyed the segment with with Washington Post columnist, who in the face of facts, just randomly started blinking and stumbling, and retreating back to talking points he had about five minutes before.

This is what occurs when fact meets fiction. Unfortunately, some liberals are huge fans of fiction.

"If an 8 year old gets preg... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"If an 8 year old gets pregnant, mightn't you wonder perhaps that her parents are a part of the problem?"

Adrian,

Ideally, this kind of thing would never happen. The parents are to blame, sure, but it goes a lot deeper than that. Child abuse and incest are a lot more common than people know, and is media encouraged whether we want to believe it or not.

Now you're just t... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Now you're just talking like your high.


Read about fallacies LaMed. You might really catch me if you do.

"I will. I'd wish you the s... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"I will. I'd wish you the same but we both know no one smart will hang out with you. :)"

Whatever your ego wants to believe, jmc. In the end, you'll find that the really smart ones are going to sell you down the river, so enjoy the elite facade as long as you can.

If you really knew the people I "hang out with", not even your feigned logic would get you there. Some day, you might see the value of human soul over your self serving deceit, but it looks doubtful.

"You might really catch me ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"You might really catch me if you do."

Sorry, it's not that important to me.

If you really kne... (Below threshold)
jmc:
If you really knew the people I "hang out with", not even your feigned logic would get you there. Some day, you might see the value of human soul over your self serving deceit, but it looks doubtful.

my logic is true, which you would know, if you bothered to read what logic is.. You seem one of those people, who really puts no value on knowledge though. I think that is sad, as people who don't bother to learn, what is a logically valid argument and what isn't, are easily duped.


jmc, knowledge by itself is... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

jmc, knowledge by itself is useless unless you consider all evidence, and whether or not the facts are true. If you really believe I'm that ignorant, go ahead and believe it. I don't care that much what an arrogant man thinks of me, just because he lives "the good life". There are plenty of wealthy people in the world that haven't even inherent intelligence, and yet they trample on the masses as if they are cattle. This is how they believe it should be, because it's their "birthright" to better than the common man. They also believe it to be a "logical" choice, because they were taught that. Fallacies exist everywhere in real life, I don't have to "read about them". If you think I don't use knowledge and haven't learned anything from life's experience, then just go ahead an believe that if it makes you feel better.

I may not agree with everything that Liz Cheney says, but I can see that she is intelligent, and has the potential to make this world a better place with more understanding. How she uses her knowledge remains to be seen.

jmc - "I got to hand to... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc - "I got to hand to your [sic] marc, you are never afraid to persist in your own stupidity."

I "persist" in stupidity and called a "moron" just after you give us all a lecture about not making ad hominem attacks.

Folks, meet jmc Professor of Codswallop

JMC"Well, no not r... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

"Well, no not really, because no liberal wants an 8 year old to have an abortion without parental consent. It is a strawman to say the least. If Rm thinks liberals are bad because they beleive a teenager should be able to do that, that it least is an accurate argument for some.


"

All that matters to liberals is that if a female is pregnant and walks into an abortion clinic for the purpose of getting an abortion is that THEY GET THE ABORTION COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.


I would prefer no abortions take place. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Adriane Brown
"If an 8 year old gets pregnant, mightn't you wonder perhaps that her parents are a part of the problem? Maybe that should be investigated before you turn her back over to them. That's what the issue is.'

As proven several times planned parenthood doesnt care if abuse of minors take place as long as they get the abortion they came in for.
This board has documented numerous cases of planned parenthood willing to perform abortions on minors without notifying police of laws being broken. As I stated above.

All that matters to liberals is that if a female is pregnant and walks into an abortion clinic for the purpose of getting an abortion is that THEY GET THE ABORTION COME HELL OR HIGH WATER. .

Age is irrelevant. THe only thing that is important is that praise at the altar of abortion doesnt get interupted.


Oh and JMCIt isnt ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and JMC

It isnt a strawman since Adriane Browne opened his mouth about minors being allowed to see the video.

I could have easily said 17 years old (which is a minor) and it would have still applied.

Again liberals dont care about minors as long as they can get an abortion. Or am I supposed to believe that a 16 year old cant view a video but they can get an abortion. That is typical liberal logic.

Oh and JMC""oh, an... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and JMC

""oh, and a question: I assume, you would prefer, that five year old take on the responsibility of mothering? they could go to grade school together."

I understand that to the liberal mind that abortion is the first and foremost option but there are such things as adoption and other family members raising the child. People do do that.

Oh wait. I forgot. FOr liberals abortion is the only answer.


Quote of the Day:"... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Quote of the Day:

"I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law."
~Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal

Quote for EVERY Day:... (Below threshold)

Quote for EVERY Day:
"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
Voltaire

"Torture", as defined by the Left includes activites that are so clearly and laughably NOT "torture", that any and all credibility they have on this subject has long since evaporated.

Loud music? Caterpillars? Embarrassment?

Since these have ALL been designated "torture" by the Left, Jesse Ventura's statement has no meaning. But then, neither does Jess Ventura.

JustrandAs I under... (Below threshold)
Unrepentant Democrat:

Justrand

As I understand it Ventura was a Seal in the Vietnam war and underwent SERE training. So. I'd put his expertise up against the fat ass, pompous chickenhawk, draft dodging "expert" Dick Cheyney, and certainly over his daughter. And certainly over a wingnut like you. The rest of your post is just stupid.

Unrepentant Democrat, even ... (Below threshold)

Unrepentant Democrat, even if you repented I'm not sure you're salvagable...but consider it anyway.

(a) Vastly more people who underwent SERE training assert just the OPPOSITE of Jesse. So your designation of Jesse Ventura as Universal Arbiter on this subject is "just stupid"

(b) The woman who haunts your dreams, Nancy Pelosi, didn't find the techniques to be "torture"...since she said NOTHING! (and Nan is not shy)

(c) define YOUR terms. What EXACTLY is and is NOT "torture" by your Ivory Tower standards.

And when defining "torture", imagine that you were able to procreate (with or without Nancy Pelosi)...and then imagine what you would and would not authorize to obtain information that could save your child's life.

p.s. I agree with Jesse, btw...TRUE torture is awful. But we do NOT do that! :)

Yeah Unrepentant Democrat d... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Yeah Unrepentant Democrat define "torture" because if any of your words can be parsed or misinterpreted then we shouldn't have any hearings about any of it.

BTW there's no language more difficult to pretend to misinterpret than the English language. One word can never have two meanings, etc.

The criminals in the Bush/Cheney administration worked to draw some Democratic politicians into their crimes, as accomplices after the fact. If the self-serving memos prepared some time after the meetings by CIA staff are to be believed, the politicians were given some information about the torture regime, under conditions of security, giving them the choice of condoning those crimes or breaking their commitments to secrecy. If Nancy Pelosi can't play hardball then she shouldn't be representing people.

If torture is against the l... (Below threshold)
914:

If torture is against the law? How did Osluma get elected?

JustrandI'll go wi... (Below threshold)
Unrepentant Democrat:

Justrand

I'll go with the Army Field Manual on interrogation techniques.Whatever is permitted by that manual is OK with me. How's that? Answers you question (C) succinctly I believe.

By, the way water boarding is forbidden in the Manual even though chicken shit Cheyney gets off on it. Bottom line - I'll take the Manual the interrogators use in place of right wingnuts views.

As an aside I see that chicken hawk chckenshit Sean The Mouth Hannity hasn't got the cajones to back up his big brash statement that he was willing to be water boarded. Pretty typical of the nattering nabobs of the right who have never been near anything more dangerous than the ride home every night.

As for Pelosi- I pray regularly she'll decide to retire and that she'll take Harry Reid with her.

"And I'd like to interje... (Below threshold)

"And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.
Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do.
So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.
"
Chuck Schumer, 2004

hattip HotAir:Sena... (Below threshold)

hattip HotAir:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, MOMENTS AGO:
"I think it's a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that.
I don't want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn't 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks
."

I would have to clarify UD'... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I would have to clarify UD's insult to our troops. Since a big majority of veterans are republican/conservative, you comment is ignorant and insulting to say the least. ww

Unrepentant Democrat: "I... (Below threshold)

Unrepentant Democrat: "I'll go with the Army Field Manual on interrogation techniques.Whatever is permitted by that manual is OK with me."

We're in agreement! Yup. Whenever we capture LAWFUL combatants from countries that have signed (and abide by) the Geneva Concentions we should do that.

But using that for terrorists seeking to destroy as much human life as possible in the most gruesome way? Heck, why not use the Girl Scout Code? Then all you can ask them is: "How many boxes of the lemon cookies would you like, and how many of the mint wafers?"

JustrandWell there... (Below threshold)
Unrepentant Democrat:

Justrand

Well there you go. There's the difference.

WW

As usual you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. As usual you plucked a thought out of mid air and attributes something to someone they have never said. Amusing but also sad.

.s. I agree with ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
.s. I agree with Jesse, btw...TRUE torture is awful. But we do NOT do that! :)


VENTURA: That's right. I was water boarded, so I know -- at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence -- every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.


Still agree with Ventura? :)

btw, I notice the far-right here always claim waterboarding is not torture because the SEALS do it. yet every SEAL I have ever heard speak on the subject says it is torture, Is there a winger who can find a case of a SEAL who doesn't think it is torture?

best quote: VENTURA:... (Below threshold)
jmc:

best quote:
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.


Course none of the chicken hawks will ever do it. They will say it is not torture, they will say it is just a dunk, in the water, but if it is a dunk why are the cowards so afraid to do it? No one will of course answer, here come the personal attacks instead(which are not ad hominems btw.)

The Geneva conventions wisd... (Below threshold)
914:

The Geneva conventions wisdom was not extended to terrorists. This is not a game of kick the can, where everybody plays by the rules and has a good time.

my mother-in-law finds eati... (Below threshold)

my mother-in-law finds eating corn on the cob to be "torture" because of her dentures...but is it REALLY "torture"?

I like BLTs...but Jihadis would consider being fed them to be "torture"...but is it REALLY?

I consider having eybalss gouged out, fingernails ripped off, and family members raped in front of you to be "torture". and it REALLY is!

AND, I value my freedom of movement...and would find confinement to be true "torture" for me personally. Does that mean we should not confine criminals?

Water-boarding is scary, and gets results. But after it's done your fingers still have fingernails, your eyeballs are still intact, and your family has not been harmed.

jmc, I'll put it to you thi... (Below threshold)

jmc, I'll put it to you this way...

you give me a water board, Khalid Sheik Mohamed and 18 seconds, and I'll have him confess to a plot to destroy the Library Tower in downtown L.A., and have him give up all the details so the plot can be stopped!

oh wait...that already HAPPENED!

I dont think that "chickenh... (Below threshold)
914:

I dont think that "chickenhawks" Whatever that is? Should be subjecated to torture tactics simply to prove that they can stand their own form of terrorist plot revealing technique..Unless of course 'chickenhawks" Whatever that is? Are planning a terrorist attack? In which case they would be terrorists not "chickenhawks" Whatever that is?

oh wait...that al... (Below threshold)
jmc:
oh wait...that already HAPPENED!

Don't tell me you beleive that B.S?


"The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was "full of shit."

Another described the claims as "worthless intel that was discarded long ago."

A New York Times story cited "several counter-terrorism officials" as saying that "the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official.'"


We did appretnyl get a log of bogus B.S. info, because people will confess to anything under torture. I'm sure Dick Cheney, really did, commit the sharon tate murders, and if you give me a waterboard, 18 seconds and Dick Cheney, I'll prove it to you.

I dont think that... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I dont think that "chickenhawks" Whatever that is? Should be subjecated to torture tactics simply to prove that they can stand their own form of terrorist plot revealing technique..Unless of course 'chickenhawks" Whatever that is? Are planning a terrorist attack? In which case they would be terrorists not "chickenhawks" Whatever that is?


A chickenhawk is someone who chicken out of serving his country (say five times) but then acts like some big tough guy. Think Dick Cheney.

And, explain to me, why not do it if it is not torture? If it does not cause severe distress, if it is just a dunk in the water, then they should have no trouble doing it. The truth is it is torture, they know it is torture (as do you) and that is why they won't do it. They just think,( as do you) that it doesn't matter that it is torture because well, fuck those arabs.

So just admit. You don't care it is torture you think we should torture our enemy and then defend that argument with the ticking time bomb or whatever reason you give for it. Just don't lie and say it isn't torture.

Water-boarding is scary, and gets results. But after it's done your fingers still have fingernails, your eyeballs are still intact, and your family has not been harmed.

if a man breaks in your house tonight, holds a gun to your head, takes you and your whole family to field makes you kneel, says he is going to blow your head off then rape your wife, or mother, or whoever your family is, if you don't swear to vote for Al Franken, after you promise, shows you the gun had no bullets... well, after it's done you still have your fingernails, your eyeballs are still intact, and your family has not been harmed.

Still torture, even though it was scary and got results.

jmc, You really should deci... (Below threshold)
914:

jmc, You really should decide which side you are on?

To quote any New York gossip rag as factual is pathetic.

"The plot never progressed past the planning stages"

First you plan a plot, than you carry it out? Is this somehow an infringement on your sense of fairness because they were figured out before they (He) Whatever? could murder thousands?

If He showed Me the gun had... (Below threshold)
914:

If He showed Me the gun had no bullets, That would be the last thing He ever would see. secondly, He would never make it that far in the first place.

I dont think that... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I dont think that "chickenhawks" Whatever that is? Should be subjecated to torture tactics simply to prove that they can stand their own form of terrorist plot revealing technique..Unless of course 'chickenhawks" Whatever that is? Are planning a terrorist attack? In which case they would be terrorists not "chickenhawks" Whatever that is?

A chickenhawk is someone who chickens out of serving his country (say five times) but then acts like some big tough guy. Think Dick Cheney.

And, explain to me why not waterboard the chickenhawks, if it is not torture? If it does not cause severe distress, if it is just a dunk in the water, then they should have no trouble doing it. It would be a good way to shut their critics up. The truth is though it is torture, they know it is torture (as do you) and that is why they won't do it. They know they couldn't handle it. They know it would scar them for life. They just think,( as do you) that it doesn't matter that it is torture because, well, fuck those arabs.

So just admit it. You don't care if it is torture. You think we should torture our enemy. You think the stakes are that high. And then defend that argument with the ticking time bomb, or whatever reason you give for it. At least that is an honest argument.

Water-boarding is scary, and gets results. But after it's done your fingers still have fingernails, your eyeballs are still intact, and your family has not been harmed.

If a man breaks in your house tonight, holds a gun to your head, takes you and your whole family to a field makes you kneel, says he is going to blow your head off, then rape your wife, or mother, or whoever your family is; but will change his mind, if you swear to vote for Al Franken, and after you promise, shows you the gun had no bullets... well, you still have your fingernails, your eyeballs are still intact, and your family has not been harmed.

Still torture, even though it was scary and got results.

posted above accidently before I was ready.

If He showed Me t... (Below threshold)
jmc:
If He showed Me the gun had no bullets, That would be the last thing He ever would see. secondly,

Why, it's not he like he tortured you or anything. Why does that upset you? Your fingernails are fine. eyeballs work, wife mom didn't get raped. No hard to you. Why so upset?

He would never make it that far in the first place.

Yes, I'm sure it is impossible for an intruder to ever get the jump on you. You probably have super powers. But for the sake of argument. pretend he is really quiet, me in and got to you before you could get your super power suit on. And then, took you to the field. I don't see why you'd be upset anyway. No harm done right?


What are you supposed to do... (Below threshold)
914:

What are you supposed to do with terro...er excuse Me, I mean enemy combatants caught on the battlefield? (besides the obvious blow their brains out?)
Serve them kool aid with no sugar to get their future plans?

Why does that upset Me?????... (Below threshold)
914:

Why does that upset Me?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Gee whiz, pulling a gun on me and My Wife and Children was ok, I could have bought him a drink and had a few laughs over that. But showing Me the gun had no bullets? That really ticks me off..

jmc, you make a very good p... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

jmc, you make a very good point. Note that 914's response is basically to say that his imaginary internet dick is so big that nobody would ever break into his house and get away with it, which is a funny and clumsy way of avoiding the point: waterboarding is torture, and the Dick Cheney fan club think it's acceptable.

Monsters. Better to let your nation burn than to sully its spirit with a legacy of brutality that would be more becoming of the English or Belgian empires in the 19th century.

jmc, You really s... (Below threshold)
jmc:
jmc, You really should decide which side you are on?

So should you. I'm on the side of America and what our country stands for. You should join me, and quit fighting against the principles this country was built upon.

To quote any New York gossip rag as factual is pathetic.

Only the far right thinks the NYT is a gossip rag. I'm sure only Fox news works in your world, You are not interested that so many intelligence agencies debunked this crap. You only look for news that fits your world view. Scary. Objective reason is not something you let intrude upon your beleifs.

"The plot never progressed past the planning stages"

New York Daily News (2/10/06) cited one senior counterterrorism official who said: "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

Wow, really foiled that. Speaking of which, I was foiled from my plan to marry Cindy Crawford last year (never got past the thought stage) but alas, I was foiled (by reality.)

I see a general lack of per... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I see a general lack of perspective. As Liz Cheney pointed out, if we train our own soldiers with the technique, just how can that be considered some horrible brutal amoral form of torture?

So in essence, the position is that it's good enough for our men, but we should spare the enemy?

Jesse Ventura is entitled to his informed opinion, of course. My opinion remains in light of events far succeeding the Vietnam War, that it produces results.

If the White House would just declassify the documents that Dick Cheney asked to be declassified to prove this point, I think you all may have some positions to reconsider.

Naturally, one has to wonder why those specific documents that are meant to prove Dick Cheney's case are being held away while other tidbits of fragmented information is being released in it's stead. One might think the current Administration just got it's balls put in a vice.

What are you supp... (Below threshold)
jmc:
What are you supposed to do with terro...er excuse Me, I mean enemy combatants caught on the battlefield? (besides the obvious blow their brains out?) Serve them kool aid with no sugar to get their future plans?

How about the traditional interogation techniques, that worked on the japanese, the Korth Koreans, the nazi's, iraqi's in the first gulf war etc? I know in your mind you have super powers and therefore need super villans to fight, but Al Quaeda, are just a collection of men. Those techniques will work on them as well.


Why does that upset Me?????...
Gee whiz, pulling a gun on me and My Wife and Children was ok, I could have bought him a drink and had a few laughs over that. But showing Me the gun had no bullets? That really ticks me off..

You are right. Let's amend that scenario to the bullets are real he just didn't shoot you or your wife. No harm done, I'm sure you, the wife and ids, can invite him over to dinner afterwards and have a big laugh over it.

I voted for Jesse Ventura a... (Below threshold)
914:

I voted for Jesse Ventura and thought He did a good job..I like His outspokeness and sense of humor.

No harm done? No not at all.

Hyperbolist, Nobody asked U, but since you insist on interjecting your internet small dick into the equation, I dont care wether its torture or not if it keeps me and my family, friends including all of Canada safe from a nuclear armed jihadist nation.

jmc, you make a v... (Below threshold)
jmc:
jmc, you make a very good point. Note that 914's response is basically to say that his imaginary internet dick is so big that nobody would ever break into his house and get away with it, which is a funny and clumsy way of avoiding the point: waterboarding is torture, and the Dick Cheney fan club think it's acceptable.

Very true. These arguments always go this way, and I wonder why, given how they always make a point of dehumanizing their enemies, they won't just come out and say they think we should torture.

my suspision is that, if Dick Cheney had ordered the fingernails pulled off of every one at guantanmo, these guys would still be defending that, with pretty much the same arguments we see here.

I dont care weth... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I dont care wether its torture or not if it keeps me and my family, friends including all of Canada safe from a nuclear armed jihadist nation.


exactly. you don't care if we torture. So just admit it was done, and say you don't give a shit.

No harm done? No ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
No harm done? No not at all.

Good, well if it ever happens to you and your kids, I hope you are consistent and don't press charges. I'd hate to think of anyone in jail for doing a mock execution of your family. Since we know it causes your wife and kids, and even you, no harm at all.

I dont know wether or not i... (Below threshold)
914:

I dont know wether or not it was done? I was not there. I would not have taken prisoners on the battlefield that were trying to kill my fellow beloved countrymen in the first place.

If dick Cheney this, if dick Cheney that? What the heck is this? Are You infatuated with the guy or what?

First jmc, a history lesson... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

First jmc, a history lesson. There is no second gulf war, it is a continuation of the first.

You think conservatives are for torture but we try to explain to you extreme left zealots that we simply do not agree with you that it is torture. You just cannot handle that opinion.

If Cheney is a chicken hawk, then so is Obama.

Dick Cheney was a congressmen, adviser, secretary of defense and vice president yet you make fun of a man who served our country for so many years. You are pitiful.

Hyper,as usual gets it wrong. Conservatives don't find waterboarding acceptable only, but necessary. We conservatives live in the real world and do not play make pretend theoretical games of morality. ww

I dont care wether its t... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I dont care wether its torture or not if it keeps me and my family, friends including all of Canada safe from a nuclear armed jihadist nation.

And thus do you lose the argument. Stating that you would murder captured enemy soldiers on the battlefield further adds to the obvious conclusion: that you think torture, murder, doing wrong, are somehow excusable if it's the "good guys" doing it and not the "bad guys". Problem is, jihadis think they're the good guys, and so the only objective way to differentiate oneself from a jihadi is to never torture; never murder; never prosecute a violent conflict in the name of your favourite supernatural entity.

Good thing you post anonymously, because your children and their children would be embarrassed to know that you are such a morally debased bed-wetter.

The speculation continues a... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

The speculation continues about what we would probably do in some theoretical circumstance, but little to no content on the actual issue.

Anyone have anything in my post they want to talk about?

Amen to that Bro... (Below threshold)
914:

Amen to that Bro

FYIJesse Ventura mos... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

FYI
Jesse Ventura most likely never went through SERE training. The Army SOF SERE requirements and Army SERE Schools didn't officially start until 1981. Even then it was mostly Officers and a small percentage of Enlisted although there was a push to require all 18 series to go through it. I believe the Navy SOF requirement for SERE training started after the Army's although a hand full did go through the Army's course. Maybe someone could fill in the timeline for Navy SOF. Regardless it is highly unlikely Ventura went though it.

I did not state I would mur... (Below threshold)
914:

I did not state I would murder anyone or anything hyperbolist. I am against partial birth abortion which is murder of actual innocents. I simply stated that avoiding all the rigaramoo of leftist ideology and condescension would be a wiser course of action than taking prisoners.

And no, I do not consider it murder when your in a war zone and the people that are trying to kill you get killed. Sad fact of the world we live in, People die.

First jmc, a hist... (Below threshold)
jmc:
First jmc, a history lesson. There is no second gulf war, it is a continuation of the first.

Really? I wonder with Historians, refer, to it as the first gulf war then... why oh why...?

hmm, it did happen about ten years before, could it be that? No... Different president? No... Different reasons? No, your right. Except for being different in every way and always refered to as a serpare thing, they are the same war. thanks for the history lesson willie. I always like it when someone with no College Degree, gives a history a lesson.

You think conservatives are for torture but we try to explain to you extreme left zealots that we simply do not agree with you that it is torture. You just cannot handle that opinion.

914, says he doesn't care if it is torture. Kinda shoots the argument down that you guys have aproblem with torture.

If Cheney is a chicken hawk, then so is Obama.

Dick Cheney was a congressmen, adviser, secretary of defense and vice president yet you make fun of a man who served our country for so many years. You are pitiful.

Hyper,as usual gets it wrong. Conservatives don't find waterboarding acceptable only, but necessary. We conservatives live in the real world and do not play make pretend theoretical games of morality. ww

914 is correct but I would ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

914 is correct but I would add war is not for the squeamish. Nasty, terrible things happen in war. The lefties do not live in the real world. ww

If Cheney is a ch... (Below threshold)
jmc:
If Cheney is a chicken hawk, then so is Obama.

You mean Obama got five deferments in Vietnam? I didn't know that. Oh right he didn't

Dick Cheney was a congressmen, adviser, secretary of defense and vice president yet you make fun of a man who served our country for so many years. You are pitiful.

So did Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden, and now Nancy pelosi serves our country. Better not see you making fun of these people that serve our country. You are a first class idiot.

If dick Cheney th... (Below threshold)
jmc:
If dick Cheney this, if dick Cheney that? What the heck is this? Are You infatuated with the guy or what?

These are called thought experiments. You take an idea, and then think about the repurcsuisons of that idea, if it were true.

Smart people do it all the time. You should try it.

914 is correct bu... (Below threshold)
jmc:
914 is correct but I would add war is not for the squeamish. Nasty, terrible things happen in war. The lefties do not live in the real world. ww


Nasty terrible, things? Like torture? Just admit it, you think torture is acceptable because war is nasty bad thing where you have to do that. call it what it is. Quit being dishonest.

I did not state I... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I did not state I would murder anyone or anything hyperbolist. I am against partial birth abortion which is murder of actual innocents. I simply stated that avoiding all the rigaramoo of leftist ideology and condescension would be a wiser course of action than taking prisoners.

You wouldn't murder them, but you wouldn't take them prisoner, so what are you doing then? letting them go?

I call it war..There is no ... (Below threshold)
914:

I call it war..There is no dishonesty here. Try Me.

When they raise the white f... (Below threshold)
914:

When they raise the white flag I say go home and be at peace with your family.

I call it war..Th... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I call it war..There is no dishonesty here. Try Me.

Sure there is. You know it is torture but you won't say it. You also say you won't take prisoners, but you won't commit murder, meaning you are for letting them go or are being dishonest. Try you in what way?

When they raise t... (Below threshold)
jmc:
When they raise the white flag I say go home and be at peace with your family.

Well, that would be letting them go. if that is your position.

Thats what I stated and tha... (Below threshold)
914:

Thats what I stated and thats how I would treat it. Of course I would have to confiscate their weapons.

Even if it were torture? wh... (Below threshold)
914:

Even if it were torture? whats your point? That We have to be over nice to terrorist suspects?

I guess I know where your c... (Below threshold)
914:

I guess I know where your coming from. But the enemys of this country could care less about you or me or the tactics we use to extact info.

They understand one thing..Terror. Win by attrition., Intimidate into acceptance. And that is never going to happen.

If they're prisoners... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

If they're prisoners, 914, then they aren't trying to kill you. But you would murder them for the sake of expediency, because you're a morally debased bed-wetter. I don't believe your comment #120, because you're opposed to the detainees at Gitmo being released several years after their weapons were confiscated. You're full of shit, it's unbecoming.

Heralder, nobody replied to your comment because comparing waterboarding as preparation for being tortured is not the same sort of experience as waterboarding as torture. One would hope that the difference is so obvious as to not require an explanation, but then one would hope that half the people in the United States aren't so scared of the Big Bad Brown Guy that they would pee their pants and applaud the use of barbaric torture techniques that violate international law.

Now please, jmc is making a reasonable request: either admit that you think torture is acceptable, or state that your country should not do it. There's no middle position, like with Willie trying to split hairs and claim that waterboarding someone--convincing them that they're drowning--isn't torture. jmc's example above--convincing someone that their spouse and children are going to be shot--is obviously torture, even if no one is "hurt". So is waterboarding. So is a week of sleep deprivation.

Who said they were prisoner... (Below threshold)
914:

Who said they were prisoners? And I MURDER no one. Least of all the partially born. Hell, I go outta My way to avoid hitting a frog on the highway and risk my own ass.. So save your moral assumptive reign for a lesser intellect.

Im not opposed to the detainees being released if they are innocent.

But you're okay with indefi... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

But you're okay with indefinite detention?

Anyway, you said this:

I would not have taken prisoners on the battlefield that were trying to kill my fellow beloved countrymen in the first place.

I interpreted that to mean that if given the opportunity to take prisoners, you would not do so--implying (to me) that you would kill them, simply because they had been trying to kill you and your friends (otherwise known as doing their job as soldiers).

So You classify Al Quaeda t... (Below threshold)
914:

So You classify Al Quaeda types as soldiers?

I am not ok with indefinite detention unless the detainee has an indefinite desire to kill Me? Than its ok.

Your going to interpret it the way you want, I am not currently in the military. If I were and they were trying to kill Me and My fellow Americans, Yes Id shoot their asses.

Good and clear enough?

Yes, I classify them as sol... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Yes, I classify them as soldiers. They're a terrorist organization, and many of the terrorists are soldiers. I do draw a distinction between someone blowing up a car full of explosives in a market, and someone firing at NATO troops with an AK47. (Specifically, the latter entails at least a modicum of soldierly conduct, and the former is a cowardly act of violence directed towards innocents.)

Sorry, but if someone who has been detained at Gitmo develops an incredibly strong hatred for the United States, but is found innocent on charges (e.g. he was framed by a neighbour in Afghanistan so that the neighbour could collect a reward and steal his poppies), then that's no reason not to release the guy--even though there is a strong possibility that he might return to Kabul, buy a weapon, and shoot the first white person he sees.

Rule of law, and all that.

Odds are if they are detain... (Below threshold)
914:

Odds are if they are detained at Gitmo, they already are not enamored with the U.S. ??? I could care less what their motivation is?

Why are You so gung ho on pronoucing them unjustly held or tortured? Have a little cash invested in their outcome?

Hyper, I know you aren't jo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper, I know you aren't joking but you comments read like a SNL skit.

jmc, the Gulf War never ended. There was a cease fire and truce that was broken by Saddam. You should learn before you comment. Now, who is the idiot?

Hyper thinks that saying I don't believe waterboarding is torture is splitting hairs? That is honesty sister. Learn about it. ww

No, I just happen to take s... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

No, I just happen to take seriously the notion of the universality of human rights; and I don't think that hating Western values disqualifies a person from our moral considerations. I think we need to maximize the respect we show towards those who hate us--even if it doesn't affect their opinion of us whatsoever--while ensuring that law enforcement is capable of dealing with internal threats; whereas conservatives seem to think that we should take all possible measures towards defending ourselves, and then whatever room is left for respecting individuals is all the respect we are required to afford them.

You might think this is crazy, but true courage requires putting just and righteous principles ahead of the concern for one's own safety (as well as the safety of one's loved ones). Compromising principles of decency towards our fellow humans--even the shitty ones who want to kill us--is cowardice.

"Maximize the respect we... (Below threshold)
914:

"Maximize the respect we show towards those that hate us"

My God!! Are You sure you and Obuma werent separated at birth?

I vaguely remember somethin... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I vaguely remember something from Sunday school about loving all of God's children.

Are Islamic extremists not God's children? Are they descended from aliens, or perhaps Satan?

By all means, restrain those who would kill us, or kill them if need be; but don't act like they're sub-humans. I'm not sure you understand how I'm using the word respect. I believe that we have a binding moral obligation to accord every rational being a certain amount of respect. So, I think execution is never acceptable; and I think that torture is wrong in every single scenario.

I remember when most Christians used to believe that too.

Good post Hyperbolist.... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Good post Hyperbolist.

No, I just happen to take seriously the notion of the universality of human rights; and I don't think that hating Western values disqualifies a person from our moral considerations.

First, lets be clear, its not them sitting in their house scowling at the television hating western values that's the problem, its those that decide to hack heads off or deliberately bomb civilians.

You might think this is crazy, but true courage requires putting just and righteous principles ahead of the concern for one's own safety (as well as the safety of one's loved ones).

Actually this makes perfect sense. I think it's noble, if it's your own life and your own safety you're sacrificing for your personal righteous principles.

I'm not sure if it would be easy to explain to the families of the victims of a future terrorist attack that could have been prevented, that they can take heart in the fact that someone in political office kept their own personal righteous principles intact by not waterboarding a man plotting mass murder.

The leaders of our country are obliged through oath to protect it. It is that simple. Protection and principle are not mutually exclusive, its a fine line. The principles you've extolled here are good principles, but sometimes find better use in the mouths of philosophers and poets who are not charged with protecting every single one of 300 million individuals from external attack.


Not to drag this whole thing off topic, but as a small aside, what do you think about the treatment of U.S. prisoners in domestic detention facilities? Is solitary confinement torture for someone who stabbed another inmate? Is locking people up for life in a 7x5 room humane and fair?

Hyper, the Islamofacists wa... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper, the Islamofacists want to kill us because of our principles and beliefs. Flaunting them will incite them. Are you for real? Do you have a computer in the psych ward? Cheesh. ww

jmc, the Gulf War... (Below threshold)
jmc:
jmc, the Gulf War never ended. There was a cease fire and truce that was broken by Saddam. You should learn before you comment. Now, who is the idiot?

You are, as always. By your rational World War I and World War II were the same war. They were not. (The nazis broke the terms of the world war I truce, didn't make it the same war) The gulf wars had different players (generals politicians, members of the coaliton involved)were ten years apart, and happend for an entirely different set of reasons. No doubt some of the causes of the second Gulf War had their roots in the first. But historians always refer to them as seperate. We went into the second war on the ratianal that Saddam had WMDs he did not. The first was to liberate Kuwait. I don't know I am bothering explaing this to you. You are not capable of understanding.

@914 said: "Odds are if the... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@914 said: "Odds are if they are detained at Gitmo, they already are not enamored with the U.S. ??? I could care less what their motivation is?"

You COULD care less? How much less could you care? (Sorry, grammar pet peeve - it's *couldn't* care less... as in you care so little already that you couldn't care any less than you already don't care)

@jmc said: "So just admit i... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@jmc said: "So just admit it. You don't care if it is torture. You think we should torture our enemy. You think the stakes are that high."

Bingo.

I've said before that I could respect honesty of this nature. I wouldn't agree with the position, but at least I could respect the debate. For me, this is the entire issue. It's not about trying to define away waterboarding as "not torture". It's about being honest and saying that empowering our country to have PROGRAMS of torture or torture-like techniques is more important than anything else that might blowback from those programs.

For those of you who support torture, I'm still not clear that I understand where you draw the limits, if there are any limits. Do you folks believe that anything short of limb removal is acceptable? Is mental pain and suffering acceptable in all cases since it's "just mental"? Is pain and suffering something that has to take place in the course of years rather than days or minutes?

Hyper, the Islamo... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Hyper, the Islamofacists want to kill us because of our principles and beliefs. Flaunting them will incite them. Are you for real? Do you have a computer in the psych ward? Cheesh. ww

Willie, they want to Kill, us because they believe we have desecrated their holy land. I don't think we have, but let's be clear on the reason. Osamba Bin Laden was infuriated, U.S. troops were put on Saudi soil to defend the kingdom against a possible Iraqi attack. It was not the fact we were humane to our enemies, that pissed him off, it was not our principles.

Secondly, although, right wingers never seem to understand this. We are a country that was formed because of those principles. If you don't want to live, based on the principles, principals, that our fore fathers put in place, why stay in America? Why not go someplace that does not believe in those things?

Although you like to lecture on history, you clearly do not understand the history of your own country. Read about the founding fathers and their beliefs before commenting on this again and you will save yourself serious embarrassment.

@Heralder -- "I see a gener... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@Heralder -- "I see a general lack of perspective. As Liz Cheney pointed out, if we train our own soldiers with the technique, just how can that be considered some horrible brutal amoral form of torture?"

Man, what an idiotic thing to say. Context, brother, context. After having talked to a friend who's gone through SERE himself, he said very specifically that he was able to get through it because he could always say "only X more hours to go and then it's done". He knew that he had the best of possible precautions against his own harm. He knew it was his friends (or at least people he respected), not his enemies who were conducting the activities.

Even with those factors in place, he couldn't sleep for days because he knew he'd come as close to dying as he was likely ever going to. He had suffered, he had been subjected to pain, he had been scared for his life.

Context.

How about another example of how context works?

Rape is sex, but not all sex is rape.

But what about the techniques used other than waterboarding? If we never talked again about waterboarding and only talked about chaining people to the floor for 18+ hours, giving them mock executions, having dogs bark in their faces, hanging them by their arms from the walls, ramming their heads into walls by a collar, slapping them, punching them, making them go 10+ days without sleep. Are these things that we do to our troops too? Not only have we done these things, we've created "Presidential level" approval for programs that made these things ongoing process. Are you OK with these things continuing too?

No Jake, Its "I could care ... (Below threshold)
914:

No Jake, Its "I could care less" If they were like murderers or something? Being they are just innocent misbehavin beheading juveniles. I couldnt care less.

jmc, the gulf wars were two... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

jmc, the gulf wars were two years apart, with a lot of the same players, including Bush sr. and Rumsfeld. The initial strike, ordered by Clinton, was because of an assassination attempt on Bush sr.

Whether or not the WMDs existed at the time Clinton was called to prevent the spread of them has yet to be determined, as Iraq was ordered to disarm.

Correction, it had been two... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Correction, it had been two years before the next strike because of the assassination attempt on Bush sr.

@jmc said: "Willie, they wa... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@jmc said: "Willie, they want to Kill, us because they believe we have desecrated their holy land. I don't think we have, but let's be clear on the reason. Osamba Bin Laden was infuriated, U.S. troops were put on Saudi soil to defend the kingdom against a possible Iraqi attack. It was not the fact we were humane to our enemies, that pissed him off, it was not our principles."

This is sorta correct, as I understand the history. My understanding is that bin Laden and al-Qaeda's goal is to return the Middle East, perhaps the world to the Calphiate (am I spelling that right??), a single state governed by Muslim law. While bin Laden, like many Muslims, was infuriated by the US Gulf War presence in the Holy Land, he used that fact as a wedge issue upon which to incite anger, drive recruitment and generally support the idea of Calphiate itself.

While bin Laden is a fundamentalist who is on a jihad, it's incorrect to believe that his end game is to simply kill or convert all the non-Muslims. He's using that hatred as a tool to restructure the Middle East into a single entity. His goal with 9/11 was to create a worldwide conflict that would incite Muslims to unite, first against the aggressor (the West, specifically the US) and secondly to leave in that conflict's wake a lingering, united, powerful Muslim world. The Middle East, and especially bin Laden and his supporters saw the downfall of the USSR and believed, correctly or incorrectly, that they had the ability to repeat that success against the US.

The problem today, however, is that "they" is a different group. al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't consist of the holy warrior base of the alQ that once ran loose in Afghanistan. Today's alQ is made up of paid "employees" and zealots alike. The Iraqi insurgency has for years been made up of ex-Baathists, angry Iraqis, foreign fighters, and alQ In Iraq. "They" is a more complex stew of motivations.

In Afghanistan, according to a US general I don't recall, alQ is all but gone there. The problem lingering comes from the Taliban, a group that while hating the West wants more to be in control of their country again. They are certainly "against our principles", but they are less interested in taking an active role to kill us because of them, and more interested in having a haven country for their fundamentalist and f**ked up beliefs.

But @jmc, let's be honest here... the "they" that Willie refers to is much simpler than that. It's the brown people in the Middle East. I'm pretty convinced at this point that Willie falls into the "kill them all and let God sort them out" camp.

What is "holy" about their ... (Below threshold)
914:

What is "holy" about their "holy" land Jake?

Im pretty sure You fall into the " Lets let them have another crack at us" camp.

@914 said: "What is "holy" ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@914 said: "What is "holy" about their "holy" land Jake?

What's "holy" about it is that's what they call it. Try not to sound like such a bigot.

"Im pretty sure You fall into the 'Lets let them have another crack at us' camp."

Whatever, buddy. Whatever. Out of curiosity, where were you on 9/11?

@914 said: "No Jake, Its "I... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@914 said: "No Jake, Its "I could care less" If they were like murderers or something? Being they are just innocent misbehavin beheading juveniles. I couldnt care less."

Uh... what? Are you trying to be witty or do you honestly believe the saying is "I could care less"?

Jake, I am not sure ... (Below threshold)

Jake,
I am not sure of your agenda in labeling the
folks in the middle east as the brown people. Arabs consider themselves as white.
The persians are also considered white.

It's almost as if you are infering a back handed
insult at wizbang posters. Or is that a
muted and infered message that you are biased
against people from the middle east.

Jake, you show your immatur... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jake, you show your immaturity and lack of skill in debate by using the "race" card. When that is done is shows you have no facts to back up your screed.

Hyper, first off, if Osama was made about the troops being in Saudi Arabia, why not bomb that country or our bases there? Because Osama is pulling the leg of the gullible. It is our ideals and our support of Israel that is the main target, but go ahead and believe Osama.

Jake, we entered WWII because Japan bombed us. Why did we go into Germany? We were asked. Are you that challenged?

Osama and his buddies brought the fight to us. Hyper, you want us to line up our families and friends to demonstrate to the Isamofacists that we have principals? Okay. You and your family first. ww

Who are you calling a bigo... (Below threshold)
914:

Who are you calling a bigot? bigot

FYI on 911 2001.. a tuesday morning if I recall.. I had just worked a double shift and sat down to have a cup of coffee and flip thru the channels to see whats up?

And lo and behold, I see the WTC SOUTH TOWER smoking and was shocked as everyone...When I saw the second aircraft banking hard right behind the other Tower I was horrified. Disgustingly pukingly sick to my stomach...did not sleep all day OR NIGHT..

Ali Soufan, the former FBI ... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Ali Soufan, the former FBI interrogator who wrote a riveting op-ed against the use of torture -- and he should know, since he was interrogating Abu Zubaydah himself -- testified under oath today that he got information out of Zubaydah quickly using basic FBI methods; and that information was then used successfully to capture "the bad guys." Then, when the CIA forced torture on Zubaydah, they got nothing.

Hey Jake.... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hey Jake.

Man, what an idiotic thing to say. Context, brother, context. After having talked to a friend who's gone through SERE himself, he said very specifically that he was able to get through it because he could always say "only X more hours to go and then it's done". He knew that he had the best of possible precautions against his own harm. He knew it was his friends (or at least people he respected), not his enemies who were conducting the activities.

That is certainly to be expected, and I think you'll need to switch gears a little here to get this, but you are correct, it is about context. Context is the only reason any of this has any value.

If a high value prisoner could sit there and think "only X more hours to go and then it's done" there with be absolutely zero point in conducting the interrogation to begin with.

But you are right also in saying troops being waterboarded and a prisoner being waterboarded are two different animals, so my comparison isn't really the best argument on the subject. I have no issue admitting when I'm wrong.

It is valuable to consider, however, still, in raw form, our soldiers being subjected to that treatment does say something about the act itself.

It's very very simple to say the world is black and white, but our very own justice system defines even murder in degrees, and further divides it into manslaughter. That is based on intent and implements a grayscale of severity and maliciousness that defines the act and the penalty.

To call waterboarding torture, grouping it along with swallowing boiling water and watching your five year old daughter dismembered in front of you, introduces a moral scale that is hopelessly warped. If torture is given such enormously broad boundries that making someone unhappy or uncomfortable is deemed morally the same as flaying their leg, you're going to need to divorce yourself completely from reality.

But what about the techniques used other than waterboarding? If we never talked again about waterboarding and only talked about chaining people to the floor for 18+ hours, giving them mock executions, having dogs bark in their faces, hanging them by their arms from the walls, ramming their heads into walls by a collar, slapping them, punching them, making them go 10+ days without sleep. Are these things that we do to our troops too? Not only have we done these things, we've created "Presidential level" approval for programs that made these things ongoing process. Are you OK with these things continuing too?

Frightening someone, or humiliating someone, even causing minor physical pain to them, (and lets bring intent into it) to save lives, yes, I am okay with. Does it make me happy? No. Do I like it? Absolutely not. It is a reality that we must deal with in order to effectively stop people from being murdered.

I'll ask the prime question that always comes up in this debate. Just how exactly do you get someone to tell you sensitive information that could save lives by not putting them in an uncomfortable or frightening situation?

If you've handcuffed and detained them, you may already be guilty of torture by the left's standards.

jmc, the gulf war... (Below threshold)
jmc:
jmc, the gulf wars were two years apart, with a lot of the same players, including Bush sr. and Rumsfeld. The initial strike, ordered by Clinton, was because of an assassination attempt on Bush sr.

Whether or not the WMDs existed at the time Clinton was called to prevent the spread of them has yet to be determined, as Iraq was ordered to disarm.

Dear lord. Clinton went the whole 8 years without being at war in Iraq. A bombing strike is not a war. There were also many different players, and those players that were the same were in different wars. the colation was different the reaons were different Historians regard the two as seperate things.

I'll as... (Below threshold)
jmc:


I'll ask the prime question that always comes up in this debate. Just how exactly do you get someone to tell you sensitive information that could save lives by not putting them in an uncomfortable or frightening situation?


Ali Soufan, the former FBI interrogator who wrote a riveting op-ed against the use of torture -- and he should know, since he was interrogating Abu Zubaydah himself -- testified under oath today that he got information out of Zubaydah quickly using basic FBI methods; and that information was then used successfully to capture "the bad guys." Then, when the CIA forced torture on Zubaydah, they got nothing


Get it? We got the info without waterboarding his ass. Now I'll ask you. Are mock executions torture? Because by rationale it is not.

I forgot to quote the above... (Below threshold)
jmc:

I forgot to quote the above, you can read his op-ed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Thanks jmc,Now, ge... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Thanks jmc,

Now, get the White House to release the documents requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney that says the exact opposite and it ought to get interesting.

It's easy to play poker when you refuse to give your opponent cards.

Did Ali Soufan mention what basic FBI methods were, and did they involve icecream? And further, what makes you think we're only talking about Abu Zubaydah?

I'll go read the op-ed in t... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'll go read the op-ed in the meantime.

Hyper said"No, I j... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper said

"No, I just happen to take seriously the notion of the universality of human rights;"

As shown by his comment in a previous thread on abortion where he stated that under certain circumstances it is okay for a doctor to kill a newborn.


"I think we need to maximize the respect we show towards those who hate us--even if it doesn't affect their opinion of us whatsoever--"

As shown by his obvious respectfullness towards conservatives on this board who dont actually hate him but disagree with his thinking.

"while ensuring that law enforcement is capable of dealing with internal threats;"

Law enforcement is 99% reactive and about 1 percent preactive.


" whereas conservatives seem to think that we should take all possible measures towards defending ourselves"

As long as they are reasonable.


" and then whatever room is left for respecting individuals is all the respect we are required to afford them."

Not true.


"You might think this is crazy, but true courage requires putting just and righteous principles ahead of the concern for one's own safety (as well as the safety of one's loved ones)."

Until of course you slap a liberal in which case they get indignant and want to hit you back.


"Compromising principles of decency towards our fellow humans--even the shitty ones who want to kill us--is cowardice."

See comment above where hyper advocated doctors killing newborns under certain circumstances.

Great job making a total fool of yourself hyper and proving that you dont believe a word that you say.

So jmc,Are you say... (Below threshold)
914:

So jmc,

Are you saying that Abu Zubbydub die a should have been held indefinetly until He decided to betray His false God? Regardless of how many of us sane rational people die? Geez, You must be a pubic defender?

JMCYou seem to con... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

You seem to contend that your definition of torture is the only one that matters. I happen to believe that waterboarding (as described as what happened at GITMO) is not torture despite what you or anyone else says. I do believe that poking people with hot irons, cutting off limbs, slicing their skin off etc is torture.

If you want to talk about principals of our founders than you would say that slavery is okay as most of them owned slaves. You would also think that killing seriously wounded prisoners on the battlefield is okay as that was common practice on up through the civil war. Yet again you selectively pick and choose and then try to show off how smart you are when people disagree with you.

Your opinion isnt the only one that matters. Get used to it. Climb off your high horse. Opinions are like assholes. Just about everyone has one and some stink more than others. Yours is smelling up the thread.


Sorry for the typo jmc... (Below threshold)
914:

Sorry for the typo jmc

I meant "pubic" not "public"

Now, get the Whit... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Now, get the White House to release the documents requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney that says the exact opposite and it ought to get interesting.

It's easy to play poker when you refuse to give your opponent cards.

Did Ali Soufan mention what basic FBI methods were, and did they involve icecream? And further, what makes you think we're only talking about Abu Zubaydah?

interesting point, does it matter if we gave him ice cream if we got good intel? Would you rather hold back on the ice ream and get bad intel? Does it make you angry that We got info from the nazi's and north Koreans without waterboarding?

No, I didn't think, you were talking only about Abu Zubaydah? but one of the ways you build a case, is to present evidence for your side of the argument in that case it worked better without it.

In your case no evidence has been released yet to show those methods worked well (If such evidence even exists) Although we do know it is logical to assume that torture will lead to at least some bad information. In fact during the Korean war these methods were used to get false confessions out of our troops. Leave it to Neo-cons to look at a program that got a bunch of a false info to say, "That's just the kind of program we need."

You seem to conte... (Below threshold)
jmc:
You seem to contend that your definition of torture is the only one that matters. I happen to believe that waterboarding (as described as what happened at GITMO) is not torture despite what you or anyone else says. I do believe that poking people with hot irons, cutting off limbs, slicing their skin off etc is torture.

Do you think mock executions are torture?

If you want to talk about principals of our founders than you would say that slavery is okay as most of them owned slaves. You would also think that killing seriously wounded prisoners on the battlefield is okay as that was common practice on up through the civil war. Yet again you selectively pick and choose and then try to show off how smart you are when people disagree with you.

Are you saying we should ignore there wonderful ideas like "all men are created equal and then emulate their hypocrisy? Talk about stinkin' up a thread. Sad to see a millitary guy want to piss all over the principals we were founded on. Do you hate the dream of america?

interesting point,... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
interesting point, does it matter if we gave him ice cream if we got good intel? Would you rather hold back on the ice ream and get bad intel?

Nothing gets by you. My point is, what are the traditional FBI methods that are so effective, yet do not introduce any discomfort or harm on the prisoner?

Does it make you angry that We got info from the nazi's and north Koreans without waterboarding?

Very little makes me angry, jmc. Let's ask a counter question, is an Islamic extremist the same person as a uniformed soldier? How many Islamic extremists do you see walking out of a warzone with their hands up surrendering?

No, I didn't think, you were talking only about Abu Zubaydah? but one of the ways you build a case, is to present evidence for your side of the argument in that case it worked better without it.

Agreed. And Ali's case is very compelling, and I have no reason to suspect he is lying. Now I sure would like it if the White House would release the requested documents so both sides of the story have a defense.

Although we do know it is logical to assume that torture will lead to at least some bad information.

I can imagine that would be so too. No technique, no matter how kind or nasty is 100% effective, so the argument is moot.

In fact during the Korean war these methods were used to get false confessions out of our troops.

You're going to have to back that one up. If you present the claims as factual, you'll need facts.

I'll be away for several ho... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'll be away for several hours, so if theres a reply and no answer, that is why.

JMC"Are you saying... (Below threshold)
retired miilitary:

JMC

"Are you saying we should ignore there wonderful ideas like "all men are created equal and then emulate their hypocrisy"

Nope not saying that at all. I am saying that you specifically have a nice habit of wrapping your ideas in nice little snippets such as "our founding fathers ideas" and not looking at the whole package. You do this to try to deflect criticism as if someone criticizing your way of thinking is criticizing our founding fathers.

"Do you think mock executions are torture? "

No I dont. A mock execution is just making someone think they will die. You can pick a dozen amusement park rides and find people every day that at the time they are riding them think at least for a second or two that they are going to die. Same goes for folks going through haunted houses. How many people were waterboarded? 3. How many have had heart attacks after going through a haunted house or on an amusement park ride?

"Sad to see a millitary guy want to piss all over the principals we were founded on. Do you hate the dream of america? "

I still salute the flag every day as they play retreat at 5 pm on Ft Hood where I work. (3 PM on Thurs) Can you say anything remotely similar? Do even hold your hand over your heart for the Star Spangled Banner. Obama didnt until he got called on it.

If you want to talk about pissing on the principals our country was founded on how do you feel about the 2nd amendment. Oh wait. Most liberals dont like that one. How about freedom to exercise religion. Oh wait most liberals dont like that one unless you go into a closet somewhere.

How about freedom of speech? Oh wait I forgot most liberals think it is agreat as long as it isnt Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannidy and Ann Coulter but the NY TIMES is great.

How about following accepted rules of law that have been in place for most of this century? You know like the bankruptcy laws. Oh wait! Obama doesnt like that one because it interferes with his ability to pay back the unions.

BTW you never denied my statement

"You seem to contend that your definition of torture is the only one that matters."

Shall I go on you nitwit dumbass?

Well jmc You nitwit dumbass... (Below threshold)
914:

Well jmc You nitwit dumbass. Your turn to look even more stupid than you already do.

Dear lord. Clinton... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Dear lord. Clinton went the whole 8 years without being at war in Iraq. A bombing strike is not a war.

Yeah, doof. That's why I corrected myself and said it was a strike. But, of course, bombings are in no way a warning of what's to come, are they? War was farthest from Clinton's mind, wasn't it?

Nothing gets by y... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Nothing gets by you. My point is, what are the traditional FBI methods that are so effective, yet do not introduce any discomfort or harm on the prisoner?

Very true, very little does get by me. if you want detailed information on police interogation I suggest you read this:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm posting it would take way too much time and it is a good article.


Very little makes me angry, jmc. Let's ask a counter question, is an Islamic extremist the same person as a uniformed soldier? How many Islamic extremists do you see walking out of a warzone with their hands up surrendering?

Let me follow your counter question with a counter question of my own, what does this have to do with a person in custody, we are trying to get information out of? This scenario seems to involve a prior to capture sitation, which seems outside the scope of the argument.

Agreed. And Ali's case is very compelling, and I have no reason to suspect he is lying. Now I sure would like it if the White House would release the requested documents so both sides of the story have a defense.

I'd have no problem with all the info being released, and I wished a good portion of it had not been destroyed As it was during the previous administration.

I can imagine that would be so too. No technique, no matter how kind or nasty is 100% effective, so the argument is moot.

I disagree with that statement. Techniques should be judged realtive to each other. If one provides inaccurate info 60% of the time and another bad info 10% of the time, then the latter is superiror. neither is 100% effective but we are getting much better info in the second case.

In fact during the Korean war these methods were used to get false confessions out of our troops. You're going to have to back that one up. If you present the claims as factual, you'll need facts.

I did not provide this because I know this is a fact. the same reason I would not have provided a link if I claimed Thomas Jefferson was our third president. However, since you don't beleive me and are unaware of the fact yourself, and it is my claim (meaning the burden of proof is on me) here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding.

The KUBARK manual was the product of more than a decade of research and testing, refining lessons learned from the Korean War, where U.S. airmen were subjected to a new type of "touchless torture" until they confessed to a bogus plan to use biological weapons against the North Koreans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html

According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.


I too will be gone for hours.

Do you hate the dr... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Do you hate the dream of america?

You don't really know who came up with that dream, do you? I prefer to wake up from the dream state that is preventing equality.

Nope not saying t... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Nope not saying that at all. I am saying that you specifically have a nice habit of wrapping your ideas in nice little snippets such as "our founding fathers ideas" and not looking at the whole package. You do this to try to deflect criticism as if someone criticizing your way of thinking is criticizing our founding fathers.

No, I look at the whole package and emulate the good. you look at the negative as a justifcation for your sadism.

No I dont. A mock execution is just making someone think they will die.

Oh good, then I hope someone sticks a gun to the heads of your loved ones for the fun of it. Maybe they can raise their hands like on a roller coaster.


I still salute the flag every day as they play retreat at 5 pm on Ft Hood where I work. (3 PM on Thurs) Can you say anything remotely similar? Do even hold your hand over your heart for the Star Spangled Banner. Obama didnt until he got called on it.

Is this before or after you piss on the constituion? Sure I can say something similar. I have read the federalist papers, I have read the declarion of independence and the constitution. While you wrap yourself in symbols, I learn the ideas. While you sing old glory, i endavored to understand what our country was about. You are a nationalist. I am a patriot.

If you want to talk about pissing on the principals our country was founded on how do you feel about the 2nd amendment. Oh wait. Most liberals dont like that one. How about freedom to exercise religion. Oh wait most liberals dont like that one unless you go into a closet somewhere.

Actually i am quite fond of the second, and unlike you I believe in the 10th which basically argues that THESE FREEDOMS in the BIll of rights are not the only freedoms we get. You look to reduce rights at all opportunities. When gay men are arrested in Texas, and the supreme court rules that is wrong you cry "activist judges!" better the govermnet can decide who screws who. Yeah you really hate you some freedom don't you?

How about the Sixth Amendment - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel? You hate that don't you Coddling those damn crimnals.

How about freedom of speech? Oh wait I forgot most liberals think it is agreat as long as it isnt Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannidy and Ann Coulter but the NY TIMES is great.

You are full of shit. I think Rush is allowed to say what he wants and I am allowed to think he is an asshole for it. I just wish an idiot like you was for the first amendment. And yes the new york times is terrifc, which has nothing to with censorship dumbass.

How about following accepted rules of law that have been in place for most of this century? You know like the bankruptcy laws. Oh wait! Obama doesnt like that one because it interferes with his ability to pay back the unions.


Give me an example where he broke the law, because you are an idiot and I'm not inclined to take your word for it.

BTW you never denied my statement

"You seem to contend that your definition of torture is the only one that matters."



Hmm, I go with the definiton in place by the civilized world, you go with the fringe ideas of sadists.

Shall I go on moron, unpatriotic ass?

Well jmc You nitw... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Well jmc You nitwit dumbass. Your turn to look even more stupid than you already do.

You are just mad I exposed you for the bufoon you are.

JMC and others liberal loon... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC and others liberal loonies continually try to use waterboarding techniques of the communists, japenese, etc and make them comparable to the 3 people waterboarded at GITMO.

This is like comparing the midevil practise of bleeding to modern day surgery.

a. In the past, people who have waterboarded have generally not had physicians and psychologists present.

b. In the past, people who have waterboarded have not really cared if their subjects lived or died as a result.

c. in the past, people who have waterboarded could care less if the people under their control had permanent and lasting physical injuries.

For another comparision this is like comparing a rollercoaster ride which is designed to safely give someone the scare of their life, and tested thoroughly to minimize harm to an absolute degree next to nil to the Mayans throwing shuman acrifices down their wells.

Of course that doesnt matter to the liberals who gleefully scream torture torture when standing someone up in a closet for long periods of time, while proudly standing up for the right to kill a million+ unborn children a year.

Yeah, doof. That'... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Yeah, doof. That's why I corrected myself and said it was a strike. But, of course, bombings are in no way a warning of what's to come, are they? War was farthest from Clinton's mind, wasn't it?

A strike is not war, which kind a shoots your argument that the war was 2 years apart doesn't it moron? Go invest in the amero jackass.

JMC I thought you ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

I thought you were be gone for a while.

"No, I look at the whole package and emulate the good. you look at the negative as a justifcation for your sadism."

You claim to look at the good. The only sadism going on is trying to follow your posts.


"Oh good, then I hope someone sticks a gun to the heads of your loved ones for the fun of it. Maybe they can raise their hands like on a roller coaster."

It still isnt torture. Regardless of the actions. Men in the military have been ordered to charge machine gun nests. Do you think they thought they were going to die? That they werent scared. Dont you think men in combat live with the thought of dying in every firefight? Yet it isnt torture now is it.

Once again your question was asked and answered.

"Is this before or after you piss on the constituion? Sure I can say something similar. I have read the federalist papers, I have read the declarion of independence and the constitution. While you wrap yourself in symbols, I learn the ideas. While you sing old glory, i endavored to understand what our country was about. You are a nationalist. I am a patriot.
"
Yep Stalin and Lenis said the same thing. You have no clue what a patriot even is. And now I am attacking "A patriot". Nice to see your ego is that high. True patriots and true heroes dont see themselves as something extraordinary. They just do the job that needs to be done. They dont go around brandishing their creditials for all to see. Your statement shows you for what you are. A laughable bag of hot air. Ever talk to a Medal of Honor winner? Silver star winner? If you had you would see folks that dont pound their chests and say "Look at me. I am a patriot". You are a joke. no more no less.


"When gay men are arrested in Texas, and the supreme court rules that is wrong you cry "activist judges!" better the govermnet can decide who screws who"

If the gay men broke the law then they should be arested. Where they breaking the law? Same with illegal immigrants. Oh wait most liberals dont think they should be arrested. Like Janet Napelitano. As for as the govt deciding who to screww. it is the democratic battle cry more govt. "We are from the govt. We are here to help you"

"You are full of shit. I think Rush is allowed to say what he wants and I am allowed to think he is an asshole for it. I just wish an idiot like you was for the first amendment. And yes the new york times is terrifc, which has nothing to with censorship dumbass."

I said most liberals dont want them on the air. Again you dont look at what is written. As for censorship what do you think liberals yelling down conservative speakers are? What about the fairness doctrine? Most liberals think those 2 things are just dandy and are all for it. Did I say the NY TImes was about censorship ? Nope. I threw it in there because it is admittedly liberal. Just ask the editors. They will tell you. Or lok at the studies done on media bias. DUMBASS.

"How about the Sixth Amendment - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel? You hate that don't you Coddling those damn crimnals"

The bill of rights apply to AMerican citizens and others in special circumstances. If you want to argue that the folks at GITMO havent had a fair trial well Obama has been in office almost 4 months and he hasnt given them a trial yet. Are you saying Obama is violating the 6th amendment? Walked right into that one DUMBASS.


"Give me an example where he broke the law, because you are an idiot and I'm not inclined to take your word for it.
"

I never said he BROKE the LAW YET. I stated words to the effect that the bankruptcy deal that is going on with GM or Chrysler (whichever one it is) dealing with the unions goes against accepted bankruptcy law regarding preferred creditors.

I dont give a flying flip at a rolling donut if you believe me or not. I wont lose one wink of sleep no matter what you say to me or about me. The facts remain that you are a dumbass who thinks that because he can say "I read this or that " that your opinion is of more value than anyone elses. Get off your high horse and take off your rose colored glasses. Your opinion is just like your ass. IT IS YOURS AND IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.


JMC"Retired millit... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

"Retired millitary is a true sadist. let's be honest, he was probably the kind of guy who skinned cats alive and did other horrifc things in his life. "

Really. You came to this conclusion how?
As I recall I actually care if unborn children get aborted and you are all for it yet I am a sadist.

I guess you follow the old lawyer rule. If the facts help you argue the facts. If they dont then attack the witness.

"He argues that the fact doctor's were present is some kind of justifcation for his sick sadisim."


Hey I, unlike you, can only go by what I read about the incidents at GITMO.

"Medical personnel at the detention facility protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'"
"
Hmm did the guys die? Nope. Were they injured? Umm no. Were medical personnel present incase he did drown (something which people are revived from probably over a thousand times a year) with medical equipment on hand. Umm No. Nice strawmen but in the end not a very effective argument.

"also i find it funny that RM is acting so concerned about the children. Let's be honest if a 14 girl got raped RM would make her have the baby, and if she then asked the govermnet for help, because she was 14 had no diploma, no degree, and no money for college. he'd tell that girl to take her baby and go fuck herself because his tax dollars won't pay for it.
"

I would want her to have the baby. I would also be in favor of her receiving govt aid especially if she was not a willing particpant in the crime that took place. I would also be in favor of putting the baby up for adoption or having close family members take care of it. Meanwhile liberals, like JMC, are routinely protecting child molesters by not reporting them to law enforcement personnel and saying kill the unborn because it is inconvenient.

JMC it is nice to see you are losing your cool and going so far off the deep end. It is obvious that you have totally lost it and just dont even realize it.

Please continue on so that folks can see just what kind of nitwit dumbass you are.

Were they injured? Umm no. ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Were they injured? Umm no. Were medical personnel present incase he did drown (something which people are revived from probably over a thousand times a year) with medical equipment on hand. Umm No

Should read

Were they injured? Umm no. Were medical personnel present incase he did drown (something which people are revived from probably over a thousand times a year) with medical equipment on hand. Umm YES, so even fi they did die from drowning their chances of recovering were excedingly high. Something folks on a beach dont have all the time.


BTW JMCI googled "... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW JMC

I googled ""on a footnote on Page 41 of the Bradbury memo"'

4 hits.

To try to look at the source document and not the Huffington post. Unsurprsing there is not source document to find. Only things referencing a Huffington post article.

Nice to quote things where you cant see the source document for context. Did the interogators stop after the medical personnel protested? Would be nice to know as it could totaly destroy your argument but it umm doesnt seem to be mentioned as to actions taken after the protests. Not that it would matter to me as no permanent physical harm or death occurred.

BTW JMCIf you are ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW JMC

If you are going to copy and post something it is called plaguerism if the reference is not cited.

@914 Great, you watched it ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@914 Great, you watched it on TV. I was in New York on 911. I had friends die. I had friends deal with things that you can only imagine. I returned to the city a week later (I left a few days later to move to Connecticut for a previously planned relocation) and came back every two weeks for two years. Two days before the towers crumbled, I had lunch across the street from tower 2 before heading back to the apartment to pack our belongings. I spent hours getting out of Brooklyn a few days later trying to find which streets were actually opened. I watched smoke cover the sky above us, knowing from emails from friends that that smoke I was breathing included all kinds of things, including human flesh and bone. My office mates watched the second plane fly overhead. I was on the phone to my office screaming to my boss to get people out of the building. This building, by the way was covered in pictures of missing family members. I stayed in a hotel on these trips back that housed soot covered firefighters that I tried to give support with a smile or a drink or a conversation that didn't include finding body parts in the rubble.

Don't even BEGIN to tell me that I want a repeat of that day when you were at home, likely not a home anywhere close to New York. Don't presume to tell me what or how I feel about having a repeat of things that you watched from the sidelines.

@Heralder - absolutely righ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@Heralder - absolutely right that intent is part of the conversation. No question about it.

I was with you right up until this:

"If you've handcuffed and detained them, you may already be guilty of torture by the left's standards."

Dude, seriously? We need to devolve a brainy discussion into "The Left sucks!" ?

JMC Speaking of ru... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

Speaking of rule of law

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

Until Chrysler.

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value. That's hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.

And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press.

------

But hey Obama wants judges with empathy. That rule of law stuff is for suckers who didnt support him.


@retired said: "Do y... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@retired said:
"Do you think mock executions are torture? "

"No I dont. A mock execution is just making someone think they will die. You can pick a dozen amusement park rides and find people every day that at the time they are riding them think at least for a second or two that they are going to die"

That's your argument? People like to do things that push their personal limits, so torture is acceptable? Torture and amusement park rides are somehow comparable?

That's messed up, man.

You claim to look... (Below threshold)
jmc:
You claim to look at the good. The only sadism going on is trying to follow your posts.

That would be masochism you idiot.


It still isnt torture. Regardless of the actions. Men in the military have been ordered to charge machine gun nests. Do you think they thought they were going to die? That they werent scared. Dont you think men in combat live with the thought of dying in every firefight? Yet it isnt torture now is it.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Once again your question was asked and answered.

Once again you made no sense.


Yep Stalin and Lenis said the same thing.

they said nothing of the kind. Are we to the part where you just make shit up?


You have no clue what a patriot even is. And now I am attacking "A patriot". Nice to see your ego is that high. True patriots and true heroes dont see themselves as something extraordinary. They just do the job that needs to be done. They dont go around brandishing their creditials for all to see. Your statement shows you for what you are. A laughable bag of hot air. Ever talk to a Medal of Honor winner? Silver star winner? If you had you would see folks that dont pound their chests and say "Look at me. I am a patriot". You are a joke. no more no less.

You are a nationallist. a scumbag who does not get offended by anything his country does ever. A patriot loves his country for what it does. A nationalist loves it no matter what it does. if you had been in Germany in 1939 you would have been goose stepping right along and calling everyone who didn't join in a traitor.

If the gay men broke the law then they should be arested.

Exactly you hate freedom you think the goverment has the right to tell people who they can and can't marry who they can or can't have sex with. You don't beleive there is a right to privacy in the constituion because you hate rights in genreal and want to limit them every chance you get.

I said most liberals dont want them on the air. Again you dont look at what is written. As for censorship what do you think liberals yelling down conservative speakers are? What about the fairness doctrine?

Good lord, you hypocrites spend days and days bitching about the media. About how mean ole Keith Olbermann is picking on poor you. I think Rush is a moron and moron's like you listen to him. I don't think he should be censored. He has a right be a moron just as you do. I don't want to censor your right. So quit lying and saying I do.

Most liberals think those 2 things are just dandy and are all for it. Did I say the NY TImes was about censorship ? Nope. I threw it in there because it is admittedly liberal. Just ask the editors. They will tell you. Or lok at the studies done on media bias. DUMBASS.

And I never said Rush should be censored did I moron?

The bill of rights apply to AMerican citizens and others in special circumstances. If you want to argue that the folks at GITMO havent had a fair trial well Obama has been in office almost 4 months and he hasnt given them a trial yet. Are you saying Obama is violating the 6th amendment? Walked right into that one DUMBASS

God you are dumb. The founders believed every man on the planet has those rights you idiot. They didn't say just American citizens. That is why they wrote we all have inalianvle rights and all men are created equal. If you weren't so uneducated you would know this. And Obama should close Gitmo immediately,

"I never said he BROKE the LAW YET. I stated words to the effect that the bankruptcy deal that is going on with GM or Chrysler (whichever one it is) dealing with the unions goes against accepted bankruptcy law regarding preferred creditors.


So basically you have nothing. Figures.

I dont give a flying flip at a rolling donut if you believe me or not. I wont lose one wink of sleep no matter what you say to me or about me. The facts remain that you are a dumbass who thinks that because he can say "I read this or that " that your opinion is of more value than anyone elses. Get off your high horse and take off your rose colored glasses. Your opinion is just like your ass. IT IS YOURS AND IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.
Great a moron doesn't like my opinion. Oh well.
BTW JMC... (Below threshold) Jake"That's your arg... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jake
"That's your argument? People like to do things that push their personal limits, so torture is acceptable? Torture and amusement park rides are somehow comparable?

That's messed up, man."

I was addressing the statement made by JMC about mock execution meaning peoiple thinking that they were going to die in the next few seconds. I guess that logic kinda went over your head. Not that that suprises me really.

------------------------------
JMC

"That is because you are a moron. Follow this link over 900 hits"

Well I admit that trying to follow up an actual quote that YOU post probably isnt the smartest thing I have ever done.

"Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, blah blah blah is: "any act by which severe pain or ."

This is the same UN that has Libya and Syria on its Human rights commission correct? The on same that gives Iran a podium to say that Israel should be destroyed and yet they are going to say what is and isnt torture. Funny. Okay so my defintion of torture doesnt agree with the UN's SUE ME. Ohhhh. I am so scared. The UN is nothing but a corrupt joke.

"You are a nationallist. a scumbag who does not get offended by anything his country does ever. A patriot loves his country for what it does. A nationalist loves it no matter what it does. if you had been in Germany in 1939 you would have been goose stepping right along and calling everyone who didn't join in a traitor"

You are an idiot. I have plenty of bones to pick with things the country has done. Slavery is a good example. Abortion is another. As for Germany where as I am of German heritage I despise Hitler and everything he stands for. You on the other hand stirke me as more Mussolini. I love this country even thought it has a few moles. Unline most on the left who despise it simply because of its few moles. Funny thing is people are flocking to try to get in this country. People who have had to grow up and live in coutnries who oppose liberty and justice and freedom.

"Exactly you hate freedom you think the goverment has the right to tell people who they can and can't marry who they can or can't have sex with. "

That isnt freedom that is scoiety imposing a set of rules to live by. Should men abe allowed to marry girls age 10 if the girl says yes? I could care less who consenting adults do as long as they are consenting adults. No I dont want gays to marry as the vast majority of the country dont want gays to marry. I feel it is immoral. I am sure the founding fathers would agree with ime on this one but I dont see you touting them in this case.

"Good lord, you hypocrites spend days and days bitching about the media. About how mean ole Keith Olbermann is picking on poor you. I think Rush is a moron and moron's like you listen to him. I don't think he should be censored. He has a right be a moron just as you do. I don't want to censor your right. So quit lying and saying I do. "

Actually I dont listen to Rush or Hannidy. Nor do I pay attention to Olberman. I didnt say you wanted him to be censored I said most liberals. So I didnt lie but you have done so twice. In addition, you are dodging the point about freedom of speech which the fairness doctrine most certainly abridges. Not suprising since it doesnt fit your tired screed.

"And I never said Rush should be censored did I moron?:

And I never said you did. DUMBASS MORON. That is like 4 times I have said it shall I repeated it some more you illiterate (I would say deaf but hey you are reading this) DUMBASS MORON.

"God you are dumb. The founders believed every man on the planet has those rights you idiot. They didn't say just American citizens. That is why they wrote we all have inalianvle rights and all men are created equal. If you weren't so uneducated you would know this. And Obama should close Gitmo immediately,'"

Here we go with the founders again. WHere were they on gay marriage again?

Let me reiterate (that means say again or repeat) my point. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence only apply to American citizens. The founders could not say they apply to other countries as they have no legal standing in those countries. I understand that they felt all men were entitled to those freedoms ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR (oops there goes religion .. another liberal no no). However, the actual law established by those documents apply only to US CITIZENS and certain others as directed by law. Try reading what I wrote. If I have to spell out everything in first grade language I will.

" And Obama should close Gitmo immediately,
"

So you are saying that Obama is violating the 6th Amendment and therefore is guilty of high crimes and misdemonors and should should be impeached? Is that your contention? If not why should GITMO be closed. Are the people there being imprisoned in violation of the 6th amendment with Obama being President for almost 4 months?

"So basically you have nothing. Figures. "

I quoted an article above this. So I have more than nothing. But hey you can argue with the law professor who wrote the article. I am sure that he will be impressed with your book learnin' and your credentials of patriotism.

"Great a moron doesn't like my opinion. Oh well."

Oooh oohh I must have bruised his fragile ego there.


BTW Jake"so torture ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Jake
"so torture is acceptable"

I never said that torture is acceptable. You are applying your definition of torture to my words. READ MY LIPS. I DO NOT CONSIDER THE WATERBOARDING AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT GITMO AS TORTURE.

I consider listening to people like you torture but I am sure you would disagree with me now wouldnt you.

So JakeSince you d... (Below threshold)
retired military:

So Jake

Since you decided to open your mouth.

If someone was forced on a rollercoaster and they were afriad of it would you consider it torture?

What about the pranks played by school kids against other kids doing things that scare them. Is that torture?

If someone was deathly afraid of being snuck up on and you did so would you be guilty of torture?

How about pushing someone down in knee deep water who is death afraid of water?> Is that torture?

In each of these instances these people could be afriad of dying or having grave physical harm done to them. DO you consider that torture?


@retired - you're an angry ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@retired - you're an angry fellow, aren't you? If you're so "tortured" by listening to "people like me", why are you spending time on a blog debating such things?

Insults aside, I'd honestly be interested in knowing if you're talking about ALL the activities that went on at Gitmo or if it's just waterboarding. What about CIA black sites? Abu Ghraib?

Let's set aside controlled drowning/waterboarding for a second.

What about:

* chaining people to the floor for 18+ hours?
* beatings?
* ramming people into walls?
* 10 days without any (real) sleep?
* mock executions?
* hanging people from their arms for hours on end?
* death?

All these things happened to prisoners under US custody. But do you believe they're not defined as "torture"?

Oh well, you're right. I don't believe that "torture" is only activities that result in the loss of limbs, so clearly I'm an idiot.

JakeNot angry. Ju... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jake

Not angry. Just having fun with folks who dont look at reall life.

Now to your questions.

* chaining people to the floor for 18+ hours?

Not torture.

* beatings?

Depends. How severe. A punch in the mouth or pummeling someone to bones breaking. There is a difference in my book.


* ramming people into walls?

Nope. If that were the case then half the kids in high school would be guilty of torture.

* 10 days without any (real) sleep?

Nope. This really just causes the mind to get foggy. As long as it is supervised by a doctor so death does not occur then no. I have been out in the field for over a week with no more than 2 hours sleep a night.


* mock executions?

Again nope.

* hanging people from their arms for hours on end?

This is one of those depends. If it causes long term damange than I may say yes. Will I lose sleep over it? Not really.

* death?

Intentional yes. Unintentional depends on circumstances. Some people can be treated a specific way and due to a preexisting condition this can cause death.

Most of these things are really based on intent. Is the intent to get information without causing disability or extreme harm then I dont have much of aproblem with it. Someone intentionally causing harm especially just to get their jolies I have a lot of problem with. Punching someone in the mouth just for kicks isnt torture . Prisoner abuse yes.

As for what takes place overseas, say we turn over prisoners to the Russians. I dont have a problem with it. The left loves to say we arent the world's policemen. Yet wants to cry if we turn prisoners over to another country.

I answered your questions. Your turn.


A strike is not wa... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
A strike is not war, which kind a shoots your argument that the war was 2 years apart doesn't it moron? Go invest in the amero jackass.

You want so badly to be right by your cut and dry "logic" that you can't see between the lines or the forest for the trees, jmc. It's amusing that a simple crack in your reasoning is so threatened by the possibility that Bush and Clinton had the same idea with a different strategy. During the Clinton admin, between 1999 and 2001, we dropped over 1 million lbs of bombs, but it still not war!

"Go invest in the amero". That's all you've got? And a war is not a strike? Ha! How does that work for you in the real world, where Americans have been duped into believing that they're goal is the American dream only to be robbed through illegal taxes and fake charities? Don't blow a gasket, now.

And I already told you I co... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

And I already told you I corrected myself about the two years, but scraping the barrel as you usually do, you went back to my original comment to argue. Pathetic.

typo city! *their goal... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

typo city! *their goal

Very true, very li... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Very true, very little does get by me. if you want detailed information on police interogation I suggest you read this:

That was interesting, it reminds me of a tv show. I'll group my response to the question in a moment.

Let me follow your counter question with a counter question of my own, what does this have to do with a person in custody, we are trying to get information out of? This scenario seems to involve a prior to capture sitation, which seems outside the scope of the argument.

Fair enough. The reason for bringing it up simply is rules. Who plays by them and who doesn't. By default a uniformed soldier has started by defining himself as a legal combatant. He is protected under the Geneva Convention thusly.

An Islamic extremist, lets say a suicide bomber, is pretty much the opposite in those terms and is not protected under the Geneva Convention.

The above is background for the question. We're going under the assumption that any human being, young kid drafted into the army or a brainwashed religious zealot are broken by the same questioning techniques?

I'd have no problem with all the info being released, and I wished a good portion of it had not been destroyed As it was during the previous administration.

You'll have to pardon me for asking, once again for backup, but where exactly do you get the idea it was destroyed?

And why would Cheney call on documents that were destroyed knowing the White House could just say it was the case and make him look bad? That hasn't occured, they've been 'reviewing' them. All indications are that they are there.

I disagree with that statement. Techniques should be judged realtive to each other. If one provides inaccurate info 60% of the time and another bad info 10% of the time, then the latter is superiror. neither is 100% effective but we are getting much better info in the second case.

Naturally, I agree. Theoretically it's perfectly sensible. In this case we have one guy saying it works, and another saying it doesn't. This still is a debate, rather than settled fact.

However, since you don't beleive me and are unaware of the fact yourself, and it is my claim (meaning the burden of proof is on me) here:

Let me highlight the interesting bits, since you generalized and said it was the same as waterboarding:

"The KUBARK manual was the product of more than a decade of research and testing, refining lessons learned from the Korean War, where U.S. airmen were subjected to a new type of "touchless torture" until they confessed to a bogus plan to use biological weapons against the North Koreans."

In other words, they refined and tested it until it could produce results. Do you really think the CIA is so stupid that they would just torture people for fun not caring if they got bogus information?

If the whole point is information, how would it serve anyone's intrest to extract information that is coerced and completely useless? It doesn't and the idea is ridiculous that the CIA is just completely clueless to this fact.

Several points in this linked article bring up points contrary to the one you're trying to use it for. And an "Unnamed former Intelligence Official" is being cited as a resource.

One tidbit:

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the interrogation world changed. Low-level Taliban and Arab fighters captured in Afghanistan provided little information,((something backed up by my previous post about the difference between an Islamic extremist and a uniformed soldier)) the former intelligence official said. When higher-level al-Qaeda operatives were captured, CIA interrogators sought authority to use more coercive methods."

As for your second link, sorry, the New York Times is a sorry excuse for a nespaper, I stopped reading when these two phrases were used:

"officially embraced the brutal methods"

"investigated the gruesome origins"

The New York Times has a glorious history of skewing facts and trying to turn unabashed opinion into some sort of technical manual.

I'm really tired, so if some if this post was disjointed, my apologies.

Jake, Don't presume ... (Below threshold)

Jake,
Don't presume you have the right to use
arrogance towards someone because you happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Someone who had just finished a double shift
and had turned on a television to see 9/11
happening.
Neither of you had any control over the timing
of the situation or the acts of it.
I watched it on television, not experiencing
the smell or the taste, I did experience the
horror, the anger, and the frustration of not
being able to do a thing to help those who were
brutally murdered, for being in the wrong
place at the wrong time too.

@maggie - my comment was ou... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@maggie - my comment was out of *frustration* not arrogance. I was told by @914 that I wanted a repeat of that day. He was saying this from a vantage point that was vastly different than my own. I had tangible experience of that day that @914 didn't, yet didn't hesitate to assume that I was interested in a repeat performance. I don't deny that we all had powerful reactions and I don't and didn't attempt to belittle his concern. But for he (not being anywhere close) to tell me (who was) that he somehow understood things better and that I somehow so clearly didn't understand it I encouraged a repeat is the very height of arrogance.

And to further clarify, I had it relatively easy compared to many on the planes or in the buildings. I wouldn't begin to assume that I can understand their pain or tell them how they do or should feel either. Heck, I don't think I'd assume *anyone* wants a repeat of that day and it's flat out insulting for anyone to make such clueless claims.

@maggie - you know, the mor... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@maggie - you know, the more I think about your comment, the more infuriating it becomes.

Maybe I'm reading your comment incorrectly (which is likely considering my post stirred a lot of pushed down emotion), but it seems as though you're saying that we all lived an equal experience on/about 9/11.

I'm not making any claim at being special because I had more proximity than you or @914 had. But you can't serious believe that your experience from the relatively safety of your own home equates to people who were running from collapsing buildings? (which wasn't me, FYI)

Please tell me you understand that there are varying levels of intensity to this event?

Jake, You're free to... (Below threshold)

Jake,
You're free to interpret how ever you will.
My premise to not use 9.11 as leverage in
an argument.
There is no comparison of some one who survived
the attack personally, to someone who watched
it from a distance.

BTW Jake, Getting in... (Below threshold)

BTW Jake,
Getting infuriated over one of my posts
wont' do you much good or harm.

I have to say, having been ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I have to say, having been present physically in Manhattan for it, it does make a difference if you saw it with your own eyes, and for months after smelled the rotting corpses still unrecovered in the rubble.

This doesn't give me or Jake special moral authority to argue anything, or to use having been there as argument fodder, but I am saying only that it makes a difference in experience.

That's all I have to say on the issue.

Well I admit that... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Well I admit that trying to follow up an actual quote that YOU post probably isnt the smartest thing I have ever done.

You don't follow a quote I post you read that. You follow the links I post. simple really.

This is the same UN that has Libya and Syria on its Human rights commission correct? The on same that gives Iran a podium to say that Israel should be destroyed and yet they are going to say what is and isnt torture. Funny. Okay so my defintion of torture doesnt agree with the UN's SUE ME. Ohhhh. I am so scared. The UN is nothing but a corrupt joke.

Yip, the U.S. led the effort btw. Slamming America again.

That isnt freedom that is scoiety imposing a set of rules to live by. Should men abe allowed to marry girls age 10 if the girl says yes? I could care less who consenting adults do as long as they are consenting adults. No I dont want gays to marry as the vast majority of the country dont want gays to marry. I feel it is immoral. I am sure the founding fathers would agree with ime on this one but I dont see you touting them in this case.

Marriage is a private institution it is none of societies business. A 10 year old is not a consenting adult.

Actually I dont listen to Rush or Hannidy. Nor do I pay attention to Olberman. I didnt say you wanted him to be censhave never said aored I said most liberals. So I didnt lie but you have done so twice. In addition, you are dodging the point about freedom of speech which the fairness doctrine most certainly abridges. Not suprising since it doesnt fit your tired screed. Well since I never said anything about the fairness doctrine you are kinda pulling that out of your ass. In fact, I don't support it nor do I know a liberal who does.
And I never said you did. DUMBASS MORON. That is like 4 times I have said it shall I repeated it some more you illiterate (I would say deaf but hey you are reading this) DUMBASS MORON.

Well just implied I favor the fairness doctrine one paragraph up so you'll forgive me for thinking you lie about everything.

Here we go with the founders again. WHere were they on gay marriage again?
It was covered under that right to privacy. As in it is none of your business what goes on in their bedroom. It's a freedom thing, something you are against.
Let me reiterate (that means say again or repeat) my point. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence only apply to American citizens. The founders could not say they apply to other countries as they have no legal standing in those countries.
"All men a created equal" hmm, doesn't' say all men in the 13 colonies. Seems like they are saying we believe this idea and so we are setting up a country that lives this way. Never mind, people like you don't agree with the founding fathers that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. People like you believe those rights only exist between Canada and Mexico.
I understand that they felt all men were entitled to those freedoms ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR (oops there goes religion .. another liberal no no).

I was created by an explosion called the big bang (oops there goes science a far right no no.)

However, the actual law established by those documents apply only to US CITIZENS and certain others as directed by law. Try reading what I wrote. If I have to spell out everything in first grade language I will.

Not what it says. And counter to our principals.

So you are saying that Obama is violating the 6th Amendment and therefore is guilty of high crimes and misdemonors and should should be impeached? Is that your contention? If not why should GITMO be closed. Are the people there being imprisoned in violation of the 6th amendment with Obama being President for almost 4 months?

Uh no. That was Bush's crime. Hopefully Obama fixes it soon. I have no problem with him working out the logistics.

I quoted an article above this. So I have more than nothing. But hey you can argue with the law professor who wrote the article. I am sure that he will be impressed with your book learnin' and your credentials of patriotism.

He'd be more impressed with me than you. 

Oooh oohh I must have bruised his fragile ego there.

Mostly you bored me.

JMC"You don't foll... (Below threshold)
retirred military:

JMC

"You don't follow a quote I post you read that. You follow the links I post. simple really. "

Except you didnt post one. DUMBASS.

"Yip, the U.S. led the effort btw. Slamming America again.
"

Nope. Slamming the UN. there is a difference that even "Patriots" should be able to recognize.

"Well just implied I favor the fairness doctrine one paragraph up so you'll forgive me for thinking you lie about everything."

No I didnt. I said that most liberals. Not only cant you read you cant comrehend Mr Patriot.

"It was covered under that right to privacy. As in it is none of your business what goes on in their bedroom. It's a freedom thing, something you are against. "

No it is a morality issue. Society sets moral issues for itself. Things such as who should marry, what are crimes, ie prostitution. What is acceptable and what isnt. Such as bestiality.

The founding fathers were big on morals unlike some so called "Patriots" today. But then again, as I said you selectively pick things from the founding fathers.

"All men a created equal" hmm, doesn't' say all men in the 13 colonies. Seems like they are saying we believe this idea and so we are setting up a country that lives this way. Never mind, people like you don't agree with the founding fathers that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. People like you believe those rights only exist between Canada and Mexico. "

No I believe they should apply to all men but I understand that American law only applies to Americans and certain others as I stated numerous times. Unless of course you are advocating the US go out and try to enforce those laws throughout the world. Good luck with that.

"I was created by an explosion called the big bang (oops there goes science a far right no no.)"

Here we have you SELECTIVELY picking and choosing again. In the paragraph above you talk about the founding fathers beliefs you hold so near and dear yet you miss 4 little words in their beliefs. ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR. Here is a scientific fact. Inantimate objects (BIG BANG) CANT ENDOW ANYTHING on men. The founding fathers could have easily siad ENDOWED BY A ROCK and your version of their words would have meant exactly the same thing.

"Not what it says. And counter to our principals. "

I am dealing with FACTS. Are you saying that American law should apply to everyone? And as I have shown the founding fathers principals arent exactly yours.

"Uh no. That was Bush's crime. Hopefully Obama fixes it soon. I have no problem with him working out the logistics."

No you cant have it both ways. If Bush was robbing a bank and Obama continues to rob the bank then it is the same crime. You cant say Obama didnt know about the issue. You cant say he wasnt aware of the facts. Everyone said that Bush did a great job in the transistion . YOu cant say that Obama was ignorant of the circumstances with GITMO. All you have is Obama signing a statment saying he will close GITMO and when asked what will happen to the prisoners you have Gibbs with a deer in the headlights look. 4 months is long past the time of "I just got here" and is well within the time of "well they are there and let's keep them there until I can get my foot out of my mouth". If Bush was guilty of violating the 6th amendment than Obama is equally as guilty. And Obama doesnt like the admendment dealing with contracts either as he is proposing to violate that one with the UAW deal. There is no logistic to be worked out. He shold have already given them a trial if you follow your statements. It is laid out in the amendment plain and simple. But yet again you are picking and choosing.


"It was covered under that right to privacy. As in it is none of your business what goes on in their bedroom. It's a freedom thing, something you are against"

That is funny. Seems like I said I dont care what happens in your bedroom. I also seem to have read that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years yet I cant reacall any gay marriages until about umm the last 20 or so. Once again the founding fathers didnt seem to have gay marriage in mind. But that is selective picking and choosing that you do.

"He'd be more impressed with me than you"

Massive ego check there and umm yeah totally bypassed anything the man said which is total opposition to Obama violating contract law. Typical of a liberal. Show them facts and they dodge around the corner and dont address the issues (in the case the issues laid out by the article).

You are a self righteous pompous ass who tries to wrap your ideas up in some grand theme and in doing so think you are insulating them from scrutiny. Congratulations on an ego the size of the sun.


"Mostly you bored me."

You provide me great amusement. Keep it up I can continue to expose you for the fool that you are as long as you want "Mr Patriot".

BTW JMC"Slamming A... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW JMC

"Slamming America again."

Maybe you should talk to Obama bout his apology tour there.

So JMC (AKA MR PATRIOT)... (Below threshold)
retired military:

So JMC (AKA MR PATRIOT)

If Obama goes through with this how do you feel about him and the bill of rights.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html

Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

-----

Burns your ass when he shows you up for a fool with your head up his add doesnt it.
If this happens I will love to see the liberals twist and turn and tyr to spen this.

Wow!jmc is cranked. He can... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow!jmc is cranked. He cannot phathom that we don't agree with him about what is torture and what isn't. Grow up buddy.

Oh yeah! By jmc's logic, Japan did not commit and act of war by bombing Pearl Harbor. Do you see how silly you sound? ww

My favorite Ventura quotes?... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

My favorite Ventura quotes?
"Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!"
and
"Pardon me, but could you pass me the steroids?"

"Pardon ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:


"Pardon me, but could you pass me the steroids?"

LOL! Awesome! That would probably be a testosterone hybrid called "logic" for one commenter in this thread. I like Jesse, though. I still think he's a smart guy.

Except ... (Below threshold)
jmc:


Except you didn't post one. DUMBASS.

yeah I did post a quote moron. I posted one regarding the Bradbury memo which you then googled and couldn't find. It was a quote from the article on the huffingtonpost. Again for the chronically slow. You read a quote. You follow a link.


Nope. Slamming the UN. there is a difference that even "Patriots" should be able to recognize.

Nope slamming America. The definition of torture you are panning because it comes from the U.N. actually comes from the U.S. Way to go, you did it again.


No it is a morality issue. Society sets moral issues for itself. Things such as who should marry, what are crimes, ie prostitution. What is acceptable and what isn't. Such as bestiality.

No it is a freedom issue something a idiot like you hates. people have the right to marry who they want as long as they are consenting adults. You think the government has the right to interfere in peoples' lives. You do this because probably because freedom scares you.

The founding fathers were big on morals unlike some so called "Patriots" today. But then again, as I said you selectively pick things from the founding fathers.

They were also big on brains, unlike you.


No I believe they should apply to all men but I understand that American law only applies to Americans and certain others as I stated numerous times.

You've stated a lot of stupid things. Doesn't make them so.

Unless of course you are advocating the US go out and try to enforce those laws throughout the world. Good luck with that.

Nope. advocating they apply to all who are here in the safe haven that is the U.S.. Meaning if a biritsh citizen is thrown in jail he too has the right to say "I demand to know the reason for my incarceration"


Here we have you SELECTIVELY picking anchoosing again. In the paragraph above you talk about the founding fathers beliefs you hold so near and dear yet you miss 4 little words in their beliefs. ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR. Here is a scientific fact. Inantimate objects (BIG BANG) CANT ENDOW ANYTHING on men.

The text says endowed by their creator. Since we were all created by the big bang then either that did it or we are not endowed. Jefferson wrote a version of the bible where he stripped away all miracles, so the man who wrote those words didn't believe we were magically created. He just thought Jesus was a good man.

he founding fathers could have easily said ENDOWED BY A ROCK and your version of their words would have meant exactly the same thing.

If you believe a rock created you then sure. It says endowed by their creator it doesn't name the creator. So if you think it is the universe, Shiva, God or any other magic spirits then according to the words that is what endowed you. You think the big bang can't endow anyone. I think magic spirits that don't exsit can't. We will just have to go with the idea that whatever got us gives us those rights.

I am dealing with FACTS. Are you saying that American law should apply to everyone? And as I have shown the founding fathers principals aren't exactly yours.

You think you are dealing with facts. Unfortunately for anyone who reads what you write, you don't know what one is. And you have shown nothing about the founding fathers other than you stupid believe that creator means god When clearly they were conveying the point that whatever a person thinks got them here gives them certain rights.


No you can't have it both ways. If Bush was robbing a bank and Obama continues to rob the bank then it is the same crime.

Uh no. If Bush robs a bank and Obama holds on to the money until it is all accounted for before returning it, then it is Bush's crime. As long as he returns it.


That is funny. Seems like I said I don't care what happens in your bedroom. I also seem to have read that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years yet I can't recall any gay marriages until about umm the last 20 or so. Once again the founding fathers didn't seem to have gay marriage in mind. But that is selective picking and choosing that you do.

Sure you care what happens in the bedroom , when Texas arrested two men for having sex in the privacy of their own home and the supreme court ruled that was illegal (because of a right of privacy) most conservatives started yelling about damn activist judges. And no the Founding fathers didn't have gay marriage specifically in mind they spoke in generalities so that many things would be covered. For instance when they said cruel and unusual punishment, they didn't have specifically an electric anal prober in mind. Because it hadn't been invented! Knowing that they couldn't possibly cover every scenario they created as big umbrella. if it is cruel and unusual, it is illegal to do a prisoner. Similarly they spoke of the rights of people to make their own decisions without government interference that is what gay marriage is covered under. It's a freedom thing.

Also: In the Ming dynasty, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements In Japan, Shudo, the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent among the Samuri until the 19th century. In ancient rome Nero married a slave boy, and also a male friend; Martial also mentions same sex marriages taking place. So it has been around for a while. Not that it matters if it is new or not. Marriage is a private decscion between adults and does not concern busy bodies such as yourself.


Massive ego check there and umm yeah totally bypassed anything the man said which is total opposition to Obama violating contract law. Typical of a liberal. Show them facts and they dodge around the corner and don't address the issues (in the case the issues laid out by the article).

Just like you ignored the Bradbury reprot. Typical conservative. I


You are a self righteous pompous ass who tries to wrap your ideas up in some grand theme and in doing so think you are insulating them from scrutiny. Congratulations on an ego the size of the sun.

I get my ego arguing with buffoons like you. Because I'm clearly so much smarter than you. :) How can I not help feeling good about myself and destroying ll of your silly little arguments.


You provide me great amusement. Keep it up I can continue to expose you for the fool that you are as long as you want "Mr. Patriot".

Sure I don' mind making a fool of you. Mr. Nationalist.

You know, retired military,... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You know, retired military, I used to think you were just kinda stupid, but now you've made it obvious that you're also a terrible person, and a nationalist to boot. As for trying to bring abortion into this conversation, it's obviously off-topic, but shows that you care more about denying women their reproductive rights than advocating for a more humane policy towards interrogating prisoners.

If you believe the things you have incoherently argued in this thread, then you're a discredit to your country and its ideals. You're no patriot, but a mindless nationalist.

Heralder,You bring... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Heralder,

You bring up some intersting points and I appreciate the fact that your posts are thoughtful and logical. Will reply in full when I have more time later this evening.

Because I'm clearl... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Because I'm clearly so much smarter than you. :)

Only in the mind of a rationalist, jmc, which is what you are. Especially if you still have that fake e-mail address you accidentally posted on this blog: [email protected] As a rationalist, you can't help but have a big, self-satisfied, ego.

Rationalist is a compliment... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Rationalist is a compliment to those who respect the human capacity for reason, LaMedusa, which is the single greatest thing in the world.

hyper, I have no disrespect... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

hyper, I have no disrespect for reason. I have little respect for people who only rationalize, and without considering the consequences of living only by hypotheses.

How can one think, LaMedusa... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

How can one think, LaMedusa--indeed, how can one do anything intentional--without reasoning? When we act impulsively, we suspend our capacity for better judgement.

"Rationalists are admirable... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

"Rationalists are admirable beings, but rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of a stick and stone believing it to be God"
-Ghandi

Nice strawman, Gandhi. Rati... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Nice strawman, Gandhi. Rationalists don't think that reason is omnipotent, but only that there is no good reason to put much stock in any other method of arriving at conclusions or making decisions. We make mistakes, but we persevere, and it is science--not faith--that has given us the modern civilization in which we live.

Deductive truths notwithstanding, I consider all of my beliefs to be falsifiable. Gandhi, in that particular instance, was not speaking to any version of rationalism that I am familiar with.

Now we have hyper tyring to... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Now we have hyper tyring to jump in on the MMC bandwagon. Tell me again Hyper why you are commenting on a thread discussing things like torture when you believe that in some circumstances it is okay for a doctor to kill a newborn?
" As for trying to bring abortion into this conversation, it's obviously off-topic, but shows that you care more about denying women their reproductive rights than advocating for a more humane policy towards interrogating prisoners"

The instances which I brought up fit in the conversation as much as adriane browne's comnents and the fact that you are even commenting on this thread considering your statements in the past thread on abortion where I parphrased you stance on kiling of newobrns.

Nice to see you are trying to juse JMC arguments for your own. What is the matter cant think of anything original?


Jmc "yeah I did po... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jmc

"yeah I did post a quote moron."

You posted a quote. I posted that you didnt cite a source and tried to goole your quote. Then you posted the source. And if yo uloo at my responses below I addressed the medical situation as described in the memo Or the piece of the memo that I saw.

BTW for those reading his (minus JMC and hyper) I do apologize for the typing errors as I seem to be getting a ton of lag on this site. Anyone else experiencing that?


"
Nope slamming America. The definition of torture you are panning because it comes from the U.N. actually comes from the U.S. Way to go, you did it again."

I dont care where it came from . I dotld you that waterboarding as it I kread it was done at GITMO does not fit my definition of torture. If you want to talk about slamming America, go talk to Obama about his apology tour.

"No it is a freedom issue something a idiot like you hates. people have the right to marry who they want as long as they are consenting adults. You think the government has the right to interfere in peoples' lives. You do this because probably because freedom scares you. "

Well I say morality and you say freedom. The bottom line is the vast majority of Americans have rejected your view. AMong them are hillary and Obama who have both said that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Are you contending that they are haters as well? Again nice of you to put both feet in your mouth. I know you are sused to it. Freedom doesnt scare me. I dont like govt intrusion unlike Obama and his sheeple. As I said, homosexuality has been aroudn thousands of years. The subject of gay marriage has been discussed maybe 20-30. Sounds like you are on the wrong end of the stick. But next time you call someone a hater start with Hillary and Obama.


Let me repeat

The founding fathers were big on morals unlike some so called "Patriots" today. But then again, as I said you selectively pick things from the founding fathers.
They were also big on brains, unlike you.


"You've stated a lot of stupid things. Doesn't make them so."

Look in the mirror lately . Start with people are haters becuse they are aginst gay marriage and work your way back. Take a few years to list them all st them all. I will be here.

"Nope. advocating they apply to all who are here in the safe haven that is the U.S.. Meaning if a biritsh citizen is thrown in jail he too has the right to say "I demand to know the reason for my incarceration""

I guess you missed the Drudge report today where Obama is going to try to bring the GITMO folks here and hold them indefinitely.

"The text says endowed by their creator. Since we were all created by the big bang then either that did it or we are not endowed. Jefferson wrote a version of the bible where he stripped away all miracles, so the man who wrote those words didn't believe we were magically created. He just thought Jesus was a good man. "

Again. An inantimiate object cant CREATE anything. I am sure that Jefforson would agree that they were talking about God as the word creator is capilitalized. You are living in a fantasy world. At least your other liberals admit that the founding fathers were not referring to the big bang but to GOD.


"So if you think it is the universe, Shiva, God or any other magic spirits then according to the words that is what endowed you. You think the big bang can't endow anyone. I think magic spirits that don't exsit can't. We will just have to go with the idea that whatever got us gives us those rights. "

Tell you what go aroudn and tell folks that your religion asya that GOd is a rock and that a rock created you. Carry the rock around and show folks your "god". See how fast you are taken away to the loony bin.


" When clearly they were conveying the point that whatever a person thinks got them here gives them certain rights. "

Talk about not dealing with facts. LIsten to yourself. As I said try the rock idea and see what happens.

"Uh no. If Bush robs a bank and Obama holds on to the money until it is all accounted for before returning it, then it is Bush's crime. As long as he returns it."

Obama is doing exactly what Bush did. If he didnt retun the money as son as possible but tells the cops that he is just holding the money to make sure it is all accounted for he would be going to jail as well.

"Sure you care what happens in the bedroom , when Texas arrested two men for having sex in the privacy of their own home and the supreme court ruled that was illegal (because of a right of privacy) most conservatives started yelling about damn activist judges."


Note in the case you are talking about which was described in VERY general terms above I stated IF they were breaking the LAW then they should be arrested. If you think the law is wrong then change it or work to change it. If I think the law is right then I will work to keep it. That is our rights as Americans. You cant pick and choose what laws you obey as that would be anarchy.


" And no the Founding fathers didn't have gay marriage specifically in mind they spoke in generalities so that many things would be covered."

Specifcally or in general as it wasnt even coming up in the conversaton.

" For instance when they said cruel and unusual punishment, they didn't have specifically an electric anal prober in mind. "

You mean like Hyper's nose in Obamas ass?

"Because it hadn't been invented! Knowing that they couldn't possibly cover every scenario they created as big umbrella."

Again homosexuality had been around 100s of years it isnt like they were not aware of it.


" if it is cruel and unusual, it is illegal to do a prisoner."

A prisoner that is entitled to the same rights as described in the Constitution. BTW both the Declaration and Constitution mention the words "OF THE UNITED STATES". There are laws and rules to follow outside the US. Bush got legal opinions and followed them.

" Similarly they spoke of the rights of people to make their own decisions without government interference that is what gay marriage is covered under. It's a freedom thing. "


As I said go talk to Obama and Hillary . You mostlykey voted for them so you may have some pull like the UAW. They say the same thing about marriage as I do. It should remain between a man and a woman.

"Also: In the Ming dynasty, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements In Japan, Shudo, the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent among the Samuri until the 19th century. In ancient rome Nero married a slave boy, and also a male friend; Martial also mentions same sex marriages taking place. So it has been around for a while. Not that it matters if it is new or not. Marriage is a private decscion between adults and does not concern busy bodies such as yourself. "

In general, gay marriage has not been practised nor allowed by vast majorities of societies throughout history. I admit I am not as up on the history of gay marraige as you seem to be maybe it is a subject close to home for you. Not that I am asking nor care.

"Just like you ignored the Bradbury reprot. Typical conservative."

Actually I answered the general statement of the medical objections you cited.

"I get my ego arguing with buffoons like you. "

What is that you got your ego arguing with baboons. Isnt that how aids started?

"Because I'm clearly so much smarter than you. :) How can I not help feeling good about myself and destroying ll of your silly little arguments. "

Oh boy I am so impressed.

BTW when I want your b*tchboy hyper to remove his nose from Obama's hindquarters to tell me his opinion I will let you know.


You provide me great amusement. Keep it up I can continue to expose you for the fool that you are as long as you want "Mr. Patriot".

How can one think,... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
How can one think, LaMedusa--indeed, how can one do anything intentional--without reasoning?

hyper, that's a cop-out because you know what I meant. Anyone can rationalize, including a murderer. When you only use reason, there are all kinds of formulas you can use, by way of rationalization that makes a choice seem right.

That's where you have to step outside the formula for a moment and consider all pieces to the puzzle. Reason is only truly safe in the mind of a man with a conscience, and there are way too many without it. Give life to the ideology, and you have the potential to make the world a better place, no ego required.

Rationalists don't... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Rationalists don't think that reason is omnipotent, but only that there is no good reason to put much stock in any other method of arriving at conclusions or making decisions.

They are also human beings that don't fall into one category and have the best intentions in mind when making decisions.

Joe Biden is the perfect example of a rationalist without a conscience. He warns everyone of a "generated crisis" that will "test the mettle" of Obama. His rationalization is that a crisis is required in order to test the President's decision-making ability. The citizens end up suffering as a result of such a crisis, but in Biden's sick, twisted mind, it's a means to an end. He feels that the benefits far outweigh the suffering, even though he is not the one that suffers as a result of such "reasoning".

correction *don't always f... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

correction *don't always fall into one category...

dont care where i... (Below threshold)
jmc:
dont care where it came from . I dotld you that waterboarding as it I kread it was done at GITMO does not fit my definition of torture.

Probably wouldn't have fit Saddam Hussein's definition of torture either. Nice to see you have so much in common.

"Probably wouldn't have fit... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Probably wouldn't have fit Saddam Hussein's definition of torture either. Nice to see you have so much in common.'

Cant comment on facts. You just have to try to settle for personal insults. Just like a liberal. Oh wait the word liberal wasnt meant as a personal insult. It was a fact though.

No, asshole, he was pointin... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

No, asshole, he was pointing out that your barbarically high threshold for what constitutes torture would probably have gotten an approving nod from someone who was so rightly demonized by America and her allies for torturing his own people.

There is no reason to prefer the victory of America over the victory of its enemies in the war against Islamic extremists if America adopts the position that it will do whatever it takes to defend itself. (Don't say that's not your argument: if waterboarding is defended because that's what it takes, then there is no reason not to try any other method of torture.) When you start acting like barbarians in order to defeat the barbarians, then you're no longer the good guys.

Cant comment on f... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Cant comment on facts. You just have to try to settle for personal insults. Just like a liberal. Oh wait the word liberal wasnt meant as a personal insult. It was a fact though
.

I just stated a liklihood. Most of the civilized world Would disagree with your definition of torture. Saddam, however, would have most likely been in your corner. Be proud of that. If it helps it's not just the two of you. Pol Pot was fond of waterboarding, Pinochet used it too. You have a lot of people on your side of this argument.

Moreso than people who beli... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Moreso than people who believe the big bang is the creator spoken of in the Constitution.

Let see

You call me a hater because I oppose gay marriage and I bring up that Obama and Hillary are for marriage between a man and a woman and you no longer debate the subject. Check.

Detention of prisoners and right to trial - Obama is considering holding them indefinitely in the states and you no longer debate the subject. Check

I mention both the declaration and the constitution use the words "of the United States" and you no longer debate the subject. Check

I mention that your original quote didn't have a link in it and I responded to that fact prior to you posting a link and you no longer debate the subject. Check

You mention 2 guys arrested in Texas and I repeat my position "if they were breaking the law they should be arrested" and you cant pick and choose which liaws you break as anarchy would result and you no longer debate the subject. Check

I tell you to go around and tell people that a rock you have in your hand is your god and per the constitution it has bestowed inalienable rights to you and you no longer debate the subject. Check

Typical liberal.


"Most of the civilized world Would disagree with your definition of torture." - I repeat myself. I could give a flying flip at a rolling donut what others think of my opinion. Do you go poll the civilized world on how you should feel about things or do you just quote Obama "It is above my pay grade"

Hyper, You make one ... (Below threshold)

Hyper,
You make one more comment like the above
of an american victory, insinuating that
defeat is preferable for my country according
to your opinion or beliefs and you'll find your
self gone.
How big of a shovel would you like?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy