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.
exactly. you don’t care if we torture. So just admit it was done, and say you don’t give a shit.
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 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. 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 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 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
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 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.
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.
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 add war is not for the squeamish. Nasty, terrible things happen in war. The lefties do not live in the real world. ww
You mean Obama got five deferments in Vietnam? I didn’t know that. Oh right he didn’t
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.
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.
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.
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 dishonesty here. Try Me.
When they raise the white flag I say go home and be at peace with your family.
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?
Well, that would be letting them go. if that is your position.
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? whats your point? That We have to be over nice to terrorist suspects?
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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 show towards those that hate us“
My God!! Are You sure you and Obuma werent separated at birth?
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.
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.
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 7×5 room humane and fair?
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
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 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 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?
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 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 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 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 years before the next strike because of the assassination attempt on Bush sr.
@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 “holy” land Jake?
Im pretty sure You fall into the ” Lets let them have another crack at us” camp.
@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 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 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 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 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 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.