Let the torture begin!!!

Carl,

You are wasting your time. These folks CANNOT see the attack on our basic American rights and protections for what it is without immediately withdrawing their support from President Bush.

This they will not do because supporting the President has become almost a religious duty that trumps any other concern.

It's okay. The President's overt, specific, and public claim to a right to torture without any limit (whether he has it done or not is immaterial; the point is, he wants to be able to torture as he alone sees fit without risk of criminal prosecution for himself or his servants) shows him for what he is. And Lincoln had it right; you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.

This kind of overreaching will damage the reputation of the Right in this country for years to come.

 

Who said I am pro torture..

You are, as usual, being too simplistic. I just said let's not call duress torture. I would not condone torture simply because in a case likt this I think it is counterproductive. However, in this case lets be up front about just what torture is.

It has been my experience that to the Dem's what is ok for a Democrat is not for a Republican. Kind of like Bob Packwood and Bill Clinton on sex abuse....

 

No...

What you fail to understand is that no matter what we do people in the other camp will twist or subvert it in some manner to make us look bad. Where there has been real documented evidence of abuse it has been dealt with and in many cases it was the US authorities who disclosed it not the press or its like. But even without it some controversy will be manufactured. A terrorist blows up some kids getting fed candy by a GI and it is the GI's fault. Even people on this board talk of undisclosed pictures of unknown tortures and use it as proof the torture is taking place!?! That is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

You think that if we simply be nice they will respond in kind and that is fantasy. People forget that planning for 9/11 started long before Bush came into office. It started when the best friend the Arab's have ever had in the office of the POTUS was in office. Despite Bill's very great efforts to broker peace between the Israeli's and Arabs the likes of Osama decided we needed to be destroyed. These people want the restoration of the Caliphate and believe in the subservience of women and non-believers and you then think they just want to be friends?!? These people murder women and children so they can have the right to sugjucate their fellow Arabs and I am supposed to feel sorry for them. They are evil people so lets realize that we shouldn't torture because it violates their rights but because it violates our principles. Oh, and by the way. McCain has said that we need to look good not that what we are doing is "torture".

Naivette at its very best....

 

When did President Bush make this claim?

 

What....

What, how do you wear down an enemy who hides in the shadows and uses overt and naked terror against a defenseless populace? I realize you have zero military knowledge but you really need to bone up on anti-terror tactics before you come on here and try to debate how things should be done. The basic tenent to fighting terror is to fight it not to wait it out They won't wear out if we sit quietly and since in this instance it is backed by quasi religious authority it is the absolute worst thing to do.

These people actually believe it is their duty to restore radical Islam to the world. We represent evil and Iraq is simply an excuse. Prior to Iraq it was Israel and it would still be if we hadn't invaded. Shees...

 

Thanks Carl for placing Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and Castro into the camp of the right winged.

 

This is somehow a difficult issue. Wouldn´t it be ethical, for instance, to torture a man to save others? Sometimes it could be justified from a moral point of view that a democracy be run from the sewers of the state. Without those dirty jobs, Americans, for instance, would have no Mother´s day, world series or prom night.

Which is the more legitimate right? The right the WTC tenants have to live or that of the perpetrators not to be tortured? Perhaps Nosborne can take on this....

 

As a disclaimer, I had my *ss kicked in a third world jail for three weeks. I was innocent. I said otherwise at the time.

 

This is where you are totally and completely wrong, Nosborne.

If Bill Clinton were still in office--or any Democrat for that matter--my views would be the same.

During a time of war, some torture to save the lives of platoons of soldiers, to save American lives, has to be considered. You talk about basic American rights. Why do America's enemies, on foreign soil, have basic American rights?

So, Nosborne, if you were in Iraq, and you and your men captured an enemy combatant, and he had irrefutable information Chicago were next to be attacked by terrorists and that attack would wipe out half the city, you would not use whatever means necessary to obtain that info and save lives?

Now, don't give a sound bite or a standard canned answer, think about this very seriously and rationally, please.

 

Well McCain has his own agenda...and he did contradict himself...read the rest of the article.

"McCain's claim that torture doesn't work is also contradicted by his own story.
In a 1973 account he gave "U.S. News & World Report," McCain recalled how his plane was shot down over North Vietnam, with the crash leaving him severely wounded.
After the North Vietnamese captured him, he said his captors slapped him around for "three or four days."
On the fourth day, McCain said he called for an officer and said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."
In his book, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain continued the story:
"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."


...and whether it's still going on or not, apparently it also worked on Mohammed.

In fact, after Mohammed was captured and subjected to "waterboarding" [simulated drowning] by U.S. interrogators, he gave up what the New York Times described as "rich and important information about terrorist operations."

 

Thank you Jimmy - my pleasure. Actually, it would be more accurate to place them in the camp of the enemies of all mankind....

 

Um. The President is refusing to sign a bill because it contains Sen. McCain's anti-torture language. The President wants a SPECIFIC exception allowing the CIA to use torture. Just how much more specific does the President have to BE for you to see what he wants to do?

How, exactly, is this observation twisted or subverted? How COULD it be twisted or subverted?

 

Hi buddy,

How are things in WVA? Did you ever get your home damage problems resolved?

Take care my friend.

 

You know the problem Bush faces here is that if a major terrorist attack occured and he could have prevented it using some torture of captured combatants who knew of the planned attack, he would be impeached.

However, he is damned for attempts to take pre-emptive action.

What a job! No wonder JFK said, "They can have this lousy job" when responding to his critics.

I can guarantee you JFK would not be a whimp during these tough times. Whatever one may say about him, he believed in keeping America secure.

 

Why don´t they do it the post modern, post industrial way? Why don´t they outsource those jobs, and let the Indians and/or the Chinese take care of them? The Chinese are truly specialists, and not vulnerable to sentimentalism (if you remember Tianamen you´d know what I mean...).

 

I won't be "these folks", kid. What I have written has nothing to do with Bush but with honesty and reality.

 

This is not about George Bush. He just happens to be the current target of the Lefts attacks. This is about the Left attempting to score political points at any cost...in this instance it's by undermining the war effort.

If the leadership of the Left has problems with the way the war is being handled they can take it up with the President in private. If they truly believe that horrible torture is taking place, they can surely have their concerns heard. But this attempt at public humiliation is aimed only toward political objectives.

This kind of public unrest only serves to embolden the terrorists. We all have the right to say what we want about who we want, but there comes a time when the leaders of the country should show some maturity and leadership and put aside the political games.

 

Let us hope that some CIA agent doesn't get the idea that YOU, gkillion, know anything about a possible attack.

Or even that YOU, gkillion, might know something embarrasing about the Administration.

No protection means no protection for ANYONE. Can't you get that through your heads? NO ONE is safe.

 

If that is so then it has been so. Why is this suddenly a pressing issue?

 

Nosborne...demagogy will get you nowhere.

As someone stated earlier, the administration is simply trying to preserve the status quo. They want to be able to do things the same way every other administration has done them. We'll continue to have the same protection we've always had.

Besides, if Valerie Plame ever roughs me up, yours will be the first name I spill.