WaPo: How a Detainee Became an Asset

US News • Views: 5,498

The Washington Post has an interesting article supporting the contention that harsh interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding resulted in valuable intelligence from 9/11 attack planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: How a Detainee Became An Asset.

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its “preeminent source” on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

“KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete,” according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA’s then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

Jump to bottom

459 comments
1 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:26:43am

It can't be.
/

2 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:27:29am

What we had there was a failure to communicate.

3 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:27:48am

Lib heads must be exploding.

4 JohnH  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:27:55am

WaPo observes the obvious.

5 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:28:31am

As the mother of five bad sleepers, I can tell you that sleep deprivation would be a very, very effective technique.

6 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:29:15am

...then again, they'd start getting statements like, "Well, yes, we were going to train the purple Octopus to sing to the moon while swimming in the jelly."

7 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:31:35am

I give them credit here for honesty.

8 Danny  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:32:56am

Well duh.

9 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:33:06am

This is not the Washington Post I remember.

10 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:34:37am

"Enhanced Interrogation" was put in place for a reason, and it worked. The administration's motives behind this investigation is not only harmful to an already castrated intelligence community, but a not-so thinly veiled attempt to focus on the "evils" of the Bush administration.

The world is not all sweetness, light and unicorns; Bush knew this and Obama obviously does not. Adults, like Panetta, have tried to advise Obama of his folly, but like any child, he refuses to listen.

11 JamesTKirk  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:34:40am

How a Detainee Became An Asset In Bed.

12 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:34:40am

I say we charge the CIA and prosecute them and let poor Khalid go home. He has suffered so much under our evil hands.

/

13 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:35:20am

re: #7 opnion

I give them credit here for honesty.

Won't stop Holder and his circus, though.

14 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:35:22am

I still think it would be better if the likes of KSM were put up in a Hyatt Regency with 24/7 room service and liberal use of the pool and excersize facilities. THEN he and the entire Radical Mulsim World would like and respect us and be our freinds!!

//

15 Racer X  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:35:24am

I say put KSM in a room with Pelosi. Within 5 minutes he will spill the beans on where Osama is hiding out.

16 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:36:09am
17 obscured by clouds  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:37:11am

I find the vast majority of people who are 'righteously outraged' by the use of 'torture' to be disingenuos. I guarantee that 99% of them would whip out the water board in a heartbeat if a family member or loved one was in imminent danger or on the brink of being murdered and the only one who could give them the info they need, isn't talking. I know that I sure as hell would. They're only outraged by 'torture' if it's used to save somebody else.

18 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:37:11am

KSM, resistance is futile.

19 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:37:12am

re: #15 Racer X

I say put KSM in a room with Pelosi. Within 5 minutes he will spill the beans on where Osama is hiding out.

If we are debating the use of the minotaur, and we're not going to use griffins, we really shouldn't use harpies.

20 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:38:14am

As soon as we get rid of bush, we find out that torture saved lives. Ain't that just the luck?

21 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:39:02am
"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Will be beaten like a drum.

22 MandyManners  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:39:26am

This...this is an asset?

23 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:39:41am
24 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:40:10am

re: #20 swamprat

As soon as we get rid of bush, we find out that torture saved lives. Ain't that just the luck?

Yes, the war in Iraq ain't so bad now either...and renditions, they are ok now that we are doing them gently...in fact, Gitmo is actually a nice place...

/

25 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:40:22am

re: #9 SasquatchOnSteroids

This is not the Washington Post I remember.

New President. The world "changed".

26 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:40:40am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

AAArrrgh! My eyes! My eyes!

27 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:41:02am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

Come on Mandy, that is an obvious Photoshop...the real Rosie is much hairier than that.

28 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:41:08am
29 walter cronanty  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:41:29am

And for their reward for breaking KSM, the CIA officers get reamed by this feckless administration:[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Ex-Intelligence Officials Cite Low Spirits at CIA
IG Report's Release, Looming Investigation Into Detainee Interrogations Blamed

Morale has sagged at the CIA following the release of additional portions of an inspector general's review of the agency's interrogation program and the announcement that the Justice Department would investigate possible abuses by interrogators, according to former intelligence officials, especially those associated with the program.

A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, the third-ranking CIA official at the time of the use of harsh interrogation practices, said that although vigorous oversight is crucial, the public airing of once-classified internal assessments and the prospect of further investigation are damaging the agency. "Morale at the agency is down to minus 50," he said.

30 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:41:32am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

Shoulda warned me. Breathing coffee sucks.

31 blangwort  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:41:52am

re: #6 EmmmieG

This is exactly why I'm concerned about the use of these techniques. It's not that I want to be nice to the prisoner. It's that I want good intelligence.

32 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:42:08am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

What is seen cannot be unseen.

Thanks.

33 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:42:44am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

To weird people I suppose.

34 OldLineTexan  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:42:56am

I don't find the Obama administration feckless. I think they're all a bunch of fecks, actually.

35 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:43:07am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

I am quite alarmed at how natural a look that is for her, hair and all.

36 blangwort  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:43:15am

re: #22 MandyManners

We always knew she was up to something.

37 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:43:54am

re: #36 blangwort

We always knew she was up to something.

We were just hoping we would never find out what.

38 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:44:22am

re: #26 SurferDoc

AAArrrgh! My eyes! My eyes!

Put the spoon down, gouging your eyes out wont remove the image.
///

39 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:44:46am

Holders' Conflict of Interest

40 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:46:11am

The opponents of enhanced interrogations (the Left) knows the techniques work quite well. Unfortunately, to this Left, the politics of enhanced interrogations is more important than the success-fullness of enhanced interrogations. And saving lives, maybe even their own, needs take the way-back-seat. The - can't happen to me, head in sand approach, always seems to work for them.

41 Racer X  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:46:33am

re: #29 walter cronanty

And for their reward for breaking KSM, the CIA officers get reamed by this feckless administration:[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Ex-Intelligence Officials Cite Low Spirits at CIA
IG Report's Release, Looming Investigation Into Detainee Interrogations Blamed

Morale has sagged at the CIA following the release of additional portions of an inspector general's review of the agency's interrogation program and the announcement that the Justice Department would investigate possible abuses by interrogators, according to former intelligence officials, especially those associated with the program.

A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, the third-ranking CIA official at the time of the use of harsh interrogation practices, said that although vigorous oversight is crucial, the public airing of once-classified internal assessments and the prospect of further investigation are damaging the agency. "Morale at the agency is down to minus 50," he said.

This is why they call them "Secret Agents". If politicians go around exposing everything they do, it just defeats the whole fucking point.

Morons.

42 blangwort  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:46:36am

The other thing about our newly Changed president: He's not all that eager to get rid of these "Bush-era" policies.

Talk about it all you want. I'm watching what he DOES.

43 debutaunt  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:46:55am

re: #34 OldLineTexan

I don't find the Obama administration feckless. I think they're all a bunch of fecks, actually.

A new level of fectitude.

44 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:47:06am

re: #38 DEZes

Put the spoon down, gouging your eyes out wont remove the image.
///

That is some scary-ass shit!

45 MandyManners  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:47:31am

re: #39 SasquatchOnSteroids

Holders' Conflict of Interest

Holder's previous job, after all, was as a senior partner with Covington and Burling - a white-shoe DC law firm that devotes considerable pro bono time to defending the Gitmo detainees. The job paid $2 million a year, and he expects to collect a like amount this year as part of his separation package.

As a senior partner, he undoubtedly had significant input on what kind of charity cases his firm picked up. He surely knew that dozens of lawyers from from his firm were among the 500-plus civilian lawyers representing the 244 or so remaining detainees (on top of military-court-appointed defenders).

Even now, his Covington colleagues continue to allege rampant torture at Gitmo. They're fighting hard to have detainees tried through the US court system - essentially given the same rights as US citizens. And their arguments and plans hinge largely on having Holder issue a bad report card.

46 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:47:47am

I actually have spent much of the last 6 or 7 years studying torture and its utility for information gathering. Short answer: it works, but the effectiveness depends heavily on who's asking the questions. An interrogator who is working from a seriously flawed point of view will only get information that supports that viewpoint. There are, on the other hand, examples of the use of torture in interrogation that did yield good evidence, but that was on account of the skill and openmindeness (I know -- that seems like an odd word) of the interrogators.

Interestingly enough, there are studies that show that much of the sort of "interview" techniques used to question children who have allegedly been abused operate on a psychological level in much the same way as physical torture. And the results show that the more ideologically blinkered the "therapist" the more likely the results will be totally wrong.

47 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:48:06am

re: #42 blangwort

The other thing about our newly Changed president: He's not all that eager to get rid of these "Bush-era" policies.

Talk about it all you want. I'm watching what he DOES.

That is seriously unfair./

48 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:48:16am

The left has always hated the CIA. It is in our best interests to have a high functioning intelligence community. The world is too dangerous for us to go into this agency and rip it to pieces over a partisan political fight. We should have rules and guidelines, but to open up a wound like this and turn ourselves inside out is going to cost us in the future. We need more intelligence, more human assets, more boots on the ground...the last thing we need is a "purge" and the tearing open of the CIA.

49 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:48:39am

re: #44 SurferDoc

That is some scary-ass shit!

I think Hollywood just found its next monster.

50 flyovercountry  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:49:01am

The enhanced interrogation worked. for anybody who claims that the intel is not reliable, I submit that the results would prove otherwise. Many high value targets were neutralized, and many plots were foiled as a result of these techniques. I am glad that someone had the fortitude to do this. These people are enemies of the U.S.A. They are an enemy by the way, who will not stop until they or us are anhialated. for anyone who is sensitive to the feelings of our foes, I am sorry, I chose for our society's survival.

51 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:49:10am

KSM Tribunal Transcript March 10, 2007

52 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:49:57am

re: #49 DEZes

hollywood done made that monster...

53 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:50:13am

re: #50 flyovercountry

The enhanced interrogation worked. for anybody who claims that the intel is not reliable, I submit that the results would prove otherwise. Many high value targets were neutralized, and many plots were foiled as a result of these techniques. I am glad that someone had the fortitude to do this. These people are enemies of the U.S.A. They are an enemy by the way, who will not stop until they or us are anhialated. for anyone who is sensitive to the feelings of our foes, I am sorry, I chose for our society's survival.

You are so obviously not a liberal.

54 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:50:42am

re: #52 brookly red

hollywood done made that monster...

True.

55 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:50:44am

re: #48 Desert Dog

We need more intelligence, more human assets, more boots on the ground...the last thing we need is a "purge" and the tearing open of the CIA.

Oh, but if we do that they'll LOVE us and and the conflicts in the world will stop. There will be tears and hugs of reconciliation all around.

56 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:51:39am

BBIAW.

57 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:51:58am

What is President Sissy Pants going to do about the Norks shipping arms to Iran? Don't hear much about that now do we?

58 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:52:13am

re: #39 SasquatchOnSteroids

Holders' Conflict of Interest

Holder has an interesting relationship with Terrporists. It was he that begged the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist (Or man made disaster makers) to show some contrition , so that Clinton could release them.
Hillary needed the votes in New York.
There is no doubt in my mind that Holder is now being directed by another President to trash the CIA if the winds are favorable.
If that is not the case , then Obama is really weak.

59 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:52:46am

re: #57 kansas

What is President Sissy Pants going to do about the Norks shipping arms to Iran? Don't hear much about that now do we?

Purge the CIA, apologize profusely to all the people we've oppressed, and the ships will turn back. No, really!

60 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:52:47am

re: #57 kansas

What is President Sissy Pants going to do about the Norks shipping arms to Iran? Don't hear much about that now do we?

That's not fair. I am sure he is "deeply concerned" about it.

61 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:53:03am
62 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:54:36am

re: #50 flyovercountry

for anyone who is sensitive to the feelings of our foes, I am sorry, I chose for our society's survival.

The bare assertion here -- and it is a large leap, is the America's survival is dependent on the use of these techniques.

Some could even say our survival (at the as a democratic nation that run by the rule of law, as the leader of nations) is dependent on NOT committing torture.

63 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:55:15am

A Scottish moral absolutist speaks...

64 blangwort  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:55:35am

re: #47 kansas

I believe BHO thought the Presidency is a more powerful position than it really is.

Let's get real about something here: No president will volunteer to relinquish any authority they have. Bush saw an opportunity to gain new authority and he did. Obama is trying to do the same with Healthcare.

This is about authority over others. It's not a left or right thing.

65 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:55:37am

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

It could be worse. It could be a nekkid picture.

66 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:55:52am

OT: Here's a pretty good list...
Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims. Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading. Only four are true.

67 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:56:07am

re: #38 DEZes

Put the spoon down, gouging your eyes out wont remove the image.
///

No, but it could scoop out the part of my brains that's storing it.

Somebody hand me a melon baller.

68 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:56:25am

re: #62 keithgabryelski

The bare assertion here -- and it is a large leap, is the America's survival is dependent on the use of these techniques.

Some could even say our survival (at the as a democratic nation that run by the rule of law, as the leader of nations) is dependent on NOT committing torture.

Actually our survival is dependent upon not allowing some crazy asshole to nuke or use WMD on our populace, but what the fuck? Let's be civil, shall we? After you, Mr. Duke, no after you Mr. Duke.

69 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:56:36am

I don't think the reason Obama/Holder are doing this is to 'appease the left'. Look where they're moving control to - National Security Council/FBI.

WTF is THAT all about?

70 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:57:08am

WaPo has been bought by Bushitler to be printing these lies

//

71 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:57:42am

re: #69 wahabicorridor

I don't think the reason Obama/Holder are doing this is to 'appease the left'. Look where they're moving control to - National Security Council/FBI.

WTF is THAT all about?

It is a matter of law enforcement then, eh? Sounds like a re-hash of the Clinton era...and, we all know how well that turned out.

72 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:57:45am

re: #64 blangwort

I believe BHO thought the Presidency is a more powerful position than it really is.

Let's get real about something here: No president will volunteer to relinquish any authority they have. Bush saw an opportunity to gain new authority and he did. Obama is trying to do the same with Healthcare.

This is about authority over others. It's not a left or right thing.

Corrct, because I remember all those times Bush & co. took over private industries and demanded what they pay their execs and wanted "authority" over 1/7th of our economy!!!

/// {sigh}

73 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:57:54am

Does anybody else find it odd that BHO returns from Marthas Veinyard today & goes to Camp David on Wednesday, to recover from his vaction?

74 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:58:06am

re: #65 Alouette

Not much difference between that pic and the real thing, is there?

75 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:58:22am

re: #70 right_wing2

WaPo has been bought by Bushitler to be printing these lies

//

Karl Rove, You Magnificent Bastard !

76 Mauser  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:58:34am

No! This isn't Possible! The libs SWORE to us that torture would ONLY produce false information to make the torture stop.

I mean, they wouldn't LIE to us, would they?
/

(Well of course they'd tell us what we want to hear, and what we want to hear is the TRUTH!)

77 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:58:54am

re: #66 Killgore Trout

OT: Here's a pretty good list...
Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

One of the problems I see with HR3200 is that it is so vaguely written, that what is not true today, could be true within a few years as regulations are written and interpreted.

78 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:58:59am

re: #68 kansas

Actually our survival is dependent upon not allowing some crazy asshole to nuke or use WMD on our populace, but what the fuck? Let's be civil, shall we? After you, Mr. Duke, no after you Mr. Duke.

It is a strawman to say that being civil requires a country to relinquish self-protective processes.

79 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:16am

re: #73 opnion

Does anybody else find it odd that BHO returns from Marthas Veinyard today & goes to Camp David on Wednesday, to recover from his vaction?

His vacation didn't even include a long car trip with hyperactive, bored boys. I've had to recover from those frequently.

(Hint, hint: New torture technique.)

80 walter cronanty  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:25am

re: #62 keithgabryelski

Please list the EITs used on KSM that you claim were torture.

81 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:36am

A gentleman never asks.

82 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:37am

re: #73 opnion

No, he's been on vacation since last week. He'll probably go back to Washington in a few days.

83 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:40am

re: #73 opnion

Does anybody else find it odd that BHO returns from Marthas Veinyard today & goes to Camp David on Wednesday, to recover from his vaction?

I have no problem with it, actually. Any President since post WW 2 (and even before to a lesser degree) has never really been "on vacation" no matter what his local is!

84 blangwort  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:50am

re: #73 opnion

Remember when we used to hear about the Bush 43 being the biggest slacker for all the time off that he took?

85 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:57am

re: #64 blangwort

I believe BHO thought the Presidency is a more powerful position than it really is.

Let's get real about something here: No president will volunteer to relinquish any authority they have. Bush saw an opportunity to gain new authority and he did. Obama is trying to do the same with Healthcare.

This is about authority over others. It's not a left or right thing.

O has relinquished writing the health care bill to the Congress, he has relinquished his power to direct his AG to his AG going back on his word that he would not look back, he has cow towed to every 2 bit tinhorn dictator in the world. That's kind of a left thing.

86 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:59:58am

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

I lived through that period. My mentor and I spoke out against the witch-hunting publicly at child assessment seminars and at presentations by the interrogator/therapist's supporters and got some nasty backlash for it. We were eventually proven to have been right.

87 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:00:52am

re: #76 Mauser

No! This isn't Possible! The libs SWORE to us that torture would ONLY produce false information to make the torture stop.

I mean, they wouldn't LIE to us, would they?
/

(Well of course they'd tell us what we want to hear, and what we want to hear is the TRUTH!)

No one claimed it would only produce false information.

88 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:01:07am

info@barackobama.com
E-mail Address(es):
info@barackobama.com

This magically appeared in my address book.

89 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:01:17am

re: #50 flyovercountry

Many high value targets were neutralized, and many plots were foiled as a result of these techniques.

Is this documented anywhere? What targets were neutralized, what plots were foiled? How, exactly, did the information extracted through torture lead to these outcomes?

90 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:01:39am

re: #62 keithgabryelski

I'd be happy to give some examples of REAL torture that we could have engaged in. Far beyond having a dog bark at you, being put in the same cell with a caterpillar, being a bit hot or cold or being forced to listen to music.

91 Perplexed  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:01:59am

Two days of sleep deprivation would have me in the middle of grand mal seizures. Three or four days would have me either talking or dead from the effects of seizures.

92 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:02:02am

re: #80 walter cronanty

Please list the EITs used on KSM that you claim were torture.

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

93 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:02:09am

re: #77 reine.de.tout

One of the problems I see with HR3200 is that it is so vaguely written, that what is not true today, could be true within a few years as regulations are written and interpreted.

I don't think so. It reads pretty much like any other bill I've read. The language is always confusing to laymen but I think there's an effort to twist the meaning into something scary from opponents of healthcare reform.

94 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:02:43am

re: #77 reine.de.tout

One of the problems I see with HR3200 is that it is so vaguely written, that what is not true today, could be true within a few years as regulations are written and interpreted.

They are after incremental change and have said so.

95 Digital Display  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:02:44am

re: #50 flyovercountry

The enhanced interrogation worked. for anybody who claims that the intel is not reliable, I submit that the results would prove otherwise. Many high value targets were neutralized, and many plots were foiled as a result of these techniques. I am glad that someone had the fortitude to do this. These people are enemies of the U.S.A. They are an enemy by the way, who will not stop until they or us are anhialated. for anyone who is sensitive to the feelings of our foes, I am sorry, I chose for our society's survival.

Let's just pray to God America will never find itself in the position to use torture methods to protect our citizens again...
I wonder 100 years from now Americans will remember the raw emotion of the attack on our country...The pain and anger..The pure emotion of losing 3000 innocents to hate...Even now the memory fades for many...

96 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:20am

re: #85 kansas

O has relinquished writing the health care bill to the Congress, he has relinquished his power to direct his AG to his AG going back on his word that he would not look back, he has cow towed to every 2 bit tinhorn dictator in the world. That's kind of a left thing.

I don't think he relinquished a damn thing. Holder works for him. What Obama SAYS and what actually happens have been divergent for quite a while. Pay attention to what happens.

97 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:23am

re: #79 EmmmieG

His vacation didn't even include a long car trip with hyperactive, bored boys. I've had to recover from those frequently.

(Hint, hint: New torture technique.)

He's a wuss, can't even throw a baseball 60 feet.

98 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:24am
99 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:28am

re: #78 keithgabryelski

It is a strawman to say that being civil requires a country to relinquish self-protective processes.

Your cake and eat it too then? Can you have one and then other? The world is full of mean and nasty people which mean to do us harm. Undermining, degrading and wounding the very agency that should be protecting us is also a risky proposition. I do not want us to sell our souls and become the monsters are are fighting. On the other hand, I do not want us so encumbered with restrictions it exposes us to harm. We have to walk a fine line when it comes to these matters. There are grey areas that have to be dealt with, yes?

100 Racer X  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:31am

Oh man this post at Huffpo is rich:

Cheney's Torture Logic

The one good thing about having Vice President Dick Cheney in office is you didn't hear from him very often. But now that he is a civilian he just can't stop talking. It is especially surprising because there is nothing much good to say about his administration's past eight years. Record government deficits, a failed financial system, a collapsed housing market, the war in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction and an increase in global terrorism.

"Record government deficits". Deficits? You wanna see deficits? I'll show you deficits!

Like the Democrat controlled congress had nothing to do with the economy.

I'm sure the left hates the way Dick Cheney says "fuck you":

One of Cheney's central arguments is that the enhanced interrogation techniques used were legal. "We had pursued interrogation in a normal way. We decided that we needed some enhanced techniques. So we went to the Justice Department," Cheney said to Schieffer. "What we got from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) were legal memos that laid out what is appropriate and what's not appropriate," he continued. "If we had been about torture, we wouldn't have wasted our time going to the Justice Department."

We would have just done it to get the job done. Keeping America safe is the primary responsibility of President and his administration. Clinton failed. Bush took the heat but got the job done.

101 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:37am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

So by waterboarding our soldiers during training, we're tortuing them?

102 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:42am

re: #71 Desert Dog

It is a matter of law enforcement then, eh? Sounds like a re-hash of the Clinton era...and, we all know how well that turned out.

Law enforcement is forafter something happens.

I'm interested in the before.

103 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:43am

re: #93 Killgore Trout

I don't think so. It reads pretty much like any other bill I've read. The language is always confusing to laymen but I think there's an effort to twist the meaning into something scary from opponents of healthcare reform.

And as time goes on, interpretations evolve and change.
It happens with all legislation.

104 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:03:55am

re: #90 right_wing2

I'd be happy to give some examples of REAL torture that we could have engaged in. Far beyond having a dog bark at you, being put in the same cell with a caterpillar, being a bit hot or cold or being forced to listen to music.

Yes, we understand that we could have cut fingers off -- That does not excuse lesser tactics.

105 flyovercountry  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:04:05am

re: #62 keithgabryelski

The bare assertion here -- and it is a large leap, is the America's survival is dependent on the use of these techniques.

Some could even say our survival (at the as a democratic nation that run by the rule of law, as the leader of nations) is dependent on NOT committing torture.


These are people who have openly declared war on us. Just because we have chosen to ignore it previously does not deminish their mission. they will continue to attack until we, or they are defeated. Moral equivalence and wishful thinking won't make this problem go away. Our appeasement, surprising as this is, is viewed as a show of weakness. This is not an episode of Star Trek where the noble folks with greater technology win by offering the other cheek. Our prosecution of this war does matter. They may not be able to destroy us now, but one day soon they will be able to. The longer we wait to destroy those who have shown the intent, ability and fanatical belief to do us harm, the greater our chance of not surviving. We would be foolish to allow this to go on any longer. Now, I don't believe that enhanced interrogation deminshes us, I believe we should use those tools at our disposal which we need to us to survive.

106 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:04:15am

re: #62 keithgabryelski

The bare assertion here -- and it is a large leap, is the America's survival is dependent on the use of these techniques.

Some could even say our survival (at the as a democratic nation that run by the rule of law, as the leader of nations) is dependent on NOT committing torture.

So I'm waiting for you to connect those two non-contradictory statements.

107 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:04:22am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

if it was that bad why did it take 183 times?

108 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:04:28am

re: #78 keithgabryelski

It is a strawman to say that being civil requires a country to relinquish self-protective processes.

That is why KSM gave up jack shit until they waterboarded his ass I suppose? That's OK, let the little plots proceed. Only a few thousand deaths at a time I guess.

109 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:04:33am

re: #104 keithgabryelski

Didn't say anything about mutilation.

110 MandyManners  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:05:10am

re: #94 J.D.

They are after incremental change and have said so.

Gramscian whoredom.

111 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:05:21am

re: #68 kansas

Actually our survival is dependent upon not allowing some crazy asshole to nuke or use WMD on our populace, but what the fuck? Let's be civil, shall we? After you, Mr. Duke, no after you Mr. Duke.

This sidesteps keith's central question - is the use of such techniques essential in staving off the outcomes mentioned? Is there any evidence that torture has been effective at preventing such outcomes? Because if torture works, then it ought to be simple and easy to make the case for it: just hold up the documented list of successful outcomes ("successful," here, obviously meaning "thwarted attempts"), and how they resulted directly from the use of such techniques.

112 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:05:22am

re: #101 right_wing2

So by waterboarding our soldiers during training, we're tortuing them?

no, torture includes the notion of coercion.

Sexual intercourse with a willing partner is ... welll ... sex.
Sexual intercourse where the partner is not willing is called rape.

113 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:05:27am

re: #66 Killgore Trout

Downding, way OT pre-100, and in a trollishly predictable way to boot.

114 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:05:39am

re: #46 Lucius Septimius

I actually have spent much of the last 6 or 7 years studying torture and its utility for information gathering. Short answer: it works, but the effectiveness depends heavily on who's asking the questions.

I daresay the same is true of non-torture questioning.

/have you stopped beating your wife?

115 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:05:49am

re: #82 Killgore Trout

He goes back today & then leaves again Wednesday.
When Bush went to the Ranch in Crawford to chop wood, the MSM freaked , "Two Wars , A Bad Economy."

116 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:06:02am

re: #89 SixDegrees

Is this documented anywhere? What targets were neutralized, what plots were foiled? How, exactly, did the information extracted through torture lead to these outcomes?

Washpo, so use your own guidelines to judge it:

The CIA's Questioning Worked

I am guessing we will not know about some of the things that interrogations produced for a while too.

117 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:06:29am

re: #107 brookly red

if it was that bad why did it take 183 times?

Odd numbers constitute torture.

118 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:06:45am

re: #91 Perplexed

Two days of sleep deprivation would have me in the middle of grand mal seizures. Three or four days would have me either talking or dead from the effects of seizures.

And the point is ,,,???

119 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:06:51am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

Flying airplanes into civilian buildings and burning thousands alive is torture. Ask Nick Berg and Dan Pearl about torture.

120 lawhawk  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:04am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

Tell that to the US armed forces that go through SERE. Also, the 183 times is actually 5 sessions. They were literally counting the number of drops of water poured on KSM.

121 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:24am
122 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:24am

re: #106 haakondahl

So I'm waiting for you to connect those two non-contradictory statements.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Which two statements should I connect?

123 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:30am

re: #84 blangwort

Remember when we used to hear about the Bush 43 being the biggest slacker for all the time off that he took?

Yes, whole different set of rules now.

124 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:42am

re: #78 keithgabryelski

It is a strawman to say that being civil requires a country to relinquish self-protective processes.


Hoisted on your own petard with that one.

125 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:49am

re: #111 SixDegrees

This sidesteps keith's central question - is the use of such techniques essential in staving off the outcomes mentioned? Is there any evidence that torture has been effective at preventing such outcomes? Because if torture works, then it ought to be simple and easy to make the case for it: just hold up the documented list of successful outcomes ("successful," here, obviously meaning "thwarted attempts"), and how they resulted directly from the use of such techniques.

Are you reading about the plots that KSM gave up or just tip toeing around in foo foo land?

126 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:07:57am

re: #113 haakondahl

Bite me.

127 J.S.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:07am

re: #112 keithgabryelski

Sexual intercourse with a willing partner is ... well ... sex.

Well, not necessarily, there is a crime called "statutory rape." doesn't matter if a girl who's underage says, "OK" or agrees to have sex -- still a form of rape.

128 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:09am

re: #90 right_wing2

I'd be happy to give some examples of REAL torture that we could have engaged in. Far beyond having a dog bark at you, being put in the same cell with a caterpillar, being a bit hot or cold or being forced to listen to music.

Actually, if you can provide a workable legal definition of what constitutes torture, it would save everyone a whole lot of trouble. At the moment, politicians of all stripes have simply refused to take such a step, a situation that has contributed to the current state of uncertainty regarding who has done what, whether it was wrong or not or - in the current case being investigated by Holder - whether anyone broke rules that were already in place preventing certain practices.

129 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:10am

re: #112 keithgabryelski

Ah, so we can only get information from these psychopaths if they feel like giving it to us. We have to make them feeel bad about murdering people. We have to make them feel loooved and we read them their Miranda rights and promise to help them wipe Israel off the map and kiss their unwiped butts enough, they'll stop being mean.

130 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:20am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

Pshaw. Have you done it 183 times? How would you know?

Combatting one specious argument with another. Keep it up, you'll get the lorem ipsum.

131 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:32am

re: #117 itellu3times

Only to Monk

132 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:44am

re: #98 buzzsawmonkey

Among other things, the "Satanic day-care child-abuse" scare is a reminder that we are never as distant as we might comfortably like to think from the hysteria of the Salem witch trials, or that of the Palmer raids--or the excesses of the McCarthy period.

Civilized behavior and the rule of law are far more fragile than most people think. Hysteria will trump either of them.

133 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:08:57am

For the Navy guys...
I'm On A Boat

Youtube Video

(Language warning)

134 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:09:16am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

And, your point is?

135 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:09:26am

re: #98 buzzsawmonkey

Among other things, the "Satanic day-care child-abuse" scare is a reminder that we are never as distant as we might comfortably like to think from the hysteria of the Salem witch trials, or that of the Palmer raids--or the excesses of the McCarthy period.

What are the Palmer raids, please?

I, tho', think it was not so much our prpensity for 'witch trials hysteria' that led those ppor people on their terrible journey - there was a myth at the time about children not lying? Remember that? They could not possibly have made that up? So, I think it was more about our naivte about children and what can be down with them than about anything else.

136 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:09:54am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

These people have no rights under the Geneva Convention. They are non-uniformed enemy combatants. We had every right to execute them.

137 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:09:59am

I would define torture as anything that left a permanent mark, scar or deformity.

Removing a finger is torture.

Breaking a finger is not.

Castration is torture.

A kick to the groin is not.

138 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:10:06am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

Then give us the cut off #
10?
50?
100?
150?

139 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:10:38am

re: #120 lawhawk

Tell that to the US armed forces that go through SERE. Also, the 183 times is actually 5 sessions. They were literally counting the number of drops of water poured on KSM.

Is that true? Holy Crap. Of course, in John F. Kerryland, that's worth 183 purple hearts.

140 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:10:57am

We used nonlethal torture. Lives were saved. Get over it.

141 pat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:11:16am

That is a very interesting article indeed. Both from a historical perspective and as a subtle hint that the Administration courts disaster.

142 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:11:54am

re: #132 SurferDoc

Civilized behavior and the rule of law are far more fragile than most people think. Hysteria will trump either of them.

Not sure what you mean by that, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

143 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:12:12am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

Sucks to be KSM, that's less than once for every 15 people he killed and he never lasted 20 seconds in any one episode.

/probably wouldn't have had to use a power drill twice

144 sngnsgt  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:12:34am

re: #107 brookly red

if it was that bad why did it take 183 times?

Excellent point.

145 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:12:53am

I am sensing a lack of compassion for KSM, you bastards./

146 MandyManners  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:12:55am

re: #126 Killgore Trout

Bite me.

In bed.

147 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:12:58am

re: #122 keithgabryelski

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Which two statements should I connect?

Carry on, then. I won't bother.

148 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:13:19am

re: #140 swamprat

We used nonlethal torture. Lives were saved. Get over it.

what gets me is some people forget just why these people were being interrogated in the first place...

149 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:13:47am

re: #145 kansas

I am sensing a lack of compassion for KSM, you bastards./

I am fresh out of compassion for him.

Does it show?

150 pat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:13:53am

OT
Japan launches a second carrier. A 18,000 ton VTOL.
[Link: www.strategypage.com...]

151 walter cronanty  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:14:01am

re: #92 keithgabryelski
I disagree. We waterboard our Seals during their training.

"Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who "at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999," according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad."

More importantly, based on what KSM had done, and the intelligence we gathered, I really don't care if someone considers waterboarding to be "torture". If you kill thousands of innocents, you kind of exhaust my reservoir of moral outrage concerning what happens to you.

152 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:14:02am

re: #62 keithgabryelski

The bare assertion here -- and it is a large leap, is the America's survival is dependent on the use of these techniques.

Some could even say our survival (at the as a democratic nation that run by the rule of law, as the leader of nations) is dependent on NOT committing torture.

Well done on the your healthcare question report.
As to your post on torture:
Which threatens the nation more: an enemy who despises democracy and the people within it, and who has yet to show any desire to emulate the example set by it, and who uses mass murder and torture as a norm of their warfare - or military interrogators going by the law get information on those mass murderers?
American leaders need to be more concerned with preserving the actual lives of Americans (and others) than in creating an image of righteousness. As a marketing ploy, we know in any case that righteousness translates to "weak horse."

153 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:14:15am

re: #146 MandyManners

Kinky!

154 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:14:19am

re: #149 J.D.

I am fresh out of compassion for him.

Does it show?

Thankfully yes.

155 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:14:26am

re: #147 haakondahl

Carry on, then. I won't bother.

Guess I shouldn't wait for an answer to my #138 then, huh!

156 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:14:46am

re: #99 Desert Dog

Your cake and eat it too then? Can you have one and then other? The world is full of mean and nasty people which mean to do us harm. Undermining, degrading and wounding the very agency that should be protecting us is also a risky proposition. I do not want us to sell our souls and become the monsters are are fighting. On the other hand, I do not want us so encumbered with restrictions it exposes us to harm. We have to walk a fine line when it comes to these matters. There are grey areas that have to be dealt with, yes?

I'm reminded of the scene from A Man For All Seasons in which Thomas More is arguing with the particularly vicious witch-hunting prosecutor. A servant of the king and a hungry and ambitious man.

And More says to this man, “You’d break the law to punish the devil, wouldn’t you?”

And the prosecutor, the witch-hunter, says, “Break it?” he said, “I’d cut down, I’d cut down every law in England if I could do that, if I could capture him!”

“Yes you would, wouldn’t you? And then when you would have cornered the devil and the devil would turn around to meet you, where would you run for protection? All the laws of England having been cut down and flattened? Who would protect you then?”

Wise words.

157 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:15:11am

re: #137 right_wing2

I would define torture as anything that left a permanent mark, scar or deformity.

Removing a finger is torture.

Breaking a finger is not.

Castration is torture.

A kick to the groin is not.

I would say that any kind of physical harm is torture. Leaving a mark or not. Torture is not only physical too...sometimes psychological torture is even worse than the physical variety.

Torture is a means to an end. We captured one of the highest ranking AQ figures with KSM. If we did not torture this pile of sh*t, I would want someone to get fired and tossed in jail forever for dereliction of duty. We live in a big bad world and sometimes we have to do unpleasant things. Do hold this animal and not try to extract every ounce of possible intel would have been a crime...not the waterboarding.

158 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:15:41am

Intended or not, the end result of this endlesss discussion of, and prosecutions for Inhanced Interrogation Techniques is that we:

1) Tell the enemy what we do during interrogations.
2) Tell the enemy what we WON'T do during interrogations.

What's the value in maintaining "civility" when combating an "uncivil" enemy, other than to give them the upper hand? Do we actually think that we will earn their respect? We already know that these people will stop at nothing; what should be in their mind during an interrogation is "what the hell are these people going to do to me?" Fear and uncertainty of "how far we will actually go" is a great motivator, whether we go there or not. Remove the fear, and we will remove the motivation.

Hell, we might as well just read them their Miranda rights.

159 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:15:46am

re: #139 itellu3times

Is that true? Holy Crap. Of course, in John F. Kerryland, that's worth 183 purple hearts.

And, if you develop a hangnail while "boarding", 184

160 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:16:06am

re: #159 Desert Dog

And, if you develop a hangnail while "boarding", 184

185. You forgot the one for the "raisin" skin.

161 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:16:27am

re: #160 EmmmieG

185. You forgot the one for the "raisin" skin.

I hate when that happens.

162 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:16:33am

re: #158 MacDuff

Intended or not, the end result of this endlesss discussion of, and prosecutions for Inhanced Interrogation Techniques is that we:

1) Tell the enemy what we do during interrogations.
2) Tell the enemy what we WON'T do during interrogations.

What's the value in maintaining "civility" when combating an "uncivil" enemy, other than to give them the upper hand? Do we actually think that we will earn their respect? We already know that these people will stop at nothing; what should be in their mind during an interrogation is "what the hell are these people going to do to me?" Fear and uncertainty of "how far we will actually go" is a great motivator, whether we go there or not. Remove the fear, and we will remove the motivation.

Hell, we might as well just read them their Miranda rights.

I think the pussies in charge have already decided to do that.

163 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:16:59am

re: #160 EmmmieG

185. You forgot the one for the "raisin" skin.

185. Splinter in the ass.

164 Racer X  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:02am

re: #66 Killgore Trout

OT: Here's a pretty good list...
Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

Its not like the "Annenberg Public Policy Center" has an agenda. /

165 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:11am

re: #163 SasquatchOnSteroids

185. Splinter in the ass.

186.

166 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:12am

re: #150 pat

OT
Japan launches a second carrier. A 18,000 ton VTOL.
[Link: www.strategypage.com...]

Interesting choice of names -- the earlier Ise and Hyuga were WWI era battle ships that the Japanese converted to hybrid battleship/aircraft carriers in WWII.

I suppose this was much more politic than naming them Kaga and Hiryu.

167 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:14am

re: #156 SixDegrees

I'm reminded of the scene from A Man For All Seasons in which Thomas More is arguing with the particularly vicious witch-hunting prosecutor. A servant of the king and a hungry and ambitious man.

And More says to this man, “You’d break the law to punish the devil, wouldn’t you?”

And the prosecutor, the witch-hunter, says, “Break it?” he said, “I’d cut down, I’d cut down every law in England if I could do that, if I could capture him!”

“Yes you would, wouldn’t you? And then when you would have cornered the devil and the devil would turn around to meet you, where would you run for protection? All the laws of England having been cut down and flattened? Who would protect you then?”

Wise words.

Leaving the question: Was it against the law? If they had sought and received permission from higher levels of the government, was it legal? What does our law allow?

168 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:40am
169 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:42am

re: #157 Desert Dog

I would say that any kind of physical harm is torture. Leaving a mark or not. Torture is not only physical too...sometimes psychological torture is even worse than the physical variety.

Torture is a means to an end. We captured one of the highest ranking AQ figures with KSM. If we did not torture this pile of sh*t, I would want someone to get fired and tossed in jail forever for dereliction of duty. We live in a big bad world and sometimes we have to do unpleasant things. Do hold this animal and not try to extract every ounce of possible intel would have been a crime...not the waterboarding.

There are certain things that should NOT be for public consumption. One of them is how we gather our intelligence.

170 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:17:53am

re: #127 J.S.

Well, not necessarily, there is a crime called "statutory rape." doesn't matter if a girl who's underage says, "OK" or agrees to have sex -- still a form of rape.

your point is taken.

As I understand it, the law defines "willing" to include "of age". A child is not willing because they don't have the ability to give consent.

171 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:18:06am

re: #164 Racer X

Its not like the "Annenberg Public Policy Center" has an agenda. /

I was thinking the same thing. Weren't they on P.J.'s original "Enemies List"?

172 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:18:20am

re: #164 Racer X

Its not like the "Annenberg Public Policy Center" has an agenda. /

~WIDE EYES~
They do?

173 kansas  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:18:28am

I'm getting pissed. I can't even believe we have turned over our country to the enemy. I'm gonna go cut the grass. Later.

174 Ojoe  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:18:35am

IMHO when these techniques are necessary they will be done no matter how much of a political stink is raised about them now.

And I think it is folly to argue around and around about them.

In 10,000 years when human nature really is different, then we can ban them.

175 Erik The Red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:19:01am

re: #173 kansas

I'm getting pissed. I can't even believe we have turned over our country to the enemy. I'm gonna go cut the grass. Later.

Watch them toes. :)

176 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:19:50am

re: #147 haakondahl

Carry on, then. I won't bother.

I was being serious. Please restate your question.

177 Racer X  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:20:17am

re: #151 walter cronanty

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad."

And you know what stopped them from doing more attacks? George Freaking Bush kicking their asses. Thats what stopped them.

178 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:20:21am

re: #116 Desert Dog

Washpo, so use your own guidelines to judge it:

The CIA's Questioning Worked

I am guessing we will not know about some of the things that interrogations produced for a while too.

Not particularly compelling. The details, such as they are, aren't particularly...detailed. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the way of corroboration. At best, the claims made here seem to be egregiously incestuous, with nothing in the way of independent confirmation.

That's why I asked for details documenting what was actually prevented. Simply stating that someone made a claim of an impending attack while being tortured isn't, itself, particularly compelling.

179 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:21:08am

re: #74 right_wing2

Not much difference between that pic and the real thing, is there?

Thank the Lord, I have never seen the real thing.

180 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:21:12am

re: #150 pat

OT
Japan launches a second carrier. A 18,000 ton VTOL.
[Link: www.strategypage.com...]

Those aren't carriers. Those are through-deck amphibs! Even when they get catapults and arresting gear, they won't be carriers until they get AN/SPN-43 installed, because all carriers have that.

For a full discussion of what constitutes a carrier, I refer you to [Link: www.thatsnomoon.com....]

181 beens21  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:21:14am

re: #128 SixDegrees

182 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:22:22am

re: #168 buzzsawmonkey


As far as the Satanic day-care child abuse "scandals" were concerned, they were mostly prompted, in my view, by a need for working mothers having few children late in life to displace the guilt they felt for leaving their children with strangers in order to be able to pursue their careers. That was the reason, also, for the myth that the children "could not lie." The parents' implicit belief in their childrens' veracity, endorsed by degreed experts in the form of therapists, was a form of secular absolution for the sin of not rearing their children with a stay-at-home parent.

The same is true of some of the hysteria regarding "child molesters" in Britain about a decade ago. The public image was that "dirty old men" were the primary threat when, in fact, the vast majority of sexual abuse of children takes place in the home. It has been suggested that some of the horror about "sexual predators" living in "decent neighborhoods" was displaced shame/guilt on the part of adults over having been abused or having stood by while a loved one abused on of their own children.

In that case, I might add, the BNP used that particular bout of public hysteria to recruit new members by adding a racial twist to the myths.

183 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:22:43am

re: #137 right_wing2

I would define torture as anything that left a permanent mark, scar or deformity.

Removing a finger is torture.

Breaking a finger is not.

Castration is torture.

A kick to the groin is not.

So beating someone with a rubber hose would be OK. As would applying electrical shocks to them - say to their genitals.

Over and over again, until they told you what you wanted to hear.

Do you see why this isn't a particularly useful definition?

184 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:17am

re: #152 shortshrift

Well done on the your healthcare question report.
As to your post on torture:
Which threatens the nation more: an enemy who despises democracy and the people within it, and who has yet to show any desire to emulate the example set by it, and who uses mass murder and torture as a norm of their warfare - or military interrogators going by the law get information on those mass murderers?
American leaders need to be more concerned with preserving the actual lives of Americans (and others) than in creating an image of righteousness. As a marketing ploy, we know in any case that righteousness translates to "weak horse."

Upding for the highly relevant horse reference!

185 J.S.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:19am

re: #170 keithgabryelski

Reminds me of an old joke -- about masochists and torture -- so, if KSM were a masochist would it still be torture?

186 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:22am

re: #168 buzzsawmonkey

Ah, thanks for the info on Palmer. I've read of the terrorist bombs in NYC, but had not heard of him.

As for this:

a need for working mothers having few children late in life to displace the guilt they felt for leaving their children with strangers in order to be able to pursue their careers. That was the reason, also, for the myth that the children "could not lie."

What a crock (that idea, not your analysis). I've never met a kid that didn't lie - nor has any babysitter, for that matter. As I recall, I got my first backside smack for lying when I was about 4 yrs old.

187 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:25am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

The 183 was achieved by counting every nose pour during every session. There were fewer sessions than that, the exact number I do not recall.

Is spewing liquid out your nose from reading a blog post torture? Then not a few Lizards have committed torture.

188 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:35am

re: #167 EmmmieG

Leaving the question: Was it against the law? If they had sought and received permission from higher levels of the government, was it legal? What does our law allow?

When someone wraps themselves up in "the law" and places that above everything else no matter what the outcome, it is bad. When that is done for obvious political reasons, it is pathetic.

Our "need to know" culture harms us in so many ways. We need to have a mechanism to deal with the legality of some things. The CIA is convert for a reason. Why not just open it all up and let our enemies see everything? I really think there are some people that would actually want that.

189 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:56am

re: #155 sattv4u2

Guess I shouldn't wait for an answer to my #138 then, huh!

Zackly.

190 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:09am

re: #183 SixDegrees

I just want to hear the truth.

Admittedly, that's a stretch for members of groups like the Hezzies, Hammies and Alquies

191 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:25am

Eric Holder’s Hidden Agenda
The investigation isn’t about torture, but about transnationalism.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

‘This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law. And to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it.”

It was springtime in Berlin and Eric Holder, a well-known “rule of law” devotee, was speaking to the German press. He’d been asked if his Justice Department would cooperate with efforts by foreign or international tribunals to prosecute U.S. government officials who carried out the Bush administration’s post-9/11 counterterrorism policies. The attorney general assured listeners that he was certainly open to being helpful. “Obviously,” he said, “we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it.”

As the Associated Press reported at the time, Holder was “pressed on whether that meant the United States would cooperate with a foreign court prosecuting Bush administration officials.” He skirted the question in a way Americans ought to find alarming. The attorney general indicated that he was speaking only about “evidentiary requests.” Translation: The Obama administration will not make arrests and hand current or former American government officials over for foreign trials, but if the Europeans or U.N. functionaries (at the nudging of, say, the Organization of the Islamic Conference) want Justice’s help gathering evidence in order to build triable cases — count us in. ...


Read the whole thing.

192 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:30am

re: #178 SixDegrees

Not particularly compelling. The details, such as they are, aren't particularly...detailed. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the way of corroboration. At best, the claims made here seem to be egregiously incestuous, with nothing in the way of independent confirmation.

That's why I asked for details documenting what was actually prevented. Simply stating that someone made a claim of an impending attack while being tortured isn't, itself, particularly compelling.

Fair enough, Six

I think it helped, you don't.

193 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:43am

re: #168 buzzsawmonkey

The Palmer raids were the anti-Red raids led by then-Attorney General Mitchell Palmer after WWI. Many "reds" and many just plain foreigners were rounded up and deported after relatively summary proceedings.

There were, of course, some bases for the hysteria, in that the West was on edge after the October Revolution (and the anti-Bolshevik Allied force sent to bolster the Whites was getting its ass kicked by Trotsky), and there was that spate of bombs that went off in, IIRC, 1919, including at least one on Wall Street.

So, there was a "red menace" of sorts--but the response was way, way over the top.

As far as the Satanic day-care child abuse "scandals" were concerned, they were mostly prompted, in my view, by a need for working mothers having few children late in life to displace the guilt they felt for leaving their children with strangers in order to be able to pursue their careers. That was the reason, also, for the myth that the children "could not lie." The parents' implicit belief in their childrens' veracity, endorsed by degreed experts in the form of therapists, was a form of secular absolution for the sin of not rearing their children with a stay-at-home parent.

Ha! Maternal guilt aside, what was revealed was the ease by which ideas could be put into children's heads by parents and psychologists and that these implanted ideas could be held with such, dare I say it, religious tenacity. Remember the news footage of children screaming abuse at the "perpetrators?"

194 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:49am

re: #183 SixDegrees

So beating someone with a rubber hose would be OK. As would applying electrical shocks to them - say to their genitals.

Over and over again, until they told you what you wanted to hear.

Do you see why this isn't a particularly useful definition?

What about "up your nose with a rubber hose"?

195 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:53am

re: #185 J.S.

A masochist is someone who enjoys pain. A sadist is someone who won't give it to them.

196 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:24:54am

re: #162 kansas

I think the pussies in charge have already decided to do that.

Teh Kittehs?

197 Ojoe  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:25:01am

re: #188 Desert Dog

I really think there are some people morons that would actually want that.

FIFY

198 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:25:03am

re: #178 SixDegrees

Not particularly compelling. The details, such as they are, aren't particularly...detailed. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the way of corroboration. At best, the claims made here seem to be egregiously incestuous, with nothing in the way of independent confirmation.

That's why I asked for details documenting what was actually prevented. Simply stating that someone made a claim of an impending attack while being tortured isn't, itself, particularly compelling.

In all fairness, don't you think that details are perhaps classified, and justifiably so?

199 beens21  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:25:14am

[Link: article.nationalreview.com...] messed up the link. Holder has adopted the Bush position on what is permissible via the Yoo memos, so the attack against the CIA is purely hypocritic politics.

200 Racer X  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:25:49am

re: #171 Lucius Septimius

I was thinking the same thing. Weren't they on P.J.'s original "Enemies List"?

"Fact Check . org"

More like "Howcanwespinthissothatdearleaderlooksbutch . org"

201 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:26:39am

re: #138 sattv4u2

Then give us the cut off #
10?
50?
100?
150?

Once. Given that this country has prosecuted water boarding in the past, I'd say you just shouldn't play in that area.

Torture is not simply a degree of damage defined by a single third party, it is defined collectively by the international community.

The reasons for not torturing are plenty:

1) it reduces the likelihood of surrender
2) it reduces the possibility to gain support from centrists on the opposing side and third parties
3) it leads to "if they do it, we should do it"

202 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:26:42am

re: #151 walter cronanty


Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad."

Really? Who was rounded up, and what happened to them? This may not be known for those apprehended overseas, but arrests made on US soil and/or by the FBI would be a matter of public record.

203 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:26:42am
204 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:26:53am

re: #194 Lucius Septimius

What about "up your nose with a rubber hose"?

We should let them detonate a nuclear device in one of our cities or blow up a building or kill hundreds of Americans. Just as long as we don't torture the poor terrorists.

205 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:26:53am

re: #173 kansas

I'm getting pissed. I can't even believe we have turned over our country to the enemy. I'm gonna go cut the grass. Later.

To: flag@whitehouse.gov
Subj: kansas misrepresents healthcare, deprives grass of human rights.

206 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:27:33am

re: #176 keithgabryelski

I was being serious. Please restate your question.

Re-examine your predicate.

207 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:27:34am

re: #198 MacDuff

In all fairness, don't you think that details are perhaps classified, and justifiably so?

Probably 99% of classifications are excessive or even counterproductive.

But I guess you argue it on the other 1%.

208 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:27:35am

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Waterboarding someone 183 times is torture.

Along with the majority of Americans, I don't care about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or how many times he was waterboarded. KSM is to me the equivalent of a child rapists & murderer, plain evil. We just don't care about his welfare. The Left can defend and support him at their own peril come next election.

209 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:28:28am

re: #152 shortshrift

Well done on the your healthcare question report.
As to your post on torture:
Which threatens the nation more: an enemy who despises democracy and the people within it, and who has yet to show any desire to emulate the example set by it, and who uses mass murder and torture as a norm of their warfare - or military interrogators going by the law get information on those mass murderers?
American leaders need to be more concerned with preserving the actual lives of Americans (and others) than in creating an image of righteousness. As a marketing ploy, we know in any case that righteousness translates to "weak horse."

It threatens our basic society to abandon the rule of law.

210 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:28:56am

re: #177 Racer X

And you know what stopped them from doing more attacks? George Freaking Bush kicking their asses. Thats what stopped them.

What he said!

211 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:29:09am

re: #201 keithgabryelski

Defined by the international community?

In Europe, they just released a terrorist because he's "dying."

In the Middle east, if they leave you alive, count yourself lucky.

In Asia, if they leave your family alive, count yourself lucky.

In Africa...well, Africa.

I'm not sure sure there is an actual International agreement. (The UN being, as it is, a bunch of air blowing around.)

212 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:29:21am

re: #188 Desert Dog

When someone wraps themselves up in "the law" and places that above everything else no matter what the outcome, it is bad.

No; it's the mark of a civilized society. We are, after all, a nation of laws, and respect for the Rule of Law is paramount in Conservative philosophy.

213 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:29:27am

re: #209 keithgabryelski

Non sequiteur

214 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:30:44am

re: #208 unrealizedviewpoint

Along with the majority of Americans, I don't care about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or how many times he was waterboarded. KSM is to me the equivalent of a child rapists & murderer, plain evil. We just don't care about his welfare. The Left can defend and support him at their own peril come next election.

No one is defending KSM. They are defending the rule of law and international agreements.

215 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:30:46am

re: #200 Racer X

It's actually a pretty reputable site and the article is factually accurate. I think the opposition to healthcare reform would be better if people were actually opposing things that are in the bill instead of imaginary provisions they make up themselves. Knowledge is power.

216 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:31:11am

re: #191 J.D.

Excellent piece, especially this part

Though it won’t file indictments against the CIA agents and Bush officials it is probing, the Justice Department will continue conducting investigations and releasing reports containing new disclosures of information. The churn of new disclosures will be used by lawyers for the detainees to continue pressing the U.N. and the Europeans to file charges. The European nations and/or international tribunals will make formal requests to the Obama administration to have the Justice Department assist them in securing evidence. Holder will piously announce that the “rule of law” requires him to cooperate with these “lawful requests” from “appropriately created courts.” Finally, the international and/or foreign courts will file criminal charges against American officials.

217 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:31:13am

re: #213 swamprat

Non sequiteur

we disagree.

218 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:31:29am
219 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:32:08am

re: #186 wahabicorridor

Ah, thanks for the info on Palmer. I've read of the terrorist bombs in NYC, but had not heard of him.

As for this:

What a crock (that idea, not your analysis). I've never met a kid that didn't lie - nor has any babysitter, for that matter. As I recall, I got my first backside smack for lying when I was about 4 yrs old.



A decent book on the phenomenon, bringing together information from witch trials and modern child abuse cases.

220 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:32:09am

re: #215 Killgore Trout

It's actually a pretty reputable site and the article is factually accurate. I think the opposition to healthcare reform would be better if people were actually opposing things that are in the bill instead of imaginary provisions they make up themselves. Knowledge is power.

I need to know only one thing, that I am tired of despots voting their way into my wallet.

221 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:33:10am

re: #146 MandyManners

In bed.

Do you really want KT that close to you? I wouldn't want him in the same neighborhood.

222 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:33:16am

re: #220 DEZes

I need to know only one thing


The rest of us need to know more.

223 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:33:43am

re: #209 keithgabryelski

It threatens our basic society to abandon the rule of law.

Please explain your assumption that we have "abandoned" or broken some law by waterboarding.
which law?

224 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:34:03am

re: #198 MacDuff

In all fairness, don't you think that details are perhaps classified, and justifiably so?

No, they almost certainly aren't. In fact, according to another poster some of this information led to the identification of "operatives" within the United States, where arrests are a matter of public record and where charges are filed publicly; evidence, also, both for and against the accused, is aired in public.

But if you have evidence that such information exists, yet has been classified, by all means present it.

225 itellu3times  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:34:04am

re: #211 EmmmieG

Defined by the international community?

In Europe, they just released a terrorist because he's "dying."

In the Middle east, if they leave you alive, count yourself lucky.

In Asia, if they leave your family alive, count yourself lucky.

In Africa...well, Africa.

I'm not sure sure there is an actual International agreement. (The UN being, as it is, a bunch of air blowing around.)

My correspondent from Libtardia points out that it is in the US Federal Criminal Codes section whatever that torture is illegal, though IIRC this section was only added to the federal codes in recent decades. And it doesn't specify what is torture. And it is hypocritical anyway, when even the understandably sensitive and principled John McCain says he supports these laws, and supports the laws being broken as necessary.

226 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:34:10am

re: #219 Lucius Septimius

Well that was weird. The book -- "Witch-Children".

227 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:34:11am
228 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:35:09am

re: #214 keithgabryelski

No one is defending KSM. They are defending the rule of law and international agreements.

That's the Left's cover: "rule of law".
The opponents of enhanced interrogations (the Left) knows the techniques work quite well - In a nut shell "they save American lives." Unfortunately, to the Left, the politics of enhanced interrogations is more important than the success-fullness of enhanced interrogations.

229 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:35:39am

re: #207 itellu3times

Probably 99% of classifications are excessive or even counterproductive.

But I guess you argue it on the other 1%.

I would argue that specific information, regarding the deterrence of specific attacks, obtained by specific techniques performed on specific individuals probably should be classified.

As for the assertion that "99% of classifications are excessive or even counterproductive"; I would respectfully argue that statement, in itself, is a bit excessive and baseless conjecture.

230 SurferDoc  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:35:42am

re: #142 itellu3times

Not sure what you mean by that, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

It's a true thing and often bad.

231 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:35:44am

re: #214 keithgabryelski

No one is defending KSM. They are defending the rule of law and international agreements.

Correct. See, once again, my quotes above from A Man For All Seasons, which makes plain why the law cannot simply be cast aside to satisfy the emotions and desires of the moment.

232 Desert Dog  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:36:05am

re: #212 SixDegrees

No; it's the mark of a civilized society. We are, after all, a nation of laws, and respect for the Rule of Law is paramount in Conservative philosophy.

So, this witchhunt about to take place over at Langley is for purely noble and righteous reasons? There is no political motivation tainting the AG's office?

I agree, we are a nation of laws and we need them to maintain our society. If someone broke the law, they should be brought to trial. Going after an entire agency for a partisan and political reason is not what I call respecting the rule of law. It is axe-grinding, score settling and dangerous. This is not the Department of Education, it's the CIA...and rather than rip it open for all the world to see, why not handle it differently?

233 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:36:17am

re: #151 walter cronanty

I disagree. We waterboard our Seals during their training.

Again, torture is defined as the action on an unwilling participant. SEALS in training give consent.

Punch someone during a boxing match: that's boxing
Punch someone who doesn't consent: assault

234 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:36:26am

re: #215 Killgore Trout

It's actually a pretty reputable site and the article is factually accurate. I think the opposition to healthcare reform would be better if people were actually opposing things that are in the bill instead of imaginary provisions they make up themselves. Knowledge is power.

I oppose the bill itself. Nitpicking lines is accepting that a bill is necessary at all.

235 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:36:56am

Way OT, but this is totally frickin' cool.

236 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:36:56am

re: #201 keithgabryelski

1) it reduces the likelihood of surrender
INCORRECT. It INCREASES the likelihood of stopping recidivism
2) it reduces the possibility to gain support from centrists on the opposing side and third parties
INCORRECT. Any "centrist" and/ or "third party" would see it for what it is. The 1st ajnd foremost job of their Federal Gov't.,, The PROTECTION of i's citezenry
3) it leads to "if they do it, we should do it"
INCORRECT,, "they" have been "doing it" for centuries. Recent Examples, please see Danial Berg

That all stated, how would you propose getting actionable information from a known terrorist in custody? Please show an example of how that "method" has worked in the past

237 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:36:59am

re: #226 Lucius Septimius

Well that was weird. The book -- "Witch-Children".

HA! I was waiting for you to catch that! Thanks for the recommendation...

238 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:37:44am

re: #233 keithgabryelski

Again, torture is defined as the action on an unwilling participant. SEALS in training give consent.

Punch someone during a boxing match: that's boxing
Punch someone who doesn't consent: assault

Punch someone who dosen't consent: self defense

239 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:37:53am
240 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:38:01am

re: #237 wahabicorridor

HA! I was waiting for you to catch that! Thanks for the recommendation...

I think I accidently repeated the "http/" part of the address.

241 Killgore Trout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:38:10am

re: #234 SasquatchOnSteroids

I oppose the bill itself. Nitpicking lines is accepting that a bill is necessary at all.

That seems to be a pretty common attitude. However, it's likely that this bill will pass in some form eventually and I think it's important to understand what's actually in it.

242 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:38:22am
243 DEZes  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:39:06am

re: #222 Killgore Trout

The rest of us need to know more.

You want to know more, or just want more?

244 Wendya  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:39:58am

re: #178 SixDegrees

Not particularly compelling. The details, such as they are, aren't particularly...detailed. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the way of corroboration. At best, the claims made here seem to be egregiously incestuous, with nothing in the way of independent confirmation.

That's why I asked for details documenting what was actually prevented. Simply stating that someone made a claim of an impending attack while being tortured isn't, itself, particularly compelling.

There is a reason why detailed intelligence and corroborating evidence generally isn't released to the general public. If the government receives corroboration from agents either working for the USA or other intelligence agencies world wide, what happens when the release the source of that intelligence to the media? Intelligence networks are fragile and aren't built in a day. You don't tear them down to provide proof to the curious.

245 JarHeadLifer  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:40:59am

re: #46 Lucius Septimius

I actually have spent much of the last 6 or 7 years studying torture and its utility for information gathering. Short answer: it works, ...

I've noticed of late, that many of the "torture" critics have dropped the "and it doesn't work" argument prior to this WaPo story being published. It's been replaced with the "Even if it works, it doesn't mean we should do it" argument.

When the life of my children is on the line, I'm going to have to go with "anything that works, we should do" argument. The Constitution is not a suicide pact - we shouldn't forget it.

246 SteveC  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:41:07am

re: #243 DEZes

You want to know more, or just want more?

Join the Mobile Infantry!

247 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:41:36am

Water-boarding is more than "interrogation". It is torture.
We tortured people so that Americans would not die.
I have a certain amount of disdain for those who would allow Americans to die, rather than face the displeasure of international opinion.

Lives are more important that international popularity contests.

Guess what? We are not going to be allowed to win those anyway.

248 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:41:40am
249 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:42:11am

re: #215 Killgore Trout

It's actually a pretty reputable site and the article is factually accurate. I think the opposition to healthcare reform would be better if people were actually opposing things that are in the bill instead of imaginary provisions they make up themselves. Knowledge is power.

People could actaully oppose things that are in the bill if they knew what the bill meant.

The fact that the administration tried to ram this through before they read it and before there was time for anybody to read it made opposition difficult.

250 SteveC  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:42:49am

re: #244 Wendya

There is a reason why detailed intelligence and corroborating evidence generally isn't released to the general public. If the government receives corroboration from agents either working for the USA or other intelligence agencies world wide, what happens when the release the source of that intelligence to the media? Intelligence networks are fragile and aren't built in a day. You don't tear them down to provide proof to the curious. because you won.

Changed that just a little, hope that's ok.

251 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:42:50am
252 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:42:52am

re: #136 opnion

These people have no rights under the Geneva Convention. They are non-uniformed enemy combatants. We had every right to execute them.

The supreme court disagrees with you.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
[Link: www.hrweb.org...]

The 5th amendment:
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

253 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:43:10am

re: #249 reine.de.tout

People could actaully oppose things that are in the bill if they knew what the bill meant.

The fact that the administration tried to ram this through before they read it and before there was time for anybody to read it made opposition difficult.

And, hence, why should I trust the administration's word on a bill that they tried to force down our throats before there was ANY chance of debate, either in congress or the public at large?

254 Truck Monkey  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:43:17am

re: #248 buzzsawmonkey

The Mobile Infantry? Is this a Calder arms?

Pure pun genius. Upding!

255 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:43:23am
256 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:43:59am

re: #211 EmmmieG


I'm not sure sure there is an actual International agreement.

No, there isn't. There's no formal definition of what constitutes torture in the US, either. Here is an area where our Legislators have completely dropped the ball, because none of them wants to sign off on permitting techniques that may be repugnant to a majority of reasonable people, or which may lead to criticism at a later date that investigators were prevented from exercising all means of extracting information.

And yet, such a definition is precisely what is needed at this juncture, one that is detailed enough to prevent the use of techniques falling under it and to secure the prosecution of anyone who uses them in the future. A clear, unambiguous definition of what is permitted and what is not ought to be a simple matter to debate and craft.

But it won't be, because politicians are fundamentally craven, and the current ambiguity allows one side to claim that the other committed "torture" under the nebulous, almost non-existent definition that currently exists, while allowing the other side to claim that they didn't, by appealing to that same fuzziness and lack of clarity. It's an appalling failure of legislators to do the very job they were elected to perform, and instead turn such a serious matter into yet another political football.

257 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:44:23am

re: #252 keithgabryelski

From your 2nd link

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

258 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:44:25am

re: #245 JarHeadLifer

"Even if it works, it doesn't mean we should do it" argument.

Charles ran a thread about this a few days ago where it was revealed an interrogator had threatened the lives of KSM's children [ed. HE SPAWNED?!]. Someone posted that it made us no better than the Taliban.

Seriously.

The stench of moral vanity was strong with that one.

259 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:45:29am

re: #252 keithgabryelski

re: #257 sattv4u2

From your 2nd link

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

You DO know that we are "at war" with the terrorists, don't you?

260 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:46:12am

re: #224 SixDegrees

No, they almost certainly aren't. In fact, according to another poster some of this information led to the identification of "operatives" within the United States, where arrests are a matter of public record and where charges are filed publicly; evidence, also, both for and against the accused, is aired in public.

But if you have evidence that such information exists, yet has been classified, by all means present it.

Are we speaking of US Citizens, or foreign nationals? I believe there is a difference in how each are treated and the rights each has, constitutionally.

If you feel each should be trated the same, then you and I have a profound difference of opinion.

261 Pupdawg  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:46:50am

...brought to us "live" straight from the Oval Office, President Obama speaks, "my fellow comrades repeat after me, "I AM, I AM, I am the One, I am all-seeing, all-knowing, all all"...excuse me sir, wrong TeleP, Mr. P..."ummm, uhhh, errr, is it the one on the right or at the back of the room?"...back of the room one, Mr. P..."fellow comrades, terrorism does not exist, terror does no exist, terror never existed, evil and terror only exists in America, we are the world's terrorist and have been for over 1,000 years, there is no war on terror since terror does not exist, it makes no sense; therefore, as we know, if Chewbacha was a Wookie then why or how could he live with those little furry Ewok critters and that my minions don't make sense. Bush was and is evil and he was neither a Wookie nor Ewok but Bush made no sense either...after all, Bush caused all this mess in the first place and he is the reason you folks won't let my takeover of the health industry pass lickity split. In short, America, you all make no sense. Skateboarding, snowboarding, waterboarding...who actually cares what the X-Gamers are doing anyway. They make no sense! Thye CIA is evil. The CIA is a terrorist organization even in a time when terrorism does not exist, still. We must investigate the CIA before the Winter X-Games start and thus keep that evil waterboarding off our MTV...are they onboard? Do we have MTV MSMed yet or do we need to waterboard 'em?"

Yep, too much java, today.

262 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:47:09am

re: #252 keithgabryelski

The supreme court disagrees with you.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
[Link: www.hrweb.org...]

The 5th amendment:
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

Good points.

263 Wendya  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:47:14am

re: #191 J.D.

Eric Holder’s Hidden Agenda
The investigation isn’t about torture, but about transnationalism.

By Andrew C. McCarthy


Read the whole thing.

There will be another push from the far left for Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld to be tried as war criminals either here or abroad. I don't think Obama is quite stupid enough to let that happen but the discussion alone will be red meat to the frothing moonbats.

264 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:47:15am

re: #252 keithgabryelski


Ahah! A fact has creeped into the discussion!

265 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:47:42am

re: #99 Desert Dog

Your cake and eat it too then? Can you have one and then other? The world is full of mean and nasty people which mean to do us harm. Undermining, degrading and wounding the very agency that should be protecting us is also a risky proposition. I do not want us to sell our souls and become the monsters are are fighting. On the other hand, I do not want us so encumbered with restrictions it exposes us to harm. We have to walk a fine line when it comes to these matters. There are grey areas that have to be dealt with, yes?

I don't think the line is so fine. We have serial killers in the united states, and the police hold to the rule of law when they are caught.

Our constitution is not in trouble because we are attacked by third parties. That has happened in the past and we survive, and we will survive.
Ignoring the constitution, the basis for what this country was built on is a fundamental change that, I believe, is dire.

266 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:47:49am

re: #258 wahabicorridor

Someone posted that it made us no better than the Taliban.

Thats fine. I can live with that!

(key words being,,, I CAN LIVE)

267 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:49:06am

re: #209 keithgabryelski

It threatens our basic society to abandon the rule of law.

They waterboarded a total of three, count 'em three, HVTs with specific knowledge of imminent attacks and got the information that saved thousands of lives.

/spare me the sanctimonious rhetoric, as Justice Jackson once said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact

268 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:49:11am

re: #259 sattv4u2

re: #257 sattv4u2

You DO know that we are "at war" with the terrorists, don't you?

We are at war with all the people of the Third World. The capitalist imperialist racist clique that dominated American politics invented the war on "Terror" to mask its true aims to ensure the hegemony of western plutocratic elites. We are merely witnessing the desperate and justified resistance of indigenous peoples around the globe, the authentic voice or liberation from oppression.

/I hope this isn't necessary ...

269 SixDegrees  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:49:45am

re: #244 Wendya

There is a reason why detailed intelligence and corroborating evidence generally isn't released to the general public. If the government receives corroboration from agents either working for the USA or other intelligence agencies world wide, what happens when the release the source of that intelligence to the media? Intelligence networks are fragile and aren't built in a day. You don't tear them down to provide proof to the curious.

Again, the claim being made is that the information produced led to the discovery of "operatives" within the United States, where arrest and charges are conducted with full public disclosure.

What you're saying amounts to the statement, "Well, it works because we say it works," and when the people making that statement face possible criminal charges or public censure for taking such actions, it isn't hard to interpret such circular arguments as self-serving.

It isn't at all unreasonable to ask for proof that such statements are correct. If they are, it makes a forceful argument in favor of the use of torture. Claiming that the details need to remain secret, however, tends to do exactly the opposite.

270 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:49:52am

re: #209 keithgabryelski

It threatens our basic society to abandon the rule of law.

Abandon the rule of law? Where did that happen? The interrogations went by the book, a book written by lawyers. Do not confuse moral absolutism with the law. And this is all about legal conduct during a war - where we are beyond a criminal code.
You may, of course, like many on the left, wish to view international terrorism according to the paradigm of criminal law, not war. We are returning to that failed policy, I fear. No capital punishment, terrorists set free on compassionate grounds, terrorist trials dismissed for want of evidence...
According the presumption of innocence to our enemies may make Americans feel good about themselves, but it will certainly cheer up the terrorists too.

271 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:50:04am

re: #211 EmmmieG

Defined by the international community?


[Link: www.hrweb.org...]


In Europe, they just released a terrorist because he's "dying."

I don't think that was the right thing to do.

In the Middle east, if they leave you alive, count yourself lucky.

In Asia, if they leave your family alive, count yourself lucky.

In Africa...well, Africa.

Should we make those our bottom bar?

272 right_wing2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:50:31am

re: #252 keithgabryelski

The Supreme Court is often full of sh-t.

273 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:51:14am
274 FrogMarch  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:51:50am

ot: I don't know much about politics in Japan. But...

This AP "report" opens with:

Japan's ruling conservative party suffered a crushing defeat in elections Sunday as voters overwhelmingly cast their ballots in favor of a left-of-center opposition camp that has promised to rebuild the economy and breathe new life into the country after 54 years of virtual one-party rule, media projections said.

If you keep reading it says:

The opposition Democratic Party of Japan was set to win 300 of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament, ousting the Liberal Democrats, who have governed Japan for all but 11 months since 1955, according to projections by all major Japanese TV networks.

The vote was seen as a barometer of frustrations over Japan's worst economic slump since World War II and a loss of confidence in the ruling Liberal Democrats' ability to tackle tough problems such as the rising national debt and rapidly aging population.


...

So the Liberal Democrats are considered the conservatives?
Or is the AP simply trying to open the story with a misleading statement?

and then there's this:

"The ruling party has betrayed the people over the past four years, driving the economy to the edge of a cliff, building up more than 6 trillion yen ($64.1 billion) in public debt, wasting money, ruining our social security net and widening the gap between the rich and poor,"

hmmm... that Sounds familiar.

275 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:52:59am

re: #238 brookly red

Punch someone who dosen't consent: self defense

If they are no longer a threat, for instance: in your custody and in jail ... you can't punch them and call it self-defense.

276 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:53:10am

re: #252 keithgabryelski

The supreme court disagrees with you.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
[Link: www.hrweb.org...]
are we signatories to this UN resolution? /not supreme court
The 5th amendment:
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]are the subjects american citizens?

277 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:54:02am

re: #274 FrogMarch

So the Liberal Democrats are considered the conservatives?

Yep. And Taiwan is really worried. The new guys might want to cuddle up with China big time.

278 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:54:49am

re: #228 unrealizedviewpoint

That's the Left's cover: "rule of law".
The opponents of enhanced interrogations (the Left) knows the techniques work quite well - In a nut shell "they save American lives." Unfortunately, to the Left, the politics of enhanced interrogations is more important than the success-fullness of enhanced interrogations.

Armed forces field manuals disagree with you.

279 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:55:38am

re: #275 keithgabryelski

If they are no longer a threat, for instance: in your custody and in jail ... you can't punch them and call it self-defense.

Apples/ Oranges

1st and foremost, we are NOT talking about US citizens in jail for a civil or criminal charge

280 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:56:37am

re: #275 keithgabryelski

If they are no longer a threat, for instance: in your custody and in jail ... you can't punch them and call it self-defense.

Just because they themselves are in custody does not mean that their followers are not an active threat, the POS in question did not actually commit any attacks.

281 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:57:52am
282 Mich-again  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:58:22am

"Even if millions of lives are spared by the intelligence gathered in one second of waterboarding a terrorist it would not be worth it because America is not worth saving if that is how we must save it." That seems to sum up the logic of those horrified by the dunk and kerplunk tactics on terrorists.

How stupid is that bullshit line of thinking? Jeesh.

283 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:59:03am

re: #273 buzzsawmonkey

A gazillion updings for that.

284 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:59:22am

re: #282 Mich-again

How stupid is that bullshit line of thinking?

That's not just stupidity talking, that's vanity.

285 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:59:47am

re: #253 Lucius Septimius

And, hence, why should I trust the administration's word on a bill that they tried to force down our throats before there was ANY chance of debate, either in congress or the public at large?

exactly, thank you.

286 FrogMarch  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:59:58am

re: #277 wahabicorridor

Yep. And Taiwan is really worried. The new guys might want to cuddle up with China big time.

Not good. Taiwan must remain sovereign imo.

287 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:00:02am

re: #231 SixDegrees

Correct. See, once again, my quotes above from A Man For All Seasons, which makes plain why the law cannot simply be cast aside to satisfy the emotions and desires of the moment.

I trust you are not going to tout this religiously conceived parable as a slippery slope argument for the descent from legal interrogations to anarchy?

288 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:01:39am

re: #267 Killian Bundy

They waterboarded a total of three, count 'em three, HVTs with specific knowledge of imminent attacks and got the information that saved thousands of lives.

There is some disagreement with that statement.

/spare me the sanctimonious rhetoric, as Justice Jackson once said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact

The constitution wouldn't somehow explode in a fiery ball if we hadn't used these techniques.

289 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:02:48am

re: #288 keithgabryelski

The constitution wouldn't somehow explode in a fiery ball if we hadn't used these techniques.

But some buildings and bodies may very well have done just that.

290 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:02:51am

re: #281 buzzsawmonkey

There is no reason, basis or excuse for treating foreign-national prisoners of war like citizens convicted of a crime in a domestic court.

None.

strawman. I am not suggesting they be treated as U.S. citizens.
Neither is the Supreme Court.

291 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:02:56am

re: #287 shortshrift

I trust you are not going to tout this religiously conceived parable as a slippery slope argument for the descent from legal interrogations to anarchy?

Especially since it is based on a fictional view of More, who did, in fact, have no problem with burning heretics.

292 Wendya  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:02:56am

re: #256 SixDegrees

It's an appalling failure of legislators to do the very job they were elected to perform, and instead turn such a serious matter into yet another political football.

This is a serious matter and it has been turned into a political football. Enacting legislation providing full US civil rights to terrorists captured on foreign soil does not make this nation safer. Drawing a line in the sand and claiming we will never treat that same terrorist in a manner that causes physical or emotional discomfort would be a failure of their oath to protect this country.

293 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:03:14am

re: #288 keithgabryelski

The constitution wouldn't somehow explode in a fiery ball if we hadn't used these techniques.

No,, no, it wouldn't

But perhaps the Sears Tower in Chicago or The Golden Gate Bridge in SF would have!

294 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:03:18am
295 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:03:44am

re: #280 brookly red

Just because they themselves are in custody does not mean that their followers are not an active threat, the POS in question did not actually commit any attacks.

You're still not allowed to punch them.

296 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:03:58am

re: #288 keithgabryelski

The constitution wouldn't somehow explode in a fiery ball if we hadn't used these techniques.

No, but actual people would have been killed, quite possibly in a ball of fire.

297 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:04:44am
298 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:05:00am

re: #290 keithgabryelski

strawman. I am not suggesting they be treated as U.S. citizens.
Neither is the Supreme Court.

Then please answer the question I posed upthread

How would you get actionable intel from a detainee? And please show where that has worked, because we can show where the waterboarding has!

299 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:05:10am

re: #289 wahabicorridor

But some buildings and bodies may very well have done just that.

We sacrifice some security for our principles. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I'm sure we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.

300 Mich-again  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:05:24am

re: #288 keithgabryelski

The constitution wouldn't somehow explode in a fiery ball if we hadn't used these techniques.

No but perhaps thousands of people would have.

301 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:05:57am

You know how you can just feel eyes boring into the back of your head?

It's dinner time for the Fat Beagle, and she's being mighty polite about it, she wants me to know.

302 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:05:57am

re: #288 keithgabryelski

There is some disagreement with that statement

Right, multiple commercial aircraft raining down on Los Angeles and London, no big deal.

/you'll notice KSM didn't give up jack [expletive deleted] until he was waterboarded

303 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:06:57am

re: #299 keithgabryelski

We sacrifice some security for our principles. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I'm sure we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.

I'll sacrifice some security for our principles. What I will NOT do is sacrifice our security for "their" principles

304 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:07:05am

re: #299 keithgabryelski

We sacrifice some security for our principles

Your kids first, asshole.

off to feed the dog.

305 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:07:24am

re: #298 sattv4u2

Then please answer the question I posed upthread

How would you get actionable intel from a detainee? And please show where that has worked, because we can show where the waterboarding has!

If it is against the law, you wouldn't use the technique. Simple as that.

If that means you don't get some information -- well that sucks, but it is the law we request other countries live by.

306 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:07:52am

re: #304 wahabicorridor

Your kids first, asshole.

off to feed the dog.

Let's at least be civil.

307 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:08:28am

re: #288 keithgabryelski

The constitution wouldn't somehow explode in a fiery ball if we hadn't used these techniques.


And it didn't go kaplooey because we did either.

308 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:10:25am

re: #305 keithgabryelski

If it is against the law, you wouldn't use the technique. Simple as that.

If that means you don't get some information -- well that sucks, but it is the law we request other countries live by.

Well then, to be consistant, the next time 19 guys from say Newark fly planes into Mecca killing thousands of civilians I won't make a PEEP when their planner is waterboarded by Muslims to prevent further attacks!

309 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:11:08am
310 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:11:10am

re: #299 keithgabryelski

We sacrifice some security for our principles. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I'm sure we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how calmly you state that "We sacrifice some security for our principles"

You would be in favor of absorbing a major terrorist attack in lieu of waterboarding?

311 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:11:12am

re: #305 keithgabryelski

If it is against the law, you wouldn't use the technique. Simple as that.

If that means you don't get some information -- well that sucks, but it is the law we request other countries live by.

Terrorists are non-state actors. And the states which support them may be signatories to the Geneva convention, but they are not so picky when it comes to abiding by the letter of the law. Do you really think that the "law" protects captured American soldiers?

312 rightymouse  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:11:33am

re: #294 buzzsawmonkey

Thank you. I want as many people a possible to realize that the "you're undermining the Constitution!" argument which the Left has been using is fatally flawed, since the Leftist push for extending all rights of civilian citizenship to all people regardless of their actual legal status is, in fact, a huge push at completely undermining the Constitution by destroying the distinctions that document takes great pains to lay out carefully.

The Left should be seen as undermining the Constitution in all its aspects with this argument.

Absolutely!

313 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:11:53am

re: #305 keithgabryelski

re: #308 sattv4u2

Well then, to be consistant, the next time 19 guys from say Newark fly planes into Mecca killing thousands of civilians I won't make a PEEP when their planner is waterboarded by Muslims to prevent further attacks!

and I STILL didn't get an answer to # 298

314 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:12:10am

re: #276 swamprat

The supreme court disagrees with you.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
[Link: www.hrweb.org...]
are we signatories to this UN resolution?

Yes.


The 5th amendment:
[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]are the subjects american citizens?

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

315 Wendya  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:12:27am

re: #299 keithgabryelski

We sacrifice some security for our principles. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I'm sure we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.

To be honest, your position on the treatment of terrorists is troubling to me. If it were just your family that would suffer the consequences I would just shake my head in disgust but if you suggest that it is better for thousands of citizens to die than for one terrorist to be placed in an uncomfortable or humiliating situation... that's just absurd.

316 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:13:30am

re: #299 keithgabryelski

We sacrifice some security for our principles. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I'm sure we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.

When the first planes flew into the towers, I can recall thinking to myself, my goodness - where did they find empty airplanes? Because the thought that they might have used airplanes full of people, men, women and children just going about their business, looking forward to a trip somewhere - well, that thought was one I could not even comprehend, an idea so evil to me that I just could not imagine that anyone would have done that.

But that is indeed exactly what they did.

For people like that, I am completely unwilling to sacrifice the security of my family, good people all. And if the person who planned the evil event described above is waterboarded to produce information that will prevent future events, I can live with that.

317 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:13:32am

re: #314 keithgabryelski

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

OH MY GAWD

Are you saying that the framers intent was for the Constitution Of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was meant to cover NON-citizens?

318 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:13:46am

re: #311 shortshrift

Terrorists are non-state actors unlawful combatants.

/entitled to noithing more than execution under the Geneva conventions

319 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:13:51am

It's a fabulous thing that Bush recognized he was responsible for American lives, and not so much for the terrorists (or non-American citizens who killed American citizens, I guess I should clarify that) rights.
I've heard the old song that security is an illusion spinblabblah.

The last 8 years have been one helluva magic trick, then.

320 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:14:46am

re: #281 buzzsawmonkey

There is no reason, basis or excuse for treating foreign-national prisoners of war like citizens convicted of a crime in a domestic court.

None.

I would add that they don't even qualify for prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions.

321 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:14:48am

re: #309 buzzsawmonkey

Dred Scott ... Plessy vs. Ferguson ...

Any number of thoroughly rotten Supreme court decisions come to mind.

322 Mich-again  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:15:01am

re: #305 keithgabryelski

If it is against the law, you wouldn't use the technique. Simple as that.

There is nothing at all simple about what is and isn't against the law in these matters.

323 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:16:48am

re: #311 shortshrift

Terrorists are non-state actors. And the states which support them may be signatories to the Geneva convention, but they are not so picky when it comes to abiding by the letter of the law. Do you really think that the "law" protects captured American soldiers?

It's not a tit for tat thing.

We don't give up on the Geneva conventions because someone else violates them.

324 Killian Bundy  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:16:58am

re: #322 Mich-again

There is nothing at all simple about what is and isn't against the law in these matters.

/especially since the interrogators were operating under legal opinions promulgated by the Justice department

325 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:17:14am
326 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:17:32am

re: #322 Mich-again

There is nothing at all simple about what is and isn't against the law in these matters.

We agree it isn't simple. We disagree about the law.

327 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:18:07am

re: #317 sattv4u2

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

OH MY GAWD

Are you saying that the framers intent was for the Constitution Of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was meant to cover NON-citizens?

"We the People" referred specifically to the citizens of the United States of America, as it was constituted at that moment in time. It did not refer to "the People" in some generalized way. The preamble to the constitution is conceived as a articulating the Lockean moment whereby the individual citizens (in this case through their elected representatives in the states) formally recognized the rationale and methods for constituting an orderly body politic and a system of governance to ensure the rights and defend the lives and property of it's citizens.

328 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:18:51am

re: #324 Killian Bundy

/especially since the interrogators were operating under legal opinions promulgated by the Justice department

Just read any Souter opinion/dissent and you'll find no shortage of faulty reasoning.

329 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:19:34am

re: #323 keithgabryelski

It's not a tit for tat thing.

We don't give up on the Geneva conventions because someone else violates them.

well I don't know about that... doesn't a treaty dissolve when one side chooses not to abide by it?

330 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:19:49am

re: #325 buzzsawmonkey

True, but I was trying to call to mind a few within recent memory, without calling up the spectre of Roe v. Wade.

The University of Michigan case -- the undergraduate one -- is a perfect muddle of legal irreason.

331 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:20:36am

re: #299 keithgabryelski

We sacrifice some security for our principles. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I'm sure we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.

This whole issue is about line-drawing. It is a legal exercise.
The interrogations techniques were this side of the line. Political hacks are trying to re-draw the line retrospectively to place the techniques outside it. These hacks have only one guiding moral idea: everything Bush did in prosecuting the war was wrong.

332 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:20:50am

re: #314 keithgabryelski

Just to revisit your Supreme Court posting, The Court as you know lacks infallibility.As an example I am sure that you would disagree with the DRed Scott Decision. Further it appears that the Court is talking about American soil, which Gitmo is not.
The "persons" referred to in the 5th Amendment are widely held to mean citizens. The document was crafted for citizens.

333 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:20:50am

Crapola. I did the "it's" for the possessive didn't I? Darn it all to heck.

334 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:21:25am

re: #46 Lucius Septimius

I actually have spent much of the last 6 or 7 years studying torture and its utility for information gathering. Short answer: it works, but the effectiveness depends heavily on who's asking the questions. An interrogator who is working from a seriously flawed point of view will only get information that supports that viewpoint. There are, on the other hand, examples of the use of torture in interrogation that did yield good evidence, but that was on account of the skill and openmindeness (I know -- that seems like an odd word) of the interrogators.

Interestingly enough, there are studies that show that much of the sort of "interview" techniques used to question children who have allegedly been abused operate on a psychological level in much the same way as physical torture. And the results show that the more ideologically blinkered the "therapist" the more likely the results will be totally wrong.

Torture is a malleable word. Its meaning can be stretched, truncated, and generally tortured into meaning anything its interrogator wants it to say.

Interrogation techniques that stretch and truncate the subject until he'll say anything, tell you nothing. What's more, they fall into a different ethical category from interrogation techniques that wear down a man, for the time being, without breaking him for good or disabling his ability to form a coherent and truthful account of what you want to know.

Free men and women will from time to time embark upon adventures or work that involves enormous physical hardship, severe sleep deprivation, hunger, or the probability of severe pain. During all this they remain, at some level, in command of their own mind and able to make effective decisions. They are not broken by their ordeal.

Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and so on, are far from the worst of all possible fates. While we would prefer to be nice to our prisoners, and we ought to be very nice to those who cooperate, and decent to those who probably know nothing vital, military necessity has its demands. Our special forces guys sign up for training that they know will include practice in resisting these forms of interrogation. They also know that it's humanly impossible to resist forever. If they think so going in, they know better coming out.

Clearly, they don't sign on for training that will leave them sobbing wrecks, broken forever in mind and body. They don't sign on for training where the capstone of the course is getting beheaded. There's a big difference between "torture" and the fate our terrorist enemies routinely mete out to any high value subject they can get their hands on.

335 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:21:42am

re: #314 keithgabryelski

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

So if they have 5th amendment rights, do they not also have 2nd amendment rights?

336 walter cronanty  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:22:13am

re: #306 keithgabryelski

Please state the law broken by employing waterboarding. There is a political debate as to whether waterboarding is torture, but no law. And your citation to the 5tth Amendment to US Constitution and the UN does not support your contention that the "Supreme Court" disagrees. In fact the cite you gave re: the UN does not indicate that the US has ratified the agreement. We're talking about non-uniformed terrorists, not WWII prisoners of war.

337 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:22:23am
338 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:23:28am

re: #337 buzzsawmonkey

Put your degree on the table, please, and take three steps backwards.

You'll pry my degree from my cold dead hands!

339 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:23:53am

re: #314 keithgabryelski

re: #335 swamprat

So if they have 5th amendment rights, do they not also have 2nd amendment rights?

What about the 15th amendment. Does KSM have thre right to VOTE in US elections!?!?!

340 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:24:06am

re: #328 Lucius Septimius

Just read any Souter opinion/dissent and you'll find no shortage of faulty reasoning.

Try to make sense of Roe v Wade. There is no Fourth Amendment right to abortion. Even many juists that like the decision agree that it is bad law.

341 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:24:07am

re: #317 sattv4u2

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

OH MY GAWD

Are you saying that the framers intent was for the Constitution Of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was meant to cover NON-citizens?

"All men are endowed ..." is hard to argue with.

But, yeah ... I think the framers thought about it ... and it probably has some connection to previous law-charters (the Maga Carta, for one).

I don't know the intricacies, but you don't get to beat a man because he is in this country illegally.

342 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:24:18am

re: #335 swamprat


re: #314 keithgabryelski

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

Wonder how their voting demographic shapes up?

343 MacDuff  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:24:41am

re: #326 keithgabryelski

We agree it isn't simple. We disagree about the law.

You know, the law is not always the ultimate arbiter that you purport it to be and methinks that is the problem with your position.

At one time, "The Law" held that slavery was legal. Given that, would you hold that slaves were no less that property, and they only became human beings when the law was changed?

Laws change, basic morality does not. You would do well to contemplate the difference.

344 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:25:10am

re: #306 keithgabryelski

Let's at least be civil.


Ok, how 'bout this?

You sacrifice YOUR security for MY principles.

Pretty much sums up your position, I think.

345 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:25:25am

re: #341 keithgabryelski

"All men are endowed ..." is hard to argue with.

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The former has no legal standing, important historical document though it is.

346 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:25:39am

re: #339 sattv4u2

re: #335 swamprat

What about the 15th amendment. Does KSM have thre right to VOTE in US elections!?!?!

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You should at least look up your references before posting.

347 HelloDare  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:25:56am

Christopher Hitchens volunteered to be waterboarded. He described it as torture. Yet, after submitting to it once, he volunteered to have it done again. What does this say about waterboarding? What does this say about Hitchens? Is he a masochist? Does that explain it? /

And so then I said, with slightly more bravado than was justified, that I’d like to try it one more time. There was a paramedic present who checked my racing pulse and warned me about adrenaline rush. An interval was ordered, and then I felt the mask come down again. Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex.


And there is this:

According to the International Red Cross documents that were recently released, which quote KSM and other detainees describing their interrogations, KSM says he told by his interrogators that he would not die. With the release of the OLC memos, we know why: one of the red lines that, if crossed, would have made the techniques torture under US law was whether the detainees thought they were in danger of death. That is why they were told specifically they would not die. So both the trainee and detainee know they will survive.

348 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:26:40am

re: #345 Lucius Septimius

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The former has no legal standing, important historical document though it is.

I quoted that for context (which is reasonable, no)?

Otherwise I would just say: "people" there are no qualifiers, when in other amendments there are qualifiers.

349 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:26:51am

re: #278 keithgabryelski

Armed forces field manuals disagree with you.

Armed forces field manuals are for military 'in the field'. An untrained interrogator performing the techniques would in 'most cases' serve no purpose, probably not work. Hence the manual - prohibiting interrogation in the field. Let's leave interrogations up to trained professionals with Executive case by case approval.

350 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:27:24am
351 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:28:05am

re: #341 keithgabryelski

"All men are endowed ..." is hard to argue with.

But, yeah ... I think the framers thought about it ... and it probably has some connection to previous law-charters (the Maga Carta, for one).

I don't know the intricacies, but you don't get to beat a man because he is in this country illegally.


Come on , in the country illegaly is an odious comparison to a terrorist with intel in custody.
If the framers crafted the Constitution to include non-citizens, I suspect strongly that they would have been clear.

352 drogheda  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:28:07am

re: #329 brookly red

The Geneva Conventions apply to signatory nations without regard to whether or not their opponent is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions or not; and whether or not their opponent adheres to or violates the Geneva Conventions.

353 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:28:30am

re: #340 opnion

Try to make sense of Roe v Wade. There is no Fourth Amendment right to abortion. Even many juists that like the decision agree that it is bad law.

'Penumbras' and 'emanations' make for bad law?

Whod'a guessed...

354 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:28:39am

re: #344 wahabicorridor

Ok, how 'bout this?

You sacrifice YOUR security for MY principles.

Pretty much sums up your position, I think.

That is better. Thank you.

But, I would hope we could agree on what our collective principles are. That may not be possible, but we do have a Supreme Court to give us some guidance.

355 lostlakehiker  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:29:00am

re: #323 keithgabryelski

It's not a tit for tat thing.

We don't give up on the Geneva conventions because someone else violates them.

The Geneva conventions apply to some situations but not others. Spies and saboteurs are not protected. The Geneva conventions put no restriction on what the State may do with prisoners taken while engaged in such activities.

Traditionally, they are either killed out of hand, tried and executed, or interrogated as severely as may seem expedient, then killed if they are of no further use. This is what the whole history of war records, including the actions of many signatories, before and after the Geneva conventions were ratified.

Terrorists occupy a bit of a middle ground. When they are acting as insurgents on some battlefield in Afghanistan, they more nearly approximate enemy soldiers than they do spies or saboteurs. When they are executing a 9/11 style attack, or masterminding one, they fit nicely into the category of saboteur.

356 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:29:11am

re: #341 keithgabryelski

"All men are endowed ..." is hard to argue with.

But, yeah ... I think the framers thought about it ... and it probably has some connection to previous law-charters (the Maga Carta, for one).

I don't know the intricacies, but you don't get to beat a man because he is in this country illegally.

How do you grant "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to a friggin Prisoner Of War?

357 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:29:34am
358 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:29:51am

re: #353 Van Helsing

'Penumbras' and 'emanations' make for bad law?

Whod'a guessed...

Shocka!

359 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:30:40am
360 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:31:00am

re: #352 drogheda

thanks. I did not know that.

361 shortshrift  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:31:01am

re: #323 keithgabryelski

It's not a tit for tat thing.

We don't give up on the Geneva conventions because someone else violates them.

You are a wag. What do we do when a nation - or otherwise - declares war on us in violation of the conventions and fights with methods not anticipated by them?
Treaties do not become unilaterally binding when the other party abrogates it.
Treaties between two parties do not compel either party to conform to it with respect to non-signatory third parties.
The Geneva conventions, any UN declaration, any treaty, and the Constitution are not suicide pacts.

362 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:31:14am

re: #350 buzzsawmonkey

I am sick and tired of people quoting the Declaration of Independence and thinking that:

a) They are really quoting the Constitution, or

b) That the Declaration has any legal significance in American law.

I quoted it for context, just like I mentioned the magna carta.

Both are interesting to help gain an understanding of what the founders' were talking about when they were writing the constitution.

I promise I won't try to catch you in nits for this discussion, if you promise to do the same.

363 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:31:22am

re: #317 sattv4u2

The fifth amendment doesn't specify "citizens only". It says "people".

OH MY GAWD

Are you saying that the framers intent was for the Constitution Of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was meant to cover NON-citizens?

Actually yes. Inside the USA everyone, illegal or not, is covered. But in this case we are talking about 'captured on the battlefield non-combatants' who are NOT protected by the Constitution.

364 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:31:58am

re: #363 unrealizedviewpoint

non-combatants = enemy combatants

365 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:32:46am
366 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:32:48am

re: #356 swamprat

How do you grant "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to a friggin Prisoner Of War?

you don't. no one is saying you do. if someone does something against the law there is a process to deal with them. That process IS NOT against constitution.

367 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:32:49am

re: #359 buzzsawmonkey

I am quoting keithgabryelski.

368 Wendya  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:33:20am

re: #323 keithgabryelski

It's not a tit for tat thing.

We don't give up on the Geneva conventions because someone else violates them.

How can al Qaeda violate the Geneva Conventions? They are not a signatory. We have no treaty with them.

369 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:33:32am

re: #356 swamprat

How do you grant "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to a friggin Prisoner Of War?

If I may? Don't you know that these so called terrorists are just misunderstanding Islam? So if we would just stop harassing them for info & simply capitulate to Sharia Law, all will be well & they will like us & you know go the uh, you know real Islam.

370 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:33:47am
371 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:34:12am

re: #341 keithgabryelski

"All men are endowed ..." is hard to argue with.

Actually, it is VERY easy too

#1) thats from the Dec Of Independnce.
#2) WHO were THE PEOPLE
#3_ who were they DECLARING THEIR INDEPENDENCE from ,,, Horses? Sheep? Turkeys?

If it was menat for ALL people (regardless of citizenry) please answer #3

372 Van Helsing  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:35:40am

re: #341 keithgabryelski

"All men are endowed ..." is hard to argue with.

But, yeah ... I think the framers thought about it ... and it probably has some connection to previous law-charters (the Maga Carta, for one).

I don't know the intricacies, but you don't get to beat a man because he is in this country illegally.

I don't know the intricacies, but you don't get to beat a man because he is in this country illegally.

Pretty big difference between that and non-uniformed armed combatants on the battlefield.

Please read the Conventions. Here: Reference It's got a convenient reference section.

Pay particular attention to how combatants are required to be identifiable and be part of a chain of command.

I would propose that if your enemy chooses not to follow these protocols it is the OBLIGATION of the legitimate combatants to remind them of the consequences for not doing so.

373 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:37:47am

re: #370 buzzsawmonkey


He started in with; "all men are endowed"
The whole of the sentence is;

all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

374 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:38:16am

And while the legal language and morality of KSM being waterboarded and not having HBO in HD goes on, the plots continue to be hatched, the money continues to be funneled, the people moved around.

What a menu they have to choose from.
They're probably retaining lawyers as we speak.

375 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:38:51am

re: #354 keithgabryelski

But, I would hope we could agree on what our collective principles are.

Apparently not. I think you and I are in entirely different foxholes.

376 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:42:40am

Ok, I've got to put some time in on this health care doc, which I mean to post before I go fishing tonight.

Please excuse me for not answering followups until later.

377 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:42:49am

re: #375 wahabicorridor

Apparently not. I think you and I are in entirely different foxholes.

Without getting overly dramatic, 9/11 gave me a whole new perspective.
Hearing the thuds on the sidewalk, realising that they were people, people who decided to jump rather than burn to death, gave me a bad attitude.
These are sub-human creatures that we are dealing with, not honorable
enemy soldiers.
I say again, we had every right to execute them.

378 sattv4u2  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:43:23am

I am so tired of hearing this "Moral Superiority" argument

I often womder what those 3 thousand+ people that got slaughtered on 9/11 would have said on 9/10 if they had found out that the CIA had an Al Q member in detention, had waterboareded him and had found out and thwarted the 9/11 attack by assasinating the 19 would be hijackers. Think they would have traded off ANYTHING for that?

379 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:43:54am

re: #376 keithgabryelski

Ok, I've got to put some time in on this health care doc, which I mean to post before I go fishing tonight.

Please excuse me for not answering followups until later.

Bye, keith, and thanks for your work on that doc, it's been very helpful.

380 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:44:57am

re: #348 keithgabryelski

I quoted that for context (which is reasonable, no)?

Otherwise I would just say: "people" there are no qualifiers, when in other amendments there are qualifiers.

Context is important, but it is debatable how relevant the Declaration is for understanding the Constitution, at least in this sense.

The Declaration is written to provide justification for rebellion -- the opening makes that clear: "When... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, ... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." The point of the declaration is not to establish the new form of government so much as to express reasons for dissolving the form of government that existed.

The Articles of Confederation, the form of government established in conjunction with the Declaration (albeit a bit later) is pretty clear on who is covered by the agreement:

Article IV.

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;

It's hard to see how terrorists would not be "excepted" under those laws. In any event "free inhabitants" and "we the people" are essentially the same -- the legal residents and citizens of the states that comprised the federal union. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution applied strictly to those individuals, not to "the People" or "Human kind" at large.

Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the other founders were comfortable with that distinction. This is why there is no "universal rights of man" articulated in the Constitution or its amendments.

381 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:48:28am

re: #377 opnion

Without getting overly dramatic, 9/11 gave me a whole new perspective.
Hearing the thuds on the sidewalk, realising that they were people, people who decided to jump rather than burn to death, gave me a bad attitude.
These are sub-human creatures that we are dealing with, not honorable
enemy soldiers.
I say again, we had every right to execute them.

I wasn't in NYC that day. I had taken the day off work to catch up with some paperwork at home. I was watching the Towers burn when I thought a train must have been derailed from some tracks that run a mile or two from our house. Then I heard a plane was headed to the Capitol - where my husband was working that day. Then I saw the smoke, black and oily.

It wasn't a train. It was the Pentagon. And I couldn't find my husband who had to travel right by it to get to the Hill. The the Saudis that worked at the embassy disappeared - for weeks - before I found my husband.

WAterboard away...

382 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:51:11am

re: #377 opnion

Without getting overly dramatic, 9/11 gave me a whole new perspective.
Hearing the thuds on the sidewalk, realising that they were people, people who decided to jump rather than burn to death, gave me a bad attitude.
These are sub-human creatures that we are dealing with, not honorable
enemy soldiers.
I say again, we had every right to execute them.

Thank you for putting it out there... as I said up-stream some people seem to have forgotten why these folks are being interrogated in the first place.

383 J.S.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:58:09am

Canada's Supreme Court made a ruling (quite some time ago) that as soon as anyone steps foot on Canadian soil, he/she instantly becomes the equivalent to a Canadian citizen -- sans distinction (with the possible exception of voting -- even that one, btw, is being undermined). It's an utterly ridiculous ruling. The terrorists can then turn around and sue the Feds for allegations of torture, etc. (I wonder if this isn't the same goal for certain lawyers in the United States -- to grant the terrorists legal rights, the same as those of U.S. citizens, then allow "torture" lawsuits -- it'd be a quick enrichment scheme -- all terrorists and their supporters awarded millions in "compensation," etc.)

384 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:58:30am

re: #333 Lucius Septimius

Crapola. I did the "it's" for the possessive didn't I? Darn it all to heck.

It's OK.
Cato is still sleeping

385 rumcrook  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:58:40am

I read thru the whole argument with grabasski or what ever his name is,

and one thing he wouldnt address which is telling, is why he is so willing to sacrifice innocent lives.

to treat treaties and the constitution as a suicide pact.

twist the constitution into a free pass for evil dooers.

the geneva convention into an unfair advantage for the molevelant destroyers of the world who are outside of our society trying to kill us.

he wants us to be civil to him, but he tacitly admits we might have to "break a few eggs"

and those "eggs are our loved ones. like my daughter.

those who are kind to the evil dooers of this world are often harmful to the innocent.

386 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 11:59:13am

re: #384 reine.de.tout

heh!

387 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:00:57pm

re: #384 reine.de.tout

It's OK.
Cato is still sleeping

Really? SARAH PALIN!

388 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:01:37pm
389 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:02:08pm

re: #382 brookly red

Thank you for putting it out there... as I said up-stream some people seem to have forgotten why these folks are being interrogated in the first place.

Thank you for your thank you. I will never forget my shock & anger.

390 opnion  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:03:22pm

re: #381 wahabicorridor

I wasn't in NYC that day. I had taken the day off work to catch up with some paperwork at home. I was watching the Towers burn when I thought a train must have been derailed from some tracks that run a mile or two from our house. Then I heard a plane was headed to the Capitol - where my husband was working that day. Then I saw the smoke, black and oily.

It wasn't a train. It was the Pentagon. And I couldn't find my husband who had to travel right by it to get to the Hill. The the Saudis that worked at the embassy disappeared - for weeks - before I found my husband.

WAterboard away...

I agree.

391 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:06:29pm

re: #389 opnion

Thank you for your thank you. I will never forget my shock & anger.

I had no shock only anger. And with the way things are I won't be shocked, God forbid, the next time either.

392 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:06:39pm

re: #388 buzzsawmonkey

That's just America's chickensss, comin' home to roost with the little Eichmanns, according to prevailing attitudes.

So, so passe.

There are some people who are very fortunate they've never ended up in my physical presence. I may be older than dirt and I may be small, but 125 pounds of pissed off ain't nuthin.

(The Saudis next door, btw, were not so fortunate - but that's another story).

And for my husband's friend, who was lost on the plane flown into the Pentagon:

RIP Barbra Olsen.

393 brookly red  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:10:32pm

and btw with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, I find this whole matter particularly distasteful.

394 Perplexed  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:12:35pm

re: #118 sattv4u2

And the point is ,,,???

Sleep deprivation isn't always harmless.

395 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:12:39pm

re: #393 brookly red

and btw with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, I find this whole matter particularly distasteful.

Don't worry -- it'll now become a "national day of service." That way it will be more "inclusive" and no one's feelings will get hurt.

396 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:14:19pm

gotta go, the day is a-waning - or something - I just made it up, m'kay?

397 BigRedGulp  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:15:06pm

As the 2nd or 3rd commentor suspected, lib heads are exploding at a pleasantly alarming rate. Their beloved WaPo has betrayed them. "Please don't say that KSM only cooperated after his mellow got harshed. That would ruin our narrative and the evil BushHitler may escape justice." They're like kids who just learned that Daddy and Mommy are Santa Claus and are gonna hold their breath until reality changes.

Riene.de.tout (and Tony Blair, for that matter) point out (correctly) that 9/11 was a new kind of inhumanity. If there is nothing that islamists won't do, we have to assure that they can't do anything. And BTW, it is from the leftist lexicon that we get the phrase, "by any means necessary."

398 Flyovercountry  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:18:55pm

re: #89 SixDegrees

Is this documented anywhere? What targets were neutralized, what plots were foiled? How, exactly, did the information extracted through torture lead to these outcomes?

Try to keep up. This entire thread is about just such documentation. Go to google and try a search. You rememind me of the creationists, "How do you know scientists are right," meme. I and probably nobody else has the time and inclination to go over and over again the same ground with you which has been reported and documented ad nausium. You will just be asking the same silly questions again in the next thread.

399 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:19:43pm
400 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:21:12pm

re: #399 buzzsawmonkey

I still would like to see my dream memorial built on the site: a scale model of the towers in stainless steel surrounded by the other buildings that were there at the time, to scale, in bronze, set in a plaza paved with a terrazzo map of lower Manhattan and the surrounding water & land, so that people could walk through lower Manhattan like giants.

The towers would be depicted right after the second plane hit; pieces of both planes would be protruding, and there would be a perpetual flame in each of them.

The names of the victims would be inscribed on the retaining wall around the plaza. If the names of the hijackers were included, they would be on the ground so that visitors walked on them.

Now that would be a memorial.

Yes it would; but it'll never happen. We're not supposed to remember what actually happened and who was responsible.

401 Lucius Septimius  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:22:20pm

Gotta go do stuff. Yuck.

402 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:24:07pm

re: #394 Perplexed

Sleep deprivation isn't always harmless.

All through my 20's I was sleep deprived, mostly on the weekends.

403 [deleted]  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 12:24:57pm
404 right_on_target  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:04:02pm

re: #249 reine.de.tout

People could actaully oppose things that are in the bill if they knew what the bill meant.

The fact that the administration tried to ram this through before they read it and before there was time for anybody to read it made opposition difficult.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you can get a copy of yesterday's New Orleans Times Picayune, check out the Steve Kelley cartoon. His words mirror yours.

BTW: For some reason, the link online for the past week has it omitted.
[Link: blog.nola.com...]

405 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:13:34pm

re: #220 DEZes

I need to know only one thing, that I am tired of despots voting their way into my wallet.

Hear! Hear!

They'd like to have us pay more to get less, and additionally, they would like for us to pretend not to notice.

406 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:16:07pm

re: #404 right_on_target

This one is great.
At the Car Wash

407 J.D.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:22:52pm

re: #267 Killian Bundy

They waterboarded a total of three, count 'em three, HVTs with specific knowledge of imminent attacks and got the information that saved thousands of lives.

/spare me the sanctimonious rhetoric, as Justice Jackson once said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact


Thank you.

408 Korla Pundit  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:23:01pm

Whatever somebody's feelings are on waterboarding terrorists to prevent massacres, it should be acknowledged that the Bush administration went to great lengths to find its way in untested and murky legal waters. I think from the layers of documentation it is clear that they wanted to use this method only as a last resort, with medical oversight, with legal advice from its top lawyers, and even briefing key Congressmen of both parties. They only used it on three known foreign Al Qaeda leaders with knowledge of the organization and ongoing terror operations. The way it is described by Democrats as all-out and widespread abandonment of American principles, the shredding of the Constitution, the violation of international treaties, and a close comparison to both Abu Graib and to Al Qaeda itself is irresponsible and unfair.

I'm just glad I was not in Bush's shoes or in those of the CIA, who all knew they might miss the next attack.

409 J.S.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:41:15pm
Will the case of Mohammed Jawad, arrested around age 12, tortured and held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and then Guantanamo Bay for the next six and a half years with no reliable evidence he’d committed a crime, be any different?

Eric Montalvo, one of Jawad’s military defense lawyers who recently entered private practice and paid his own way to accompany Jawad back home earlier this week, hopes he’ll have a better case. The fact that a U.S. military judge confirmed that Jawad was tortured by Afghan authorities, then interrogated under a range of abusive and threatening conditions by U.S. authorities, could help.

From the "Washington Independent" link here.

410 yesandno  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:42:42pm

re: #22 MandyManners

This...this is an asset?

Someone is going to sue the Hairclub for Men!

411 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:51:05pm

re: #409 J.S.

From the "Washington Independent" link here.

Eric Montalvo, one of Jawad’s military defense lawyers who recently entered private practice and paid his own way to accompany Jawad back home earlier this week, hopes he’ll have a better case. The fact that a U.S. military judge confirmed that Jawad was tortured by Afghan authorities, then interrogated under a range of abusive and threatening conditions by U.S. authorities, could help.


not tortured by U.S.
412 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 1:57:41pm

re: #385 rumcrook

I read thru the whole argument with grabasski or what ever his name is,

It's Gabryelski. It's easy enough to learn a copy/paste operation if remembering ten letters is too difficult. If either of those are too difficult possibly you should reconsider this whole internet thing as it relates to your personal interactions with others.

and one thing he wouldnt address which is telling, is why he is so willing to sacrifice innocent lives.

I try not to dodge questions, and your attempt at discrediting me falls a little flat given my interactions on this and other threads.

I am claiming that we live in a society with inherent risks. Some of them are directly obvious and related to a specific action of the risk taker: if you drive a car, you may get into a car crash.

There are other risks that come at the sacrifice of one's life even if they don't drive a car: walking across the street.

We consider these to be acceptable risks. Mostly because the number of deaths isn't high enough for there to be wide-spread outrage about something that is an incredibly useful tool.

It is no less tragic when someone dies in a car accident, your daughter being a possible victim; my son being another possibility.

We live in a free society where serial killers snatch people off the street and some eat their prey. We could employ measures to track everyone and monitor all people's movements to stop these heinous acts, but we don't. Is that because we want to cannibalized? Am I hoping your daughter or my son is taken from us? Obviously not.

We teach them to be as safe as they can be, give them cell phones, beg them to call at regular intervals, and pray the 1% of 1% does not happen.

For some it does happen, and we cry, and pray, and pray again that it does not happen to us.

Terrorist attacks happen in this country, and will happen again. We do what we can to protect ourselves while leaving the ability for our society to function. Laws guide us in this respect. We change them when it needs be, add, and even drop some, over time ... but we generally try to follow them.

You claim that I want to sacrifice your daughter by reducing security. I claim the hatred we've garnered from Guantanamo has reduced our security. I claim we are not looking big picture which could help save American lives, including your daughter's, over the long term.

413 Korla Pundit  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 2:12:54pm

> I claim the hatred we've garnered from Guantanamo has reduced our security.

I reject this notion that somehow we are more hated or less secure than we were when these people were plotting 9/11, specifically because of Guantanamo. And even if it were true, which it isn't, it would be because the anti-Bush people exaggerated the claims of torture and inflated it into something akin to concentration camps and a war on Islam.

In reality, as prisons go, it is not some horror. But going the other direction now, giving foreign terrorists miranda rights, we are going to be despised as weak and pathetic and seen again as an easy target.

414 haakondahl  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 3:15:52pm

re: #215 Killgore Trout

It's actually a pretty reputable site and the article is factually accurate. I think the opposition to healthcare reform would be better if people were actually opposing things that are in the bill instead of imaginary provisions they make up themselves. Knowledge is power.

Agreed. I'm opposed to the whole thing on procedural grounds, not least among several other bases.

415 rumcrook  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 4:28:44pm

re: #412 keithgabryelski

I dont recognize your claim alphabet.

those who hate us didnt need a reason before 911 except that we were the devil infidels that needed exterminating or conversion through jihaad terror.

and post Guantanamo they still need no reason, see mumbai india.

but im sure you feel better and more pure holding your position of self sacrifice...

416 Dreader1962  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 4:30:16pm

I find it interesting that the press is filled with 'experts' who claim that these methods do not work. My question is, what qualifies these people as 'experts' and why are the actual interrogators NOT considered 'experts'?

Also the claim that the intelligence derived by these methods may not be truthful. Is that a claim that intelligence derived by other methods is always given truthfully?

The truth of the matter is that these methods, however distasteful, can be effective. Interrogation by definition is deriving answers from an unwilling subject through the use of pressure. The only question is to what extent are we willing to go to apply pressure.

417 rumcrook  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 4:32:27pm

re: #413 Korla Pundit

that is dead on.

evil people who thrive on force and killing dont respect or fear anything but strength.

and misguided people who want to safeguard thier feelings create the atmosphere for future attacks.

those who are kind to the heartless will be cruel to the innocent.

418 rumcrook  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 4:34:44pm

re: #416 Dreader1962

if I could upding you more than once I would.

that is a succinct and reality based viewpoint.

you will have a slot waiting for you in the re-education camp///

419 rumcrook  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 5:13:45pm

re: #412 keithgabryelski

the other risks are day to day cultural activities that make on whole our modern lives better. accepting risk of the existence of automobiles or airplanes or advanced surgeries, all having risk is completely different than what you propose.

these things have positive redeeming overall vallue to our lives.

terrorists do not have any redeeming value.

I also see no redeeeming value inherent in allowing a certain amount of "risk" associated with being pussies with terrorists.

again you feel comfortable with taking a relaxed stance towards terrorists, at least relaxed enough that you allow for more carnage/risk becuase everything that could be extracted from them that could to stop an attack wasnt.

I am not so willing.

I am unwilling to take a "hey its just part of life live with it" attitude.

I am unwilling to be protective of the evil at the expense of any innocent lives.

420 wahabicorridor  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 5:55:47pm

re: #412 keithgabryelski

I claim the hatred we've garnered from Guantanamo has reduced our security.

Bullshit.

Let me rephrase your premise.

I claim the hatred we've garnered from our internment of the Japanese, Germans and Italians has reduced our security"

Oh, what, you thought we interned just the Japanese? No, we vacuumed up Germans and Italians.

And let me tell you something else. On 9/11 the Saudis next door - the father, Ali, worked for the embassy and had diplomatic plates - within hours they had high-tailed it. We didn't see them again for at least 6 weeks They subsequently made a habit of taking their kids back to Saudi Arabia over school break. I guess the Islamic Academy here (Fairfax County Virginia) they sent their kids too wasn't enough.

Fast foward, past the time I shoved Ali against his van because his spawn had threatened my dog (another story) - 2 years later. I came home from a gorcery run in late August/early September and saw they had returned from the Magic Kingdom. Oh, I thought, Ali and the spawn are back in time for school. There was their van - and another van. there were women unloading the second van, they were unloading mountain bikes. They were dressed head to toe in that black hag-in-a-bag uniform including gloves. They were TOSSING WITH ONE ARM the bikes to a young man - maybe seventeen, built like a fireplug - who I had never seen before. . And they were TALL.

As I drove into the garage, thinking about what I would make for dinner, etc., it hit me. There I was, sitting in my garage, with the engine running, staring at the back wall, realizing -

THEY WEREN'T WOMEN.

And if you have ever wondered why my nic is what it is, do so no longer. We are infested.

421 J.S.  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 7:58:40pm

re: #411 swamprat

Unfortunately, that "defense" (ie, the fellow wasn't tortured by U.S. personnel, but by Afghans) might not hold up -- especially not with bleeding heart judges/attorneys who'd claim that it doesn't matter -- so long as the person was being held while under the authority/custody of the U.S., then that makes the U.S. responsible (in Canada a Syrian/Canadian was "tortured" or so it was alleged by Syrians, in Syria, and guess who pays the "victim" 10 million dollars? And, no it wasn't the Syrians, it was the Canadian taxpayer.)

422 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:20:43pm

re: #413 Korla Pundit

I reject this notion that somehow we are more hated or less secure than we were when these people were plotting 9/11, specifically because of Guantanamo.

Were or were not guantanamo and abu garib used as recruitment calls against the U.S.?

And even if it were true, which it isn't, it would be because the anti-Bush people exaggerated the claims of torture and inflated it into something akin to concentration camps and a war on Islam.

The abuses were pretty serious. No one said concentration camps.

In reality, as prisons go, it is not some horror. But going the other direction now, giving foreign terrorists miranda rights, we are going to be despised as weak and pathetic and seen again as an easy target.

Well. we should follow the law no matter what we do. If that causes us to be seen as pathetic then there is a remedy: change the law.

I don't think we are seen as weak or easy when we follow our principles.

423 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:32:17pm

re: #419 rumcrook

the other risks are day to day cultural activities that make on whole our modern lives better. accepting risk of the existence of automobiles or airplanes or advanced surgeries, all having risk is completely different than what you propose.

these things have positive redeeming overall vallue to our lives.

terrorists do not have any redeeming value.

You need to follow the analogy:

it isn't about "cars", it's about what would happen if we attempted to achieve 0% deaths from cars, which would be some serious restrictions on cars (or a full ban).

It isn't about "serial killers", it's about what would happen if we attempted a 0% loss of life from serial killers. That would be wholehearted restrictions on day to day life for every American.

again you feel comfortable with taking a relaxed stance towards terrorists, at least relaxed enough that you allow for more carnage/risk becuase everything that could be extracted from them that could to stop an attack wasnt.

I am not. I am for following the law or changing it if we need to, but not usurping our agreed upon principles.

I am unwilling to take a "hey its just part of life live with it" attitude.

I am unwilling to be protective of the evil at the expense of any innocent lives.

So, breaking the law is ok with you? Where do you draw the line on breaking the law? It's ok for known terrorists? Is it ok for suspected terrorists? Is it ok for anyone that happens to have the same name as a suspected terrorist?

Is it ok when a cop does it? Is it ok when CIA officer does it?

424 keithgabryelski  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 9:38:14pm

re: #420 wahabicorridor


And if you have ever wondered why my nic is what it is, do so no longer. We are infested.

I don't understand you nickname, maybe you can explain it to me.

But "infested" is a tough word. It seems like you have some deep anger for people that like Disney World, mountain biking, and have a kid who acted pretty stupidly by threatening your dog, but kids do stupid things every day.

425 swamprat  Sun, Aug 30, 2009 10:23:26pm

re: #424 keithgabryelski

I don't understand you nickname, maybe you can explain it to me.

But "infested" is a tough word. It seems like you have some deep anger for people that like Disney World the kingdom of saudi arabia, mountain biking dressing in drag, while obscuring their identity, and have a kid who acted pretty stupidly by threatening your dog is violent and not culturally sensitive, but kids do stupid things every day.

Put it in the time frame Keith, try to have some empathy.
I don't feel this way, but I did not have her experiences.

426 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 6:34:58am

re: #424 keithgabryelski

I don't understand you nickname, maybe you can explain it to me.

But "infested" is a tough word. It seems like you have some deep anger for people that like Disney World, mountain biking, and have a kid who acted pretty stupidly by threatening your dog, but kids do stupid things every day.

Are you seriously that dense? For the time being, I will assume you guilty of nothing more than benign ignorance.

I live in Northern Virginia. It is called wahabicorridor for a reason. I would recommend a book that will educate you.

Infiltration

As for my dog - well, before we brought her home I went to all the families in the 'hood who had children to ask if we could arrange surpervised interactions with their kids, because I wanted her to be properly socialized w/children. The only household that said No was Ali's. Unless they were working dogs, he explained, they were unclean and forbidden. Okey, dokey, fine with me. They lived in the house right next door so I was very conscious of the rules (which were, I might add, quite different from the Muslim family down the street from Jordan, who just went wild about the thought of a puppy they could play with).

And one day, when The Fat Beagle was about 14 mos old, his sons swarmed her as my husband was bringing her home from a walk. They deliberately and maliciously frightened her, including throwing stones. My husband picked her up and yelled at them to stop, so they threw mulch and stones at him. The Fat Beagle ran to me when my husband got into the house, trembling with fear, and would not leave my arms for a solid 30 minutes.

And that's when I put the fear of Allah in Ali.

Disneyland my ass.

Is there an afterlife?
Fuck with my dog/family and find out.

427 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 7:18:07am

re: #426 wahabicorridor

Are you seriously that dense? For the time being, I will assume you guilty of nothing more than benign ignorance.

I live in Northern Virginia. It is called wahabicorridor for a reason. I would recommend a book that will educate you.

"wahabi corridor" sounds offensive, at least it seems like you mean it to be offensive.

What is different about an area Muslims move to when they first emigrate to the U.S. versus an area that Chinese (Chinatown), Japanese (Japan town), or Italian (little Italy) people move to when they first move to the U.S?

As for my dog - well, before we brought her home I went to all the families in the 'hood who had children to ask if we could arrange surpervised interactions with their kids, because I wanted her to be properly socialized w/children. The only household that said No was Ali's. Unless they were working dogs, he explained, they were unclean and forbidden. Okey, dokey, fine with me. They lived in the house right next door so I was very conscious of the rules (which were, I might add, quite different from the Muslim family down the street from Jordan, who just went wild about the thought of a puppy they could play with).

And one day, when The Fat Beagle was about 14 mos old, his sons swarmed her as my husband was bringing her home from a walk. They deliberately and maliciously frightened her, including throwing stones. My husband picked her up and yelled at them to stop, so they threw mulch and stones at him. The Fat Beagle ran to me when my husband got into the house, trembling with fear, and would not leave my arms for a solid 30 minutes.

Sounds like assault to me. I'd call the cops and ensure the incident was recorded and they were properly educated on finer points of the first amendment.

It sounds like your next door neighbors are pricks and they have issues with dogs. It sounds like you hate them for more than those reasons, which I don't totally understand.

428 rumcrook  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 7:34:02am

wahabicorridor also detailed how she noticed MEN coming and going from this "nieghbors" house wearing womens burqas...

add to the time frame it happened (circa 911) you have seamingly radical muslims who showing odd behavior and incivility and you dont get it. she also juxtaposed the jordanian family who acted nieghborly and didnt act like suspicious uncivilized animals

your obtuse.

429 rumcrook  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 7:37:31am

kids do stupid things every day??!!

she's to harsh in her language?

no explanation can be laid out that you wont obtusely argue against will you?...

430 J.S.  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 7:55:27am

I think there are two ways one can, figuratively speaking, "fall over the cliff." (in terms of assessing the impact of radical Islam on the West). One way is to lump all Muslims together and hate 'em all equally (that's obviously morally wrong and cannot be acceptable). But the other way to "fall over the cliff" is to claim that everything Islamic is absolutely wonderful, and how dare you mention Islam and terrorism in the same breath. In other words, certain non-Muslims then become the "Defenders of the Faith" and race about alleging that nothing ever "not nice" ever be said about Muslims or Islam -- they're special -- (which also quickly becomes an apology for terrorists.) This latter part (imo) really does describe, for example, much of the UK (as well as much of Canada -- it's increasingly becoming an offense to "offend Islam"). And, in this latter mode, I believe it reflects something problematic in Western culture (there's some "suicide meme" running rampant -- ie, radicals want to kill you, and rather than recognize it, you acquiesce and try to appease them, then call/think of yourself as "compassionate." Yeah, compassionate my ass.). I suspect that if a KSM were a "Canadian", the Canadians would be rewarding him with millions and millions of dollars in compensation for his "torture" by Americans...

431 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 8:54:34am

re: #429 rumcrook

kids do stupid things every day??!!

Yes. Every culture, every kid.

she's to harsh in her language?

When is hate speech Ok?

no explanation can be laid out that you wont obtusely argue against will you?...

Strawman. I didn't give them a pass on the assault, in fact I think she should have called the police to ensure they fully understood the ramifications and the incident was recorded so it could be taken in to account if future incidents occur.

432 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 9:45:09am

re: #431 keithgabryelski

When is hate speech Ok?

What did I write that could be called hate speech?

433 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 9:46:04am

Oh, btw, I should note that I'm not about to call the cops on 5 and 7 yr old boys. I'll deal with their parents - which I did.

434 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 10:16:03am

re: #433 wahabicorridor

Oh, btw, I should note that I'm not about to call the cops on 5 and 7 yr old boys. I'll deal with their parents - which I did.

I didn't have the context of the kids being 5 and 7 years old. I think dealing with the father was reasonable.

435 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 10:27:48am

Remember, in the 1560s, many witchcraft masterminds did not reveal the true extent of their congress with the devil and his minions before being subjected to 'enhanced interrogations'. Also, sometimes people who were strongly suspected of having acted against the Baathist Party were sometimes reticent with details, so on occasion it became necessary to find out how much the wife and/or kids knew. But if yer gonna make an omelet...

436 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 10:32:35am

re: #432 wahabicorridor

What did I write that could be called hate speech?

Your comment:

And if you have ever wondered why my nic is what it is, do so no longer. We are infested.

"wahabi corridor" sounds offensive, at least it seems like you mean it to be offensive.

"Infested" sounds like you are degrading an entire culture.

And it seems serious enough and close enough to your heart that you found the need to choose that nickname.

This taken with the book you cited whose premise seems to be "OH NOES! They're moving into your neighborhood" sounds pretty close to "There goes the neighborhood" talk -- which I am uncomfortable with.

437 Flyovercountry  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 10:55:15am

re: #435 negativ

Remember, in the 1560s, many witchcraft masterminds did not reveal the true extent of their congress with the devil and his minions before being subjected to 'enhanced interrogations'. Also, sometimes people who were strongly suspected of having acted against the Baathist Party were sometimes reticent with details, so on occasion it became necessary to find out how much the wife and/or kids knew. But if yer gonna make an omelet...

This is the perfect example of moral equivalence which causes people to lose respect for the liberal mindset. Are you really unable to see the difference between innocent people rounded up as witches during the 1500's and enemy combatants engaged in active warfare against the US? Are you really suggesting that these vicous folk who turned passenger jets into cruise missiles and murdered 2900 of our family members are the moral equivalent to the innocent civilians rounded up by the Baathists for merely speaking out against their oppressors?

The truly evil thing about this moral equivocation is that it enables thugs to claim a morally superior mantle while aligning themselves with every despicable cause that comes down the pike.

438 korla pundit  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 12:14:50pm

re: #422 keithgabryelski

> Were or were not guantanamo and abu garib used as recruitment calls against the U.S.?

Sure, they were most effectively used when Newsweek made up stories about Korans being flushed down the toilet, and when Ted Kennedy said that we had reopened Saddam's torture chambers under new American management, and when Michael Moore said 9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq. Without such hysteria and enemy propaganda from our own 'loyal opposition,' these would not have such appeal as recruitment tool. Not on their own mostly undramatic merits. And hand-wringing like that you demonstrate here only serves to reinforce such exaggerated claims of abuse. Also, thanks for proving my point about the left's swiftness to compare Abu Graib and Guantanamo.

What kind of recruitment tool would it have given the enemy to broadcast the truth about what really happened at Guantanamo instead of the lies? 'Three top Al Qaeda leaders were subjected to some rough treatment after killing thousands of Americans!' or 'Khaled Sheik Mohammed put in a box with a caterpillar!" aren't battle cries that get Rage Boy's juices flowing.

> The abuses were pretty serious. No one said concentration camps.

Actually, I believe many did. Our own beloved Dick Durban even, I think, compared it to the Gulag and Pol Pot. Don't say "no one" if you don't know for sure.

>Well. we should follow the law no matter what we do.

Uh-huh. But the question is 'what is the law.' Many people freey misquote the prisoner of war treatment rules of Geneva Convention as applying to everybody, including illegal combatants. I think Bush and the CIA went to great lengths to stay within the law, which was very squishy on such new experiences as wbat to do with terrorists captured on foreign battlefields. I think they came to some very restrained conclusions, and a policy that kept the nation safe while adhering to our principles. It's a tough balancing act. This wasn't some third-world junta torturing people for fun. If the Supreme Court had not helped the Dems in rewriting the Constitution on the fly, the military detainment and tribunals Bush and the Pentagon set up would still be as legal as they were then.

> If that causes us to be seen as pathetic then there is a remedy: change the law.

That would be nice, but try that with a Congress half of which had only one goal: sabotage the war to cause a disastrous retreat and send Bush down in flames. We did not see a lot of bipartisan potential.

But they did change the law, mind you, by fiat. Now we have more rights for illegal enemy combatants, and even Obama is very uncertain what to do with them, aside from sending a few of the "safe" ones to Bermuda. He knows most of them are going to be held and tried just as Bush planned. See, it's complicated, something the anti-Bush people refused to acknowledge, and now it's on their plate.

> I don't think we are seen as weak or easy when we follow our principles.

But we are seen as weak when we announce that we will never, ever make a terrorist uncomfortable or humiliated, and we introduce Miranda rights for non-American citizens in foreign venues, and our leaders travel the world apologizing for how terrible a nation America is. Principles is a big word. I sadly feel this administration does not have any actual core principles in the war on terror (which you can't call it any more). I think foreign policy for them is seen as an inconvenience they woud rather not deal with at all. It's just keeping them from concentrating on their very "ambitious" domestic agenda.

439 Flyovercountry  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 1:11:09pm

re: #438 korla pundit

re: #422 keithgabryelski

> Were or were not guantanamo and abu garib used as recruitment calls against the U.S.?

And then there's this, so what?

these gentle folk have stated that there purpose in life is to kill us and destroy our culture. Do you think our survival is more likely by defeating them, or by placating them. If you really believe that our prosecution of the war is the difference that they need for their recruiting efforts, you are jawdroppingly foolish. They have had nary a problem recruiting their little jihadists for years prior to either of those events. I can remember chants of, "death to america," as early as 1975. That fantasy is nothing more than a useless talking point, with zero basis in reality.

440 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 1:21:49pm

re: #436 keithgabryelski

"Infested" sounds like you are degrading an entire culture.

And what culture would that be, pray tell?

As for the book, you might want to read the description on Amazon.

441 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 1:27:03pm

re: #438 korla pundit

guantanamo and abu garib were used as recruitment tools

Without such hysteria and enemy propaganda from our own 'loyal opposition,' these would not have such appeal as recruitment tool.

I agree that there were some false statements made (the Koran flushing) and some opinions that were tough ... but rape and slaughter happened at Abu Garib -- that is the bigger picture. You would be similarly outraged had that occurred to our people in a jail that had been taken over by foreigners on our soil.

Also, thanks for proving my point about the left's swiftness to compare Abu Graib and Guantanamo.

I did not compare Abu Graib and Gitmo. I merely said they were both used as recruitment tools. Do you disagree?

The abuses were pretty serious. No one said concentration camps.

Actually, I believe many did. Our own beloved Dick Durban even, I think, compared it to the Gulag and Pol Pot. Don't say "no one" if you don't know for sure.

Two things: "concentration camps" have a connotation above and beyond most heinous crimes (or even the gulag/pol pot). Also, "no one" is a phrase used to show that it isn't a common belief. For instance "No one believes the earth is flat anymore" -- it turns out some people do, but are nut cases and so with-out the need for a lengthy lawyer-like exception clause we can say "no one".

Well. we should follow the law no matter what we do.

I think they came to some very restrained conclusions, and a policy that kept the nation safe while adhering to our principles.

We disagree. Torture is one of those things you don't dance on the line about (and that is exactly what they were trying to do). Waterboarding is torture, and is seen as torture by the international community as well as our own government (who has prosecuted people for committing it for more than 100 years). We did not adhere to our principles.

If that causes us to be seen as pathetic then there is a remedy: change the law.

That would be nice, but try that with a Congress half of which had only one goal: sabotage the war to cause a disastrous retreat and send Bush down in flames. We did not see a lot of bipartisan potential.

From my point of view: Congress forced President Bush to reconsider his options in Iraq. Instead of following the course of failure he employed and surge of troops. This didn't seem like the course he was going to take before the Democrats won in 2006. The Democrats helped him win in Iraq, and did not cut funding (which would have be the undercutting you are talking about)

But they did change the law, mind you, by fiat. Now we have more rights for illegal enemy combatants,

Revisionist. They had those rights all along. The Bush white house was incorrect when they tried to strip them of those rights. You disagreement isn't with me on this, it is with the Supreme Court.

I don't think we are seen as weak or easy when we follow our principles.

we are seen as weak when we announce that we will never, ever make a terrorist uncomfortable or humiliated, and we introduce Miranda rights for non-American citizens in foreign venues

Strawman: there is a difference between torture and "uncomfortable or humiliated". Your attempt at ridiculing a widely held moral belief that some things are unacceptable even when committed against accused/convicted terrorists will not enlighten our discussions. Please stick to facts or clearly call out your opinions. Please assume I'm a thinking person that can grasp alternative view points.

442 Korla Pundit  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 2:09:00pm

re: #441 keithgabryelski

> I agree that there were some false statements made (the Koran flushing) and some opinions that were tough ... but rape and slaughter happened at Abu Garib -- that is the bigger picture.

No, see? You're using Abu Graib again to smear Guantanamo. It's different. Abu Graib was done by rogue individuals who have been punished, including jail time. That had nothing to do with U.S. detention policy. It was a crime.

Guantanamo is nothing like Abu Graib, and to compare them, which you deny doing in the same post, is an insult to those defending this country.

Gee, it turns out that 97% of the population of Guantanamo Bay are straw men!

> Two things: "concentration camps" have a connotation above and beyond most heinous crimes (or even the gulag/pol pot).

They also said the magic word "hitler" quite a bit if that is the only comparison that fits the bill for you. But let's not make light of the gulag and pol pot. How many millions does it take to make a "concentration camp"?

> Also, "no one" is a phrase used to show that it isn't a common belief. For instance "No one believes the earth is flat anymore" -- it turns out some people do, but are nut cases and so with-out the need for a lengthy lawyer-like exception clause we can say "no one".

So you admit that Dick Durban is a 'nut case' and a 'nobody.' Sweet. But let's stop pretending that this was not a constant comparison from the Andrew Sullivans and the Nancy Pelosis and the Air Americas of the world.

> From my point of view: Congress forced President Bush to reconsider his options in Iraq. Instead of following the course of failure he employed and surge of troops. This didn't seem like the course he was going to take before the Democrats won in 2006. The Democrats helped him win in Iraq, and did not cut funding (which would have be the undercutting you are talking about)

Oh, you're killing me. The Democrats 'forced Bush' to employ the surge. That's a good one. You mean the one formulated by "General Betrayus"? You are rewriting history. The Dems wanted their 'timetable' of retreat, remember? They know that when time is on the enemy's side, you lose. And that was how they tried to make us lose.

The dem leadership, plus non-leadership like then-Senator Obama, did try to cut funding, but didn't have the votes, because they knew they would lose elections that way.

> there is a difference between torture and "uncomfortable or humiliated"

Yes, but even making them uncomfortable seems unreasonable to the "anti-torture" crowd. I am also against torture. But most of the arguments against it are simplistic and don't differentiate between forcing somebody to stand for hours at a time and the Al Qaeda torture manual that was too disgusting to even describe. You can look it up if you are curious. Now, that's torture. Nor do they acknowledge that there is a difference between enemy soldiers, or even civilian criminals, and top Al Qaeda plotters with organizational and operational knowledge at a time when we were still expecting mass civilian casualties.

To be fair in ones assessment, one must acknowledge the mitigating circumstances. The job of the CIA, whose pre-9/11 performance was abysmal because of the legal obstacles that shacked it, had to be one of the most uncomfortable and stressful responsibilities ever assumed by somebody on a government salary. To start a witchhunt against these people now both punishes their good faith attempts to keep us safe while keeping it as clean as possible, and sends a message to the current CIA that it should go back to doing the half-assed CYA job that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

Also, we are talking about 3 specific terrorists here, not about Guantanamo as a whole. Three. Three very bad people. If you want to argue about how these three villains should be treated better, you should be honest and talk about the three individuals without cloaking them in the anonymizer of the entire prison.

443 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 2:11:09pm

re: #440 wahabicorridor

And what culture would that be, pray tell?

Not what culture. What people:

People of the Islamic culture

444 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 4:01:21pm

re: #443 keithgabryelski

Not what culture. What people:

People of the Islamic culture

You have now descended into the realm of the disingenuous. YOU used the word culture.
So because I noted that after 9/11 men showed up at my Saudi neighbor's house dressed in burkas and their boys traumatized my dog I have a problem with 'the people of Islamic culture'?

Did you manage to note my comment about the Muslim family down the street from Jordan?

"wahabi corridor" sounds offensive, at least it seems like you mean it to be offensive.

Well, may the good lord forbid I cause offense - certainly to your tender sensibilities. But in this case, I did not intend offense I assume you know what 'wahhabi' means (I deliberately misspelled it in my nic).

If you had done a lick of research, you would know that Northern Virginia is a hub of jihadis. For a start, you might look up Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi. They were on the Pentagon plane. From San Diego, they moved to Falls Church Virginia where they joined the Dar al-Hijra mosque on Leesburg Pike. The imam there was Anwar Aulaqi

Oddly enough, I was living in a condo development across the street when that mosque was being built. I loved the call to prayer, but we really had parking problems with these guys on Friday nights.

As noted in Infiltration on page 79

Heading deeper into Falls church on Leesburg Pike for about another mile takes you to the next place of interest on the Wahhabi corridor: Dar al-Hijrah, the had-line Wahhabi mosque where Hazmi and other hijackers from the Pentagon cell worshipped and received aid and comfort. He and other hijackers were ministered to there by an imam who encourages violent jihad and maryrdom.

I'm not giving you links. I bolded what you need to research, I'm not doing your work for you, I've already done my own.

from your #436

This taken with the book you cited whose premise seems to be "OH NOES! They're moving into your neighborhood" sounds pretty close to "There goes the neighborhood" talk -- which I am uncomfortable with.

No. It is THE ENEMY SLEEPS AMONG US.

I have seen it up close and personal - and not just the Saudis who used to live next door. My country has been, without question, infiltrated. I see it everyday and it's in my face.

And frankly, I don't give a monkey's butt if you're uncomfortable.

445 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 4:41:54pm

re: #444 wahabicorridor

No. It is THE ENEMY SLEEPS AMONG US.

I have seen it up close and personal - and not just the Saudis who used to live next door. My country has been, without question, infiltrated. I see it everyday and it's in my face.

And frankly, I don't give a monkey's butt if you're uncomfortable.

Is "Wahhabi Corridor" meant derisively? I think it is. I think you know it is. It targets a certain culture. It's pretty close to hate speech.

Immigrants tend to group together their first years in this country. Take chinatown as an example. It is a place for recent immigrants to learn U.S. culture, language, while keeping a form of security by being near people that share similar upbringings.

The same is true for your area, but it is Muslims.

You are not even dancing around the idea that they are coming to harm you. They aren't. You are paranoid.

Yes, there were 19 hijackers that were in the U.S. and did this insane deed. I believe they had help by others that may still be in the U.S. and, yes, I believe there are some teachers of their faith that are currently in the United States that are preaching hate.

Is it any larger percentage than Radical Christian right people that preach hate? I don't think so.

Taking your words and your belief that this country is being infiltrated (which seems similar to words used about Italians and Irish just a few decades ago) and the use of "the enemy sleeps among us" fear mongering about 1% of 1% of a much larger populace that are families just looking for a better life in a great country, I find your argument prejudicial and weak.

446 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 5:07:49pm

re: #442 Korla Pundit


Guantanamo is nothing like Abu Graib, and to compare them, which you deny doing in the same post, is an insult to those defending this country.

Do you deny that abuses have occurred at gitmo? Do you deny that they have been used as a tool for recruitment.

Please get off this "insult to those defending this country" -- it is a poor fallback to attempt to vilify me for presenting these positions.

They also said the magic word "hitler" quite a bit if that is the only comparison that fits the bill for you. But let's not make light of the gulag and pol pot. How many millions does it take to make a "concentration camp"?

There is no serious defense for people that claim that Abu Graib is a concentration camp.

Oh, you're killing me. The Democrats 'forced Bush' to employ the surge. That's a good one. You mean the one formulated by "General Betrayus"? You are rewriting history. The Dems wanted their 'timetable' of retreat, remember? They know that when time is on the enemy's side, you lose. And that was how they tried to make us lose.

The dem leadership, plus non-leadership like then-Senator Obama, did try to cut funding, but didn't have the votes, because they knew they would lose elections that way.

The Democrats did force President Bush to change his strategy. His strategy change was made by General Petraeus. To claim that President Bush would have come to this position with-out the pressure of the opposition seems a stretch.


> there is a difference between torture and "uncomfortable or humiliated"

Yes, but even making them uncomfortable seems unreasonable to the "anti-torture" crowd. I am also against torture. But most of the arguments against it are simplistic and don't differentiate between forcing somebody to stand for hours at a time and the Al Qaeda torture manual that was too disgusting to even describe.

Differentiate? This shit is really bad. Why do we need to put a value on one vs. another if they are BOTH ILLEGAL. Torture is torture, whether it is a mock execution or chopping off someone's finger. We call them both torture.

Nor do they acknowledge that there is a difference between enemy soldiers, or even civilian criminals, and top Al Qaeda plotters with organizational and operational knowledge at a time when we were still expecting mass civilian casualties.

We are not them.

To be fair in ones assessment, one must acknowledge the mitigating circumstances. The job of the CIA, whose pre-9/11 performance was abysmal because of the legal obstacles that shacked it, had to be one of the most uncomfortable and stressful responsibilities ever assumed by somebody on a government salary. To start a witchhunt against these people now both punishes their good faith attempts to keep us safe while keeping it as clean as possible, and sends a message to the current CIA that it should go back to doing the half-assed CYA job that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

Yes we were hysterical after 9/11. That does not excuse some of the actions.

Also, we are talking about 3 specific terrorists here, not about Guantanamo as a whole. Three. Three very bad people. If you want to argue about how these three villains should be treated better, you should be honest and talk about the three individuals without cloaking them in the anonymizer of the entire prison.

No, because I am talking about blind justice. Everyone deserves a certain level of treatment when in U.S. custody. Your argument on this isn't with me, it is with the Supreme Court.

447 wahabicorridor  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 5:37:40pm

re: #445 keithgabryelski

Is "Wahhabi Corridor" meant derisively? I think it is. I think you know it is. It targets a certain culture. It's pretty close to hate speech.

I see we have a reading comprehension problem.

448 korla pundit  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 6:22:58pm

re: #446 keithgabryelski

> Torture is torture, whether it is a mock execution or chopping off someone's finger. We call them both torture.

Moral equivalence. Feh.

449 rumcrook  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 6:35:32pm

really you dont thinks so?

man you are obtuse.


around the world islamic jihaadis are killing murdering cutting off heads, and blowing innocent people to bits. BY THE THOUSANDS.

this not even including 9/11.

and you can find me thousands apon thousands of deaths and examples of murderous christian radicals preaching hate and plotting murder?

bacause I can provide examples and I know you cant provide but pittance. less than a hand full.

450 rumcrook  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 6:37:47pm

re: #445 keithgabryelski


Is it any larger percentage than Radical Christian right people that preach hate? I don't think so.

really you dont thinks so?

man you are obtuse.


around the world islamic jihaadis are killing murdering cutting off heads, and blowing innocent people to bits. BY THE THOUSANDS.

this not even including 9/11.

and you can find me thousands apon thousands of deaths and examples of murderous christian radicals preaching hate and plotting murder?

bacause I can provide examples and I know you cant provide but pittance. less than a hand full.

451 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 8:10:38pm

re: #448 korla pundit

> Torture is torture, whether it is a mock execution or chopping off someone's finger. We call them both torture.

Moral equivalence. Feh.

You problem is with the dictionary, not with moral equivalence.

452 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 8:18:22pm

re: #448 korla pundit

> Torture is torture, whether it is a mock execution or chopping off someone's finger. We call them both torture.

Moral equivalence. Feh.

Reposting because I have more to say.

Your problem is with the dictionary, not with moral equivalence.

There is a definition of torture. We call all those things that it encircles "torture".

The moral equivalence argument does not escape me. it is:

They cut heads off -- that is really bad torture
We waterboard -- that is not as bad torture
therefore we are better than them
(and) therefore waterboarding is within our value system.

I get it -- THEY ARE REALLY BAD PEOPLE.
We are not them, and part of who we are prevents of from dancing on this particular line to get away with something that some may say is and some may say isn't torture.

453 keithgabryelski  Mon, Aug 31, 2009 8:21:40pm

re: #447 wahabicorridor

I see we have a reading comprehension problem.

You shut the discussion down when you say things like this.

If you'd like me to respond to something specific please tell me where I missed your position.

454 korla pundit  Tue, Sep 1, 2009 6:42:54am

re: #452 keithgabryelski

>They cut heads off -- that is really bad torture
>We waterboard -- that is not as bad torture

Let's try this:

"They" are trying to kill us.

"We" don't want to be murdered.

I don't want them to kill me or my family, or even you.

I don't want them to destroy any more of our skyscrapers, not to contaminate our cities with radiation, nor to cut off the heads of any more hostages.

If another attack is allowed through strict adherence to what I see as an ideal absolutist ban on anything that would be seen as "mean," above and beyond the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and Kane's Declaration of Principles, then we will see a backlash that will make waterboarding look like a gentle backrub.

When your job is to protect the nation from lawless pirates and rogue nations who do not respect your puny notions of civilization, I don't think you have the luxury of playing nice. I certainly believe you need to stay within the law. But I also don't buy that the tactics used, considering who they were used on, were illegal. You obviously think they should be, but I don't think they were at the time. And to start a punitive fishing expedition at this point is political chicanery at its worst.

455 rumcrook  Tue, Sep 1, 2009 7:53:02am

pretend this was your child and tell me what you would do to keep jihaddis from doing this to him.

456 rumcrook  Tue, Sep 1, 2009 8:17:23am

beslan

458 J.S.  Tue, Sep 1, 2009 9:11:53am

I think that part of the confusion (mixed with anger, etc.) is this -- it's about an attempt to mix civilian domestic, criminal law with military matters...This does not, repeat not, bode well for either criminal law or military justice -- it messes both up in a hideous way...I think this whole topic is far, far beyond a mere discussion on a weblog...(imo, if you start assessing terrorists held abroad as if they were mere "criminals" -- you will get problems, to say the least -- in fact, I believe you jeopardize the constitutional foundations of the United States -- and many well beloved legal principles held dear in the United States will be put into jeopardy...As has been repeatedly stated elsewhere soldiers are not, repeat NOT, forensic investigators -- they are not out gathering evidence for a criminal investigation. Is this understood by all here? I think not. So what happens? Well we get (here in Canada) a terrorist who allegedly shoots and kills an American medic. The Canadian bar association is now obsessed (see Ezra Levant's website) about freeing this "innocent" man currently held at Gitmo. (another problem, obviously, is the foul admixture of politics and law -- yet another hideous outcome...judges are now entering the political arena...the judges now feel free to dictate to politicians and tell them what they are to do...) The upshot, obviously, is that if the terrorist returns to Canada (as the judges are clamoring for), he has not been tried in any court of law, hence, he will be deemed "innocent." Next, of course, will come the torture lawsuits, since, obviously, there are reams of evidence (manufactured or not) that allege that prisoners held in Gitmo were "tortured." Thus is the nature (reality) of this obscene, lopsided system of so-called "justice." (but obviously, it is not "justice" -- unless of course one wishes to argue that terrorists deserve monetary compensation based on tales of woe...this is, imo, very reminiscent of the freeing of the Lockerbie terrorist and returning said criminal on grounds of "compassion." )

459 wahabicorridor  Tue, Sep 1, 2009 5:02:28pm

re: #458 J.S.
Your post is going out...thank you


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh