National Security The Liberal Way

[red states rule]

Another example why liberals should not be trusted with the defense of America, and fighting the war on terror

Liberals like Mr Robinson will soon learn is, Mr Obama will do a 180 on his promises and may keep Gitmo open, may keep waterboarding as an option, keep FISA in place - because they all work

If it stopped a terror attack and saved lives - even the lives of liberals - I would do what was needed because it is the right thing to do

snip

At Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib and in a little gulag of secret CIA prisons overseas, the Bush administration failed to live up to these basic responsibilities and thus sullied us all.

We will look back on the Bush years and find it incredible, and disgraceful, that individuals were captured in battle or "purchased" from self-interested tribal warlords, whisked to Guantanamo, classified as "enemy combatants" but not accorded the rights that that status should have accorded them, held for years without charges -- and denied the right to prove that they were victims of mistaken identity and never should have been taken into custody.

A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, based on interviews with 62 men who were held for an average of three years at Guantanamo before being released without being accused of a crime, found that more than a third said they were turned over to their American captors by warlords for a bounty. Those who reported physical abuse said most of it occurred at the United States' Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where about half the men were initially held before being taken to Guantanamo.

Two-thirds of the former detainees reported suffering psychological problems since their release, and many are now destitute, shunned by their families and villages. None has received any compensation for the ordeal, according to the report, titled "Guantánamo and Its Aftermath."

Years from now, we will be shocked to see those pictures of naked prisoners being humiliated and abused at Abu Ghraib -- and we will be ashamed of a U.S. government that punished low-level troops for their sadism but exonerated the higher-ups who made such sadism possible.

Years from now, we will know the full truth of the clandestine, CIA-run prisons where "high-value" terrorism suspects were interrogated with techniques, including waterboarding, that both civilized norms and international law have long defined as torture. From what we already know, it's hard to say which is more appalling -- the torture itself or the tortured legal rationalizations that Bush administration lawyers came up with to "justify" making barbarity the official policy of the U.S. government.

Obama's clarity on the issues of Guantanamo and torture stands in contrast to his necessary vagueness about how he will deal with the economic crisis. Torture is wrong today and will still be wrong tomorrow, whereas today's economic panacea can be tomorrow's drop in the bucket. Who would have thought that these "war on terror" issues would be the easy part for the new president?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111702920.html

[Des]

There are plenty of so-called liberal men and women serving in the military who would disagree with you.

[red states rule]

There are plenty of so-called liberal men and women serving in the military who would disagree with you.

So what is the problem? Waterboarding is NOT torture. All waterboarding is the squirting of water up the nose of the terrorist

Three terrorists have been waterboarded - only three

All three broke down in less then a minute and gave up info that prevented attacks - and possibly saved lives

Then they were taken back to thier cell no worse for wear

Libs like Mr Robinson are not only smearing the people who protect us (and him and his family) but America as well

What would you do to protect your family Des?

[Des]

You assume I have a problem with torturing terrorists?

Yes, waterboarding is torture. It's potentially dangerous. It seems silly to expect a group of radicals willing to die for their beliefs to confess to something under the pretense of torture.

With that being said, I'd rather know that a potential terrorist had this technique used on them, survived it, and gave up information than have any innocent person die because information wasn't given.

[red states rule]

You assume I have a problem with torturing terrorists?

Yes, waterboarding is torture. It's potentially dangerous. It seems silly to expect a group of radicals willing to die for their beliefs to confess to something under the pretense of torture.

With that being said, I'd rather know that a potential terrorist had this technique used on them, survived it, and gave up information than have any innocent person die because information wasn't given.

Then you have your wish. All three of your requirements have been attained in the thress cases where waterboarding has been used. Each time a terroris was waterboarded they gave up the info we needed. So much for them willing to die for their cause

It is not very bright of Obama to tell the terrorists how we will get info from them, and how now the war on terror will be fought in a PC manner

Waterboarding is not torture - it scares the terrorists into thinking they are drowning. No harm comes to them

Our troops are waterboarded as part of their training

[Des]

Then you have your wish. All three of your requirements have been attained in the thress cases where waterboarding has been used. Each time a terroris was waterboarded they gave up the info we needed. So much for them willing to die for their cause

It is not very bright of Obama to tell the terrorists how we will get info from them, and how now the war on terror will be fought in a PC manner

Waterboarding is not torture - it scares the terrorists into thinking they are drowning. No harm comes to them

Our troops are waterboarded as part of their training

Not all troops are waterboarded as part of their training, that's ridiculous. And yes, waterboarding is torture. There is a potential for serious harm and/or pain, and even if there wasn't, it would still be torture. Why would someone give information if they knew they were coming out of a situation unharmed anyway? It's a last resort. As long as it is used that way, truly, and not in light of other means...I can't present an argument against it.

I was disagreeing mainly with the view that all liberals are somehow anti-American or ignorant. There are plenty of people who serve in the military who are liberal, identify with liberals, and voted for Obama, and I think they deserve some respect.

[red states rule]

Not all troops are waterboarded as part of their training, that's ridiculous. And yes, waterboarding is torture. There is a potential for serious harm and/or pain, and even if there wasn't, it would still be torture. Why would someone give information if they knew they were coming out of a situation unharmed anyway? It's a last resort. As long as it is used that way, truly, and not in light of other means...I can't present an argument against it.

I was disagreeing mainly with the view that all liberals are somehow anti-American or ignorant. There are plenty of people who serve in the military who are liberal, identify with liberals, and voted for Obama, and I think they deserve some respect.

Waterboarding is part of the survival training

Here is how effective it has been

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html


and here is a video of a Fox reporter who went through it. Seems a bit scared but went back to work shortly afterwards

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/

[Des]

Waterboarding is part of the survival training

Here is how effective it has been

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html


and here is a video of a Fox reporter who went through it. Seems a bit scared but went back to work shortly afterwards

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/

Not ALL troops are subjected to waterboarding. Waterboarding is also illegal according under the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act, things that also can help protect OUR troops. Waterboarding is a really old form of torture:

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

If there was no danger, there'd be no point in using the method to get information.

However, I understand the forms of warfare, and the need to adapt to your enemy. I can't honestly say I'd stand up for the rights of a terrorist (provided they received a fair trial and other avenues were used) if it meant an innocent person wouldn't suffer.

[Immanuel]

This treatment of human beings has been the biggest disgrace America has ever faced in its history. Yes, even bigger, but just barely than our enslavement of a race of human beings for the first 90 years of our existance followed by another 100 years of treating them as less than human.

I most definitely would like to stop any and all future attacks. But using torture and then justifying it puts us at the same level as the terrorists we are trying to stop. Yes, I meant that whole heartedly. We are attempting to terrorize Middle Eastern peoples into obeying our will. By doing so we have stepped down to the level or terrorists.

I realize I will be attacked by most everyone here for those statements but, it sickens me that we can so casually declare the lives of other people to be worthless simply because they don't reside in the U.S.A. or believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and instead believe that Muhammed is someone to be worshipped.

Human life does not need to be of American birth to have value.

That does not mean that I think we should not be fighting terrorism. By all means, fight the bastards. But don't give me some Bush shit line about how we are better than they are and that they are getting what they deserve or that for everyone that is tortured an attacked is prevented. Not everyone we have held or tortured is a terrorist.

God forgive us for our treatment of humanity.

Immie

[darin]

I sorta thing I'd have little problem 'stooping' to the level of terrorists if it mean I could save 10 lives. Or 1000. It's a hard choice.

[Immanuel]

I sorta thing I'd have little problem 'stooping' to the level of terrorists if it mean I could save 10 lives. Or 1000. It's a hard choice.

Can you justify taking 10 lives to save 10 lives?

Can you justify taking 1000 lives to save 1000 lives?

By the way, can you do so simply because a politician tells you he's protecting you from an unknown danger?

Immie

[retiredman]

the dilemma is false. No one can KNOW that any "terrorist" has certain knowledge about an attack that will certainly kill large numbers of people...

and it is most definitely a slippery slope. Today we are torturing a terrorist who we think has knowledge of attacks against large numbers of innocents... then we are torturing large numbers of terrorists because they just might have knowledge of attacks that might kill dozens of innocents... the next thing you know, we'll be torturing any arab just cuz he looks like he might want to harm somebody sometime.

[-Cp]

<div class="videoPlayer-inside">
<div style="text-align: left;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" width="320" height="260"><param name="movie" value="http://hotairarchives.com/video/flvplayer.swf?file=http://hotairarchives.com/video/2006-09/harrigan-water1Mbps.flv&amp;autoStart=false;" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://hotairarchives.com/video/flvplayer.swf?file=http://hotairarchives.com/video/2006-09/harrigan-water1Mbps.flv&amp;autoStart=false;" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="320" height="260" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /><br />
</object></div>

[red states rule]

the dilemma is false. No one can KNOW that any "terrorist" has certain knowledge about an attack that will certainly kill large numbers of people...

and it is most definitely a slippery slope. Today we are torturing a terrorist who we think has knowledge of attacks against large numbers of innocents... then we are torturing large numbers of terrorists because they just might have knowledge of attacks that might kill dozens of innocents... the next thing you know, we'll be torturing any arab just cuz he looks like he might want to harm somebody sometime.

So who is being tortured right now? Who is innocent that is being held in prison?

It has been proven only three terrorists have been waterboarded and they gave up info that stopped attacks.

It is comical you continue to bellow for the rights of terrorists, and smear the government that is keeping you safe. You get more angry over anyone who comments how your flock would react if they were to read your posts, then you do toward the terrorists who want you and your family dead

[Immanuel]

So who is being tortured right now? Who is innocent that is being held in prison?

It has been proven only three terrorists have been waterboarded and they gave up info that stopped attacks.

It is comical you continue to bellow for the rights of terrorists, and smear the government that is keeping you safe. You get more angry over anyone who comments how your flock would react if they were to read your posts, then you do toward the terrorists who want you and your family dead

Funny, I said it first yet you attack him?

Immie

[5stringJeff]

So what is the problem? Waterboarding is NOT torture. All waterboarding is the squirting of water up the nose of the terrorist

Three terrorists have been waterboarded - only three

All three broke down in less then a minute and gave up info that prevented attacks - and possibly saved lives

Then they were taken back to thier cell no worse for wear

Libs like Mr Robinson are not only smearing the people who protect us (and him and his family) but America as well

What would you do to protect your family Des?

Wrong, RSR. Waterboarding is torture. If it wasn't, why would you bother going into a defense of it?

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps we can reserve Gitmo for all those useless people who make no contribution to society. Like RSR.

[namvet]

There are plenty of so-called liberal men and women serving in the military who would disagree with you.

:link:


Perhaps we can reserve Gitmo for all those useless people who make no contribution to society. Like RSR.

NOT CALLED FOR - Admin


Wrong, RSR. Waterboarding is torture. If it wasn't, why would you bother going into a defense of it?

your right. its the wrong method. I prefer electrical wires around their nuts. let em burn !!!!!

[Immanuel]

your right. its the wrong method. I prefer electrical wires around their nuts. let em burn !!!!!

Sadist! :D

Immie

[namvet]

Sadist! :D

Immie

the ACLU Nazi's freed these killers to go back to Iraq and kill Americans. its the ACLU that needs to be exterminated !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[darin]

namvet's vulgarities have been removed. Tone it down, folk.

[darin]

Can you justify taking 10 lives to save 10 lives?


Off topic. But...if forced to? Probably. I think If I had to choose ten Libs to die so 10 newborn babies can live...I could do it.



Can you justify taking 1000 lives to save 1000 lives?


See above



By the way, can you do so simply because a politician tells you he's protecting you from an unknown danger?

Immie

Depends on the politician. Context dictates.

[namvet]

Perhaps we can reserve Gitmo for all those useless people who make no contribution to society. Like RSR.

no. like you

[Immanuel]

Off topic. But...if forced to? Probably. I think If I had to choose ten Libs to die so 10 newborn babies can live...I could do it.



See above



Depends on the politician. Context dictates.

Sounds to me like you don't actually value all human life. That is not much different than what the libs say about newborn babies. "I think if I had to choose ten unborn childred to die so that 10 women can live and provide for their families... I could do it."

No, not a whole hell of a lot of difference there if you ask me. Both statements devalue human life.

Immie

[darin]

Sounds to me like you don't actually value all human life. That is not much different than what the libs say about newborn babies. "I think if I had to choose ten unborn childred to die so that 10 women can live and provide for their families... I could do it."

No, not a whole hell of a lot of difference there if you ask me. Both statements devalue human life.

Immie

I value human life - some lives are more valuable than others, however.

It's absolutely different and you know it. Everyone values everything to different degrees.

Where liberals have placed values on life - they are wrong. THEY value a woman's "Chance at a Career" more than the LIFE of a Baby.

There are some people who likely would make this place better, if they either changed the core of who they are, as people, OR...die.

[Immanuel]

There are some people who likely would make this place better, if they either changed the core of who they are, as people, OR...die.

Are you hinting that this place would be better if I would just die? :eek: I'm certain I would be in a better place :beer:

Immie

[red states rule]

Funny, I said it first yet you attack him?

Immie

How is telling the truth about Virgil, an attack? He has expressed more outrage toward the folks here, then the terrorists that would cut his head off without giving it a second thought

[red states rule]

no. like you

If Gitmo runs low on dogs in the kennels, they could put Gabby in there. After they have her dipped and clipped