CIA Destroys/Hides Evidence Of Wrongdoing - Harman Warns against - Merged

[glockmail]

I am not deflecting at all. You made a stupid statement and cannot back it up. not at all surprising. Insults from you yet again.

Your earlier statement was "... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military..." The fact is, the POTUS is not required to have military experience, and is required to make ethical decisions regarding military affairs. Freedom of speech gives your debate opponent as much right to comment on these affairs as you do. The fact that you keep touting your military experience as an attempt to belittle your opponents is silly.

The most difficult part of debating you is to trace back to the actual argument that you attempt to deflect.

[bullypulpit]

Bottom line is waterboarding has been used THREE TIMES and it SAVED LIVES and PREVENTED ATTACKS

If you Dems want to continue defending the rights of terrorists - go ahead. You are proving why you nuts can't be trusted with natioanl defense

And what evidence do you have to support that assertion? Don't answer, because I already know what it is...NONE!

The Bush administration is simply involved in an Orwellian attempt to redefine the issue of torture in general, water-boarding in particular, to the point that that Americans are no longer disturbed at the prospect of it being used in our name. Never mind that water-boarding has been defined as torture since it was first described some 500 years ago by Church inquisitors to elicit confessions from heretics. Never mind that it was defined as torture in the trials of Japanese and Nazi officials after they were convicted of using the technique on Allied POW's. Never mind that now our own troops open to being water-boarded with impunity thanks to the stance of the Bush administration on this matter. When our own troops are captured by enemy forces and water-boarded, will it's status as torture finally still be questioned by you and the other knuckle-heads that continue to support the Bush administration?

As I said before, and you clumsily side-stepped, the status of water-boarding as torture is settled law. It is settled under US treaty obligations which allow no exceptions for the use of torture. Neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney, or anyone else in the Bush administration or member of the Executive Branch has the authority to make any determination that water-boarding is an acceptable practice. Any attempts made to do so are little more than efforts to muddy the waters in an attempt to escape prosecution under US and/or international law.

[retiredman]

Insults from you yet again.

Your earlier statement was "... you should probably leave the military ethics questions for people who have been in the military..." The fact is, the POTUS is not required to have military experience, and is required to make ethical decisions regarding military affairs. Freedom of speech gives your debate opponent as much right to comment on these affairs as you do. The fact that you keep touting your military experience as an attempt to belittle your opponents is silly.

The most difficult part of debating you is to trace back to the actual argument that you attempt to deflect.

my comment was made in the framework of a discussion between someone who apparently had no knowledge or training about military ethics.... and, in any case, my making that statement, regardless of context, was not unconstitutional. And I was certainly not attempting to BELITTLE anyone.

and you love to use that word "deflect" alot, don't you? I wouldn't dare try to talk to you about the nuances of skiing when I have never been on downhill skis in my life. I would never dare to try to talk to you about the nuances of any of your other avocations if I had little to no knowledge about them. Can you imagine if I were to launch into a spirited diatribe with you claiming that you were full of shit about the particular difficulty of a particular run at a particular ski resort that I had never been to? I suppose I have every right to stumble through such a discussion, but I would not consider it in bad form for you to call me on it.

[glockmail]

my comment was made in the framework of a discussion between someone who apparently had no knowledge or training about military ethics.... and, in any case, my making that statement, regardless of context, was not unconstitutional. .....

I use the word deflect a lot- to describe your posts! Here is your latest example. I never accused you of being unconstitutional (How could you do that? How silly!), just ignoring the fact that the president, as written in the Constitution, is not required to have military experience, yet is the commander in chief (post 227).

[retiredman]

I use the word deflect a lot- to describe your posts! Here is your latest example. I never accused you of being unconstitutional (How could you do that? How silly!), just ignoring the fact that the president, as written in the Constitution, is not required to have military experience, yet is the commander in chief (post 227).

again...my statement does not ignore the fact that the president is CinC and is not required to have any military experience. How could I ignore something that I clearly have known all of my adult life? I was in the navy when Clinton was CinC! My statement was aimed solely at jimnyc and insinuated nothing like you suggest.

[glockmail]

again...my statement does not ignore the fact that the president is CinC and is not required to have any military experience. How could I ignore something that I clearly have known all of my adult life? I was in the navy when Clinton was CinC! My statement was aimed solely at jimnyc and insinuated nothing like you suggest.You're ignoring my point yet again.

If the Prez doesn't need military experience, then neither does Jimmy.:pee:

[retiredman]

You're ignoring my point yet again.

If the Prez doesn't need military experience, then neither does Jimmy.:pee:

Jimmy, like the president, doesn't NEED it, but he probably ought to receive some advice from folks who do before opens his piehole.

What is your favorite ski slope?

[glockmail]

Jimmy, like the president, doesn't NEED it, but he probably ought to receive some advice from folks who do before opens his piehole.

What is your favorite ski slope?

Jimmy, like the president, probably does.

What is your favorite gay bar?

[retiredman]

Jimmy, like the president, probably does.

What is your favorite gay bar?

maybe. maybe not. If he does, he hides it well.

why the gay comments? you know I am a straight male.

You ARE a skier, aren't you? If so..what is your favorite ski resort?

[red states rule]

maybe. maybe not. If he does, he hides it well.

why the gay comments? you know I am a straight male.

You ARE a skier, aren't you? If so..what is your favorite ski resort?

you are about as straight as a figure eight

[glockmail]

maybe. maybe not. If he does, he hides it well.

why the gay comments? you know I am a straight male.

You ARE a skier, aren't you? If so..what is your favorite ski resort? You're trying to change the subject, but you need to concede the point first. Yes, I insist.

I never said that you were gay.

[retiredman]

You're trying to change the subject, but you need to concede the point first. Yes, I insist.

I never said that you were gay.

INSIST? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You DO that, big boy!
I am not trying to change any subject. I have already stated that Jim does not need to have military experience to discuss military ethics anymore than the president does...I maintain that he DOES need to have some knowledge of military ethics to discuss the subject intelligently, and serving in the military and getting training on military ethics is the standard way folks go about gaining that knowledge.

and if you are not insinuating that I am gay, why would you think that I would HAVE a favorite gay bar?

You ARE a skier, aren't you? If so.... why are you afraid to tell me your favorite resort? Come to think of it, didn't you say one time that Kitsbuhel was one of your favorites?

[glockmail]

INSIST? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You DO that, big boy!
I am not trying to change any subject. I have already stated that Jim does not need to have military experience to discuss military ethics anymore than the president does...I maintain that he DOES need to have some knowledge of military ethics to discuss the subject intelligently, and serving in the military and getting training on military ethics is the standard way folks go about gaining that knowledge.

and if you are not insinuating that I am gay, why would you think that I would HAVE a favorite gay bar?

You ARE a skier, aren't you? If so.... why are you afraid to tell me your favorite resort? Come to think of it, didn't you say one time that Kitsbuhel was one of your favorites?

1. Nice to see you finally concede the point. So how is miltary ethics different than civilian folk's ethics?
2. As a liberal Democrat I figgered you'd be able to tell me your preference, is all. You don't need to get so defensive.
3. I don't see what a ski resort in Austria has to do with this conversation. But to answer your question, my favorite is the one that I happen to be skiing at any particular day.

[82Marine89]

INSIST? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You DO that, big boy!
I am not trying to change any subject. I have already stated that Jim does not need to have military experience to discuss military ethics anymore than the president does...I maintain that he DOES need to have some knowledge of military ethics to discuss the subject intelligently, and serving in the military and getting training on military ethics is the standard way folks go about gaining that knowledge.

and if you are not insinuating that I am gay, why would you think that I would HAVE a favorite gay bar?

You ARE a skier, aren't you? If so.... why are you afraid to tell me your favorite resort? Come to think of it, didn't you say one time that Kitsbuhel was one of your favorites?

So you concede that serving isn't the only way?

[retiredman]

1. Nice to see you finally concede the point. So how is miltary ethics different than civilian folk's ethics?
2. As a liberal Democrat I figgered you'd be able to tell me your preference, is all. You don't need to get so defensive.
3. I don't see what a ski resort in Austria has to do with this conversation. But to answer your question, my favorite is the one that I happen to be skiing at any particular day.

1. obviously, military ethics is nowhere near as situational or relative.
2. why in the world would you think that straight men, liberal democrats or otherwise, would ever frequent gay bars, let alone have a favorite?
3. if you'd answer the question, I would show you the relevance. which one is your favorite of all the ones you have skied?

[bullypulpit]

Just as I expected regarding <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=167909&postcount=252>post #252</a>. No answer.

Red and his fellow travelers, the Bush administration and its neocon supporters, can quibble all they wish, but there is nothing to debate on the matter of water-boarding. It is torture. It is settled law.

[stephanie]

O
Just as I expected regarding <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=167909&postcount=252>post #252</a>. No answer.

Red and his fellow travelers, the Bush administration and its neocon supporters, can quibble all they wish, but there is nothing to debate on the matter of water-boarding. It is torture. It is settled law.

Ok if you say so...

If it came down to waterboarding a kidnapper who was holding your entire family hostage and this might be a way to release them...or taking the high road....which would you chose the all mighty bully???

If your a high and mighty... like I saw someone on another liberal site say..

You would let your family perish...just because you were the moral one...NO MATTER..

Bully for you..:cheers2:

[red states rule]

Just as I expected regarding <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=167909&postcount=252>post #252</a>. No answer.

Red and his fellow travelers, the Bush administration and its neocon supporters, can quibble all they wish, but there is nothing to debate on the matter of water-boarding. It is torture. It is settled law.

To you it is torture - to us it is breaking terrorists and saving lives.

It has worked and helped us win this war


snip

A Confused Debate Over Torture
By Mark Davis


The debate is over torture. Mr. Kiriakou is a retired CIA agent who has seen a detainee waterboarded.

And it worked. He was part of the undercover team in Faisalabad, Pakistan, that interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the first major al-Qaeda figure captured in the months following 9/11.

Mr. Zubaydah helped plan those attacks, and the CIA had high confidence that he knew of other murderous plans. Early questioning was fruitless. "We knew he was the biggest fish we had caught, we knew he was full of information, and we wanted to get it," Mr. Kiriakou told ABC's Brian Ross.

So a rare question went up the chain of command, and the answer came back: Yes, this detainee can be waterboarded. Mr. Zubaydah was placed on his back, his head angled slightly downward. Water was poured over his covered face, rendering the drowning sensation that the CIA says would later yield valuable answers from prime 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

About 35 seconds later, Mr. Zubaydah was ready to talk. "From that day on, he answered every question," Mr. Kiriakou recalls, and they were not the useless, desperate replies that waterboarding opponents insist are the procedure's only result. "The threat information he provided prevented a number of attacks."

In a sensible era, that's it. Case closed. But these days are not so simple. Our war effort is hampered by the finger wagging and hand wringing of people who cannot tolerate winning on those terms.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/a_confused_debate_over_torture.html

[glockmail]

1. obviously, military ethics is nowhere near as situational or relative.
2. why in the world would you think that straight men, liberal democrats or otherwise, would ever frequent gay bars, let alone have a favorite?
3. if you'd answer the question, I would show you the relevance. which one is your favorite of all the ones you have skied?


1. Can you back up this statement with a link comparing the two? I'd like to be enlightened about this as I've always learned that ethics is ethics.
2. Liberal democrats supposedly love and understand gays, so it is only natural to assume that they'd want to associate them at every opportunity. Even if you don't frequent, you should be able to say which one you like best, similar to me stating what species of tree I like best.
3. Show me the relevance first.

[jimnyc]

Ethics are not exclusive to military personnel. I don't think just because I would "bend" in the face of fire, in order to save my soldiers lives, means that I am either unethical or incapable of answering because I'm not a military guy. To me, saving the lives of my fellow soldiers is just common sense. It's ok for us to ask these men and women to take bullets to protect one another, but we stop them from saving lives without taking lives.

[glockmail]

Examples of military ethics:

1. Is it ethical to kill other human beings when they are trying to kill you.
2. Is it ethical to waterboard people if they are terrorists known for beheading or torturing innocents.

Examples of civilian ethics:

1. Is it ethical to kill other human beings when they are trying to kill you.
2. Is it ethical to use deceit and punishment to obtain answers from known offenders.

[retiredman]

1. Can you back up this statement with a link comparing the two? I'd like to be enlightened about this as I've always learned that ethics is ethics.
2. Liberal democrats supposedly love and understand gays, so it is only natural to assume that they'd want to associate them at every opportunity. Even if you don't frequent, you should be able to say which one you like best, similar to me stating what species of tree I like best.
3. Show me the relevance first.
1. I could, but I am sure you can do your own research. google "military ethics". I really am not in the business of providing you with enlightenment.
2. bigoted statement. Liberal democrats merely believe granting equal rights to people regardless of their sexual preference. I don't claim to understand them let alone love them and I associate with them in social settings where they interact with other members of society - at church, at the golf course, etc. For you to suggest that I would want to associate with them at every opportunity is merely inflammatory and ridiculous. I want to associate with me wife and family at every opportunity. If I have NEVER frequented a gay bar, how in the world am I supposed to say which one I "like" best?
3. forget it. I really have little interest in pursuing this discussion.

[red states rule]

1. I could, but I am sure you can do your own research. google "military ethics". I really am not in the business of providing you with enlightenment.
2. bigoted statement. Liberal democrats merely believe granting equal rights to people regardless of their sexual preference. I don't claim to understand them let alone love them and I associate with them in social settings where they interact with other members of society - at church, at the golf course, etc. For you to suggest that I would want to associate with them at every opportunity is merely inflammatory and ridiculous. I want to associate with me wife and family at every opportunity. If I have NEVER frequented a gay bar, how in the world am I supposed to say which one I "like" best?
3. forget it. I really have little interest in pursuing this discussion.

1) So you can't back up your BS

2) Libs like to create special rights for their pet protected gorups

3) Surrender is rampet these days with liberals

[glockmail]

1. I could, but I am sure you can do your own research. google "military ethics". I really am not in the business of providing you with enlightenment.
2. bigoted statement. Liberal democrats merely believe granting equal rights to people regardless of their sexual preference. I don't claim to understand them let alone love them and I associate with them in social settings where they interact with other members of society - at church, at the golf course, etc. For you to suggest that I would want to associate with them at every opportunity is merely inflammatory and ridiculous. I want to associate with me wife and family at every opportunity. If I have NEVER frequented a gay bar, how in the world am I supposed to say which one I "like" best?
3. forget it. I really have little interest in pursuing this discussion.

1. I just thought you might want to back up your assertions. It looks like you are unwilling or unable to do that. Perhaps you could give us examples?
2. Liberal Democrats choose to be liberal Democrats due to the liberal Democrat dogma. Therefore stating generalities about their behaivior is not biogoted.
3. Good idea.

[red states rule]

1. I just thought you might want to back up your assertions. It looks like you are unwilling or unable to do that. Perhaps you could give us examples?
2. Liberal Democrats choose to be liberal Democrats due to the liberal Democrat dogma. Therefore stating generalities about their behaivior is not biogoted.
3. Good idea.

I guess MM is tried of getting his head handed to him

[retiredman]

1. I just thought you might want to back up your assertions. It looks like you are unwilling or unable to do that. Perhaps you could give us examples?
2. Liberal Democrats choose to be liberal Democrats due to the liberal Democrat dogma. Therefore stating generalities about their behaivior is not biogoted.
3. Good idea.

1. not unable.... merely uninterested.
2. making false generalities about other groups of people is bigotry. How, pray tell would you know why liberal democrats chose that political philosophy? and why would you think that frequenting gay bars was a generality of the behavior of liberal democrats? sounds like more of your well documented homophobia and homo-aversion.
3.we agree on something!

[red states rule]

1. not unable.... merely uninterested.
2. making false generalities about other groups of people is bigotry. How, pray tell would you know why liberal democrats chose that political philosophy? and why would you think that frequenting gay bars was a generality of the behavior of liberal democrats? sounds like more of your well documented homophobia and homo-aversion.
3.we agree on something!

1) MM is waving the white flag

2) Yea, like ads from the Dems who tell blacks eveytime they vote for a Republican another black Church burns to the ground, or how Republicans want to kick old folks out of nursing homes, or take Grandma's SS check away from her

3) Go ahead and retreat

[glockmail]

1. not unable.... merely uninterested.
2. making false generalities about other groups of people is bigotry. How, pray tell would you know why liberal democrats chose that political philosophy? and why would you think that frequenting gay bars was a generality of the behavior of liberal democrats? sounds like more of your well documented homophobia and homo-aversion.
3.we agree on something!

1. After two days and tens of posts attempting to defend against my accusations you are now suddendly "uninterested"? Your lack of intellectual honesty does not hide that fact that you have been soundly defeated. So we can now assume that you will never attempt to trump another poster by touting your vast military experience, right?
2. Liberal Democrats make false accusations against Conservative Republicans all the time. Does that then make the Liberal Democrats bigots?

[retiredman]

1. After two days and tens of posts attempting to defend against my accusations you are now suddendly "uninterested"? Your lack of intellectual honesty does not hide that fact that you have been soundly defeated. So we can now assume that you will never attempt to trump another poster by touting your vast military experience, right?
2. Liberal Democrats make false accusations against Conservative Republicans all the time. Does that then make the Liberal Democrats bigots?

I am uninterested in spending even a minute using a search engine to find webpages for your enlightenment.

and glockmail unilaterally declaring himself the victor again? what a surprise!

I will reference my military experience when it fits the discussion.

and I am glad to see you finally admit that you make false accusations!:laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

O

Ok if you say so...

If it came down to waterboarding a kidnapper who was holding your entire family hostage and this might be a way to release them...or taking the high road....which would you chose the all mighty bully???

If your a high and mighty... like I saw someone on another liberal site say..

You would let your family perish...just because you were the moral one...NO MATTER..

Bully for you..:cheers2:


You scenario presupposes that torture actually produces reliable intel. It doesn't. Secondly, any future prosecution of said kidnapper, regardless of the outcome of said torture, would be thrown out of court due to the fact that the confession was coerced and thus inadmissible in a court of law. Thirdly, y'all are just plain missing, more likely ignoring, the point that under federal law and US treaty obligations torture is illegal. That water-boarding is torture is settled law. The Bush administration regardless of any twisted logic they might wish to apply to it, cannot simply redefine torture to suit its needs...Something which John Yoo attempted to do and Alberto Gonzalez signed off on.

<center><a href=http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html>Torture Has a Long History ... of Not Working</a></center>

[bullypulpit]

To you it is torture - to us it is breaking terrorists and saving lives.

It has worked and helped us win this war


snip

A Confused Debate Over Torture
By Mark Davis


The debate is over torture. Mr. Kiriakou is a retired CIA agent who has seen a detainee waterboarded.

And it worked. He was part of the undercover team in Faisalabad, Pakistan, that interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the first major al-Qaeda figure captured in the months following 9/11.

Mr. Zubaydah helped plan those attacks, and the CIA had high confidence that he knew of other murderous plans. Early questioning was fruitless. "We knew he was the biggest fish we had caught, we knew he was full of information, and we wanted to get it," Mr. Kiriakou told ABC's Brian Ross.

So a rare question went up the chain of command, and the answer came back: Yes, this detainee can be waterboarded. Mr. Zubaydah was placed on his back, his head angled slightly downward. Water was poured over his covered face, rendering the drowning sensation that the CIA says would later yield valuable answers from prime 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

About 35 seconds later, Mr. Zubaydah was ready to talk. "From that day on, he answered every question," Mr. Kiriakou recalls, and they were not the useless, desperate replies that waterboarding opponents insist are the procedure's only result. "The threat information he provided prevented a number of attacks."

In a sensible era, that's it. Case closed. But these days are not so simple. Our war effort is hampered by the finger wagging and hand wringing of people who cannot tolerate winning on those terms.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/a_confused_debate_over_torture.html

See above, knuckle-head. As for Mr. Kiriakou, he was in the states when this occurred and thus has no first hand knowledge of what happened, unless he saw the tapes. It is also interesting to note that he also stated that authorization for Mr. Zubaydah's torture came from the White House. If this is indeed the case whoever gave the order committed a felony.

[red states rule]

See above, knuckle-head.

Libs would rather have the terrorist attacks and the dead bodies then preventing the attacks

It makes good press conferences

[glockmail]

I am uninterested in spending even a minute using a search engine to find webpages for your enlightenment.

and glockmail unilaterally declaring himself the victor again? what a surprise!

I will reference my military experience when it fits the discussion.

and I am glad to see you finally admit that you make false accusations!:laugh2:


1. Then take my other offer and give us some comparitive examples.
2. No surprise that I am the victor.
3. So be it.
4. Where did I state that?

[bullypulpit]

Libs would rather have the terrorist attacks and the dead bodies then preventing the attacks

It makes good press conferences

We can prevent terrorist attacks within the four corners of the law. Unless you can produce reliable evidence from a reputable source which proves this wrong, your shit is weak. But that's always been the case with you.

[retiredman]

1. Then take my other offer and give us some comparitive examples.
2. No surprise that I am the victor.
3. So be it.
4. Where did I state that?

1. in a nutshell: civilian ethics accept the primacy of actions taken in one's own self interest. military ethics require that self interest be subordinated to supporting and defending the constitution and by the lawful orders of the chain of command.

2. you are NOT the victor, it is merely no surprise that you regularly and unjustifiably claim yourself such.

3. cool

4. not stated, but sheepishly implied.

[glockmail]

1. in a nutshell: civilian ethics accept the primacy of actions taken in one's own self interest. military ethics require that self interest be subordinated to supporting and defending the constitution and by the lawful orders of the chain of command.

2. you are NOT the victor, it is merely no surprise that you regularly and unjustifiably claim yourself such.

3. cool

4. not stated, but sheepishly implied.


1. Bullshit. Ethics is about putting the greater good ahead of self interest. Perhaps that is the crux of your problem.
2. Others disagree.
4. Ask anyone here: I say what I mean up-front and plainly.

[retiredman]

1. Bullshit. Ethics is about putting the greater good ahead of self interest. Perhaps that is the crux of your problem.
2. Others disagree.
4. Ask anyone here: I say what I mean up-front and plainly.

eth·ics –plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
nothing in there about greater good versus self interest. too bad.

2. so what.

4. Why would I need to ASK anyone else. I can read your own words. You try to make some broadbrush statement about all liberal democrats loving gays and having favorite gay bars and then try to wriggle away from the fact that it is a bigotted remark, when it clearly is.

[manu1959]

eth·ics –plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
nothing in there about greater good versus self interest. too bad.



seems definitions 1 and 2 place the community above the individual....thus the moral and ethical principals place the whole above the sum of its parts....

but i am sure you won't see it that way....

[retiredman]

seems definitions 1 and 2 place the community above the individual....thus the moral and ethical principals place the whole above the sum of its parts....

but i am sure you won't see it that way....

nice spin. nothing places anything ABOVE the individual in any way. I would suppose if definitions 1 or 2 had wanted to say that, they would have just said it.

In our society, are you ethically required to place yourself in harm's way to protect another citizen or is it perfectly acceptable to place your own personal safety above that of a stranger?

[glockmail]

eth·ics –plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
nothing in there about greater good versus self interest. too bad.

2. so what.

4. Why would I need to ASK anyone else. I can read your own words. You try to make some broadbrush statement about all liberal democrats loving gays and having favorite gay bars and then try to wriggle away from the fact that it is a bigotted remark, when it clearly is.


1. Try a classroom, not a dictionary.
2. Perception is reality.
4. How can one be bigoted against a group that chooses to be that way? Again, you're just pissed because I correctly labelled you a bigot. Good luck pinning that on me.

[manu1959]

nice spin. nothing places anything ABOVE the individual in any way. I would suppose if definitions 1 or 2 had wanted to say that, they would have just said it.

In our society, are you ethically required to place yourself in harm's way to protect another citizen or is it perfectly acceptable to place your own personal safety above that of a stranger?

it does say ethic and morals are communal and group based not individual based ....

i know it flies in the face of i can do whatever i want liberalism and moral relativism but hey that isn't my problem ....

in our society no .... we step over the kind of tragedy you describe for exactly the reason you do not see that morals and ethics the way i have pointed out ....

you are very myopic and closed minded .... actually stubborn is probably the best word for you

[retiredman]

1. Try a classroom, not a dictionary.
2. Perception is reality.
4. How can one be bigoted against a group that chooses to be that way? Again, you're just pissed because I correctly labelled you a bigot. Good luck pinning that on me.
1. tough to cut and paste a classroom..and why would I need to? the standard dictionary definition smacked you down quite nicely.:laugh2:
2. your reality...not mine...and I really could give a fuck what YOUR reality is. OK?
4. big·ot [big-uht] –noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

YOU have started several threads railing about your adverse opinion about queers. Are you suggesting that your really ARE tolerant of people who believe it is natural for themselves and others to love people of the same gender?

[retiredman]

it does say ethic and morals are communal and group based not individual based ....

i know it flies in the face of i can do whatever i want liberalism and moral relativism but hey that isn't my problem ....

in our society no .... we step over the kind of tragedy you describe for exactly the reason you do not see that morals and ethics the way i have pointed out ....

you are very myopic and closed minded .... actually stubborn is probably the best word for you

quit tap dancing. are you suggesting that the ethics of our society demand that I place myself in harm's way to protect a stranger? yes or no?

I have never suggested that ethics were not communally developed. I only state that civilian ethics do not frown upon enlightened self interest over communal good.

[manu1959]

quit tap dancing. are you suggesting that the ethics of our society demand that I place myself in harm's way to protect a stranger? yes or no?

I have never suggested that ethics were not communally developed. I only state that civilian ethics do not frown upon enlightened self interest over communal good.

ideally yes .... which is the definition in the dictionary

our society no .....

military society yes ....

civilian ethics are relative and for the most part in the west are a sliding scale at best depending on who the individual can benefit for their altruistic act....

[retiredman]

ideally yes .... which is the definition in the dictionary

our society no .....

military society yes ....

civilian ethics are relative and for the most part in the west are a sliding scale at best depending on who the individual can benefit for their altruistic act....

I guess we must agree to disagree. the dictionary does not require individuals to place the good of society OVER their own personal wellbeing.

The differential between military and civilian ethics was my point all along.

Thank you.

[manu1959]

I guess we must agree to disagree. the dictionary does not require individuals to place the good of society OVER their own personal wellbeing.

The differential between military and civilian ethics was my point all along.

Thank you.

the ethical standard is the same it is the application that is in question....

who creates and defines ethics...

is it ....

the group to the benefit of the individual
the individual to the benefit of the group
the group to the benefit of the group
the individual to the benefit of the individual

[retiredman]

the ethical standard is the same it is the application that is in question....

who creates and defines ethics...

is it ....

the group to the benefit of the individual
the individual to the benefit of the group
the group to the benefit of the group
the individual to the benefit of the individual

I would suggest it is the group to the benefit of both the individual and the group. IMHO, there is nothing unethical about self interest, unless it leads to intentional harm to others.

[glockmail]

big·ot [big-uht] –noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Describes you perfectly.

[retiredman]

Describes you perfectly.

are you denying you are bigoted towards homosexuals? LOL

[bullypulpit]

We can prevent terrorist attacks within the four corners of the law. Unless you can produce reliable evidence from a reputable source which proves this wrong, your shit is weak. But that's always been the case with you.

HA! I knew you couldn't do it Red.

[manu1959]

4. big·ot [big-uht] –noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.



everyone is a bigot......

[glockmail]

are you denying you are bigoted towards homosexuals? LOL Yes. I am only bigotted against liars.

[retiredman]

Yes. I am only bigotted against liars.


self loathing???? you have admitted lying on here.

and your many threads about gays would suggest an unnatural obsession with them.

transference, perhaps?

[glockmail]

your many threads about gays would suggest an unnatural obsession with them.

transference, perhaps? Why do libs always use gay as an insult? I thought y'all were tolerant of them. I guess that's a lie as well.

[retiredman]

Why do libs always use gay as an insult? I thought y'all were tolerant of them. I guess that's a lie as well.

Where did I insult gays OR you? I suggested that you write an awful lot of threads that express your disdain for gays and wondered if all that attention was really masking something you'd really not rather admit. If you are gay, that is cool with me. I could give a shit who you have sex with. That's your business....

[glockmail]

Where did I insult gays OR you? I suggested that you write an awful lot of threads that express your disdain for gays and wondered if all that attention was really masking something you'd really not rather admit. If you are gay, that is cool with me. I could give a shit who you have sex with. That's your business.... INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY - COWARDICE TO ADMIT YOUR ACCUSATION - MAINEMAN HALLMARKS

[retiredman]

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY - COWARDICE TO ADMIT YOUR ACCUSATION - MAINEMAN HALLMARKS

I am suggesting that perhaps you may be in the closet and filled with self loathing about that. That is certainly not an insult.

come on out. it's OK.

Do YOU take that suggestion as "insulting"?

[glockmail]

I am suggesting that perhaps you may be in the closet and filled with self loathing about that. That is certainly not an insult.

come on out. it's OK.

Do YOU take that suggestion as "insulting"?
Be a real man and insult me straight up. Like this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=63256&postcount=698

[retiredman]

Be a real man and insult me straight up.

I really don't get my manhood measured by the likes of you. I didn't insult you. Did you take my suggestion about your possible hidden secret as an insult? Why?

[retiredman]

Be a real man and insult me straight up. Like this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=63256&postcount=698

do you NEED to be insulted so that you can pull the melodramatic, righteously indignant mask out of the closet and put it on?

you admittedly troll for insults. Interesting choice of words.

[glockmail]

I really don't get my manhood measured by the likes of you. I didn't insult you. Did you take my suggestion about your possible hidden secret as an insult? Why?
So with your ethics, I can say that you may be a pedophile, and you wouldn't consider that an insult.

[glockmail]

do you NEED to be insulted so that you can pull the melodramatic, righteously indignant mask out of the closet and put it on?

you admittedly troll for insults. Interesting choice of words. An insult from you is victory for me. It proves that you are incapable of intellectual discourse. Troll, cast, fish. I am a fisher of men.

[red states rule]

We can prevent terrorist attacks within the four corners of the law. Unless you can produce reliable evidence from a reputable source which proves this wrong, your shit is weak. But that's always been the case with you.

Clinton tried that and we got 9-11. Atta and his buddies were known to the Clinton administration for over a year - and they were not picked up

Libs want to fight a PC war where they make sure the "rights" of terrorists are always first on their list to protect. The lives of our troops and US citizens are secondary

[red states rule]

A great oped in the Washington Times points out the lies of the left, since they were aware of the tapes, and viewed them

At that time five years ago, they had no objections. Now, to appease their kook base, they are trying to lie their way of the problem



'Indignados' exposed
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
December 14, 2007
I can understand why back in 2005 the CIA destroyed tapes showing its agents "waterboarding" with notorious terrorists. My guess is that the tapes would reveal them all having a lot of fun. There the Rev. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, would be seen waterboarding like mad, his baseball hat turned backwards, his eyes alight with excitement. There Mr. Abu Zubaydah can be seen having an equally exciting time, possibly gurgling a bit, but riding his waterboard to the limit. And on the sidelines can be seen the dusky chaps' new best friends from the Langley Aquatics & Waterboarding Club (LAWC), applauding and urging the chaps on.

Does the above paragraph strike you as absurd? Well, it is no more absurd than the indignation vented last week by assorted eminences in Congress. The congressional "indignados," led by the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, squeaker of the House of Representatives, affect outrage over the "harsh" interrogation measures used in 2002 against several terrorists, two of whom are manifestly evil anti-Americans. The others have yet to be identified. It now turns out that back then the Hon. Mrs. Pelosi and other key members of Congress were fully informed of these interrogation measures, which they approved and with good reason.

One of the terrorists introduced to the delights of waterboarding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, actually planned September 11. How long it took him to confess to that and to other barbarisms I do not know, but former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou has told ABC that after weeks of uncooperative silence the other identified terrorist, Zubaydah, an al Qaeda kingpin, broke 35 seconds into his waterboarding session. "From that day on, he answered every question," reports Mr. Kiriakou, who adds that the information offered was critical to protecting America and pursuing terrorists. At the time, we had every reason to anticipate more attacks. That no further September 11s have taken place in six years speaks well for the efficacy of waterboarding.

Unfortunately, in the Democrats' campaign to turn this war into a partisan political issue, the interrogation of some of the most vicious brutes ever to be captured by American forces has become "controversial." Hence Squeaker Pelosi and other members of Congress have apparently completely forgotten that they were briefed on the 2002 interrogations. Were it not for The Washington Post news story Sunday (headlined, "Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002") revealing that they were, the histrionics on Capitol Hill would continue. As it is, committee hearings will take place and CIA operatives will be embarrassed and perhaps indicted.

The congressional indignados' residual complaint is that the CIA destroyed the tapes of their 2002 waterboarding festival. I ask you, which is more reprehensible, destroying those tapes or lying to the American people about one's knowledge of the "harsh" interrogations? Actually, I have understated the misbehavior of the mendacious members of Congress. They are not only deceiving us about their knowledge, they are threatening CIA agents for interrogations that former CIA Director Porter Goss says had their "approval and encouragement."

This is not the first time members of Congress have abandoned the CIA when its actions became controversial. During the Reagan administration we witnessed a similar display of congressional cowardice and opportunism. In 1984, after it was reported that the CIA had mined harbors in Communist-controlled Nicaragua, leading figures on the congressional intelligence committees played the role of the congressional indignado. They insisted that the CIA actions had taken place without the knowledge of congressional intelligence committees. Some committee members called for CIA Director William Casey's head. Casey responded by reminding them that he had briefed committee chairmen three times in early 1984. Eventually the CIA revealed 11 congressional briefings had taken place.

Not everyone in Congress joined in the melodrama against our own security personnel in 1984. Rep. Henry Hyde wrote a memorable piece wherein he questioned whether Congress was even capable of intelligence oversight once a national security matter had become subject to partisan bickering. Hyde passed away two weeks ago, but wherever he is today the Hon. Nancy Pelosi has answered his question.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His "The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House" has recently been published by Thomas Nelson.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071214/COMMENTARY/112140027/1012/commentary

[bullypulpit]

Clinton tried that and we got 9-11. Atta and his buddies were known to the Clinton administration for over a year - and they were not picked up

Libs want to fight a PC war where they make sure the "rights" of terrorists are always first on their list to protect. The lives of our troops and US citizens are secondary

Ummm...Didn't 9/11 happen on Bush's watch? Didn't Bush get a Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 entitled <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Determined_to_Strike_in_U.S.>Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US</a>? Didn't Bush and his then National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, ignore said PDB?

The penchant you, and the other right wing-nuts, have for blaming Goatboy for 9/11 and, everything else the Bush administration has dicked up, is a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from where it belongs...On the Bush administration.

It's not about "PC" as you and your fellow travelers keep harping on. It's about protecting the very foundation of the Republic. Something you and your fellow travelers so blithely ignore. It's about the rule of law, which you and your fellow travelers seem so willing to discard at the first sign of a threat. People, such as you and your fellow travelers, are the first ones to form a lynch mob, never mind that their victim might be innocent. "Kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out!", that's your motto. Never mind what that, as Bush characterized it, "god-damned piece of paper" says. That piece of paper being the Constitution.

Go pull your head out of your ass and come back when you've cleaned the shit outta yer ears.

[bullypulpit]

An insult from you is victory for me. It proves that you are incapable of intellectual discourse. Troll, cast, fish. I am a fisher of men.

Eeeeeewwwww! Thanks for playing "<b><font color=red>Really</font><font color=green> Bad</font> <font color=blue>Analogies</font></b>" (<i>game show music swells in the background</i>).

[red states rule]

Ummm...Didn't 9/11 happen on Bush's watch? Didn't Bush get a Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 entitled <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Determined_to_Strike_in_U.S.>Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US</a>? Didn't Bush and his then National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, ignore said PDB?

The penchant you, and the other right wing-nuts, have for blaming Goatboy for 9/11 and, everything else the Bush administration has dicked up, is a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from where it belongs...On the Bush administration.

It's not about "PC" as you and your fellow travelers keep harping on. It's about protecting the very foundation of the Republic. Something you and your fellow travelers so blithely ignore. It's about the rule of law, which you and your fellow travelers seem so willing to discard at the first sign of a threat. People, such as you and your fellow travelers, are the first ones to form a lynch mob, never mind that their victim might be innocent. "Kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out!", that's your motto. Never mind what that, as Bush characterized it, "god-damned piece of paper" says. That piece of paper being the Constitution.

Go pull your head out of your ass and come back when you've cleaned the shit outta yer ears.

5 attacks under Clinton, and he did nothing, OBL said then America was a paper tiger.

Atta and his buds were allowed to roam free, while Bill did Monica

Now Dems call airport security racial profiling, instead of facing the threat. Yes, you clowns want to fight a PC war. You can fight it, but you can't win it

Next you will want the troops to read the terrorists their Miranda rights when they are captured and have a ACLU lawyer waiting for them in the jail

Keep defending the rights of terrorists, and making America the bad guy. Your sinking poll numbers and Pres Bush's rising poll numbers should tell you something

[retiredman]

5 attacks under Clinton, and he did nothing, OBL said then America was a paper tiger. he DID do things...you just refuse to acknowledge them...and you refuse to acknowledge that, when he DID do them, he was criticized by republicans

Atta and his buds were allowed to roam free, while Bill did MonicaAtta was here on a valid visa.... we knew little about him - and certainly nothing that would have caused us to deny his freedoms while a visa'd visitor

Now Dems call airport security racial profiling, instead of facing the threat. Yes, you clowns want to fight a PC war. You can fight it, but you can't win itI have never said that, nor do I agree with that

Next you will want the troops to read the terrorists their Miranda rights when they are captured and have a ACLU lawyer waiting for them in the jailno legitimate democrat has ever said anything about Miranda or the ACLU in terms of detainees.

Keep defending the rights of terrorists, and making America the bad guy. Your sinking poll numbers and Pres Bush's rising poll numbers should tell you something. keep defending Bush's inaction after being warned.

[Kathianne]

5 attacks under Clinton, and he did nothing, OBL said then America was a paper tiger. he DID do things...you just refuse to acknowledge them...and you refuse to acknowledge that, when he DID do them, he was criticized by republicans
...

I saw your reply, do you think that Clinton's actions were justifiably 'measured responses?' Effective? Are they what you would have recommended, especially the USS Cole?

[retiredman]

I saw your reply, do you think that Clinton's actions were justifiably 'measured responses?' Effective? Are they what you would have recommended, especially the USS Cole?

AQ presented America with a different kind of enemy than we had ever had. An enemy that was NOT a nationstate, but rather a loosely affiliated band of muslims from many different countries spread out everywhere.

I do not think that we would have won any friends or allies in the middle east by attacking our new found enemy with a blunderbuss. Were Clinton's responses justifiably measured? At that juncture of history, I would say they were. Were they effective? obviously not.

What would I recommend? Well, first off, let me rule out what I would NOT recommend. When a country with hundreds of millions of people occupying nearly four million square miles is attacked by a nation-less band of terrorists numbering in the thousands, I do NOT think that massive military invasion/conquest/occupation of other nation state who had no connection to that nation-less band is the right approach.
I think, given the asymmetrical nature of the threat, that there were opportunities for covert HUMINT operations that may have infiltrated the organization, tracked and isolated their funding sources, and moved - covertly - to sever the funding link and to strike at the brains of the operation to cut off its head and to starve it financially.

Beyond that, I think it would have been beneficial to examine the root causes of the attractiveness of Islamic extremism amongst arab youth - which, IMHO, are largely a factor of socio-economic inequity and political impotence for the majority of the population of the arab states - even if not directly impacting the devotees of the ideology - and seeing what we could do to take steps - substantive and symbolic - to try to reduce those irritants.

I know, from personal experience, that when Arabs are making money and providing for their families, and they see economic opportunity in their communities, that their adherence to the anti-western extremism bred by poverty and powerlessness dissipates proportionately.

[Kathianne]

AQ presented America with a different kind of enemy than we had ever had. An enemy that was NOT a nationstate, but rather a loosely affiliated band of muslims from many different countries spread out everywhere.

I do not think that we would have won any friends or allies in the middle east by attacking our new found enemy with a blunderbuss. Were Clinton's responses justifiably measured? At that juncture of history, I would say they were. Were they effective? obviously not.

What would I recommend? Well, first off, let me rule out what I would NOT recommend. When a country with hundreds of millions of people occupying nearly four million square miles is attacked by a nation-less band of terrorists numbering in the thousands, I do NOT think that massive military invasion/conquest/occupation of other nation state who had no connection to that nation-less band is the right approach.
I think, given the asymmetrical nature of the threat, that there were opportunities for covert HUMINT operations that may have infiltrated the organization, tracked and isolated their funding sources, and moved - covertly - to sever the funding link and to strike at the brains of the operation to cut off its head and to starve it financially.

Beyond that, I think it would have been beneficial to examine the root causes of the attractiveness of Islamic extremism amongst arab youth - which, IMHO, are largely a factor of socio-economic inequity and political impotence for the majority of the population of the arab states - even if not directly impacting the devotees of the ideology - and seeing what we could do to take steps - substantive and symbolic - to try to reduce those irritants.

I know, from personal experience, that when Arabs are making money and providing for their families, and they see economic opportunity in their communities, that their adherence to the anti-western extremism bred by poverty and powerlessness dissipates proportionately.
So you would have recommended infiltrating AQ? How? The CIA not only had been eviscerated, but also flipped to a division of the State Department. While that sounds like a cop out, for the record the Democratic presidents have had as much a problem from Foggy Bottom as Republican, maybe more.

[retiredman]

we certainly weren't going to successfully infiltrate AQ with Caucasians with crew cuts. Clearly we needed to recruit locals and I do not think that would have been as difficult as some might think.

I am merely saying that a multi-pronged approach with ELINT and HUMINT combined with tracking the money combined with a long range strategy to lessen the attractiveness of Islamic extremism would have been, IMHO, much more effective against a small, nation-less enemy in an asymmetrical war.

[Kathianne]

we certainly weren't going to successfully infiltrate AQ with Caucasians with crew cuts. Clearly we needed to recruit locals and I do not think that would have been as difficult as some might think.

I am merely saying that a multi-pronged approach with ELINT and HUMINT combined with tracking the money combined with a long range strategy to lessen the attractiveness of Islamic extremism would have been, IMHO, much more effective against a small, nation-less enemy in an asymmetrical war.And the CIA or military had the ability to do such?

[Dilloduck]

we certainly weren't going to successfully infiltrate AQ with Caucasians with crew cuts. Clearly we needed to recruit locals and I do not think that would have been as difficult as some might think.

I am merely saying that a multi-pronged approach with ELINT and HUMINT combined with tracking the money combined with a long range strategy to lessen the attractiveness of Islamic extremism would have been, IMHO, much more effective against a small, nation-less enemy in an asymmetrical war.

Since that is happening now, I guess the current administration at least has the capability to learn.

[retiredman]

Since that is happening now, I guess the current administration at least has the capability to learn.

imagine how much more effective those efforts could have been if we hadn't pissed off the arab world by invading Iraq and if we hadn't pissed away a trillion dollars in the process.

and I am not sure what the administration is really doing of any substance to eliminate the root causes of islamic extremism.

[Kathianne]

imagine how much more effective those efforts could have been if we hadn't pissed off the arab world by invading Iraq and if we hadn't pissed away a trillion dollars in the process.

and I am not sure what the administration is really doing of any substance to eliminate the root causes of islamic extremism.

What are those 'root causes', i.e. reasons for 9/11?

[red states rule]

imagine how much more effective those efforts could have been if we hadn't pissed off the arab world by invading Iraq and if we hadn't pissed away a trillion dollars in the process.

and I am not sure what the administration is really doing of any substance to eliminate the root causes of islamic extremism.

The terrrorists enjoy blowing themselfes up, and we enjoy blowing them up

Hell, we should getting along better :lol:

[retiredman]

What are those 'root causes', i.e. reasons for 9/11?

numerous, in my opinion. There is a deep seated enmity for the west dating back to the crusades, and clearly aggravated by the haphazard and arbitrary manner which the european powers used to carve up the spoils of the ottoman empire and their annointing of certain clans to ascend to royalty and power over vast regions and vast resources. There is a deep seated enmity for those secular arab and persian rulers who ruled their artifically created nations devoid of democracy and who did not equitably share the economic prosperity from oil that they horde for their own. There is a deep seated hatred for Israel and, for many, a powerful anger at the US for its unilateral uncritical support of Israel. There was a real indignation over the positioning of infidel troops on sacred Islamic land...

but certainly, AQ did not attack us on 9/11 because the "hated us for our freedoms".

[Kathianne]

numerous, in my opinion. There is a deep seated enmity for the west dating back to the crusades, and clearly aggravated by the haphazard and arbitrary manner which the european powers used to carve up the spoils of the ottoman empire and their annointing of certain clans to ascend to royalty and power over vast regions and vast resources. There is a deep seated enmity for those secular arab and persian rulers who ruled their artifically created nations devoid of democracy and who did not equitably share the economic prosperity from oil that they horde for their own. There is a deep seated hatred for Israel and, for many, a powerful anger at the US for its unilateral uncritical support of Israel. There was a real indignation over the positioning of infidel troops on sacred Islamic land...

but certainly, AQ did not attack us on 9/11 because the "hated us for our freedoms".

Ok, let's say their root causes were the Crusades and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire, never mind the 'why' for either.

What should the US have done to alleviate those causes?

[red states rule]

numerous, in my opinion. There is a deep seated enmity for the west dating back to the crusades, and clearly aggravated by the haphazard and arbitrary manner which the european powers used to carve up the spoils of the ottoman empire and their annointing of certain clans to ascend to royalty and power over vast regions and vast resources. There is a deep seated enmity for those secular arab and persian rulers who ruled their artifically created nations devoid of democracy and who did not equitably share the economic prosperity from oil that they horde for their own. There is a deep seated hatred for Israel and, for many, a powerful anger at the US for its unilateral uncritical support of Israel. There was a real indignation over the positioning of infidel troops on sacred Islamic land...

but certainly, AQ did not attack us on 9/11 because the "hated us for our freedoms".

Rove was right when he said libs saw the destruction of 9-11 and wanted to offer understanding and therapy

Thanks for making his case MM

[retiredman]

Ok, let's say their root causes were the Crusades and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire, never mind the 'why' for either.

What should the US have done to alleviate those causes?

not support dictators... The Saudi royal family, the Shah, Saddam.

act as an honest broker between Israel and the palestinians.

[retiredman]

Rove was right when he said libs saw the destruction of 9-11 and wanted to offer understanding and therapy

Thanks for making his case MM

and get back to the kiddie table and take your shopworn oneliners with you...the adults are trying to have a discussion here.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

and get back to the kiddie table and take your shopworn oneliners with you...the adults are trying to have a discussion here.:laugh2:

Well, that leaves you out of any discussion. You are the biggest white flag waver around here

[Kathianne]

not support dictators... The Saudi royal family, the Shah, Saddam.

act as an honest broker between Israel and the palestinians.

So in actuality it has nothing to do with the Crusades and other past European actions, it's all about Israel and US foreign policies?

[retiredman]

So in actuality it has nothing to do with the Crusades and other past European actions, it's all about Israel and US foreign policies?

your question was what the US could have done to alleviate the issues.

I answered your question.

[Kathianne]

your question was what the US could have done to alleviate the issues.

I answered your question.

Actually I thought you were responding to this:


Originally Posted by Kathianne
Ok, let's say their root causes were the Crusades and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire, never mind the 'why' for either.

What should the US have done to alleviate those causes?

Which was in response to this exhange:





Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
What are those 'root causes', i.e. reasons for 9/11?

Response of Maineman:

numerous, in my opinion. There is a deep seated enmity for the west dating back to the crusades, and clearly aggravated by the haphazard and arbitrary manner which the european powers used to carve up the spoils of the ottoman empire and their annointing of certain clans to ascend to royalty and power over vast regions and vast resources. There is a deep seated enmity for those secular arab and persian rulers who ruled their artifically created nations devoid of democracy and who did not equitably share the economic prosperity from oil that they horde for their own. There is a deep seated hatred for Israel and, for many, a powerful anger at the US for its unilateral uncritical support of Israel. There was a real indignation over the positioning of infidel troops on sacred Islamic land...

but certainly, AQ did not attack us on 9/11 because the "hated us for our freedoms".

[Kathianne]

your question was what the US could have done to alleviate the issues.

I answered your question.

Sorry, you were to quick for my edit above. Apologies.

[retiredman]

Actually I thought you were responding to this:

If you want to go back to ancient history, clearly the US could not have done anything about the crusades...and we could have played a more substantive role in the division of the ottoman empire, but I doubt that any American had any idea of the differences between sunnis and shiites in those days and clearly spreading democracy across the globe was not anywhere near as important as gaining access to resources.

In the recent past, the actions I suggested would have alleviated and ameliorated the irritants that caused 9/11.

[Kathianne]

If you want to go back to ancient history, clearly the US could not have done anything about the crusades...and we could have played a more substantive role in the division of the ottoman empire, but I doubt that any American had any idea of the differences between sunnis and shiites in those days and clearly spreading democracy across the globe was not anywhere near as important as gaining access to resources.

In the recent past, the actions I suggested would have alleviated and ameliorated the irritants that caused 9/11.

I understand your points, though I don't see them as appearing true, since Europe hasn't followed our foreign policies and they make the hit list too. Nor did the Australians jump into the ME to any grand degree, yet they got Bali.

The truth is 'it's the West' and mostly Israel. I truly wonder if Israel disappeared, as so many would like, would it change the real issues of the WOT?

[retiredman]

I understand your points, though I don't see them as appearing true, since Europe hasn't followed our foreign policies and they make the hit list too. Nor did the Australians jump into the ME to any grand degree, yet they got Bali.

The truth is 'it's the West' and mostly Israel. I truly wonder if Israel disappeared, as so many would like, would it change the real issues of the WOT?

Europe played the major role in dividing the ottoman empire and annointing the house of saud... and in propping up the Shah and Saddam as well.

[Kathianne]

Europe played the major role in dividing the ottoman empire and annointing the house of saud... and in propping up the Shah and Saddam as well.

Ok, I'll assume correct. Do you disagree about Israel? What if it were gone? Then they can use Crusdades and Ottomans?

[retiredman]

Ok, I'll assume correct. Do you disagree about Israel? What if it were gone? Then they can use Crusdades and Ottomans?

Israel is a HUGE irritant for muslims...and an even greater one for extremist muslims.... and their draconian treatment of palestinians is certainly creating extremists.

[Kathianne]

Israel is a HUGE irritant for muslims...and an even greater one for extremist muslims.... and their draconian treatment of palestinians is certainly creating extremists.

True, they seethe over Israel. If it were gone? They would stop seething about the West?

[glockmail]

Israel is a HUGE irritant for muslims...and an even greater one for extremist muslims.... and their draconian treatment of palestinians is certainly creating extremists.

Muslims will just have to get over it. If Israel were gone, they'd find something else to whine about. It ain't going anywhere.

[retiredman]

True, they seethe over Israel. If it were gone? They would stop seething about the West?
academic...or better yet, moot. If pigs had wings, they'd fly. Israel isn't going away and I cannot ever see a situation where that would be an option that anyone from the west would ever discuss.

It would be nicer if we could get Israel to allow the creation of a palestinian state. It is not like the west bank or the gaza strip are any primo real estate holdings.

There was an idea being discussed as early as 1981 when I was there that Arafat allegedly was willing to honestly stop the struggle and work for peace if Israel gave up the westbank, gaza and internationalized Jerusalem.... and I had PLO middle grade officers telling me that....but that moment in time has passed and I am not sure if anything will quell Islam's fervent desire to own the temple mount.

[Kathianne]

academic...or better yet, moot. If pigs had wings, they'd fly. Israel isn't going away and I cannot ever see a situation where that would be an option that anyone from the west would ever discuss.

It would be nicer if we could get Israel to allow the creation of a palestinian state. It is not like the west bank or the gaza strip are any primo real estate holdings.

There was an idea being discussed as early as 1981 when I was there that Arafat allegedly was willing to honestly stop the struggle and work for peace if Israel gave up the westbank, gaza and internationalized Jerusalem.... and I had PLO middle grade officers telling me that....but that moment in time has passed and I am not sure if anything will quell Islam's fervent desire to own the temple mount.

Then you are far more optimistic than I. While the Palestinians and the world slam Israel for it's 'protectionism' and sanctions on those poor people, this is what was happening today:

Rallying for Hamas
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847343673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8753/satellitebn9.jpg
Burning flags of Israel and US, all in a day's passing
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7646/20071215gazamediaswarmyu6.jpg


'Gaza Strip will become a graveyard for IDF soldiers'
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 15, 2007

Hamas on Saturday marked its 20th anniversary by vowing to continue the "jihad" against Israel and never recognize its right to exist.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians participated in a main rally organized by Hamas in the center of Gaza City in what was seen as one of the movement's biggest shows of force.

Shouting, "We won't recognize Israel," the Hamas supporters burned Israeli flags and chanted slogans against the US.

The rally was held in the same square where thousands of Fatah supporters attended a memorial for Yasser Arafat last month. Hamas officials estimated that nearly 250,000 Palestinians participated in the rally as opposed to less than 50,000 who showed up for the Arafat event.

Fatah representatives claimed that the Hamas rally was a "failure" because of the "small" number of participants.

"This is Hamas's poorest performance since 1997," said Fatah spokesman Jamal Nazzal. "Hamas threatened to cut off the salary [of] and beat any activist who does not bring his family members to the rally. Despite that, they were unable to fill the square, and there were many empty chairs."

The rally came amid increased tensions between Hamas and Fatah following the arrest of two senior Fatah figures in the Gaza Strip.

One of them, Omar Ghul, is a special adviser to PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad. He was arrested shortly after returning to the Gaza Strip from Ramallah to participate in the funeral of his mother-in-law.

Hamas said Ghul was arrested after he entered the Gaza Strip through the Erez border crossing in disguise. The second man who was arrested was Ismail Abu Naja, a former deputy speaker of the Palestinian parliament. Abu Naja was arrested after holding a press conference in Gaza City at which he accused Hamas of killing three Palestinians during a funeral on Friday.

The three were killed by an explosive device that apparently went off accidentally during the funeral of Islamic Jihad members who had been killed a day earlier in an Israeli attack.

Abu Naja and many Fatah officials in Ramallah were quick to blame Hamas for the explosion, saying it was a deliberate attack on civilians.

The Palestinian security forces in the West Bank banned Hamas celebrations by deploying hundreds of policemen in main cities and removing all Hamas-affiliated graffiti and flags.

Several Hamas figures were summoned to the Palestinian security forces and warned not to hold any events marking the Hamas anniversary. Hamas said 26 of its followers were arrested over the weekend in the West Bank by Fatah-controlled forces.

"The IDF's withdrawal from Gaza will be nothing like its invasion, the Strip will become a graveyard for its troops," Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri warned Saturday in his chilling opening address at the Gaza rally.

"Jews... we have already dug your graves," exclaimed Masri...

[retiredman]

Then you are far more optimistic than I.

"but that moment in time has passed and I am not sure if anything will quell Islam's fervent desire to own the temple mount."

I intended no optimism with that last sentence.

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent point kathianne

[Kathianne]

"but that moment in time has passed and I am not sure if anything will quell Islam's fervent desire to own the temple mount."

I intended no optimism with that last sentence.

It's not just Temple Mount, it's not just Jerusalem, it's the existence of the state.

Bottom line, Israel is the one thing that 'unites' Islam, until it doesn't exist, then another boogey must be found. It will be.

[retiredman]

I think the existence of the STATE of Israel, to some extent, unifies the palestinian people, but even then, there continues to exist the rift between fatah and hamas, so unification is a bit strong a term to use.... outside of palestine, arabs and muslims in more distant lands are much more concerned about the temple mount.

[Kathianne]

I think the existence of the STATE of Israel, to some extent, unifies the palestinian people, but even then, there continues to exist the rift between fatah and hamas, so unification is a bit strong a term to use.... outside of palestine, arabs and muslims in more distant lands are much more concerned about the temple mount.

Right. Iran or it's proxies will kill Israel. Then the Palestinians will engage in a civil war, destroying all that makes Israel habitable. We saw this already with the ceded lands.

The rest of Islamic countries will turn away, the Palestinians having served the role of useful idiots. That is where the real problem for non-Islamic countries enters front stage. I don't care about the Sunni/Shia divide now, do you?

[glockmail]

Palis are pawns of Syria and Iran.

[Kathianne]

Palis are pawns of Syria and Iran.

and Syria is less than a pawn of Iran, so the story goes...

[glockmail]

and Syria is less than a pawn of Iran, so the story goes... The stench is unbearable.

[retiredman]

Right. Iran or it's proxies will kill Israel. Then the Palestinians will engage in a civil war, destroying all that makes Israel habitable. We saw this already with the ceded lands.

The rest of Islamic countries will turn away, the Palestinians having served the role of useful idiots. That is where the real problem for non-Islamic countries enters front stage. I don't care about the Sunni/Shia divide now, do you?

I am dubious about a scenario that has arabs killing arabs at the behest of persians. I am not sure that Iran has that much clout.

[actsnoblemartin]

Youre right, excellent point.


It's not just Temple Mount, it's not just Jerusalem, it's the existence of the state.

Bottom line, Israel is the one thing that 'unites' Islam, until it doesn't exist, then another boogey must be found. It will be.

[actsnoblemartin]

I thought muslims ( shia and sunni) have been at war with each other since the beginning?


I am dubious about a scenario that has arabs killing arabs at the behest of persians. I am not sure that Iran has that much clout.

[red states rule]

I thought muslims ( shia and sunni) have been at war with each other since the beginning?

People are starting to work together to get things done in Iraq. This is the good news the liberal media ignores, and libs like MM hate to hear about

It puts a huge damper on the Dems continued attempts to surrender

[retiredman]

I thought muslims ( shia and sunni) have been at war with each other since the beginning?

not all arabs are sunni, and not all shiites are persian.

[red states rule]

not all arabs are sunni, and not all shiites are persian.

and sadly enough for the left, not all the news coming from Iraq is bad

[retiredman]

and sadly enough for the left, not all the news coming from raq is bad


are you actually following this discussion, or do you just mindlessly toss out oneliners without any idea what the line of discussion is all about?

I agree that not all the news out of Iraq is bad...but what, pray tell, does that have to do with Kathianne's inquiry about how Israel plays into islamic hatred?

[red states rule]

are you actually following this discussion, or do you just mindlessly toss out oneliners without any idea what the line of discussion is all about?

I agree that not all the news out of Iraq is bad...but what, pray tell, does that have to do with Kathianne's inquiry about how Israel plays into islamic hatred?

Yea, Israel does inflame that hate. Living their lives, raising their kids, protecting their borders, and worst of all - they are breathing

[Kathianne]

are you actually following this discussion, or do you just mindlessly toss out oneliners without any idea what the line of discussion is all about?

I agree that not all the news out of Iraq is bad...but what, pray tell, does that have to do with Kathianne's inquiry about how Israel plays into islamic hatred?

I'm a bit curious on that as well.

[retiredman]

Yea, Israel does inflame that hate. Living their lives, raising their kids, protecting their borders, and worst of all - they are breathing


my question had to do with what the good news out of Iraq had to do with this discussion. Do you, or do you NOT have an answer to that question?

[red states rule]

my question had to do with what the good news out of Iraq had to do with this discussion. Do you, or do you NOT have an answer to that question?

You just can't accept the facts can you?

[retiredman]

You just can't accept the facts can you?

Roger Clemens uses steroids. I can accept that fact. But Roger has as much to do with this thread as YOUR comment did. DId you misplace your comment? Was it meant for some other thread where it might have had even a scintilla of relevance?

[glockmail]

Yea, Israel does inflame that hate. Living their lives, raising their kids, protecting their borders, and worst of all - they are breathing


Roger Clemens uses steroids. I can accept that fact. But Roger has as much to do with this thread as YOUR comment did. DId you misplace your comment? Was it meant for some other thread where it might have had even a scintilla of relevance? Why can't you address the issue, MM?

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of the thread, it seems liberals are more worried about the well being of the terrorists then winning the war

The primary duty of the government is to protect US citizens, but Dems would rather grant "rights" to the terrorists then capture or kill them

[retiredman]

Why can't you address the issue, MM?


:fu:

why does RSR get off topic and why must I go follow him when he does? I was having a rather cordial discussion about the middle east when RSR chimed in with something completely off the wall. Even Kathianne wondered what he was talking about.

[retiredman]

Back to the topic of the thread, it seems liberals are more worried about the well being of the terrorists then winning the war

The primary duty of the government is to protect US citizens, but Dems would rather grant "rights" to the terrorists then capture or kill them

it has nothing to do with granting anyone "rights". It has to do with obeying the constitution.

[red states rule]

:fu:

why does RSR get off topic and why must I go follow him when he does? I was having a rather cordial discussion about the middle east when RSR chimed in with something completely off the wall. Even Kathianne wondered what he was talking about.

Translation - he can't

[retiredman]

Translation - he can't


you have a hard enough time actually writing your own thoughts in english, you should really not attempt to translate the work of others. You are clearly not qualified.

[red states rule]

you have a hard enough time actually writing your own thoughts in english, you should really not attempt to translate the work of others. You are clearly not qualified.

Still can't counter the facts, eh? :lol:

[retiredman]

Still can't counter the facts, eh? :lol:

the facts are: Kathianne and I were having a discussion about the goals of radical Islam and how Israel fit into their priority list and whether or not, rhetorically speaking, if Israel were to "go away, how that would or might change the level of belligerence. And out of the blue, you chimed in with "and sadly enough for the left, not all the news coming from Iraq is bad" which had absolutely nothing to do with the line of the discussion. Kathianne questioned it...so did I. It was not relevant. It was yet another oneliner school yard taunt from a guy who is incapable of intelligently and thoughtfully participating in any sort of discussion about anything.

[red states rule]

the facts are: Kathianne and I were having a discussion about the goals of radical Islam and how Israel fit into their priority list and whether or not, rhetorically speaking, if Israel were to "go away, how that would or might change the level of belligerence. And out of the blue, you chimed in with "and sadly enough for the left, not all the news coming from Iraq is bad" which had absolutely nothing to do with the line of the discussion. Kathianne questioned it...so did I. It was not relevant. It was yet another oneliner school yard taunt from a guy who is incapable of intelligently and thoughtfully participating in any sort of discussion about anything.

The fact is you can't counter what I posted

Typical of you

[retiredman]

The fact is you can't counter what I posted

Typical of you

no. the fact is: you posted an off-the-wall oneliner that had nothing to do with the conversation. I ignored it. interrupting people and trying to change the subject of a conversation that THEY are having is rude.

typical of YOU, sir.

[red states rule]

no. the fact is: you posted an off-the-wall oneliner that had nothing to do with the conversation. I ignored it. interrupting people and trying to change the subject of a conversation that THEY are having is rude.

typical of YOU, sir.

You do have a knack for ignoring facts MM

[retiredman]

You do have a knack for ignoring facts MM

not so...but you were rude, that is for certain.

but DO tell me, just for fun, what FACT is it that you think I am ignoring in THIS thread?

[red states rule]

not so...but you were rude, that is for certain.

but DO tell me, just for fun, what FACT is it that you think I am ignoring in THIS thread?

You calling someone rude is like Al Capone calling someone a criminal

I posted what Israel does inflame the hate of terrorists, and you did ignore it

[retiredman]

You were rude. admit it. even Kathianne had no clue what your interruption was about.

and you said:

Yea, Israel does inflame that hate. Living their lives, raising their kids, protecting their borders, and worst of all - they are breathing.
and that is pretty nonsensical. What Israel really does to inflame the hatred of the Islamic world is NONE of those things.... it is their continued occupation of the temple mount and the continued presence in the territories occupied after the '67 war.

but regardless, we were talking about something else entirely and you interrupted with your blather. that is a fact.

[red states rule]

You were rude. admit it. even Kathianne had no clue what your interruption was about.

and you said:

Yea, Israel does inflame that hate. Living their lives, raising their kids, protecting their borders, and worst of all - they are breathing.
and that is pretty nonsensical. What Israel really does to inflame the hatred of the Islamic world is NONE of those things.... it is their continued occupation of the temple mount and the continued presence in the territories occupied after the '67 war.

but regardless, we were talking about something else entirely and you interrupted with your blather. that is a fact.



No it is not

Hamas has said they will NEVER recognize Israel's right to exist

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847343673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Little Adolpf in Iraq has said Israel needs to wiped off the map - and Russia has sent nuke fuel to Iran

[retiredman]

No it is not

Hamas has said they will NEVER recognize Israel's right to exist

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847343673&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Little Adolpf in Iraq has said Israel needs to wiped off the map - and Russia has sent nuke fuel to Iran


What Iran SAYS and what Iran or Hamas, for that matter, will SETTLE FOR may very well be two different things. The issues that upset the Islamic world as a whole are the temple mount and the occupied territories. fact

another fact: you interrupted a conversation and are a rude boy.

[red states rule]

What Iran SAYS and what Iran or Hamas, for that matter, will SETTLE FOR may very well be two different things. The issues that upset the Islamic world as a whole are the temple mount and the occupied territories. fact

another fact: you interrupted a conversation and are a rude boy.

You are such a fool. No matter what the facts are, you will never stand up to our enemies

Again, as long Israel exists the hate and desire to kill wil be there. Iran will never get a nuke - the Us and Israel will make sure of that

[retiredman]

You are such a fool. No matter what the facts are, you will never stand up to our enemies

Again, as long Israel exists the hate and desire to kill wil be there. Iran will never get a nuke - the Us and Israel will make sure of that


YOur ignorance of foreign affairs and diplomacy is staggering.

[red states rule]

YOur ignorance of foreign affairs and diplomacy is staggering.

Translation - MM owned again on another thread

[glockmail]

not so...but you were rude, that is for certain.

... This has to be a first maineman complaining that another poster has been rude. :pee:

[red states rule]

This has to be a first maineman complaining that another poster has been rude. :pee:

It is like Bill Clinton called someone a sexual predator

[retiredman]

you two pathetic losers really crack me up: Opinions instead of facts... unjustified claims of "victory" all the time... melodramatic righteous indignation... and suprisingly affectionate mutual support and admiration for one another. It is kinda touching, really!:lol:

[glockmail]

It is like Bill Clinton called someone a sexual predator It looks like he's speechless now.

[red states rule]

you two pathetic losers really crack me up: Opinions instead of facts... unjustified claims of "victory" all the time... melodramatic righteous indignation... and suprisingly affectionate mutual support and admiration for one another. It is kinda touching, really!:lol:

This is about as constructive as MM's posts get

[red states rule]

It looks like he's speechless now.

We can only hope

[April15]

Judge orders hearing on destroyed CIA videotapes

* Story Highlights
* Hearing on whether Bush administration violated court order by destroying tapes
* Tapes show interrogation of two al Qaeda subjects in 2002
* Judge orders government lawyers to appear before him Friday morning
* Next Article in Politics »

From Bill Mears
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to appear in court Friday to answer allegations that it defied his demand to preserve evidence that may have included CIA interrogation videos of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody.
art.remes.ap.jpg

David Remes, a lawyer who represents a Yemeni national and other detainees, asked for the court hearing.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy issued the order Tuesday, rejecting White House arguments that court intervention would be premature, since Congress and government officials are already looking into any destruction of the tapes.

In an emergency request filed Monday, lawyers for a group of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, urged the judge to step in now. They accused the White House of blocking outside inquiry into the tapes and trying to ensure that only federal agencies implicated in the destruction would carry out an internal inquiry.

[red states rule]

Judge orders hearing on destroyed CIA videotapes

* Story Highlights
* Hearing on whether Bush administration violated court order by destroying tapes
* Tapes show interrogation of two al Qaeda subjects in 2002
* Judge orders government lawyers to appear before him Friday morning
* Next Article in Politics »

From Bill Mears
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to appear in court Friday to answer allegations that it defied his demand to preserve evidence that may have included CIA interrogation videos of terrorist suspects in U.S. custody.
art.remes.ap.jpg

David Remes, a lawyer who represents a Yemeni national and other detainees, asked for the court hearing.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy issued the order Tuesday, rejecting White House arguments that court intervention would be premature, since Congress and government officials are already looking into any destruction of the tapes.

In an emergency request filed Monday, lawyers for a group of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, urged the judge to step in now. They accused the White House of blocking outside inquiry into the tapes and trying to ensure that only federal agencies implicated in the destruction would carry out an internal inquiry.


Judge Henry Kennedy is a Clinton appointed Judge who has a history of siding with AQ and against the US ias we try to fight the war on terror

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/judge-henry-kennedy-jr-sides-with-al.html

[retiredman]

Judge Henry Kennedy is a Clinton appointed Judge who has a history of siding with AQ and against the US ias we try to fight the war on terror

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/judge-henry-kennedy-jr-sides-with-al.html


I would suggest that he is siding with the constitution!:clap:

[red states rule]

I would suggest that he is siding with the constitution!:clap:

No he is siding with the terrorists like the Dems are doing - since Dems want to grant US Constitutional rights to terrorists

[retiredman]

No he is siding with the terrorists like the Dems are doing - since Dems want to grant US Constitutional rights to terrorists

incorrect. democrats do NOT want to grant terrorist detainees any rights guaranteed in our constitution.

[red states rule]

incorrect. democrats do NOT want to grant terrorist detainees any rights guaranteed in our constitution.

You do like like hell MM. Above all, you must defend your defeatest party no matter what the truth is

[retiredman]

You do like like hell MM. Above all, you must defend your defeatest party no matter what the truth is

provide one link to a credible NEWS source that quotes any elected democrat demanding that constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens be extended to cover foreign detainees.

If you cannot, then the truth will be evident.:laugh2:

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

provide one link to a credible NEWS source that quotes any elected democrat demanding that constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens be extended to cover foreign detainees.

If you cannot, then the truth will be evident.:laugh2:

I'll wait.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzU4Y2IwNGE2OWFmMWUwMzhmYTdlY2MwMTk2NmQ4NzY=

The article is loaded with facts which you will dismiss out of hand

[retiredman]

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzU4Y2IwNGE2OWFmMWUwMzhmYTdlY2MwMTk2NmQ4NzY=

The article is loaded with facts which you will dismiss out of hand

it's an EDITORIAL!!! Do you even KNOW the difference between FACT and OPINION?
:laugh2:

[glockmail]

it's an EDITORIAL!!! Do you even KNOW the difference between FACT and OPINION?
:laugh2: An editorial that contains facts then editorializes about them. Are you disputing these facts or just shooting off into your mouth?

[retiredman]

The editorial may indeed contain facts.

I am disputing the idea that his "editorial" answers the question that was posed to him:

"provide one link to a credible NEWS source that quotes any elected democrat demanding that constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens be extended to cover foreign detainees.

If you cannot, then the truth will be evident.

I'll wait."

still waiting :laugh2:

[April15]

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzU4Y2IwNGE2OWFmMWUwMzhmYTdlY2MwMTk2NmQ4NzY=

The article is loaded with facts which you will dismiss out of handThe very first point made in the editorial is false. That Guantanamo is not USA is bunk! Why then are the iguanas that live on the island a delicacy but if you are in the Gitmo area they are an endangered species and cannot be caught for any reason?
All the laws of our nation should then apply!

[glockmail]

.... iguanas ...are an endangered species and cannot be caught for any reason?
All the laws of our nation should then apply!
What false logic! :lol:

[glockmail]

The editorial may indeed contain facts.

I am disputing the idea that his "editorial" answers the question that was posed to him:

"provide one link to a credible NEWS source that quotes any elected democrat demanding that constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens be extended to cover foreign detainees.

If you cannot, then the truth will be evident.

I'll wait."

still waiting :laugh2:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html


177 Democrats and one independent voted nay 177 Bastards

[retiredman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html

177 Bastards

odd. I read through the entire washington post article and there was not one quote there from any democrat demanding that constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens be extended to cover foreign detainees.

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

odd. I read through the entire washington post article and there was not one quote there from any democrat demanding that constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens be extended to cover foreign detainees.

:laugh2: 177 Democrats voted against the bill; its purpose was to deny the detainees just that. :pee:

[April15]

What false logic! :lol:Sorry but if one law applies then all laws apply. Nothing false about that.

[manu1959]

Sorry but if one law applies then all laws apply. Nothing false about that.

like the one where spies and deserters are shot at dawn?

[glockmail]

Sorry but if one law applies then all laws apply. Nothing false about that. OK so its sorry logic then. It still isn't logical, but liberalism never is. :pee:

[retiredman]

177 Democrats voted against the bill; its purpose was to deny the detainees just that. :pee:


It's purpose was much more specifically defined than "denying constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens to foreign detainees."

still waiting.

[glockmail]

It's purpose was much more specifically defined than "denying constitutional rights normally afforded only to citizens to foreign detainees."

still waiting. But that's what it did.

[retiredman]

so what? It did several things. Until you bring me a quote from a democrat who voted against it because it was denying constitutional rights to detainees that had previously been afforded only to citizens, I will continue to wait patiently.

[glockmail]

so what? It did several things. Until you bring me a quote from a democrat who voted against it because it was denying constitutional rights to detainees that had previously been afforded only to citizens, I will continue to wait patiently. Then keep waiting. Theives and traitors never reveal their true intentions knowingly. But the fact remains that if a "no" vote majority would have granted constitutional rights to detainees that had previously been afforded only to citizens.

[retiredman]

Then keep waiting. Theives and traitors never reveal their true intentions knowingly. But the fact remains that if a "no" vote majority would have granted constitutional rights to detainees that had previously been afforded only to citizens.

are you suggesting that, when foreign citizens are here on a valid visa, for example, that they are not afforded the right to challenge their detention, examine all evidence against them, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses?

[glockmail]

are you suggesting that, when foreign citizens are here on a valid visa, for example, that they are not afforded the right to challenge their detention, examine all evidence against them, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses? We're talking about foreign terrorists.

[retiredman]

the fact remains that if a "no" vote majority would have granted constitutional rights to detainees that had previously been afforded only to citizens.

so....you can't back up this statement?

why am I not surprised?

[glockmail]

so....you can't back up this statement?

why am I not surprised? It's in the law man. Look it up yourself.

[red states rule]

It's in the law man. Look it up yourself.

Since when have libs like MM ever let a law stand in the way of their wants and desires?

If the law gets in their way - they ignore it

[bullypulpit]

What's being missed in this whole issue has nothing to do with the destruction of the tapes in 2005 and who authorized it. Rather, it is who in the Bush administration knowingly lied to a federal judge in the spring of 2003.

On May 7th, 2003, at a Classified Information Procedures Act hearing, the presiding judge, Leonie Brinkma, ordered the government to determine if recordings were being made of the interrogations of suspected terrorists in US custody. A couple of days later, she asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format”? The response was a flat out "No." This in a <a href=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf>letter<a> to the judges from US attorneys Novak and Raskin (see page 4).

This presents us with at least two apparent felonies in this matter...obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. Involved would be a familiar list of names...Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez and David Addington who are figuring prominently in the inquiry into the destruction of tapes, which the administration denied ever existed to begin with.

[glockmail]

What's being missed in this whole issue has nothing to do with the destruction of the tapes in 2005 and who authorized it. Rather, it is who in the Bush administration knowingly lied to a federal judge in the spring of 2003.

On May 7th, 2003, at a Classified Information Procedures Act hearing, the presiding judge, Leonie Brinkma, ordered the government to determine if recordings were being made of the interrogations of suspected terrorists in US custody. A couple of days later, she asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format”? The response was a flat out "No." This in a <a href=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf>letter<a> to the judges from US attorneys Novak and Raskin (see page 4).

This presents us with at least two apparent felonies in this matter...obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. Involved would be a familiar list of names...Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez and David Addington who are figuring prominently in the inquiry into the destruction of tapes, which the administration denied ever existed to begin with. That's not what it says. It says that the "US Government does not have any video or audio tapes of the interrogations...".:laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

That's not what it says. It says that the "US Government does not have any video or audio tapes of the interrogations...".:laugh2:

Which was still, to put it bluntly, a lie. If they didn't have any, what exactly was destroyed?

[Kathianne]

Which was still, to put it bluntly, a lie. If they didn't have any, what exactly was destroyed?

If it was so, then it would be no better than
The response was a flat out "No."

[bullypulpit]

If it was so, then it would be no better than

Follow the link to the letter. Top of page 4. The response was "No."

[Kathianne]

Follow the link to the letter. Top of page 4. The response was "No."

I see it, you are correct. I also see the government saying 'in all candor' on pg. 5. This will get adjudicated. Some things really shouldn't be in public, IMO.

There's something wrong about trying to redact information and making it public from the agencies that are supposed to be protecting us, that's Congress' job, not the NY Times and leakers jobs.

[glockmail]

Which was still, to put it bluntly, a lie. If they didn't have any, what exactly was destroyed? Not in the post-Clinto era. A tape is a tape. A disk, flash card or hard drive is something else, and "are" is not "was". :lol:

[red states rule]

Not in the post-Clinto era. A tape is a tape. A disk, flash card or hard drive is something else, and "are" is not "was". :lol:

The real reason BP and his fellow libs are upset over the tape being destroyed is they lost out on campaign ads in 08

Libs would show clips and say how the US is "torturing" the helpless freedom fighters - and for what? Information that might save the lives of US bullies in Iraq and around the world? Is it worth it?

[bullypulpit]

Not in the post-Clinto era. A tape is a tape. A disk, flash card or hard drive is something else, and "are" is not "was". :lol:

Nice try, if you consider your feeble, half-assed attempts at sophistry to be such.

<blockquote>"...she asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded <b><i>in any format</i></b>”?</blockquote>

"...Any format..." includes flash cards, hard drives, cd, dvd, et al. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Nice try, if you consider your feeble, half-assed attempts at sophistry to be such.

<blockquote>"...she asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded <b><i>in any format</i></b>”?</blockquote>

"...Any format..." includes flash cards, hard drives, cd, dvd, et al. :laugh2:

You are getting desperate BP. Dems are losing on pushing for the Terrorists Bill of Rights

[bullypulpit]

The real reason BP and his fellow libs are upset over the tape being destroyed is they lost out on campaign ads in 08

Libs would show clips and say how the US is "torturing" the helpless freedom fighters - and for what? Information that might save the lives of US bullies in Iraq and around the world? Is it worth it?

Actually, it's because torture is a violation of US law and the destruction of evidence showing US personnel engaged in such practices is, at minimum, constitute obstruction of justice.

George Washington Law School professor, Jonathan Turley asserts that there are, at a minimum, "six identifiable crimes" in the destruction of the tapes.

<center><a href=http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Turley_At_least_six_crimes_in_1219.html>Constitutional scholar: 'At least six identifiable crimes' possible in CIA tape affair</a></center>

It's not about coddling terrorists as you and your fellow right wing-nuts keep harping on. It's about the rule of law. Or is that notion as quaint and antiquated as Alberto Gonzalez asserted the Geneva Conventions are?

[red states rule]

Actually, it's because torture is a violation of US law and the destruction of evidence showing US personnel engaged in such practices is, at minimum, constitute obstruction of justice.

George Washington Law School professor, Jonathan Turley asserts that there are, at a minimum, "six identifiable crimes" in the destruction of the tapes.

<center><a href=http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Turley_At_least_six_crimes_in_1219.html>Constitutional scholar: 'At least six identifiable crimes' possible in CIA tape affair</a></center>

It's not about coddling terrorists as you and your fellow right wing-nuts keep harping on. It's about the rule of law. Or is that notion as quaint and antiquated as Alberto Gonzalez asserted the Geneva Conventions are?

Waterboarding is not torture, it has not been used in years, and was only used on 3 terrorists

The terrorists it was used on gave up information that stopped attacks and saved lives

It seems you would rather have the terrorist attacks then using all means at our disposal to stop them. That way you can vent more hate toward Pres Bush, the intel agencies, and the US military

[bullypulpit]

Let's examine this particular dumb-ass attack of yours line by line.



Waterboarding is not torture, it has not been used in years, and was only used on 3 terrorists

Torture as defined by the following treaties which the US is signatory to as well as federal and international law.

<blockquote> * Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture:

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

* The US Reservations for the UN Convention Against Torture:

In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

* Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

* Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

* Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

"Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

* Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture

For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

* 18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control</blockquote>

Waterboarding IS torture under ALL of the above documents. Sorry, but reality trumps right wing-nut spin every time.


The terrorists it was used on gave up information that stopped attacks and saved lives

You keep spouting this shit about waterboarding only being "only used on 3 terrorists" and their having given up actionable intel. What evidence do you give to support it? NONE. None besides the Bush administration's word for it and even they can't present ANY credible evidence.


It seems you would rather have the terrorist attacks then using all means at our disposal to stop them. That way you can vent more hate toward Pres Bush, the intel agencies, and the US military

This is utter bullshit and you know it. Under US law and treaty obligations as well as international law, torture IS NOT a "means at our disposal", nor anyone else's for that matter, for the gathering of intel. My antipathy towards the Bush administration lies in its utter disregard for the rule of law, it is not personal. Hatred is personal, I have no personal involvement with Bush at all, and he's not worth the emotional energy hatred demands.

That you would even suggest that I somehow hate the military is utter, unvarnished and vulgar bullshit. My brother-in-law in active duty military. My cousin's husband is active duty military. My niece will soon be active duty military. I served my country honorably. Every generation of my family has served this country's military with honor and courage since WWII. Until you can claim the same, you really need to just shut the fuck up about anyone else's feelings towards the military. Asshole.

[red states rule]

Once again BP, what do you have to counter your liberal meda reporting waterboarding has been used 3 times and has not ben used in years. The success of the procedure has been reported - but you tend to ignore these pesky facts since they destroy your anti USA rants

Here is one link to prove my point. I will wait for your apology - or you will run away from it

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


Given how you and your fellow members of the kook left operate, if an attack would happen on US soil you would demand to know why Pres Bush did not stop the attack. If it came out we had terrorists in custody and we did not use all methods available to get the info you would having the same temper tantrum as you are now for NOT using them

Funny how waterboarding was not a crime when Dems were in power:lol:

[bullypulpit]

Once again BP, what do you have to counter your liberal meda reporting waterboarding has been used 3 times and has not ben used in years. The success of the procedure has been reported - but you tend to ignore these pesky facts since they destroy your anti USA rants

Here is one link to prove my point. I will wait for your apology - or you will run away from it

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


Given how you and your fellow members of the kook left operate, if an attack would happen on US soil you would demand to know why Pres Bush did not stop the attack. If it came out we had terrorists in custody and we did not use all methods available to get the info you would having the same temper tantrum as you are now for NOT using them

Funny how waterboarding was not a crime when Dems were in power:lol:

Wow! Will wonders never cease! You provided a link to a credible news source. While citing sources which state that waterboarding has not been used in several years. No evidence of the efficacy of the waterboarding has been provided by you or the Bush administration.

Your hypotehtical is equally ridiculous in that The Bush administration and the the Republican controlled Congress failed to implement ANY of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission...has failed to secure our ports, nuclear or chemical facilities...our borders. So yes, the fault would lie with the Bush administration, but not for the reasons you and your fellow travelers continually cite. The four corners of the law are sufficient to protect this nation, and others, as we have repeatedly seen.

Your assertion that waterboarding was not a crime under Democratic administration is not only false...it is assinine. But that's nothing unusual for you.

[red states rule]

Wow! Will wonders never cease! You provided a link to a credible news source. While citing sources which state that waterboarding has not been used in several years. No evidence of the efficacy of the waterboarding has been provided by you or the Bush administration.

Your hypotehtical is equally ridiculous in that The Bush administration and the the Republican controlled Congress failed to implement ANY of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission...has failed to secure our ports, nuclear or chemical facilities...our borders. So yes, the fault would lie with the Bush administration, but not for the reasons you and your fellow travelers continually cite. The four corners of the law are sufficient to protect this nation, and others, as we have repeatedly seen.

Your assertion that waterboarding was not a crime under Democratic administration is not only false...it is assinine. But that's nothing unusual for you.

BP how many times to you have to get your ass kicked before you give it up? I have posted several links from agents who have said it worked the three times it was used

But if you insist

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/waterboarding_has_only_been_used_by_the_united_sta tes_three_times/

It has been priven Dems said nothing about the tapes of terrorists being waterboarded and some even asked if we were being tough enough on them

[Kathianne]

Wow! Will wonders never cease! You provided a link to a credible news source. While citing sources which state that waterboarding has not been used in several years. No evidence of the efficacy of the waterboarding has been provided by you or the Bush administration.

Your hypotehtical is equally ridiculous in that The Bush administration and the the Republican controlled Congress failed to implement ANY of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission...has failed to secure our ports, nuclear or chemical facilities...our borders. So yes, the fault would lie with the Bush administration, but not for the reasons you and your fellow travelers continually cite. The four corners of the law are sufficient to protect this nation, and others, as we have repeatedly seen.

Your assertion that waterboarding was not a crime under Democratic administration is not only false...it is assinine. But that's nothing unusual for you.

I think you are wrong Bully, it was and remains legal. Whether or not torture, that is a different question. Specter lays it out here:

http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=1b205b4e-1321-0e36-ba57-9182daa51d09


...

I got some reassurance when I read Senator Schumer's comments last Saturday, where Senator Schumer was quoted as saying that Judge Mukasey had assured him that Congress could declare waterboarding illegal and that he, Judge Mukasey, would say that the president did not have Article II power to supersede that, as the president has superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on the basis of his Article II powers.

It is basic law that a statute cannot alter the Constitution; it takes a constitutional amendment. And if the president has Article II powers, he can disregard a statute under our laws. And there's circuit court opinion for that on foreign intelligence-gathering.

I wanted to be sure, so I called Judge Mukasey yesterday myself, and I had an extended conversation with him and got definitive answers to two very important propositions.

First, it was his legal opinion that the Congress has the constitutional authority to prohibit waterboarding, equating it with torture and making it illegal.

And secondly, he said that it was his opinion that the president did not have Article II powers as commander in chief or other inherent power to disregard a congressional enactment to that effect.

... If Congress wishes to pass legislation declaring it torture and making it illegal under the Conventions, then they may do so. He goes onto say there is and has been, pending legislation to do just that-they've failed to do so, yet.

[retiredman]

I think you are wrong Bully, it was and remains legal. Whether or not torture, that is a different question. Specter lays it out here:

http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=1b205b4e-1321-0e36-ba57-9182daa51d09

If Congress wishes to pass legislation declaring it torture and making it illegal under the Conventions, then they may do so. He goes onto say there is and has been, pending legislation to do just that-they've failed to do so, yet.

is it not torture as per the UN treaty on torture?

[red states rule]

is it not torture as per the UN treaty on torture?

waterboarding is not torture. Libs seem to more interested in coddling terrorists then stopping their attacks

[Kathianne]

is it not torture as per the UN treaty on torture?

I haven't a clue. I will say that the US has found that the UN has a tendency to try and tie up Gulliver, for some reason Gulliver isn't taking that road. I think few Americans would be up in arms about the government ignoring UN proclamations, but would have problems with Congressional actions that find it torture by the Conventions. With all the ballyhoo, one would think it was already done, but for some reason Congress has not acted, as Specter acknowledges.

[JohnDoe]

I haven't a clue. I will say that the US has found that the UN has a tendency to try and tie up Gulliver, for some reason Gulliver isn't taking that road. I think few Americans would be up in arms about the government ignoring UN proclamations, but would have problems with Congressional actions that find it torture by the Conventions. With all the ballyhoo, one would think it was already done, but for some reason Congress has not acted, as Specter acknowledges. I believe that Waterboarding is defined as torture in the Military Code of Ethics, the Army Field Manual, and the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention against Torture of which we, the USA are signatories and Constitutionally bound, and a bill that McCain introduced and was passed also defines waterboarding as torture in 2006.

I don't know how it can be any clearer K?

And I am not saying that there should not be some sort of rare exception to the rule for waterboarding being allowed, because perhaps there should be, but as it stands, waterboarding is legally considered torture and inhumane.

jd

[red states rule]

I believe that Waterboarding is defined as torture in the Military Code of Ethics, the Army Field Manual, and the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention against Torture of which we, the USA are signatories and Constitutionally bound, and a bill that McCain introduced and was passed also defines waterboarding as torture in 2006.

I don't know how it can be any clearer K?

And I am not saying that there should not be some sort of rare exception to the rule for waterboarding being allowed, because perhaps there should be, but as it stands, waterboarding is legally considered torture and inhumane.

jd

JD - Please explain why the left is so upset over something that has been done only 3 times, has not been done in several years, and when done has resulted in information that stopped attacks and saved lives

[Kathianne]

I believe that Waterboarding is defined as torture in the Military Code of Ethics, the Army Field Manual, and the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention against Torture of which we, the USA are signatories and Constitutionally bound, and a bill that McCain introduced and was passed also defines waterboarding as torture in 2006.

I don't know how it can be any clearer K?

And I am not saying that there should not be some sort of rare exception to the rule for waterboarding being allowed, because perhaps there should be, but as it stands, waterboarding is legally considered torture and inhumane.

jd
Wishing doesn't make it so, read #436, MM tacitly acknowledged it's correct.

[red states rule]

Here is another source where waterboarding did work and valuable information was obtained from a terrorist


The Point | In defense of waterboarding
By Mark Bowden

No one should be prosecuted for waterboarding Abu Zubaydah.
Several investigations are under way to find out who ordered the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, apparently an effort to cover up evidence of torture. Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of destroying the tapes, I'd like to take a look at what was allegedly done to Zubaydah, and why.

When captured in Pakistan in 2002, Zubaydah was one of the world's most notorious terrorists. The 31-year-old Saudi had compiled in his young life 37 different aliases and was under a sentence of death in Jordan for a failed plot to blow up two hotels jammed with American and Israeli tourists. The evidence was not hearsay: Zubaydah was overheard on the phone planning the attacks, which were then thwarted. He was a key planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, was thought to be field commander of the attack that killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole, and was involved in planning a score of other terror attacks, successful and unsuccessful. He was considered to be a primary recruiter and manager of al-Qaeda training camps.

He was, in short, a highly successful, fully engaged, career mass murderer. Think back to those pictures of workers crouched in windows high up in the burning World Trade Center towers, choosing whether to jump to their death or be burned alive. This was in part Abu Zubaydah's handiwork.

At the time of his capture in 2002, just six months after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was strong reason to believe Zubaydah knew virtually the entire organizational structure and agenda of al-Qaeda around the world. He was supervising ongoing plots to kill hundreds if not thousands of people. He was, for obvious reasons, disinclined to share this knowledge. Subjected briefly to waterboarding - less than a minute, according to published reports - he became cooperative and provided information that, according to the government, resulted in preventing planned attacks and capturing other key al-Qaeda leaders.

In the six years that have passed since the Manhattan towers collapsed, we have gained (partly through the interrogation of men like Zubaydah) a much clearer understanding of al-Qaeda and the threat it poses. While the chance of further murderous attacks is always with us, it is fair to say few of us feel the same measure of alarm we did then. The diminishment of this threat is at least in part due to the heroic efforts of the CIA, the military, and allies around the world in targeting terrorist cells.

for the complete article

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071223_The_Point___In_defense_of_waterboarding.h tml

[Sir Evil]

JD - Please explain why the left is so upset over something that has been done only 3 times, has not been done in several years, and when done has resulted in information that stopped attacks and saved lives

These two fucking idiots from maine are not upset about this waterboarding things, it's all about who watch it has taken place under. Let them say different but the fact remains it would of never even of been brought up had it been under the watch of a dem administration. Two fucking peas in a pod from butt fucked maine with shit for an argument outside of the same old leftist reach for the geneva convention. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

These two fucking idiots from maine are not upset about this waterboarding things, it's all about who watch it has taken place under. Let them say different but the fact remains it would of never even of been brought up had it been under the watch of a dem administration. Two fucking peas in a pod from butt fucked maine with shit for an argument outside of the same old leftist reach for the geneva convention. :rolleyes:

MM is the idiot

JD is just very naive and has been sucked in by the Dems talking points

[bullypulpit]

waterboarding is not torture. Libs seem to more interested in coddling terrorists then stopping their attacks

Do you have ANYTHING substantive to add to the conversation? Or are you just going to continue to waste bandwidth randomly regurgitating right wing-nut talking points?.

Your shit is, was, and shall ever be...WEAK.

[red states rule]

Do you have ANYTHING substantive to add to the conversation? Or are you just going to continue to waste bandwidth randomly regurgitating right wing-nut talking points?.

Your shit is, was, and shall ever be...WEAK.

Still ignoring the links that back up waterbording was used 3 times

and yet another link (#443) that is did get info that saved lives

Of course you are - you are getting your ass kicked on this thread

[bullypulpit]

Still ignoring the links that back up waterbording was used 3 times

and yet another link (#443) that is did get info that saved lives

Of course you are - you are getting your ass kicked on this thread

The link in "#443" is to an op/ed piece with no more evidence to support its assertions than do your brain droppings.

As for ass kickings...well that's just a fantasy you have.

[red states rule]

The link in "#443" is to an op/ed piece with no more evidence to support its assertions than do your brain droppings.

As for ass kickings...well that's just a fantasy you have.

There are plenty of facts in the op-ed, that is what the op-ed is based on

All of your crap has been blown out of the water BP - no wonder you falling back on insults.

That is all you have left to offer

[retiredman]

I am curious, RSR...do you even KNOW the difference between a fact and an opinion?

It just seems really funny to me that all of your facts seem to be in opinion pieces! :lol:

[red states rule]

I am curious, RSR...do you even KNOW the difference between a fact and an opinion?

It just seems really funny to me that all of your facts seem to be in opinion pieces! :lol:

as I told your twin borther, the op-ed is based on facts. Even you have not opulled anything out of your hat to show waterboarding was used only 3 times, has not been used for years, and valuable info was obtained in each case that prevented attacks

This is another created issue by Dems to appease their kook base

[bullypulpit]

There are plenty of facts in the op-ed, that is what the op-ed is based on

All of your crap has been blown out of the water BP - no wonder you falling back on insults.

That is all you have left to offer

No, I'm simply trying to wrest an answer from you that contains an original thought. It doesn't seem likely that I shall succeed.

Well, Merry Christmas anyways. I'll be back in a week to spank you some more.

[red states rule]

No, I'm simply trying to wrest an answer from you that contains an original thought. It doesn't seem likely that I shall succeed.

Well, Merry Christmas anyways. I'll be back in a week to spank you some more.

So it is fine for you to post articles from the Nation to try and back up your lame points - but I can't post articles with facts that prove you wrong?

All of your rants regarding this thread have been proved wrong - so go off and lick your wounds over Christmas

Merry Christmas to you and your family BP

[retiredman]

BP's point is that you rely solely on cut and paste. You are incapable of formulating an intelligent argument on your own.

Perhaps, Santa will bring you a brain tonight. We can only hope!

[red states rule]

BP's point is that you rely solely on cut and paste. You are incapable of formulating an intelligent argument on your own.

Perhaps, Santa will bring you a brain tonight. We can only hope!

Once again, the liberal twins ignore the facts in the oped. But being two libs who want the US to lose the war on terror - how can we expect anything else from you

MM, why not bail out your lib buddy. Waterboarding has been used only 3 times, has not been used for years, has provided useful info each time it was used, and your beloved Dems had no problem with waterboarding when they saw the video years ago

Care to prove any of those points are wrong?

I'll wait

[retiredman]

Once again, the liberal twins ignore the facts in the oped. But being two libs who want the US to lose the war on terror - how can we expect anything else from you

MM, why not bail out your lib buddy. Waterboarding has been used only 3 times, has not been used for years, has provided useful info each time it was used, and your beloved Dems had no problem with waterboarding when they saw the video years ago

Care to prove any of those points are wrong?

I'll wait

does any of that change the fact that waterboarding is against the letter and spirit of a treaty that we have signed, and, therefore that it is unconstitutional to use it?

[red states rule]

does any of that change the fact that waterboarding is against the letter and spirit of a treaty that we have signed, and, therefore that it is unconstitutional to use it?

Ok, you decline the challenge

The facts are running against you and BP anyway - so why rub salt in your own wounds?

Keep defending the terrorits MM. That is what you and your lib buddies do best

[retiredman]

I am defending no one here.... I asked you a question:

does mentioning the infrequency of waterboarding's use, or its effectiveness, or its tacit approval by democrats CHANGE the fact that it is against the letter and spirit of a treaty that we have signed, and, therefore that it is unconstitutional to use it?

If, for example, applying electric current to a detainee's testicles were only used very infrequently, if it were incredibly effective in getting detainees to start talking, and if every democrat of capitol hill had known about it, would that mean that electrical current to testicles was NOT torture?

[red states rule]

I am defending no one here.... I asked you a question:

does mentioning the infrequency of waterboarding's use, or its effectiveness, or its tacit approval by democrats CHANGE the fact that it is against the letter and spirit of a treaty that we have signed, and, therefore that it is unconstitutional to use it?

If, for example, applying electric current to a detainee's testicles were only used very infrequently, if it were incredibly effective in getting detainees to start talking, and if every democrat of capitol hill had known about it, would that mean that electrical current to testicles was NOT torture?

I do not care what they do to break the terrorists. Keep trying to deflect the subject by making up mroe shit about how we treat terrorists. Libs like you have proven you are soft of terrorists but hard on Bush

Why are you kook libs so upset over something that has NOT been used in yesr, has been used only THREE times, and each time it is used has caused the terrorist basytard to break and give up info that stopped attacks

Why are you libs only now getting upset, and not years ago when you saw the waterboarding tapes

More BS from the party made up completely of BS

[retiredman]

I do not care what they do to break the terrorists. Keep trying to deflect the subject by making up mroe shit about how we treat terrorists. Libs like you have proven you are soft of terrorists but hard on Bush

Why are you kook libs so upset over something that has NOT been used in yesr, has been used only THREE times, and each time it is used has caused the terrorist basytard to break and give up info that stopped attacks

Why are you libs only now getting upset, and not years ago when you saw the waterboarding tapes

More BS from the party made up completely of BS


so...in order to save this country that is based upon the rule of law, you are perfectly willing to piss all over the constitution which provides the foundation for that law?

I thought so.

merry christmas

[red states rule]

so...in order to save this country that is based upon the rule of law, you are perfectly willing to piss all over the constitution which provides the foundation for that law?

I thought so.

merry christmas

You will not admit how your party (and you) are whining about a nin issue yout elected leaders knew about years ago can you?

Keep pushing for the coddling of terrorists MM - you are showing why libs suck at national defense

[retiredman]

You will not admit how your party (and you) are whining about a nin issue yout elected leaders knew about years ago can you?

Keep pushing for the coddling of terrorists MM - you are showing why libs suck at national defense

I am not whining about anything. I mjerely asked you to express your support - or lack thereof - for the constitution of the united states, and you performed - on cue - just like the traitorous monkey that you are. thank you for proving my point!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I am not whining about anything. I mjerely asked you to express your support - or lack thereof - for the constitution of the united states, and you performed - on cue - just like the traitorous monkey that you are. thank you for proving my point!:laugh2:

So now I am a traitor bacause I disagree with rights for terrorists. And you are the one constantly accusing others of questiong your patriotism - then you actually do it to others

You and BP have been destroyed on this thread - and as usual - you fall back on your usual debate tactic - attack

Thanks for making my case for me MM :lol:

[retiredman]

So now I am a traitor bacause I disagree with rights for terrorists. And you are the one constantly accusing others of questiong your patriotism - then you actually do it to others




no. you are traitorous because you would piss on the constitution if it served your purposes. That is a fact that you cannot escape. You can claim you only pissed on it a little bit and that you won't piss on it again, and even if you did, pissing on it this time made sense.... it is all still just pissing on the constitution. Military people swear to uphold and defend it from ALL enemies - foreign AND domestic. People like you who would piss on the constitution are its enemies.

[red states rule]

no. you are traitorous because you would piss on the constitution if it served your purposes. That is a fact that you cannot escape. You can claim you only pissed on it a little bit and that you won't piss on it again, and even if you did, pissing on it this time made sense.... it is all still just pissing on the constitution. Military people swear to uphold and defend it from ALL enemies - foreign AND domestic. People like you who would piss on the constitution are its enemies.

Always the liberal first MM. So now we are traitors if we don't support giving US Constitutional rights to terrorists

Still can't defend the timeline that proves your Dems knew about waterboarding (and some Dems even asked if the CIA was tough enough on the terrorists) years ago, how effective it was, and it was only used three times

Yes, facts to you are meaningless, onyl the DNC approved talking points is your primary concern

[retiredman]

Always the liberal first MM. So now we are traitors if we don't support giving US Constitutional rights to terrorists

Still can't defend the timeline that proves your Dems knew about waterboarding (and some Dems even asked if the CIA was tough enough on the terrorists) years ago, how effective it was, and it was only used three times

Yes, facts to you are meaningless, onyl the DNC approved talking points is your primary concern

your pissing on the constitution has nothing to do with giving constitutional rights to terrorists. I have never advocated any such thing.

YOur pissing on the constitution has everything to do with your willingness to ignore the supreme law of the land whenever it suits your purpose.

consider Article VI(2) of our constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."



And then consider "The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", of which the United States is a signatory....

like I said.... you piss on the constitution whenever it suits your purposes.

[actsnoblemartin]

are you saying the u.s is pissing on tbe constituion?


your pissing on the constitution has nothing to do with giving constitutional rights to terrorists. I have never advocated any such thing.

me: ok

YOur pissing on the constitution has everything to do with your willingness to ignore the supreme law of the land whenever it suits your purpose.

Me: where?, when?

consider Article VI(2) of our constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

me: I know the branches are fighting with each other and some say they are not checking each other?

And then consider "The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", of which the United States is a signatory....

Me: that same treaty says... for prisoners of a country. none of the people we have captured fight for a country, they fight for islam

like I said.... you piss on the constitution whenever it suits your purposes.

[retiredman]

can you read, martin? what does the constitution say about treaties being the law of the land?

and you are mistaking the Geneva Conventions with the UN Convention against torture.

[red states rule]

are you saying the u.s is pissing on tbe constituion?

Martin, libs like MM and BP have to change the subject. They can't admit waterboarding did work the threee times it was used. They can't admit any success in the war on terror

They would rather attack the US and Pres Bush then the terrorists.

They are to busy fighting their war on Pres Bush and reality

[retiredman]

Martin, libs like MM and BP have to change the subject. They can't admit waterboarding did work the threee times it was used. They can't admit any success in the war on terror

They would rather attack the US and Pres Bush then the terrorists.

They are to busy fighting their war on Pres Bush and reality
it looks like you who are changing the subject! ready for another day of pissing on the constitution?

[Psychoblues]

Just for old times sake, can we not just blame all this pissing on the constiturion on gwb?


it looks like you who are changing the subject! ready for another day of pissing on the constitution?

I can forgive those that support him but I can never forgive him for what he has done to the righteousness and reputation of MY COUNTRY.

[actsnoblemartin]

apparently not, because you dont seem to think i can :laugh2:


can you read, martin? what does the constitution say about treaties being the law of the land?

me: im confused what treaty do we have islamic terrorists?

and you are mistaking the Geneva Conventions with the UN Convention against torture.


me: probably whats the difference?

[actsnoblemartin]

I have heard that report, only used three rimes, against very senior al queda and it saved lives

again, if it can save lives why are liberals against it


Martin, libs like MM and BP have to change the subject. They can't admit waterboarding did work the threee times it was used. They can't admit any success in the war on terror

They would rather attack the US and Pres Bush then the terrorists.

They are to busy fighting their war on Pres Bush and reality

[Psychoblues]

And you believe that?



I have heard that report, only used three rimes, against very senior al queda and it saved lives

again, if it can save lives why are liberals against it

What is "three rimes"?

[retiredman]

apparently not, because you dont seem to think i can :laugh2:

me: probably whats the difference?

what's the difference????? do us both a favor. If you want to discuss things intelligently with adults, get yourself schooled enough to do so. For you to say "probably what's the difference?" after saying "that same treaty says... for prisoners of a country. none of the people we have captured fight for a country, they fight for islam" should make it quite clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The treaty YOU are referring to are the Geneva Conventions. The treaty I am referring to is the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I suggest you read up on both and then get bck to me.

[retiredman]

again, if it can save lives why are liberals against it

what if hooking up electrical current to someon's testicles were thought to save lives, would you be for that, too?

I am not against torture because it is effective, but because, from my perspective, it is a violation of UN treaty and, therefore, a violation of the constitution itself.

[glockmail]

what if hooking up electrical current to someon's testicles were thought to save lives, would you be for that, too?

I am not against torture because it is effective, but because, from my perspective, it is a violation of UN treaty and, therefore, a violation of the constitution itself. The COTUS is not a death sentence.

[retiredman]

The COTUS is not a death sentence.

which is your cute way of admitting that you will piss on it whenever you like. By such an attitude, you have labelled yourself an enemy of the state, and someone whom all members of the military are sworn to defend against.

congratulations. traitor.

[red states rule]

it looks like you who are changing the subject! ready for another day of pissing on the constitution?

Terrorists are not covered inder the GC or the US Constitution. Libs like you are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then saving lives and winning this war

Party before country as usual with you MM

[red states rule]

what if hooking up electrical current to someon's testicles were thought to save lives, would you be for that, too?

I am not against torture because it is effective, but because, from my perspective, it is a violation of UN treaty and, therefore, a violation of the constitution itself.

Can you post a link where the US has done that to the poor misunderstood terrorists MM - or is this more of your usual BS you toss out?

Why libs like you would rather defend terrorists and not your own country is beyond belief

[retiredman]

Can you post a link where the US has done that to the poor misunderstood terrorists MM - or is this more of your usual BS you toss out?

Why libs like you would rather defend terrorists and not your own country is beyond belief


did you notice my use of the words, "what if"?

I have never defended terrorists one bit...I have never suggested that they be granted constitutional rights reserved for citizens.

I HAVE suggested that you have stated your complete willingness to piss on the constitution if it suits your purposes. THAT makes you a domestic enemy of the United States. A traitor to our country. That is a fact. I know you don't like to admit that, but our military takes an oath to - first and foremost - defend the CONSTITUTION against enemies.... those who chose to piss on it most certainly qualify for that distinction.

[red states rule]

did you notice my use of the words, "what if"?

I have never defended terrorists one bit...I have never suggested that they be granted constitutional rights reserved for citizens.

I HAVE suggested that you have stated your complete willingness to piss on the constitution if it suits your purposes. THAT makes you a domestic enemy of the United States. A traitor to our country. That is a fact. I know you don't like to admit that, but our military takes an oath to - first and foremost - defend the CONSTITUTION against enemies.... those who chose to piss on it most certainly qualify for that distinction.

It ios usual for libs like you to try ands paint the US as the bad guy. Yes, I do not give a damn what we have to do if it means preventing attacks, and saving America lives

Even yours MM

You ob the other hand would rather have the attacks so you can then demand why Pres Bush did not stop them

[retiredman]

It ios usual for libs like you to try ands paint the US as the bad guy. Yes, I do not give a damn what we have to do if it means preventing attacks, and saving America lives

Even yours MM

You ob the other hand would rather have the attacks so you can then demand why Pres Bush did not stop them


I am not painting the US as a bad guy. I merely pointed out that our military takes an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies - foreign AND domestic. And you admit that you are perfectly OK with pissing on the constitution.

That's all I really needed you to say.

[red states rule]

I am not painting the US as a bad guy. I merely pointed out that our military takes an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies - foreign AND domestic. And you admit that you are perfectly OK with pissing on the constitution.

That's all I really needed you to say.

Terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution or the GC

You however are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then protecting lives of US citizens or US troops

[retiredman]

Terrorists are not covered under the US Constitution or the GC

You however are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then protecting lives of US citizens or US troops

I have never said that terrorists are covered under the constitution or the GC.

You still have stated your willingness to piss on the constitution. fact.

that makes YOU a domestic enemy of the US.

[red states rule]

I have never said that terrorists are covered under the constitution or the GC.

You still have stated your willingness to piss on the constitution. fact.

that makes YOU a domestic enemy of the US.

You sre trying to grant them those writes

I am an enemy of the liberal state - which I am proud to be

The terrrorists thank you you for continued support MM

[retiredman]

You sre trying to grant them those writes

I am an enemy of the liberal state - which I am proud to be

The terrrorists thank you you for continued support MM


I am not trying to grant any terrorist any rights guaranteed under the constitution or the geneva conventions. And you would piss on the constitution....you said as much. That makes you a domestic enemy. period.

[red states rule]

I am not trying to grant any terrorist any rights guaranteed under the constitution or the geneva conventions. And you would piss on the constitution....you said as much. That makes you a domestic enemy. period.

Then why are you saying they have rights under the US COnstitution - just repeating what the DNC tells you to say?

So now protecting US lives is pissiing on the Constitution?

[retiredman]

Then why are you saying they have rights under the US COnstitution - just repeating what the DNC tells you to say?

So now protecting US lives is pissiing on the Constitution?

I have NEVER said that terrorists have rights under the US Constitution.

and pissing on the constitution is pissing on the constitution.

you have stated you don't care what we do to protect america.... your willingness to do anything flies in the face of the constitution.

fact:

U.S Constitution, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

fact:

The United States is a signatory to the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment"

you piss on the constitution. you are a domestic enemy and all your flag waving does not change that fact. traitor. enemy.

[red states rule]

I have NEVER said that terrorists have rights under the US Constitution.

and pissing on the constitution is pissing on the constitution.

you have stated you don't care what we do to protect america.... your willingness to do anything flies in the face of the constitution.

fact:

U.S Constitution, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

fact:

The United States is a signatory to the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment"

you piss on the constitution. you are a domestic enemy and all your flag waving does not change that fact. traitor. enemy.

You are more interested in prtoecting the "rights" of terrorists rather then saving lives

But again, with you it is always party beofre country and party before the troops

[retiredman]

You are more interested in prtoecting the "rights" of terrorists rather then saving lives

But again, with you it is always party beofre country and party before the troops

you just make shit up. Show me where I have ever suggested that we protect the rights of terrorists.

and why do you ignore the two bolded sections of my last post altogether?

RSR: domestic enemy. traitor.:pee:

[trobinett]

you just make shit up. Show me where I have ever suggested that we protect the rights of terrorists.

and why do you ignore the two bolded sections of my last post altogether?

RSR: domestic enemy. traitor.:pee:

Honestly, I can't find a post where manfrommaine has EVER sided with terrorist.

:salute:

[retiredman]

Honestly, I can't find a post where manfrommaine has EVER sided with terrorist.

:salute:

thank you sir!

[Psychoblues]

It gets sillier by the post. How can so much ignorance be tolerated?

[actsnoblemartin]

The personal insults are just getting silly.

[Psychoblues]

Exactly!!!!!!


The personal insults are just getting silly.

I'm surprised that you noticed.

[actsnoblemartin]

I notice, but i try to Stay out of it for the most part.

[actsnoblemartin]

personally, I dont think the cia or fbi should be destroying tapes, even if its not illegal. The rule of thumb is... if you have nothing to hide, you dont destory potential evidence.

Just my two cents.

[Psychoblues]

Exactly!!!!!!



personally, I dont think the cia or fbi should be destroying tapes, even if its not illegal. The rule of thumb is... if you have nothing to hide, you dont destory potential evidence.

Just my two cents.

I appreciate your clarification!!!!!!!!

[actsnoblemartin]

at some point, I felt it was neccesary for me to be honest about the situation.

I felt something wasnt right, since i heard the news.

Government is supposed to be transparent, and if our government does not treat us with respect, it is very possible, that innocent people will be charged and convicted with crimes.

It has happened before 9/11, and will continue to happen. Therefore, we the people must keep government in check

interesting debate: how do we do that?


Exactly!!!!!!




I appreciate your clarification!!!!!!!!