RE: Poor Dick (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 9:49:56 AM)


Not for your safety necessarily. But for the safety of hundreds or thousands or even multiples of thousands of others.

There is a line somewhere, I am sure most reasonable people would agree, between torture and not questioning captured terrorist leaders and planners at all - even, just allowing them to set their plans in motion. Where is that line...

Congressional Democrats, even Bill Clinton has sided with the Bush Administration far more than you. Therefore I would have to say you're at the extreme side of the debate... and I dare to say that your reasoning is tainted by your irrational hatred for all things Bush.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

That's why we have an opposition party.

If actions are taken against the Bush administration then I'm sure the Republicans will bring this into it, as well they should.

I'm tired of this crap being done in my name, supposedly for my safety, whether it is done by Democrats or Republicans.

I'm tired of listening to people brag how we are "the greatest country in the world" while not being willing to live up to the ideal that statement represents.



rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 12:18:26 PM)

That's an interesting conclusion considering I just said if Clinton or anyone in his administration, or anyone in Congress, can be proved to be complicit in this they should be prosecuted.

But hey, you're right, it's just so much easier to blame everything on hatred of Bush, because that has been the conservative drumbeat for years.

If you don't agree with Bush you obviously hate him.  If you don't agree on invading Iraq you obviously hate the troops.  If you don't agree with each and every Bush policy you are obviously unpatriotic. 



Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 2:24:33 PM)


Where do you think the line should be though. It's not a hypothetical - the intelligence community knew there was a terrorist plot unfolding with a potential for the loss of thousands of innocent lives, they just didn't have any of the specifics.

They did however have a couple of high-ranking terrorists in custody who they had good reason to believe had the specifics...

Keep in mind, this was almost immediately after 9/11. With hundreds, thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands of innocent lives on the line:

How far should the president and the congressional leaders have allowed interrogators to go while questioning these suspects? Please answer with specifics. Could they only ask them nicely?

Could they threaten the detainees? Could they yell at them?

What would you have allowed.







Lorr47 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 9:42:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

The republicans have no say what so ever in any hearing. The democrats set the agenda until the pendulum swings back the other way. That might be sooner than you might think. I say 2010.. 


Yes, I've heard you say this before.

So, based on that logic, the Democrats in Congress had absolutely no say in anything that happened between 2001 and 2007 when Republicans were in control.

So then we can safely blame the Republicans for the failures in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the banking crisis, the national debt that doubled under Bush, the general collapse of the economy, and all the other ills that occurred while they held power.



Sanity, how about you try to answer the above.



Owner59 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/24/2009 10:23:14 PM)

http://newsblog.projo.com/2008/10/by-kate-bramson.html

"Interrogation expert speaks out against torture as tactic"

http://www.military.com/news/article/exinterrogator-torture-doesnt--work.html

Ex-Interrogator: Torture Doesn't Work


Writing under the pseudonym of Matthew Alexander, a former special intelligence operations officer, who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq, has written a compelling book where he details his direct experience with torture practices. He conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than a thousand and was awarded a Bronze Star for his achievements in Iraq. Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. His new book is titled "How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq."
 
 
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=623

The Argument Against Torture -- From a Seasoned Interrogator

Smarter, not harsher.

In my humble opinion, which is not always so humble, The Global War on Terrorism (a name I despise, by the way) will not be won by national policy or advanced weapons or economic might.  It will be won, like all wars, by intellect (imagine that).  
The interrogation debate has made headlines since the start of this war, but especially after the events of Abu Ghraib and the allegations of torture at the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  The debate spread to arguments between Congress and the President, between the military and the courts, and between citizens of The United States and citizens around the world.  And now I'm chipping in my two cents for no reason other than because I've been there.   

I was the most senior interrogator in Iraq during the worst of the civil war and my team played by the rules, followed Geneva Conventions, and, get this, accomplished our mission.  We did it without resorting to torture or using enhanced interrogation methods (which is just a technical three word description for the word torture).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120057,00.html

Military Interrogators: Abuse Yields Shaky Info

Sgt. Ken Weichert interrogated hundreds of Iraqis to gather wartime intelligence, but says only once did he raise his voice to extract information.
Military interrogators such as Weichert say they never used, or even witnessed, the type of violence and sexual humiliation captured in photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib (search) prison in Baghdad.
Such tactics aren't necessary or even effective, they say.
"They would just tell us everything," said Weichert, 37, a counterintelligence officer for the California National Guard (search) who returned from Iraq earlier this year. "I never, ever had a problem trying to get information from Iraqis, even the high-ranking enemy."



Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 7:01:51 AM)

I'm not sure what you're asking me for Lorr, a history lesson or a detailed analysis of the rules of Congress - but I'll say this: President Bush worked with the opposition party, and they worked with him (especially in the immediate aftermath of 9/11).

Democrats weren't shut out of anything as far as I know, and they were generally very supportive of Bush's policies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

Sanity, how about you try to answer the above.




Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 7:06:31 AM)



Nice try 059 but, as I pointed out earlier in thee thread:


quote:

(Obama's) Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had "high-value information,” then omitted that admission from a public version of his assessment.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21569.html





Owner59 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 8:00:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



Nice try 059 but, as I pointed out earlier in thee thread:


quote:

(Obama's) Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had "high-value information,” then omitted that admission from a public version of his assessment.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21569.html





So ya`ll will have a defense at trial and an election strategy for 2010 all in one.

Win win.

It`s very possible that they won`t be found guilty,for a number of reasons.

But that doesn`t mean they won`t be investigated and charged.

After that process you may make your conclusions,not before.

A special prosecute is in order I think.

Rouge cops doing crimes is unacceptable, even if they are affectively stopping other crime.




rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 2:07:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Where do you think the line should be though. It's not a hypothetical - the intelligence community knew there was a terrorist plot unfolding with a potential for the loss of thousands of innocent lives, they just didn't have any of the specifics.

They did however have a couple of high-ranking terrorists in custody who they had good reason to believe had the specifics...

Keep in mind, this was almost immediately after 9/11. With hundreds, thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands of innocent lives on the line:

How far should the president and the congressional leaders have allowed interrogators to go while questioning these suspects? Please answer with specifics. Could they only ask them nicely?

Could they threaten the detainees? Could they yell at them?

What would you have allowed.



It's a difficult question.

I obviously don't want to see innocent people lose their lives due to terrorists.

But I keep thinking back to this slogan that was so popular during our Iraq invasion, "freedom isn't free".

Which means to me that if we want a free society and if we want our free society to be an example to the world we have to uphold our principles.

Even if it means limiting the measures we can use to protect ourselves.

Specifically adhering to the Geneva Conventions.  We can't call them wars and then claim that our prisoners are illegal combatants.

Let's face it, we could do a lot of things to ensure our safety that we wouldn't ever realistically consider.

Torture being one that just a few years ago we would never have realistically considered, until the Bush administration tried to redefine the meaning of the word.

So let's talk about that "slippery slope" we keep hearing about on the gun threads.





Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 4:01:33 PM)


Yeah, it is hard, I'll give you that. Still, you couldn't give an answer here in cyberspace, but it's so easy for you to sit there and condemn those whose job it was to give an answer, and who did give an answer, in real life...

Doesn't hardly seem fair.



Owner59 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 9:53:15 PM)

I find it amusing that conservatives are so cock sure that the system puts the right guy on death row,but are deathly affraid to let it judge the torturers.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"..... Samuel Johnson



Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 10:38:49 PM)


Try again, they're not the same systems.

In this case the Democrats are attempting to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner... of their political foes, the Republicans.

But in the case of death row inmates, the accused are tried by juries of their peers.

Obama wants his guy Holder to be the sole person in charge of any investigation - and I'll bet you'll never figure out why.

Its because a special counsel would be independent, and would investigate the CIA itself because that's where the accusations of "torture" lead to, and such an investigation (which is only capable of being set in motion or stopped by Obama) would therefore alienate Obama from the spooks at the CIA who he desperately needs politically, and probably even for the safety of his physical skin.

The independent counsel would also be free to investigate the Clintons, and because Bill Clinton sent kidnapped terrorists off to be tortured beginning back around   1995 that could get very ugly for the Democrats, real fast.

So Obama wants to, no - needs to control any investigation and prosecution because he doesn't want this thing spiraling out of control.

The CIA is probably already treating Obama like a mushroom as things stand... how much worse do you think Obama wants it to get for him?




quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I find it amusing that conservatives are so cock sure that the system puts the right guy on death row,but are deathly afraid to let it judge the torturers.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"..... Samuel Johnson




Owner59 -> RE: Poor Dick (4/25/2009 11:18:56 PM)

You`re talking about the system that tried to impeach Clinton.That,was a wholly political exercise.

This`ll be refereed to the DOJ.

Congress and the WH won`t be involved.They`ll have defense attorneys and every opportunity make their case in the same system that tries common criminals.

The US judicial system is part of what makes up America and separates us from the animals.The torturers aren`t to good for it and shouldn`t be above it.

If they are as innocent as you claim,if their story is as convining as you seem to think it is,they should have no worries.



atypicalsub -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 12:51:59 AM)

still the top of the justice system is the US Supreme Court.  Remeber that the majority of the members of the SC were given their position by either W or his father.



StrangerThan -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 3:22:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You missed the joke? You failed to get the point? Okay, let me break it down a little further for ya, mike:

How many cute, fuzzy, lovable, innocent, poor little polar bears has Obama killed already, mike?  [sm=river.gif]

Think of the children!  [sm=river.gif]

He's destroying the planet...  [sm=river.gif]



Lol. Now that's funny. I'm afraid the humor will be lost however. Your sarcasm is directed towards a democrat. tsk tsk. Those last two though got me laughing.



rulemylife -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 4:16:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Yeah, it is hard, I'll give you that. Still, you couldn't give an answer here in cyberspace, but it's so easy for you to sit there and condemn those whose job it was to give an answer, and who did give an answer, in real life...

Doesn't hardly seem fair.



Thought I did give an answer.

In fact, I thought I was pretty clear.

But let me rephrase more specifically.

The Geneva Conventions clearly outline the boundaries.  Bush and co. sought to test those boundaries.

Their testing of those boundaries was clearly illegal and I think they should be held accountable.



slvemike4u -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 10:14:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You missed the joke? You failed to get the point? Okay, let me break it down a little further for ya, mike:

How many cute, fuzzy, lovable, innocent, poor little polar bears has Obama killed already, mike?  [sm=river.gif]

Think of the children!  [sm=river.gif]

He's destroying the planet...  [sm=river.gif]



Lol. Now that's funny. I'm afraid the humor will be lost however. Your sarcasm is directed towards a democrat. tsk tsk. Those last two though got me laughing.
Trust me Stranger,if there was any humor in the silly post I would have caught it.....being it was completely bereft of any actual humor,hardly a loss at all.



Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 10:18:12 AM)


No, I said that jokingly, and without malice.  [:)]



slvemike4u -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 10:22:06 AM)

There is no problem from this end sanity,all cool.[:)]



Sanity -> RE: Poor Dick (4/26/2009 10:25:54 AM)


No, you didn't give an answer. I asked for specifics, remember?

Then I gave a few examples. Would you allow yelling? Threats?

And you responded with generalities.

And no, they were not "clearly" illegal. That's why there's a debate today... and even Obama seems to be of two minds regarding the subject. If Obama's not going to send troops of some kind or another over to kick the doors in at the CIA and have the agents who did the actual interrogating frog marched  over to a federal prison facility somewhere, then clearly this is all just a political smear job, isn't it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Thought I did give an answer.

In fact, I thought I was pretty clear.

But let me rephrase more specifically.

The Geneva Conventions clearly outline the boundaries.  Bush and co. sought to test those boundaries.

Their testing of those boundaries was clearly illegal and I think they should be held accountable.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875