That shows character and is to be commended. I'm just waiting for the rest of those who swept Obama into office and toe his line in congress and the media to show some consistency there.

I was just talking to a co worker about this and both aren't giving him a pass. He lost a lot of respect from me when he answered the online question and the pot question came up it wasn't the fact that he said no it is not a good idea. It was when he said I guess that says a lot about the people on line. Oh you mean the people who basically got you elected. That pissed me off.

Well, I appreciate your character too Spit. Who's next?

Yup,

Its looking more and more like you guys aren't much different to the guys you are fighting after all.

Oh Skell, please elaborate on that one, I insist.

Torture!

First it was "we dont torture, it enhanced interrogation", then its "it torture, but they're really bad guys who hate us, so its ok. Plus it works really good".

You guys always preach the slippery slope argument when it comes to gay marriage, drug legalisation etc. Well you're on the slippery slope now and going down fast.

Next it will be "lets torture that pedophile to tell us the names of his pedophile buddies he shares kiddie pictures with on the net". That will be OK under Cheny's values system. Why stop there?

You've gone from denying torture to justifying it. That isn't good. But most of us still hold out hope that that will change. But then again you are probably the last in the developed world to still impose the death penalty, so maybe not.

I look forward to the argument that I should be grateful, because you guys are doing the dirty work to keep us safe done here. And for that we should support you 100% even when it goes against what we believe. Well we did that for 11 years and it didn't make us safer. In fact quite the opposite.

Let's see, you were pissed when we opposed Bush for doing it, but now you cheer when we oppose Obama for doing the same thing? Oh, I get it, "it isn't about what's being done, it's about who's doing it". You want Obama dissed even when he implements the policies you favor.

Um, nope. I wasn't pissed that you opposed Bush's policies, that's just politics. I was pissed at the merciless hammering he took from the left and the unending, unfair media war against him. Now I'm pissed at the near complete absence of holding Obama to the same standard as Bush by the SAME people and the media love affair with him. That's consistency, and I was APPLAUDING YOU for having it, so why the heck are you turning the tables on me for paying you a compliment and showing you respect?

Speech your are prematurely pissed off. Bush didn't get hammered his first few months in office. Now after 8 years sure it seemed like he got beat down all the time. You have to give everyone sometime. Sure they aren't beating down Obama right now but it has only been a few months. After 8 years I'm sure it will be different.

The thing is Spit, and everyone seems to agree, is Obama is doing many of the same things Bush got hammered for. If it was bad then shouldn't it be bad now? Do they need time to get pissed off again over the same things they were already pissed off about?

Wow, gay marriage, pedophiles and the death penalty all in one shot. As I said before Skell, the mere fact that we're having this discussion, that we DO wrestle over it, shows we are not like them.

Speech it's is like a kid with a shiny new toy its great at first and everyone loves it but once you play with it for a while you realize it the same as your other toy. Patients my friend. Personally I hope it doesn't turn out to be that way but it's not looking to good. But it is still to early yet for me.

Hello again, Steve:

So, STOP wrestling, and BE definitive. It isn't rocket science. Either saving lives is what's important, or the law is. It's no more difficult than that.

So far, the right wing criteria for torture is saving lives... NOBODY on your side says anything else...

Given the above, it's a legitimate question to wonder what's different about questioning a child molester?

excon

Ex, I've never been convinced we broke any laws. As Cheney pointed out yesterday Congress gave consent to do whatever was necessary to protect America. They've just blocked funding to close Gitmo and now have blocked the release of the alleged "torture" photos. Either they're hiding something or they don't really believe we've done anything wrong and all the posturing was just political theater.

Hello again, Steve:

I ask AGAIN, if "protecting America" is the criteria, ( that's people I presume - not dirt), what's different about questioning a child molester? Or ANY perp who could reveal stuff that might harm America??

Even if all you do is use EIT, what's fundamentally different?

excon

PS> (edited) Once a camel gets his nose under the tent, he's going to get all the way in. Jesse Ventura said that.

Apples and oranges.

EIT was authorized to prevent another attack on America by a foreign entity that declared war on us with the intent to cause mass casualties.

Your example is domestic violence where an American is also the perp.

There is a fundamental difference between POWs and criminals. The difference is legal and moral. You have never been able to see that difference, Ex, and that is why you see EIT of POWs as no different from interrogations of criminals. But the difference is there nonetheless.

Again, the incarceration of POWs isn't because they are criminals, it is to keep them off the battlefield. The interrogation if POWs isn't in order to get evidence against them for prosecution in court, it is to obtain information that stops the enemy and protects the civilian population of the USA. The difference is important, and changes the moral and legal implications of the entire situation.

One other point, excon: You have said that "We're better than them", and used that as an argument of why we shouldn't be using EIT... that we shouldn't be violating their "civil rights" because we are and always have been better than that.

I have to tell you that you are 100% wrong about that.

- In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus rights and jailed his political opponents without trial... without even a crime being committed. The SUpreme Court of the time overruled Lincoln, but he ignored the court. This was a CLEAR violation of civil rights, and was completely unconstitutional. But Lincoln did it anyway.

- In WWII, FDR and Truman interred over 100,000 Japanese Americans in interment camps without trials. Again, this was a clear violation of the Constitution and of civil rights, but they did it anyway.

- In WWII, Truman dropped a nuclear weapon killing 80,000 people instantly and another 60,000 from radiation sickness and other secondary causes. THEN he dropped a second one on Nagasaki killing another 73,000 instantly and another couple of hundred thousand from secondary causes.

- In the first Iraq war, we used DU rounds that have (supposedly--- I don't really believe it) caused thousands of deaths due to radiation poisoning.

Where do you get the idea that we are "better" than the enemy when it comes to war? We are STRONGER, we have better training, we have better equipment, sure. But the METHODS of fighting a war are no different from those the enemy uses, and that includes the methods by which we gather information from the enemy. Actually, we ARE better than them because the techniques we use, while uncomfortable and perhaps even painful, do not leave any lasting effect on the POWs. The same cannot be said of the techniques our enemies use. But the point is that war is war, and you fight it using any methods at your disposal. Because that is what it takes to win a war and protect your civilian population.

And I will ask again, if not with the EIT, what methods would you use to gather information from the POWs... information that can stop the next terrorist attack and save thousands of lives? You still have not answered this question, excon. You have explained all the reasons you WOULDN'T use the techniques used by the CIA, but you still haven't given us any alternatives that you WOULD use.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Like two ships passing in the night, I ask one question - you answer another...

I ask about OUR behavior, and you tell me about THEIRS. You do that, because it's THEIR behavior that sets the standard for YOURS.

I, on the other hand, along with my good countrymen, get my standards from the Constitution.

Therefore, I ask AGAIN, if OUR behavior is based upon how BAD THEY are, INSTEAD of the law, why is a perp fundamentally different than a terrorist?

excon

If our behavior is supposed to be the same during war as it is during a criminal investigation then why are we not Mirandizing the prisoners picked up in the war ?

Hello again, tom:

Because Miranda isn't true. What a terrorist says won't be held against him. He'll be tortured because of what he DIDN'T say.

excon